The Handicapper's Cafe

[turninforhome10]

Originally Posted by turninforhome10

I look for extras that might be what I call a "hustled race". A race that looks to be set up for a trainer by a jock agent coup in the racing office. Look at OP 2nd race today 4/13. 2nd Race. (CX1)Post 1:59PM CX1 means Condition Book extra. These races appear on the overnight rather than the condition book
http://www.equibase.com/premium/eqbH...C-OP-20120413D.
All the other races on the card go with 12 and 3excluded except for the 2nd which goes with 8 and a Midwest entry. Would look for an anchor for a pick 3 in the the race.

The Ness horse paid 9.80 to win.

[windoor]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

All horseplayers go through peaks and valleys.
You are the member of a large club when the slump sets in.
Who knows why?
Maybe it's changes in the track surface, the weather, the tides (some people claim that for Delmar), and the horses themselves.
Who really knows?
Trainers too seem to have cycles where they are hot and then their not.
If you've been successful before, it is likely that your basic approach to the game doesn't need much of an overhaul. But a minor tune up might be needed.

For me:
1. betting less $ and less frequently seem to help.
2. taking a break from the action is absolutely necessary if it continues
3. review your basics.
4. observe and observe
5. Beware the negative "feel-do" cycle.
(That's where a person feels down and does poorly so he feels worse and does even poorer. Reversing the feel-do cycle to a positive involves engaging in a constructive activity that makes you feel good. It may be away from racing such as golf, getting to chores around the house you've been putting off and so on. Then upon return to horse wagering, try and make sure that your very first bet of the day is a winner or awfully close to it.)

We all must do what we think is best for us in the long term, whatever that may be.

But:

I think you might have missed the totals of the bank from the beginning of the bad streak (something like 8 for 60 with odds no greater than 3 to1) to when it ended with four straight wins (three as long-shots) that turned in around. It did not post the way I wanted. The formatting was lost.

I'm just glad I did not post the first 60 in the selections area. I can still hear them laughing.

Patience and discipline wins out yet again.

Windoor

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by windoor

We all must do what we think is best for us in the long term, whatever that may be.

But:

I think you might have missed the totals of the bank from the beginning of the bad streak (something like 8 for 60 with odds no greater than 3 to1) to when it ended with four straight wins (three as long-shots) that turned in around. It did not post the way I wanted. The formatting was lost.

I'm just glad I did not post the first 60 in the selections area. I can still hear them laughing.

Patience and discipline wins out yet again.

Windoor

I must confess I was somewhat confused by how the spreadsheet was presented.
Then your final comment- " It is close to being embarrassing, as has some of the picks I have been posting lately. I will survive it, as I always do."- left me with the impression that you hadn't adjusted the bank totals for wagers and you had lost. Hence, my comments about losing streaks. Sorry about that.

Greyfox

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by windoor

We all must do what we think is best for us in the long term, whatever that may be.

But:

I think you might have missed the totals of the bank from the beginning of the bad streak (something like 8 for 60 with odds no greater than 3 to1) to when it ended with four straight wins (three as long-shots) that turned in around. It did not post the way I wanted. The formatting was lost.

I'm just glad I did not post the first 60 in the selections area. I can still hear them laughing.

Patience and discipline wins out yet again.

Windoor

Windoor...I count 69 bets listed on the betting ledger that you provided for us...

Can you please tell me how many days it took to make these wagers?

[windoor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Windoor...I count 69 bets listed on the betting ledger that you provided for us...

Can you please tell me how many days it took to make these wagers?

To elaborate.

I now have three Excel sheets for record keeping. Sheet A is for older, established plays, and are grouped together. I do not worry too much over them, even though they represent a sizable investment.

What I posted is from sheet B from the second quarter (this month) from 4/11/12 to 4/14/12. A good example of how a bank draws down over a period of time with low hit rate and low odds. About 4 days to answer you question.

I added six new plays to the first quarter of this year, based on my research. Four of them failed, or did not do as well as I was expecting. Two graduated to sheet B and are part of what I posted. If they continue to do well, and If I can get the win percent to an acceptable level, they will move to sheet A.

Sheet C is for new plays and are supported by the smallest of wagers and banks, as they still need to "Prove" themselves. I am very careful with them as I get to see a lot of red ink here overall. Some are tweaked, and tried again, most are thrown out as bad ideas. Occasionally I find a nugget and move it up.

I am always trying something new. This is the fun part, the rest is just work, and quite boring to tell it true.

Regards,

Windoor

[bob60566]

Originally Posted by windoor

To elaborate.

I now have three Excel sheets for record keeping. Sheet A is for older, established plays, and are grouped together. I do not worry too much over them, even though they represent a sizable investment.

What I posted is from sheet B from the second quarter (this month) from 4/11/12 to 4/14/12. A good example of how a bank draws down over a period of time with low hit rate and low odds. About 4 days to answer you question.

I added six new plays to the first quarter of this year, based on my research. Four of them failed, or did not do as well as I was expecting. Two graduated to sheet B and are part of what I posted. If they continue to do well, and If I can get the win percent to an acceptable level, they will move to sheet A.

Sheet C is for new plays and are supported by the smallest of wagers and banks, as they still need to "Prove" themselves. I am very careful with them as I get to see a lot of red ink here overall. Some are tweaked, and tried again, most are thrown out as bad ideas. Occasionally I find a nugget and move it up.

I am always trying something new. This is the fun part, the rest is just work, and quite boring to tell it true.

Regards,

Windoor

Windoor
Intresting in most three days at Montineer i have twelve to fourteen average selections. Sixty nine to me is way to high.
Mac

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by windoor

To elaborate.

I now have three Excel sheets for record keeping. Sheet A is for older, established plays, and are grouped together. I do not worry too much over them, even though they represent a sizable investment.

What I posted is from sheet B from the second quarter (this month) from 4/11/12 to 4/14/12. A good example of how a bank draws down over a period of time with low hit rate and low odds. About 4 days to answer you question.

I added six new plays to the first quarter of this year, based on my research. Four of them failed, or did not do as well as I was expecting. Two graduated to sheet B and are part of what I posted. If they continue to do well, and If I can get the win percent to an acceptable level, they will move to sheet A.

Sheet C is for new plays and are supported by the smallest of wagers and banks, as they still need to "Prove" themselves. I am very careful with them as I get to see a lot of red ink here overall. Some are tweaked, and tried again, most are thrown out as bad ideas. Occasionally I find a nugget and move it up.

I am always trying something new. This is the fun part, the rest is just work, and quite boring to tell it true.

Regards,

Windoor

My friend, you leave me speechless...and this rarely happens to me.

You show a 25% increase to your bankroll over a 4 day span, and you consider this a losing streak, which needs to be reviewed in order to bring your winning percentage up to par. And this is with your "B" sheet...which only includes your "lesser" plays.

A $1,000 profit in 4 days making $40 win bets...with your secondary spot plays...and you feel that there is room for improvement there?

One can only guess what the performance of your "A" sheet is...

And you accomplish all this with some computer-generated spot plays...which don't even require looking at the odds before placing your bets?

You don't even have to waste your time watching the races; you can place all your bets at the start of the day...and take the rest of the day off.

If what you tell us is true...not only are you the best handicapper in the country without a doubt...but you are also the one who works the least at his craft.

A rare combination indeed...

Professional horseplayers put enormous amounts of time into their work...for only a small percentage of the results that you get.

My hat is off to you...and I really mean that.

I really don't know what else to say...nor do I know how to continue with my presentation here.

I am describing this game as the toughest gambling game ever invented...and you are making it look like a piece of cake...

[bob60566]

Originally Posted by bob60566

Windoor
Intresting in most three days at Montineer i have twelve to fourteen average selections. Sixty nine to me is way to high.
Mac

I see three months lot better

Mac

[windoor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

My friend, you leave me speechless...and this rarely happens to me.

You show a 25% increase to your bankroll over a 4 day span, and you consider this a losing streak, which needs to be reviewed in order to bring your winning percentage up to par. And this is with your "B" sheet...which only includes your "lesser" plays.

It was a bad week that ended well. I wouldn't say they were "lesser" plays, just relatively new, and I have learned patience the hard way. If (and only if) they continue to do well, I will move them up

A $1,000 profit in 4 days making $40 win bets...with your secondary spot plays...and you feel that there is room for improvement there?

I am playing a lot races now, across many tracks. Two years ago I would be lucky to fine 40 plays a month. Sometimes I play that many and more in one day now. I figured if I could earn a small profit playing only one or two tracks, how much could I earn if I played many tracks?

One can only guess what the performance of your "A" sheet is...

And you accomplish all this with some computer-generated spot plays...which don't even require looking at the odds before placing your bets?

The computer is just a fast way to fine them and do the necessary research. I preach this often.

You don't even have to waste your time watching the races; you can place all your bets at the start of the day...and take the rest of the day off.

If what you tell us is true...not only are you the best handicapper in the country without a doubt...but you are also the one who works the least at his craft.

I really do not Handicap. I have found a shortcut

A rare combination indeed...

Professional horseplayers put enormous amounts of time into their work...for only a small percentage of the results that you get.

My hat is off to you...and I really mean that.

I really don't know what else to say...nor do I know how to continue with my presentation here.

I am describing this game as the toughest gambling game ever invented...and you are making it look like a piece of cake...

Thaskalos,

I posted this week results as a demonstration of a bank draw down and what a couple of nice odd horses can do for you if you stick to the game plan.

Maybe I should post the losing weeks (and sometimes losing months) to give you a more realistic picture. This 2nd quarter has started off rather well for these plays. That does not mean it will continue. I do have high hopes however.

I'm sorry, but I never believed the game to be all that hard to beat. At least when compared to other forms of gambling. There are indeed many pitfalls, but most of those are internal struggles. At least that's what I believe. I still have my demons. I just leaned to control them a little better than I use to.

In horse racing you can have a legitimate reason for passing races. What other forms of gambling can you do that? Yes, you can fold a poker hand, but you still have to ante up. 2nd best hand is the fastest way to go broke there, but 2nd best can be profitable from time to time with horse racing.

Getting on some long odd horses from time to time has bailed be out many times. This was just one of those times. Average odd is everything to me. Some of my "spot" plays are for horses with hidden form or class. A form cycle test tells me to play or not. Understand I am wrong 7 out of 10 times when I am doing well.

Please do not discontinue what you started here. I for one, believe there is much for me to learn. I am truly a poor handicapper and know I need help to improve here.

Would it help if I posted the sheet for the fourth quarter of 2011? It was rather dismal. A disastrous month there, would have broken most banks. My bank was strong enough to see me through and I am still here.

Not many feel the need to post their bad decisions and bad outcomes. I am no different. I posted a success story. But if that is what it takes to convince you I am indeed human with just as many faults. Let me know.

Regards,

Windoor

[Dave Schwartz]

I'm sorry, but I never believed the game to be all that hard to beat. At least when compared to other forms of gambling. There are indeed many pitfalls, but most of those are internal struggles. At least that's what I believe. I still have my demons. I just leaned to control them a little better than I use to.

Windoor,

May I ask are these REAL plays, with REAL money, or are they "theoretical?"


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Blenheim]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The 24-second last quarter theory has been around forever...but has been ignored as of late because it has been proven to be ineffective. If Col. Bradley really had success while using it, then he left out the most important details when he wrote about it.

Let me tell you why:

I know that you tried to make this theory more comprehensive than just a last quarter measure, by requiring that the horse be "close" to the pace in the early going...but that's not enough of an additive. Close to WHAT SORT of pace?

Let's take a 6 furlong sprint for simplicity's sake...

If the pace to the half mile is 47 seconds...then MANY horses -- including the pace-setter -- will be able to go the last quarter in 24 seconds. They are able to do it NOT because of their talent...but because of the soft early pace.

Change the early pace to 45 seconds...and the picture changes dramatically...

Now...only the better sprinters will be able to run the last quarter in 24 seconds -- and all the front-runners in the race will fail to do so...not because they are inferior to the late-flying stretch runners...but because they already expended their energy reserves in the early going of that race.

"Close up to the early pace" doesn't cut it...you have to be more precise than that...because how fast the horse will run in the last quarter is directly dependent on HOW FAST it was asked to run in the early stages of the race. It has little to do with how "close" it was to the pace.

In "real" pace handicapping, no one fraction can possibly stand alone...because, then, too much of the race is ignored. You review ALL the fractions of the race...because THAT'S the only way to properly assess the value of a horse's performance.

THAT'S "nuts and bolts" handicapping...

You forgot to mention the most important part in all my posts regarding the twenty-four second last quarter. I’ll repeat it here. No handicapping factor stands alone. His early speed and late drive must be considered along with other handicapping factors: class, condition, dosage, pace, bias, jockey, trainer and weight among many others. The pace is addressed in your post.
~
The 24-second last quarter theory has been around forever...but has been ignored as of late because it has been proven to be ineffective. If Col. Bradley really had success while using it, then he left out the most important details when he wrote about it.

I don’t know if the Colonel wrote about the twenty-four second last quarter but I did read he grew his fortune taking bets on horses, eventually started his own stable and went on to win the Kentucky Derby four times. You wrote the twenty-four second last quarter theory has been ignored lately and has been proven to be ineffective. Is that your opinion, or do you have data to support your assertion?
~
In "real" pace handicapping, no one fraction can possibly stand alone...because, then, too much of the race is ignored. You review ALL the fractions of the race...because THAT'S the only way to properly assess the value of a horse's performance.
THAT'S "nuts and bolts" handicapping...

You write, “no one fraction can stand possibly stand alone,” but yet you provide one fraction for both of your examples. How good can your “nuts and bolts” handicapping be when you don’t provide a first and last fraction for review?

I’ve put together some fractions, the first quarter, half-mile, three-quarter, mile, mile and a sixteenth and nine furlong fractions to illustrate the importance of the twenty-four second quarter. Fun about this part is this data helps handicapping the Kentucky Derby. Below are the fractional splits for Derby contender Bodemeister in his MSW, San Felipe and the Arkansas. The black numbers represent the fractions at the distances noted above; the red numbers represent the internal fractions.

M-23.0 23.4 46.4 23.9 70.3 23.9 94.2

F-22.4 24.0 46.4 24.7 71.1 24.1 95.2 (6.2) 101.4

A-23.0 23.2 46.2 25.0 71.2 25.1 96.3 (12.0) 108.3

Interesting how most of the fractions, except the first, hover right around twenty-four seconds. Take a look at the fractions for the MSW, all of them under twenty-four. Same pattern in the Felipe, last quarter in 24.1, last sixteenth in 6.2. In the Arkansas Bode runs the first two fractions under 24, then the jockey slows him down, runs the next fraction in 25 then 25.1 . . . then speeds up for a 12 second last eighth of a mile.

Of course this is just one example, but I’ve done this with others and have found the numbers for the quarter hover right around twenty-four seconds. No doubt the numbers will be scrubbed, tweaked, adjusted, modified and scrambled, but no doubt they'll hover around the 24 - always have and always will. Maybe the four-time Kentucky Derby winner knew somethin’ way back that still holds true today . . . twenty-four second fractions still matter particularly when the horse qualifies on other factors.

Nuts and bolts . . .

[windoor]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Windoor,

May I ask are these REAL plays, with REAL money, or are they "theoretical?"


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Yes, Real plays with real money.

I have posted "possible" outcomes in the past and have stated as much.This is how we learn what "may" work, and what doesn't.

Windoor

Which reminds me. The last time you asked me that question was about a "spot" play I posted with a full year of results that showed it to be profitable.

I was not playing that one then, I am now. So far it is doing quite well.

[Dave Schwartz]

That is wonderful!

I was concerned that they were theoretical. It is always so much easier somehow to win with monopoly money!

Congratulations!

You are soon to be a wealthy man. (No sarcasm intended.)


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by windoor

Thaskalos,

I posted this week results as a demonstration of a bank draw down and what a couple of nice odd horses can do for you if you stick to the game plan.

Maybe I should post the losing weeks (and sometimes losing months) to give you a more realistic picture. This 2nd quarter has started off rather well for these plays. That does not mean it will continue. I do have high hopes however.

I'm sorry, but I never believed the game to be all that hard to beat. At least when compared to other forms of gambling. There are indeed many pitfalls, but most of those are internal struggles. At least that's what I believe. I still have my demons. I just leaned to control them a little better than I use to.

In horse racing you can have a legitimate reason for passing races. What other forms of gambling can you do that? Yes, you can fold a poker hand, but you still have to ante up. 2nd best hand is the fastest way to go broke there, but 2nd best can be profitable from time to time with horse racing.

Getting on some long odd horses from time to time has bailed be out many times. This was just one of those times. Average odd is everything to me. Some of my "spot" plays are for horses with hidden form or class. A form cycle test tells me to play or not. Understand I am wrong 7 out of 10 times when I am doing well.

Please do not discontinue what you started here. I for one, believe there is much for me to learn. I am truly a poor handicapper and know I need help to improve here.

Would it help if I posted the sheet for the fourth quarter of 2011? It was rather dismal. A disastrous month there, would have broken most banks. My bank was strong enough to see me through and I am still here.

Not many feel the need to post their bad decisions and bad outcomes. I am no different. I posted a success story. But if that is what it takes to convince you I am indeed human with just as many faults. Let me know.

Regards,

Windoor

Let me be completely honest with you, my friend...and it took me a long time to decide to tell you this, because you are really a nice guy...and I respect your pleasant demeanor here.

I think that you are committing a terrible injustice to the young and inexperienced players here, when you present your backfitted results as proof that hundreds of thousands of dollars can be won in this game, relatively quickly, and starting with only a modest bankroll...just by betting on spot plays.

And don't tell me that you haven't said this...because I have seen you post this repeatedly.

In a direct reply to a post of mine here, you stated that $300,000 in winnings were possible, starting with a modest bankroll, and betting on only one of your spot plays...all in a relatively short period of time.

You also stated that you have some spot plays which have been consistent winners since the '90s.

So, you will forgive me if I wonder aloud why you are still fooling around with $40 win wagers, when there is all this money readily available to you...waiting to be scooped up.

The notion that this game is "not that hard to beat" cannot be taken seriously...and every single winning horseplayer will tell you the same thing. The game is ENORMOUSLY difficult to beat...especially for serious money...

I don't know what "other forms of gambling" you were comparing this game to when you concluded that these other gambling games were harder to beat...but I would bet you serious money that you are wrong in your assessment.

You may be able to pass races without being forced to pay an "ante"...but when you do decide to bet on a race...you pay a heavy price indeed.

All of us who are beating this game are putting enormous time and effort into it...and have paid a heavy price -- both in time and in money. To imply that there are "shortcuts" out there, through which players can win hundreds of thousands of dollars without much time and effort, is not only false...it is also terribly irresponsible.

We have young players here...and this is not the advice that we should be dishing out.

I apologize for the tone of my post, but I believe that a grave injustice has already been committed by all those irresponsible handicapping authors and system peddlers...who have presented this game as one that is "not difficult to beat".

They present false hope to novice players who don't know any better...and they contribute to those players' early financial demise.

It's one thing to state that the game can be beaten by following a set of well-researched spot plays...provided that the player has the discipline and self control to make the process doable.

But you are backfitting results into a computer...and coming up with fictitious fortunes that can be won relatively quickly, with only a modest starting bankroll -- while you, yourself, are only betting $40 to win...even after all these years of "consistent winning".

And that's just plain wrong!

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

My friend, you leave me speechless...and this rarely happens to me.

You show a 25% increase to your bankroll over a 4 day span, and you consider this a losing streak, which needs to be reviewed in order to bring your winning percentage up to par. And this is with your "B" sheet...which only includes your "lesser" plays.

A $1,000 profit in 4 days making $40 win bets...with your secondary spot plays...and you feel that there is room for improvement there?

One can only guess what the performance of your "A" sheet is...

And you accomplish all this with some computer-generated spot plays...which don't even require looking at the odds before placing your bets?

You don't even have to waste your time watching the races; you can place all your bets at the start of the day...and take the rest of the day off.

If what you tell us is true...not only are you the best handicapper in the country without a doubt...but you are also the one who works the least at his craft.

A rare combination indeed...

Professional horseplayers put enormous amounts of time into their work...for only a small percentage of the results that you get.

My hat is off to you...and I really mean that.

I really don't know what else to say...nor do I know how to continue with my presentation here.

I am describing this game as the toughest gambling game ever invented...and you are making it look like a piece of cake...

Thaskalos, I of course, talk to Harry (Hcap) frequently, and he has been working with Windoor for quite some time on custom Excel spreadsheets (Windoor also uses JCapper software in his method, for databasing activities), and believe me, everything Windoor is telling us, is true. He has some tremendous tools at his disposal, all designed for his specific way of playing the ponies, and his research abilities, and his tremendous record keeping activities, put him in the top echelon of serious players, right up there with you and a few others on this board.

Although I'm not privy to his spot plays, I am convinced that Windoor knows exactly what he's doing.

For everyone out there, Windoor's examples are proof that patience, discipline, research, record keeping, consistency, etc., etc., leads to profitability, without a doubt!

Racing is indeed the toughest gambling game out there, and even though Windoor makes it look simple, he will be the first to tell you that all that stuff comes at a price, years of very hard, mind numbing work, study, and research, to say nothing of expending lots of money along the way.

Most of us, who have actually achieved profitability, paid our dues along the way, in one way or another, either in time and study, or in lost money.

I have the deepest respect for anyone who has reached profitability in this great game, because I know what they went through to get there.