|
|
01-27-2013, 08:12 PM
|
#421
|
EXCEL with SUPERFECTAS
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,206
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capper Al
That's it-- 7/1 or higher for an 8 horse field. Actually Dave's Basics of Winning does not state the axiom as a truth, Dave shows the implementation of the lost truth that we all see when we start playing the game. One gets the 'how to' from Dave.
The only thing that we know for sure (and thus why it is called the only absolute truth) is that handicapped horses beat random horses, so why beat anything less than random odds?
We are inspired when we first start playing the game and hitting maybe 20% winners beating out the random 12.5% of an average 8 horse field. We then get hooked and figure if we can just find a way to hit a few more winners or a few more higher priced winners then we've got it. But alas we go down the wrong path with this misunderstanding-- we are doomed forever. As anyone can see now, there is nothing relative about this truth. It applies to all. Relative truths are for losers who get lucky at times.
|
Is that really what your "truth" is? I thought your truth was "handicap for contenders not winners". Which is it, or are there really 2 "truths"? If that is the case, then maybe there are more than 2? And, just who does this apply to? Only those who handicap for contenders, and bet only those at greater than natural odds, and only after tossing a low odds horse? Are you saying that nobody can be profitable wagering on average odds of 5/2, 3/1, 7/2, 4/1, etc., because in order for any of those average odds to happen one would certainly have to bet well under natural odds, often.
I'm really disappointed in your mystery run-around, and others here probably are too, they may have really thought they might finally find out why they've been losing all these years. Just because you heard Dave say something that you believe, you think that it's the "truth", for all. Why? Because you've been profitable for 2 years now? I'd be willing to bet that Dave hasn't been profitable for 10 years, or longer, following that "truth", I bet he's doing a whole lot more than that. And, I'm sure Thaskalos does a whole lot more than that, and for a lot longer than 2 years. I've been profitable since 2004, and I certainly don't follow your "truth", as you state it. And, I'd bet most profitable players, including the syndicates and the whales, don't follow your truth either.
I've been a little confrontational in this thread, for good reason. Your truth is only an example, not the truth, value is a real truth, however you find it and at whatever odds, and whether handicapping for contenders or winners, or betting to win or in the exotics. And most of profitable players didn't recognize that truth early in there career, they came to that realization later.
Regardless, I hope this thread continues, and those who follow it, eventually get something useful from it.
Last edited by raybo; 01-27-2013 at 08:15 PM.
|
|
|
01-27-2013, 08:32 PM
|
#422
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: MI
Posts: 6,330
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by raybo
Is that really what your "truth" is? I thought your truth was "handicap for contenders not winners". Which is it, or are there really 2 "truths"? If that is the case, then maybe there are more than 2? And, just who does this apply to? Only those who handicap for contenders, and bet only those at greater than natural odds, and only after tossing a low odds horse? Are you saying that nobody can be profitable wagering on average odds of 5/2, 3/1, 7/2, 4/1, etc., because in order for any of those average odds could happen would be if they bet well under natural odds.
I'm really disappointed in your mystery run-around, and others here probably are too, they may have really thought they might finally find out why they've been losing all these years. Just because you heard Dave say something that you believe, you think that it's the "truth", for all. Why? Because you've been profitable for 2 years now? I'd be willing to bet that Dave hasn't been profitable for 10 years, or longer, following that "truth", I bet he's doing a whole lot more than that. And, I know for sure Thaskalos does a whole lot more than that, and for a lot longer than 2 years. I've been profitable since 2004, and I certainly don't follow your "truth", as you state it. And, I'd bet most profitable players, including the syndicates and the whales, don't follow your truth either.
I've been a little confrontational in this thread, for good reason. Your truth is only an example, not the truth, value is a truth, however you find it and at whatever odds, and whether handicapping for contenders or winners, or betting to win or in the exotics. And most of profitable players didn't recognize that truth early in there career, they came to that realization later.
Regardless, I hope this thread continues, and those who follow it, eventually get something useful from it.
|
Unless one wants to wait forever, to get the odds one needs, one has to take a calculated risk and play their contenders. Therefore, one plays their contenders for odds. One in the same.
Might there be other scenarios for making money. Sure. Can they be accurately defended as an absolute truth without agrument, as you are trying to manufacture. No. Or, at least, I haven't seen one where the logic holds up. Until then, it is the only absolute truth.
__________________
"The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France
|
|
|
01-27-2013, 08:35 PM
|
#423
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: 1 hr away from Belmont
Posts: 890
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by raybo
Is that really what your "truth" is? I thought your truth was "handicap for contenders not winners". Which is it, or are there really 2 "truths"? If that is the case, then maybe there are more than 2? And, just who does this apply to? Only those who handicap for contenders, and bet only those at greater than natural odds, and only after tossing a low odds horse? Are you saying that nobody can be profitable wagering on average odds of 5/2, 3/1, 7/2, 4/1, etc., because in order for any of those average odds to happen one would certainly have to bet well under natural odds, often.
I'm really disappointed in your mystery run-around, and others here probably are too, they may have really thought they might finally find out why they've been losing all these years. Just because you heard Dave say something that you believe, you think that it's the "truth", for all. Why? Because you've been profitable for 2 years now? I'd be willing to bet that Dave hasn't been profitable for 10 years, or longer, following that "truth", I bet he's doing a whole lot more than that. And, I'm sure Thaskalos does a whole lot more than that, and for a lot longer than 2 years. I've been profitable since 2004, and I certainly don't follow your "truth", as you state it. And, I'd bet most profitable players, including the syndicates and the whales, don't follow your truth either.
I've been a little confrontational in this thread, for good reason. Your truth is only an example, not the truth, value is a real truth, however you find it and at whatever odds, and whether handicapping for contenders or winners, or betting to win or in the exotics. And most of profitable players didn't recognize that truth early in there career, they came to that realization later.
Regardless, I hope this thread continues, and those who follow it, eventually get something useful from it.
|
Raybro, I kind of have to agree with what you've said at least in part. Not to piss in anyones corn flakes, but I have been thinking about this said truth since reading it. Assuming you play 8 horse fields and above, that leaves 7-1 odds horses and higher. Daves' statistics show that 90% of the winners come from the 5 lowest odds horses on the board. I am of the opinion that you would not be participating in a large percentage of races following this rule.
Personally, I have been taught since the beginning to shun favorites by my dad. It has been pounded to death in almost everything I have read or heard about the game. Well, times have changed, and I feel I must change with them or just be another bitter loser in this game. I look at percentage return. I draw the limit at 150% profit on a flat bet wager whether it's win place or show. I passed on two 3-2 odds favorites this weekend that looked hands down like the proverbial mortal lock and they both won by a margin of at least 4 lengths.
I'm not saying play for chalk alone, but the reality is there is more and more chalk as our fellow bettors get better. I always look for value, but sometimes that $5.00 winner IS value. There is no shame in being profitable in that sweet spot of horses in that $5.00 to $12.00 mutual range.
__________________
This is not gambling. This is just taking advantage of an extraordinary business opportunity. Jay Trotter
|
|
|
01-27-2013, 08:37 PM
|
#424
|
Quintessential guru
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,254
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlay
I don't have the PP's, either, but (based on your post) regardless of the beliefs or intentions of the horse's connections, wouldn't Grand Giant's distance preferences have been discernible from prior races, and taken into account by the public in setting its odds (even if the horse might have been overbet)? Or had the horse's connections somehow darkened the horse's form to conceal its preference for sprints from the public?
|
The connections certainly believe they have a turf horse. The two figs of 73 were earned in turf sprints and the one really disapointing race was the turf route.
He was pointed to the route, per Millie Ball, as the connections thought he was a router and had been expected to run well as evidenced by his lowest odds versus prior double digit odds in prep sprints. The route effort had been so disappointing they gave up on routing him. Since then he was pointed towards and entered into sprints earning his best figs. Also, he was favored to win on Jan 4, 2013 at 5/2.
Knowing the connections prepared the horse to win a MSW turf route and when they failed they earnestly focused on winning a sprint and today he was entered due to timing of the race and not the distance.
So yes the PPs pretty much disclosed the horse as a sprinter, especially the 2nd place finish, when he wasn't well meant or bet.
|
|
|
01-27-2013, 08:54 PM
|
#425
|
Quintessential guru
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,254
|
dnlgfnk
Thanks for the info.
I understand the public could identify this horse as a contender due to the fact on paper it appeared a non-competitive race.
you have the connections telling you although the race is not competitive, my horse still can lose because the distance does not favor him.
I don't think if the public had this information, the horse would not have been 4/5. If the public had this information and still would bet the horse in the same manner, it gives me hope where to look for the most value.
|
|
|
01-27-2013, 08:56 PM
|
#426
|
Quintessential guru
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,254
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by shouldacoulda
.......
I'm not saying play for chalk alone, but the reality is there is more and more chalk as our fellow bettors get better. I always look for value, but sometimes that $5.00 winner IS value. There is no shame in being profitable in that sweet spot of horses in that $5.00 to $12.00 mutual range.
|
Amen
|
|
|
01-27-2013, 09:24 PM
|
#427
|
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,873
|
Since my name is getting mentioned so often in this thread, i think it appropriate that I comment from time to time.
The basic concept that I function under, even today, is that I, personally, cannot tell you which contender is going to win a race.
My belief is that most other players cannot do so successfully either.
There may be the rare, exceptional player, and the rare, exceptional race, when the stars line up and you just know that such-and-such a horse is the winner. Of course, in the scheme of things, if you tally all those sure thing-plays up, my guess is that you are still fortunate to carry anything close to a hall-of-fame batting average and be profitable.
To solve MY problem, I came up with what has turned out to be a workable solution: produce a method for virtually guaranteeing long-term success.
1. If you can eliminate a significant percentage of the pool...
and...
2. If your eliminations lose a significant amount of money...
then...
3. It follows that the remaining horses will be at least close to breaking even...
4. Leaving you with the ability to almost throw darts and make a profit.
In other words, if you can get it down to (say) 4 horses AND pick 40% of the pool that will be losing large, you should be able to easily grind out a profit.
Of course, there is still the need for a "value component" to help you with the final selection(s), but you are starting with a much smaller pool of selections.
I firmly believe (and every study I have ever done supports) the idea that all natural odds horses that make it into the "contender" category will (collectively) be profitable.
Think of it this way...
1. If you are good at selecting Non-Contenders...
then
2. You will only play races where a high percentage of the pool has been eliminated...
therefore
3. The remaining horses should be involved in a much-closer-to-break-even race...
and
4. If your contender process with above-natural-odds horses is at least as good as it is with low-odds horses, it is reasonable to expect them to significantly outperform the ones that do not make it into your contender set and, ultimately be profitable; perhaps hugely so.
So, why don't I just do that? Because playing nothing but natural odds horses does not allow one to wager "a lot" of money. It does not allow one to wager enough money to make significant money.
My biggest challenge right now is to figure out how to wager on those highly profitable longshots and still keep my per-race hit rate around 60%.
I suggest that this is why Al is so convinced that he is doing the right thing with these high-priced contenders and struggling to stick to his guns during play: they just do not win very often to build a strategy around, despite being very profitable.
This is my experience. Your mileage may differ.
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
Last edited by Dave Schwartz; 01-27-2013 at 09:26 PM.
|
|
|
01-27-2013, 09:46 PM
|
#428
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: 1 hr away from Belmont
Posts: 890
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
Since my name is getting mentioned so often in this thread, i think it appropriate that I comment from time to time.
The basic concept that I function under, even today, is that I, personally, cannot tell you which contender is going to win a race.
My belief is that most other players cannot do so successfully either.
There may be the rare, exceptional player, and the rare, exceptional race, when the stars line up and you just know that such-and-such a horse is the winner. Of course, in the scheme of things, if you tally all those sure thing-plays up, my guess is that you are still fortunate to carry anything close to a hall-of-fame batting average and be profitable.
To solve MY problem, I came up with what has turned out to be a workable solution: produce a method for virtually guaranteeing long-term success.
1. If you can eliminate a significant percentage of the pool...
and...
2. If your eliminations lose a significant amount of money...
then...
3. It follows that the remaining horses will be at least close to breaking even...
4. Leaving you with the ability to almost throw darts and make a profit.
In other words, if you can get it down to (say) 4 horses AND pick 40% of the pool that will be losing large, you should be able to easily grind out a profit.
Of course, there is still the need for a "value component" to help you with the final selection(s), but you are starting with a much smaller pool of selections.
I firmly believe (and every study I have ever done supports) the idea that all natural odds horses that make it into the "contender" category will (collectively) be profitable.
Think of it this way...
1. If you are good at selecting Non-Contenders...
then
2. You will only play races where a high percentage of the pool has been eliminated...
therefore
3. The remaining horses should be involved in a much-closer-to-break-even race...
and
4. If your contender process with above-natural-odds horses is at least as good as it is with low-odds horses, it is reasonable to expect them to significantly outperform the ones that do not make it into your contender set and, ultimately be profitable; perhaps hugely so.
So, why don't I just do that? Because playing nothing but natural odds horses does not allow one to wager "a lot" of money. It does not allow one to wager enough money to make significant money.
My biggest challenge right now is to figure out how to wager on those highly profitable longshots and still keep my per-race hit rate around 60%.
I suggest that this is why Al is so convinced that he is doing the right thing with these high-priced contenders and struggling to stick to his guns during play: they just do not win very often to build a strategy around, despite being very profitable.
This is my experience. Your mileage may differ.
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
|
I agree with everything you said Dave. If what Al is doing works for him then that's great. There are so many ways to approach this game and you have to find what suits your style of handicapping and personality type. There is no single right way of being profitable. And I will readily admit it's something I am still struggling with. I feel that I am still evolving at this game and value the opinion of everyone on this board. I have learned much here.
P.S. What I said was not meant as a knock to you or Al in any way shape or form, and hope it wasn't taken as such. It's just my opinion.
__________________
This is not gambling. This is just taking advantage of an extraordinary business opportunity. Jay Trotter
|
|
|
01-27-2013, 09:58 PM
|
#429
|
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,873
|
Quote:
P.S. What I said was not meant as a knock to you or Al in any way shape or form, and hope it wasn't taken as such. It's just my opinion.
|
Shoulda,
I did not take it that way.
Over and over again, I hear people ask a question similar to, "How do I become a winning player?"
My statement is one that I think most players can agree with; namely that they cannot tell who is actually going to win the race with any great degree of confidence.
I am suggesting that a workable approach is to work at picking contenders, and measuring the performance of the non-contenders.
Ultimately, it is, of course, up to the individual to make his own choices. I just try to build a good framework to work within.
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
|
|
|
01-27-2013, 10:41 PM
|
#430
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,962
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
Over and over again, I hear people ask a question similar to, "How do I become a winning player?"
My statement is one that I think most players can agree with; namely that they cannot tell who is actually going to win the race with any great degree of confidence.
I am suggesting that a workable approach is to work at picking contenders, and measuring the performance of the non-contenders.
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
|
1. " most players can agree with; namely that they cannot tell who is actually going to win the race with any great degree of confidence.
2. a workable approach is to work at picking contenders, and measuring the performance of the non-contenders.
Good Post!
Key words:
1. Degree of confidence - if you don't know that, why are you betting?
2. Work :
a. Homework if you are a player
b. Measuring the performance of non-contenders is critical in vertical exotics.
Last edited by Greyfox; 01-27-2013 at 10:48 PM.
|
|
|
01-27-2013, 11:43 PM
|
#431
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MILWAUKEE
Posts: 5,285
|
can you point me in the riht direction for developing a confidence formula?
thanks
__________________
Never tell your problems to anyone because 20% flat don't care and 80% are glad they are yours.
No Balls.......No baby!
Have you ever noticed that those who do not have a pot to piss in nor a window to throw it out of always seem to know how to handle the money of those who do.
|
|
|
01-28-2013, 12:07 AM
|
#432
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,962
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HUSKER55
can you point me in the riht direction for developing a confidence formula?
thanks
|
I'll let Dave answer that.
But for me it's a combination of Horse (past performances and work ethic),
trainer, and jockey performances.
|
|
|
01-28-2013, 12:39 AM
|
#433
|
EXCEL with SUPERFECTAS
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,206
|
Ok, now we're getting somewhere!
1. Nobody knows, with a high degree of certainty, which horse will win most races.
2. Therefore, we should concentrate our efforts on picking really good contenders, by eliminating really bad non-contenders.
3. We can then/should then bet those remaining contenders who offer value, regarding their projected off odds versus our estimation of their probability of winning.
Now Al, do you see the difference in what you were saying and what Dave, and I, and others are saying, and have said in the past? I'm not saying that your way won't work, because, in the right hands, it will. However, it is not the end all and be all, and certainly not "the truth" for all profitable players.
|
|
|
01-28-2013, 02:05 AM
|
#434
|
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,873
|
Quote:
can you point me in the riht direction for developing a confidence formula?
|
I actually created one of those in The Basics of Winning.
The idea was to grade yourself on how confident you felt about the accuracy of the data; not the how good you felt about the horses.
The purpose is to show people that, as a general rule, the less confidence they have in the race, the more likely they are to cash a big ticket!
Imagine you are handicapping a maiden race... most people see that as a notch below their normal confidence. Add a couple of FTS, and maybe an off-track and suddenly the race is overwhelmingly difficult. Yet, when all is said and done, most STRONG players find that these races produce their best results!
That is because these races are difficult for everyone and the stronger players are at a greater advantage.
Kind of like two guys racing 1 mile on an asphalt track. As a rule, the best man wins. Put them on the beach and the best man will win even more often. Competition just works that way.
|
|
|
01-28-2013, 09:01 AM
|
#435
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: MI
Posts: 6,330
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
Since my name is getting mentioned so often in this thread, i think it appropriate that I comment from time to time.
The basic concept that I function under, even today, is that I, personally, cannot tell you which contender is going to win a race.
My belief is that most other players cannot do so successfully either.
There may be the rare, exceptional player, and the rare, exceptional race, when the stars line up and you just know that such-and-such a horse is the winner. Of course, in the scheme of things, if you tally all those sure thing-plays up, my guess is that you are still fortunate to carry anything close to a hall-of-fame batting average and be profitable.
To solve MY problem, I came up with what has turned out to be a workable solution: produce a method for virtually guaranteeing long-term success.
1. If you can eliminate a significant percentage of the pool...
and...
2. If your eliminations lose a significant amount of money...
then...
3. It follows that the remaining horses will be at least close to breaking even...
4. Leaving you with the ability to almost throw darts and make a profit.
In other words, if you can get it down to (say) 4 horses AND pick 40% of the pool that will be losing large, you should be able to easily grind out a profit.
Of course, there is still the need for a "value component" to help you with the final selection(s), but you are starting with a much smaller pool of selections.
I firmly believe (and every study I have ever done supports) the idea that all natural odds horses that make it into the "contender" category will (collectively) be profitable.
Think of it this way...
1. If you are good at selecting Non-Contenders...
then
2. You will only play races where a high percentage of the pool has been eliminated...
therefore
3. The remaining horses should be involved in a much-closer-to-break-even race...
and
4. If your contender process with above-natural-odds horses is at least as good as it is with low-odds horses, it is reasonable to expect them to significantly outperform the ones that do not make it into your contender set and, ultimately be profitable; perhaps hugely so.
So, why don't I just do that? Because playing nothing but natural odds horses does not allow one to wager "a lot" of money. It does not allow one to wager enough money to make significant money.
My biggest challenge right now is to figure out how to wager on those highly profitable longshots and still keep my per-race hit rate around 60%.
I suggest that this is why Al is so convinced that he is doing the right thing with these high-priced contenders and struggling to stick to his guns during play: they just do not win very often to build a strategy around, despite being very profitable.
This is my experience. Your mileage may differ.
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
|
Amen
__________________
"The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Rate This Thread |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|