Having trouble making profitable bets?

[thaskalos]

IMO...Fabricand's Horse Sense is one of the two worst books that a beginning horseplayer can pick up and read. The other one is Andy Beyer's Picking Winners.

[Ghostzapper04]

Get out of the habit of making the same bets over and over. A 5 horse super box is only the right bet in a few situations. Learn how to leverage your best opinions by utilizing the entire betting menu.

[TurfRuler]

There used to be an angle:

Horse after seven days, runs again today
Horse scratched from last race, runs again today
Horse on Lasix for the first time, runs again today
Horse runs a fast first quarter, second quarter…., runs again today
Horse runs first every fraction, runs again today
Horse runs off a 30-day, 60-day, 90-day layoff, runs again today
Horse makes a multiple length bid/move and fails, runs again today
Horse runs second in last race, runs again today
Pace makes the race, runs again today
Horse has the highest speed rating in last race, runs again today
Horse has highest average speed rating, runs again today
Horse has turf breeding, a mudder a dirt pedigree, runs again today
Horse runs 1, 2nd, 3rd after layoff, runs again today
Horse has a trainer change, runs again today
Horse has a jockey change, runs again today
Horse likes the racetrack (horses for courses), runs again today
Horse has a surface change, turf to dirt, dirt to turf, runs again today
Horse shorten distance in today’s race, runs again today
Horse stretches out from last race, runs again today;

Thaskalos and the others at Pace have great information for you but his quote is a greater key than any of the others: “Do you possess the sort of "specialized" knowledge which might be turned into an edge over your competition? Otherwise...seeking to profit in this game is an unrealistic expectation...IMO.”

Only by seeking will you find that “specialized” knowledge; all of the other wagering methods are tried and true but no longer valid for winning every race or profitability.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

IMHO, that is very outdated.

The entire concept may very well have been faulty to begin with. In fact, a friend from many years ago who attempted to write a program found that there were actually rules that were in contradiction.

At the very least, the odds table-while a wonderful work for its time-is drastically out of date.

Dave, to be clear, I reference the math analysis of the concept.
I feel he may have used too few races for the analysis, but his approach to determining the confidence levels is the clearest I have come across.

I would appreciate a reference to the latest odds table.
Long to short odds bias still viable?

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO...Fabricand's Horse Sense is one of the two worst books that a beginning horseplayer can pick up and read. The other one is Andy Beyer's Picking Winners.

Oh my, you just sucked the breath out of me.

You're defaming my idol

The Math of Fabricand's work is inline with many of the studies in "Efficiency of Race Track Markets". The book includes Fabricand as a reference.

With respect to him and his family I include:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...56C0A96F9C8B63

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

Oh my, you just sucked the breath out of me.

You're defaming my idol

The Math of Fabricand's work is inline with many of the studies in "Efficiency of Race Track Markets". The book includes Fabricand as a reference.

With respect to him and his family I include:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...56C0A96F9C8B63

Thask said, "a beginning horseplayer" would have problems with the books. Are you a beginner Formula, or are you trying to just act like one? I'll bet you don't even know who Fabricand's mentor was.......

[Dave Schwartz]

I would appreciate a reference to the latest odds table.
Long to short odds bias still viable?

Not to the extent that it was back in his time.

Remember when the odds-on horses were almost break even? Not any more.

I have posted the complete odds table from my book, Percentages & Probabilities a number of times.

I'll see if I can find it again.

[green80]

With a $100 bankroll you need to stick to making $2 win bets until your bankroll increases, then never bet more than 2% of your bankroll. If you tap out you need to come up with another method to select your horses.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Thask said, "a beginning horseplayer" would have problems with the books. Are you a beginner Formula, or are you trying to just act like one? I'll bet you don't even know who Fabricand's mentor was.......

I don't agree, its a perfect book for a beginner.

Mentor?, He never mentioned it to me in my single correspondence with him.
that's at least one bet you win

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

B Fabricand "Horse Sense"..Everything you need to know to analyze your betting dollars.

Don't you think Fabricand's attempt to extrapolate the calculus of economic perfect competition to horserace handicapping for efficiency is far fetched?

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by Cratos

Don't you think Fabricand's attempt to extrapolate the calculus of economic perfect competition to horserace handicapping for efficiency is far fetched?

His book is "A Rigorous Application Of Mathematical Methods to Successful Betting At The Track"

I think if a betting system satisfies the mathematical requirements clearly outlined in his book, then its a bet, if not its NO Bet.
I would appreciate any paper you can post that would provide the same clarity of math and data to disprove his claim.

[Tall One]

We've gone from "Handicapping 101" and "The Winning Horseplayer" to a guide for "rigorous mathematic applications in calculus" for a player wanting to start with win bets and exactas..

<--- Had to look up "extropolate" in the Webster..

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

His book is "A Rigorous Application Of Mathematical Methods to Successful Betting At The Track"

I think if a betting system satisfies the mathematical requirements clearly outlined in his book, then its a bet, if not its NO Bet.
I would appreciate any paper you can post that would provide the same clarity of math and data to disprove his claim.

You are now asking for a critique of Fabricand's wagering methodology as oppose to a critique of the assertion of "efficiency".

Honestly I am not sure if I can find the reference you requested because of the time it might take and the trials needed it to prove/disprove the methodology.

However I think we are straying into academia which is away from this thread's topic.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by Tall One

We've gone from "Handicapping 101" and "The Winning Horseplayer" to a guide for "rigorous mathematic applications in calculus" for a player wanting to start with win bets and exactas..

<--- Had to look up "extropolate" in the Webster..

OMG!!! One of the best uses of the word extrapolate ever was in the 1992 Presidential debates between BClinton, GBush the elder, and Ross Perot. Clinton kept to the line that he had balanced the Arkansas budget 7 of the 8 years he was governor, and he would do the same with the Federal budget. The moderator asked Perot what he thought of that, and Perot said, "It's meaningless. Doesn't apply." The moderator looked at him quizzically and incredulously said, "What do you mean it doesn't apply?" Perot, in that high pitched, hillbilly drawl said, "It's like , if I can run a corner market, we can therefore extrapolate I can run WalMart. See? Doesn't apply". I remember the crowd laughing for about 2 minutes. They wouldn't settle down.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by Tall One

We've gone from "Handicapping 101" and "The Winning Horseplayer" to a guide for "rigorous mathematic applications in calculus" for a player wanting to start with win bets and exactas..

<--- Had to look up "extropolate" in the Webster..

it's not really all that bad..