Got what it takes to be a PRO?

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by pandy

This was a long time ago. After that beating he decided to learn how to handicap. He is pretty well off now, and a very good handicapper.

Good.....for a moment, I thought you were talking about yourself..

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by pandy

This was a long time ago. After that beating he decided to learn how to handicap. He is pretty well off now, and a very good handicapper.

Good for him! I hope he’s now really enjoying the game for all its worth!

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by pandy

This was a long time ago. After that beating he decided to learn how to handicap. He is pretty well off now, and a very good handicapper.

I do not think that "Learning how to handicap" is something that guarantee winnings!

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Good.....for a moment, I thought you were talking about yourself..

OMG I have skin burn from rolling on the floor laughing!

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by pandy

Few if any. I know someone who paid jockeys and trainers for information and lost $400,000.

With all due respect, if you knew who he was, he wasn't the kind of sharpie I'm referring to.

You know, kind of like "I know the best Secret Agent in the world"

[NorCalGreg]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

I do not think that "Learning how to handicap" is something that guarantee winnings!

No it doesn't guarantee anything. I'm a good handicapper--but a mess emotionally...still I "broke even" last year

(*see previous threads for what "broke even" is internet code for)

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

No it doesn't guarantee anything. I'm a good handicapper--but a mess emotionally...still I "broke even" last year

Once again, congrats on your best year ever, Greg...

[NorCalGreg]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Once again, congrats on your best year ever, Greg...

[pandy]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

With all due respect, if you knew who he was, he wasn't the kind of sharpie I'm referring to.

You know, kind of like "I know the best Secret Agent in the world"

I understand, but I doubt very much that anyone is winning money betting horses because of inside information. Sure, if you work in the backstretch you're going to get tipped off on some live firsters now and then, but it's fool's gold to think that you can win with inside information. If you buy a reputable workout report, such as the one Andy Harrington does for So. Cal, you'll know as much as anyone about how the firsters and layoff horses are training up to today's race. And anyone who's purchased those reports knows that just because a horse is training like a monster doesn't mean it's going to win.

[Robert Fischer]

↺ --> Receive an 'Input'
examples = Racing Form, Video of the races, etc.. -->

--> pass through a [Preconscious perceptual filter]
examples= Contrast Effect, and Confirmation Bias -->

--> pass through a [Conscious (calculation) interpretation of Past Performance filter]
examples= Our understanding of the important Past Performance models that carry the heavy freight in what makes up a winning horse. -->

--> pass through a [Conscious (calculation) interpretation of Today's Projected performance filter]
examples= our understanding of the important Projection models that carry the heavy freight in what makes up a winning horse. -->

--> Compare to public odds -->

--> pass through a [Cognitive filter]
examples= 'Reciprocity' (our recent Loses or Wins and how they affect our cognition),
'Commitment' (we took a STAND! about a horse or wager type), 'Social Proof' (we like Arrogate in the Travers, but he's 11-1 on the tote, and people are talking about American Freedom(5-1 on the tote) being Baffert's 'top gun', and the biggest threat to public favorite Exaggerator. Crowd is 'safer', and often correct),
'Authority' (although I don't like underlay Silver Ride, and I think this is a weak-for-class field, The Track Handicapper just eloquently made an example of Unbridled Juan as a 'money burner' type, taking only sucker-money),
'Liking' (California Chrome is my favorite horse in the world.),
'Scarcity' (There's only one more race on the card, or this is the Derby i gotta make a bet, or I'm down to my last $20 in the account!...) -->

--> Make an Optimal Decision ('pass' or 'play' + specific wager strategy, wager sizing etc...) -->

--> REPEAT CYCLE back to the top! ↺

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

--> pass through a [Preconscious perceptual filter]
examples= Contrast Effect, and Confirmation Bias -->

Never given 'pre-conscious' perception much thought.


In the classic 'contrast effect' illusion above, the grey rectangles in the center of each color are actually exactly the same. The contrast makes them appear differently.

These things may not have a HUGE effect on capping (maybe they do have application when seeing horses vs certain setups or class contrasts), but they are part of our interpreting and perception.

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

--> pass through a [Conscious (calculation) interpretation of Past Performance filter]
examples= Our understanding of the important Past Performance models that carry the heavy freight in what makes up a winning horse. -->

--> pass through a [Conscious (calculation) interpretation of Today's Projected performance filter]
examples= our understanding of the important Projection models that carry the heavy freight in what makes up a winning horse. -->

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

basic stuff - looking the performances of the horse, and trying to project their performance for today's conditions.
Going to be a skill-based part of the cycle. This is what we often refer to when 'handicapping'. We all have different methods, and the races which the past and projected performance are obvious at 'face value' are seldom gold mines...

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

--> pass through a [Cognitive filter]
examples= 'Reciprocity' (our recent Loses or Wins and how they affect our cognition),
'Commitment' (we took a STAND! about a horse or wager type), 'Social Proof' (we like Arrogate in the Travers, but he's 11-1 on the tote, and people are talking about American Freedom(5-1 on the tote) being Baffert's 'top gun', and the biggest threat to public favorite Exaggerator. Crowd is 'safer', and often correct),
'Authority' (although I don't like underlay Silver Ride, and I think this is a weak-for-class field, The Track Handicapper just eloquently made an example of Unbridled Juan as a 'money burner' type, taking only sucker-money),
'Liking' (California Chrome is my favorite horse in the world.),
'Scarcity' (There's only one more race on the card, or this is the Derby i gotta make a bet, or I'm down to my last $20 in the account!...) -->

Some of the traps ,pitfalls, or challenges we face. Most of these sound comical or dumb, but they are a real danger to our rational handicapping.

[BCOURTNEY]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

To estimate the expected losing streaks, find the closest figure to your win percentage in the "%W" column - the second column of the*average losing streak chart below. If you are near the closest value of14.3%....of which I am.....good luck.

Looking along this line and we see that our winners would have to average 6-to 1 odds just to break even and that the expected largest losing streak in a series of 1000 bets would be 34 losers in a row.

If I win 25% of my win bets (I don't--not even close-primarily I'm a longshot player)--but if I was..I would have to average an $8.00 mutual just to break even..and could expect a 20+ race losing streak, among many smaller-- at some time during the next 1,000 wagers. That's probably a year's total bets for a committed hobbyist.

Psychologically, it is difficult for the average horse player to endure a losing streak of 10 or more losers in a row.

Confining our attention to these large losing streaks...again, looking at the chart we see that in every 1000 bets there would be an average of 27 losing streaks of 10 or more losers in a row. Can that be correct? Yes it can.

So even if our average winner was paying over 8-to-1 odds and we were making a good profit, we would still be playing through a losing streak of 10 or more losers in a row much of the time. This is the Achilles' heel of most long shot horse racing betting systems.

This, ladies and gentlemen...is why so few of us horseplayers can win year in and year out. Humans aren't naturally hard-wired for this task. If you're one of the handful who can succeed in this game...you will have accomplished an extremely rare feat. You will get no kudos, no slaps on the back...your own family couldn't care less. Your enormous horse racing accomplishments will impress exactly no one.

It's the mental aspect that we can't overcome--not the actual handicapping.

Personally...I know for a fact---and I'm not boasting at all, I COULD get seriously dedicated to becoming a winning horseplayer--and do it. I just could never make a living this way.

The thing is--I don't want to. Every one of us is exactly who and where we have chosen to be. I could become extremely careful, diligent...grind out a profit. But I'm positive I would hate it---hate it like I hate doing income taxes.

*ps--when I say "we" ..I mean the average horseplayer on this board--fair to very good, but certainly not a "pro".

-NCG

chart from http://turfanalyst.com

Greg, I would also submit that it's how the winning a losing streaks are handled is what is critical for long term success. A losing or winning streak is best endured or enjoyed when reacted to with a mathematically sound decrease or increase in wager size. Bet sizing is one of the most poorly understood and critical aspects of being successful long term. In fact I would go as far to say that I would pit the best wager sizing methodology against the best selection methods and show that better ROI can be achieved refining the former and not the latter.

[rsetup]

Originally Posted by BCOURTNEY

Greg, I would also submit that it's how the winning a losing streaks are handled is what is critical for long term success. A losing or winning streak is best endured or enjoyed when reacted to with a mathematically sound decrease or increase in wager size. Bet sizing is one of the most poorly understood and critical aspects of being successful long term. In fact I would go as far to say that I would pit the best wager sizing methodology against the best selection methods and show that better ROI can be achieved refining the former and not the latter.

I don't increase when I'm winning. And, I CERTAINLY don't decrease when I'm losing. If one's game is good enough, then a chance to win always presents itself - even on days when everything seems to be going wrong. If you don't have the nuts to hammer, and hammer with confidence, when you have a strong opinion in the midst of a losing streak, then you really shouldn't be playing the game. Of course, in conjunction with the requisite confidence, one must have the composure to think clearly when it's all falling apart.

[BCOURTNEY]

Originally Posted by rsetup

I don't increase when I'm winning. And, I CERTAINLY don't decrease when I'm losing. If one's game is good enough, then a chance to win always presents itself - even on days when everything seems to be going wrong. If you don't have the nuts to hammer, and hammer with confidence, when you have a strong opinion in the midst of a losing streak, then you really shouldn't be playing the game. Of course, in conjunction with the requisite confidence, one must have the composure to think clearly when it's all falling apart.

The adjustments are made based on the total of the bankroll itself not the fact that winning or losing is happening. In that universe, a flat percentage could be selected if desired to reduce the risk of ruin. It's simply equivalent to saying I'm going to wager 3% of my bankroll versus $150 dollars for example. Flat percentages over time are a better strategy than a flat wager amount. The percentage of course is then further capped by how much the wager would perturb the pool and reduce ROI when it hits.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by BCOURTNEY

The adjustments are made based on the total of the bankroll itself not the fact that winning or losing is happening. In that universe, a flat percentage could be selected if desired to reduce the risk of ruin. It's simply equivalent to saying I'm going to wager 3% of my bankroll versus $150 dollars for example. Flat percentages over time are a better strategy than a flat wager amount. The percentage of course is then further capped by how much the wager would perturb the pool and reduce ROI when it hits.

You got it correct; it is called "money management" a principle taught in all classes involving risk investment.