The only one absolute truth toward profitability

[Magister Ludi]

Mssrs. Knave and Raybo - thank you for your reply. As an interesting aside, There is frequently a linear rotation of favorite/longshot bias at 1/n probability, where n is the number of entries. Entries with win probabilities >1/n are underbet. Those entries with win probabilities <1/n are overbet. 1/n is the stasis point.

[thaskalos]

Dear Al...

IMO, of course..."natural odds betting" is far from the only fundamental truth towards profitability in this game. How can this approach to handicapping and betting be regarded as the "only fundamental truth to winning in this game"...when the vast majority of the winning players ignore it?

Shouldn't "the only fundamental truth towards profitability" be something that is held in higher regard by the game's best players?

Restrict our play to contenders who are offered at odds of 7-1 or higher in an 8-horse field? Is that the best we can do?

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Dear Al...

IMO, of course..."natural odds betting" is far from the only fundamental truth towards profitability in this game. How can this approach to handicapping and betting be regarded as the "only fundamental truth to winning in this game"...when the vast majority of the winning players ignore it?

Shouldn't "the only fundamental truth towards profitability" be something that is held in higher regard by the game's best players?

Restrict our play to contenders who are offered at odds of 7-1 or higher in an 8-horse field? Is that the best we can do?

The said truth is with take outs and a sharp betting public, natural odds or higher seems to be the case.

How do you know that the vast majority of profitable players ignore it? I didn't really want to go public with it. Do you believe the converse that there are cappers making profit in their own way with low odds horses and most of us have missed it?

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Red Knave

Not a horse, my 4 contenders in total.

That's difficult part. Good for you.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

The said truth is with take outs and a sharp betting public, natural odds or higher seems to be the case.

How do you know that the vast majority of profitable players ignore it? I didn't really want to go public with it. Do you believe the converse that there are cappers making profit in their own way with low odds horses and most of us have missed it?

Yes, rebates.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by raybo

The answer is whatever works for the player, for me it's a minimum odds requirement, which is the same for all the final contenders I will bet. For others it is low priced horses, for others it is mid odds, for others it is longshots, etc.. Some bet odds ranges, there are many ways to get where you want to go in this game, but it depends on each individual handicapper and what works for them, not somebody's one and only truth. As I said, for me, the one and only truth is "value" how ever you happen to find it.

No one that I know of has an accurate oddsline that will be profitable over the longrun. The question becomes how can one determine value without an accurate oddsline? The answer is by betting natural odd or higher horses because handicapped horses out perform random horses. This is a fact. All the other stuff is gobbledgook.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Yes, rebates.

I'm a low roller and don't really know the world of rebates. Betting favorites is close to break even, and with a few adjustments, one might be able to do it. Can't speak to it.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

The said truth is with take outs and a sharp betting public, natural odds or higher seems to be the case.

How do you know that the vast majority of profitable players ignore it? I didn't really want to go public with it. Do you believe the converse that there are cappers making profit in their own way with low odds horses and most of us have missed it?

So, let me understand this:

I am handicapping a 12-horse field...and I have identified my contenders in the race. The right play now -- according to the "only absolute truth in winning" -- is to bet on the contenders who are offered at odds of 11-1 or higher? Can't we do a little better than that?

Why should the field size dictate the acceptable odds in the race? Are all the horses in the field the same...from a handicapping standpoint?

If I stick to betting on 12-horse fields...does this mean that I have to confine myself to wagers on horses who are 11-1 or higher?

And you seriously think that there are many serious players out there who bet like that?

Please tell me that I have misunderstood you...and that this isn't what you are portraying as the "only absolute truth to winning".

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

The question becomes how can one determine value without an accurate oddsline? The answer is by betting natural odd or higher horses because handicapped horses out perform random horses. This is a fact. All the other stuff is gobbledgook.

I disagree.

There are ways of determining value that don't involve confining our wagers to "natural odds or higher".

There is handicapping for contenders...and then there is handicapping the CONTENDERS -- to find the REAL contenders.

Those who can't do that shouldn't say that it can't be done...

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

No one that I know of has an accurate oddsline that will be profitable over the longrun. The question becomes how can one determine value without an accurate oddsline? The answer is by betting natural odd or higher horses because handicapped horses out perform random horses. This is a fact. All the other stuff is gobbledgook.

No the answer is in testing. What minimum odds offer you what it is you want, number of plays, hit rate, ROI, profit, or combinations of the 4? An accurate odds line is not the only answer to the value question. If I have 3 final contenders, and my testing shows that a 3/1 odds minimum offers what I'm after, better than any other odds or odds range, then that's my odds line, I bet all the final contenders that meet that odds requirement. Because, the real truth is, any of those final contenders could win or lose, why try to separate them when I already have the answer, bet them all at the same minimum odds.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

So, let me understand this:

I am handicapping a 12-horse field...and I have identified my contenders in the race. The right play now -- according to the "only absolute truth in winning" -- is to bet on the contenders who are offered at odds of 11-1 or higher? Can't we do a little better than that?

Why should the field size dictate the acceptable odds in the race? Are all the horses in the field the same...from a handicapping standpoint?

If I stick to betting on 12-horse fields...does this mean that I have to confine myself to wagers on horses who are 11-1 or higher?

And you seriously think that there are many serious players out there who bet like that?

Please tell me that I have misunderstood you...and that this isn't what you are portraying as the "only absolute truth to winning".

You got it. You'll be surprized how many of your top contenders will give up the odds.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I disagree.

There are ways of determining value that don't involve confining our wagers to "natural odds or higher".

There is handicapping for contenders...and then there is handicapping the CONTENDERS -- to find the REAL contenders.

Those who can't do that shouldn't say that it can't be done...

Good, disagree. I believe that I can do that like the best of them. But this is gambling sticking one's neck out for a kill. That's how I was profitable 3 and 4 years back. The last two years have been using the truth. And its absolute. How about what you are doing? Is it absolute or do you stretch your neck hunting for score without certainty in the longrun?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Good, disagree. I believe that I can do that like the best of them. But this is gambling sticking one's neck out for a kill. That's how I was profitable 3 and 4 years back. The last two years have been using the truth. And its absolute. How about what you are doing? Is it absolute or do you stretch your neck hunting for score without certainty in the longrun?

Certainty in the long run? I'm not even certain that I will wake up tomorrow morning.

I am not certain about the long run, my friend...and neither are you.

If you WERE certain about the long run...then you wouldn't be a "low roller".

Let's not kid ourselves here; we deal with probabilities in this game...not "certainties".

We use the past to PREDICT the future; not to GUARANTEE it.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Certainty in the long run? I'm not even certain that I will wake up tomorrow morning.

I am not certain about the long run, my friend...and neither are you.

If you WERE certain about the long run...then you wouldn't be a "low roller".

Let's not kid ourselves here; we deal with probabilities in this game...not "certainties".

We use the past to PREDICT the future; not to GUARANTEE it.

How true. Absolute is only absolute until it's not.

[bob60566]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Good, disagree. I believe that I can do that like the best of them. But this is gambling sticking one's neck out for a kill. That's how I was profitable 3 and 4 years back. The last two years have been using the truth. And its absolute. How about what you are doing? Is it absolute or do you stretch your neck hunting for score without certainty in the longrun?

Al
I read this from book by Arthur Koestler

When the mind is at sea
A new word provides a raft