The only one absolute truth toward profitability

[MightBeSosa]

Originally Posted by cj

Enough about freaking casino games. I don't want to and delete all the old stuff, but I will if this continues.

Does that mean I should cancel my flight to Vegas? I wanted to be ready to rock as soon as all was revealed here.

[magwell]

Patience..... and attack when you have the edge but only in your comfort zone.....

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by MightBeSosa

Does that mean I should cancel my flight to Vegas? I wanted to be ready to rock as soon as all was revealed here.

No, please go now if you can.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by maddog42

Contender selection that is (80%+with top 4) accurate combined with odds line. If you kick out the favorite (usually an underlay) Then you are left with horses that are usually (not always)fair pay or better.

This is the closest anyone has gotten to the absolute truth. Dave covers this well in his Basics of Winning. I want to leave this as a win/win for all of you who have participated. So close enough will do well. I really don't want to let the cat out of the bag. The absolute truth isn't complex or a long mathematical process. It will hold up to mathematically examination. You'd need to look at this premise with fresh eyes, and ask yourself what did you see in the game when I first got hooked.

[metroman]

$200.00

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by metroman

$200.00

It can be done within a year. It might take a few years of practice and writing the losing years off as entertainment first.

[therussmeister]

Originally Posted by raybo

anyone who consistently bets the lowest odds in the field, will lose long term, without a doubt.

I don't know quite what you mean by consistently, but if you mean reflexively, without handicapping, than it is also true that:
Anybody that consistently plays the second lowest odds will lose long term.
Anybody that consistently plays the third lowest odds will lose long term.
Anybody that consistently plays the fourth lowest odds will lose long term.
Anybody that consistently plays the fifth lowest odds will lose long term.
etc, etc, etc.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by therussmeister

I don't know quite what you mean by consistently, but if you mean reflexively, without handicapping, than it is also true that:
Anybody that consistently plays the second lowest odds will lose long term.
Anybody that consistently plays the third lowest odds will lose long term.
Anybody that consistently plays the fourth lowest odds will lose long term.
Anybody that consistently plays the fifth lowest odds will lose long term.
etc, etc, etc.

Not what I meant, but that is true also. The truth that I suggested, which almost everyone would notice very early on, is that the favorite loses almost twice as often as it wins, and most brand new players think that if everybody likes a horse, it should win more than it loses.

Al's mention that you should think back to your first time at the track is the reason I suggested this as the truth he was asking for. I suppose that some "gifted" brand new players might possibly identify good contenders as the "truth", personally, I doubt many of us started our career thinking that way, unless we had done some study before going for that first visit.

Al's hint was a little misleading in that regard.

[maddog42]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

This is the closest anyone has gotten to the absolute truth. Dave covers this well in his Basics of Winning. I want to leave this as a win/win for all of you who have participated. So close enough will do well. I really don't want to let the cat out of the bag. The absolute truth isn't complex or a long mathematical process. It will hold up to mathematically examination. You'd need to look at this premise with fresh eyes, and ask yourself what did you see in the game when I first got hooked.

So do I get a prize/laid or what? I do something similar in my own handicapping, but in most categories I don't get 80%. I do speed/pace
handicapping to get my contenders, but the false overlay is a problem. I am starting to win ( these last few months) but I don't feel confident. Trying to improve on this method is a bitch. When I change even a little on my contender selection, things get screwed up. I have been focusing more on getting the overlayed horses in my top 4 than the percentage. A few weeks back I gave the advice to always put the favorite in as a contender. I am having mixed feelings about this.This enables me to skip more races. My biggest scores have been when I kicked the favorite out (usually because of Bounce) but it still bites me a lot. I am trying to formalize my own Bounce theory and it is tough sledding. I still feel that sometimes you have to take a stand against the favorite, but I probably only do this 10-15% of the time.

Some of you may wonder why I am focusing more on overlays than that 80% in top 4. Well if your top 4 are always the 4 lowest odds horses then you are screwing up. I don't mean that one of those 4 lowest odds horses is not overlayed, but you probably need better than that to win.

[Dave Schwartz]

Some of you may wonder why I am focusing more on overlays than that 80% in top 4. Well if your top 4 are always the 4 lowest odds horses then you are screwing up. I don't mean that one of those 4 lowest odds horses is not overlayed, but you probably need better than that to win.

That is wise.

Perhaps you should try a "Monty."
http://thehorsehandicappingauthority...dave-schwartz/

If you aren't signed up on my site, you might need to in order to see that video. It is free, so just sign up if you haven't.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

That is wise.

Perhaps you should try a "Monty."
http://thehorsehandicappingauthority...dave-schwartz/

If you aren't signed up on my site, you might need to in order to see that video. It is free, so just sign up if you haven't.

Good video Dave.Thoughtwise it looks like there is a fairly universal line.The example numbers down to the 28% and profitable fit me to a T.Been a while since I was on your site.Making a note of it to check it more often.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

This is the closest anyone has gotten to the absolute truth. Dave covers this well in his Basics of Winning. I want to leave this as a win/win for all of you who have participated. So close enough will do well. I really don't want to let the cat out of the bag. The absolute truth isn't complex or a long mathematical process. It will hold up to mathematically examination. You'd need to look at this premise with fresh eyes, and ask yourself what did you see in the game when I first got hooked.

This is the Only Absolute Truth Toward Profitability?

The only absolute truth that is not debatable?

You gotta be kidding me!

And to think I was planning to treat you at Greek Town when we meet again this summer...

[Elliott Sidewater]

So much for another Wizard of Oz moment.

"Ignore that man behind the curtain"

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by maddog42

So do I get a prize/laid or what? I do something similar in my own handicapping, but in most categories I don't get 80%. I do speed/pace
handicapping to get my contenders, but the false overlay is a problem. I am starting to win ( these last few months) but I don't feel confident. Trying to improve on this method is a bitch. When I change even a little on my contender selection, things get screwed up. I have been focusing more on getting the overlayed horses in my top 4 than the percentage. A few weeks back I gave the advice to always put the favorite in as a contender. I am having mixed feelings about this.This enables me to skip more races. My biggest scores have been when I kicked the favorite out (usually because of Bounce) but it still bites me a lot. I am trying to formalize my own Bounce theory and it is tough sledding. I still feel that sometimes you have to take a stand against the favorite, but I probably only do this 10-15% of the time.

Some of you may wonder why I am focusing more on overlays than that 80% in top 4. Well if your top 4 are always the 4 lowest odds horses then you are screwing up. I don't mean that one of those 4 lowest odds horses is not overlayed, but you probably need better than that to win.

My experience only -- when picking contenders a comprehensive approach is preferred to a single factor like speed/pace. When taking a risk on a longshot, a single factor especially speed/pace is good confirmation. This is your prize.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

This is the Only Absolute Truth Toward Profitability?

The only absolute truth that is not debatable?

You gotta be kidding me!

And to think I was planning to treat you at Greek Town when we meet again this summer...

This is a much as I'm going to reveal. I actually believe the software players have the advantage in picking contenders. Selecting a potential winner by reading the form or using a paper and pencil method may be as effective for identifying a single true contender, but the summing and average of points used in the algorithms of computing are more effective to show how close the other three or four horses are. A human doesn't stand a chance here. What I'll do this summer is test this theory of man verse machine if you like. You'll need to be able to select your top 5 horses and draw a line between them to separate the contenders to win from those in the money. Dinner first before I reveal anything.