The Handicapper's Cafe

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by raybo

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.

My friend...I don't consider myself to be in the "top echelon" of handicappers here, or anywhere.

By some of the ROI revelations on this board...I would even say that my handicapping is downright INFERIOR!

My own ROI is exceedingly small, comparatively speaking...and the only reason I am able to turn that into sizable profits is because I have the temperament that allows me to wager large amounts of money without impairing my judgement.

I am not saying that Windoor is lying about his success in this game...

The things that I find objectionable -- as I've already stated -- are the references to these huge sums of money he sometimes talks about...which have only backfitted results as their base.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

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!

While I believe your intentions with this post are true and noble, not making the game sound like it is easily beaten and doesn't require many years of hard work a sweat, I don't think that was what Windoor means when he posts examples of his historical results.

Windoor will be the first to say that, like you, and all those who have reached profitability, it comes at a very high price, both in money and endless work and stress.

His profitability has only recently been achieved, and I believe he is still having a hard time believing he has really reached that point. He continues to do his "due diligence", as shown in his explanation of promoting some plays while demoting others. He is keeping his method updated and viable, which is an absolute necessity to insure continued profitability.

The work is never done. Even though he doesn't have to do any handicapping now, Windoor has done that all these years. That handicapping work and research is what brought him to this point in his playing career.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that Windoor is in any way, diminishing the amount of work that must be invested in order to reach profitability. That's the last thing on his mind.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

My friend...I don't consider myself to be in the "top echelon" of handicappers here, or anywhere.

By some of the ROI revelations on this board...I would even say that my handicapping is downright INFERIOR!

My own ROI is exceedingly small, comparatively speaking...and the only reason I am able to turn that into sizable profits is because I have the temperament that allows me to wager large amounts of money without impairing my judgement.

I am not saying that Windoor is lying about his success in this game...

The things that I find objectionable -- as I've already stated -- are the references to these huge sums of money he sometimes talks about...which have only backfitted results as their base.

Anyone who has reached profitability in this game is in the top echelon of players, maybe not handicappers, but players. ROI is not the whole story, as you know, just ask Bill Benter or any others who operate, or operated, off of very low ROIs and make money at this game.

There are other ways to make substantial profits from horse racing than just a big ROI. Dave Schwartz will be glad to explain that, I'm sure.

I agree that we should not present profitability as easy or simple, but I really don't think that's what Windoor means to imply. Some people just aren't very good at displaying the "whole picture" of what they went through or what they have to do in order to succeed now, and in the future.

Posting your thoughts and beliefs in a forum, is not easy for many people. And we need to realize that what they sometimes post isn't the complete story.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by raybo

Anyone who has reached profitability in this game is in the top echelon of players, maybe not handicappers, but players. ROI is not the whole story, as you know, just ask Bill Benter or any others who operate, or operated, off of very low ROIs and make money at this game.

There are other ways to make substantial profits from horse racing than just a big ROI. Dave Schwartz will be glad to explain that, I'm sure.

I agree that we should not present profitability as easy or simple, but I really don't think that's what Windoor means to imply. Some people just aren't very good at displaying the "whole picture" of what they went through or what they have to do in order to succeed now, and in the future.

Posting your thoughts and beliefs in a forum, is not easy for many people. And we need to realize that what they sometimes post isn't the complete story.

Raybo,

I have great respect for all winning horseplayers...because I know full-well what sort of commitment it takes to beat this game.

But I want to ask you a simple question:

Is it responsible for us "winning players" -- who choose to share our thoughts with the novice players here -- to suggest that it is very possible to win $300,000 a year at the races by following only one spot play...when we have not yet accomplished that goal ourselves?

Aren't we supposed to be speaking from experience here?

What are we even hoping to accomplish by talking about amounts such as these?

Can't we see the damage that remarks like these can cause...when they are not fully explained?

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Raybo,

I have great respect for all winning horseplayers...because I know full-well what sort of commitment it takes to beat this game.

But I want to ask you a simple question:

Is it responsible for us "winning players" -- who choose to share our thoughts with the novice players here -- to suggest that it is very possible to win $300,000 a year at the races by following only one spot play...when we have not yet accomplished that goal ourselves?

Aren't we supposed to be speaking from experience here?

What are we even hoping to accomplish by talking about amounts such as these?

Can't we see the damage that remarks like these can cause...when they are not fully explained?

Yes, I agree that examples like this can be misleading to less knowledgeable, or less experienced players. But, I also think it's extremely important to promote hope in these same players. Will they become successful? Probably not, but many of them love this game, and if they have hope that someday they may become successful, then they will try harder, put in more time towards study and research, and possibly improve to the point that the game is much more enjoyable, and affordable, even if they aren't winning players.

If Windoor, ever posted historical results as anything other than historical, or if he ever claimed profits that he didn't actually achieve, then he was wrong. But, I don't believe that to be the case. I have never read one of his posts where he didn't state that those historical results were just that, historical, and not actual.

Like I said, sometimes people just don't know how to present the whole picture too well.

And, he has stated many times that he still struggles with confidence and emotional control during his actual play. I believe that is why he hasn't yet achieved the huge profits that his historical research tells him he can produce. $40, when you're talking about many plays per day, is quite a sum, and will humble most people and make them wonder what the hell they are doing. It will also present big problems with the control of their emotions, etc.. To step up from $40 to levels that are required to produce huge profits is a giant leap, and not easily made by even the best of players.

You know that, the difference between $2 poker games and $10 is huge, and most can not handle the pressure.

[windoor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

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!

It is so hard sometimes for me to understand the true meaning behind the words here. The internet can do that. No tone, facial movements, nothing to give away sarcasm, and I like sarcasm.

It is also hard to tell when you are being mocked. Though I had my suspicions.

I truly do not what to say, except that this is your forum and you can run it anyway you like.

I would suggest you delete all of my posts at quickly at possible before anymore minds become corrupted with my drivel.

I'm done.

Windoor

[Robert Goren]

It looks like the battle between a handicapper and a system player is over.

[raybo]

I was afraid something like that might happen and it's a shame.

This problem could have been prevented had the posts in question been addressed when it happened, instead of waiting until now to bring it up.

I don't think anyone here, except Harry and I, know how much work Windoor has put into his approach and his tools. It's really astonishing.

[raybo]

Maybe someone missed this post, which clearly states that some of the historical results were just that.

Originally Posted by windoor

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.

[lamboguy]

throughout the years i have learned that you need many tools in your box to stay alive at this game. with what i have seen throughout the years, certain things amaze me and how well people have done with them.

there were days in SULFOLK DOWNS with torrential downpours, where they had 500 guys fighting for a spot to look at the horses feet before they went on to the track. i know guys that go to the bigger east coast meets like SARATOGA and GULFSTREAM that look for turf feet before the horse walks on to the track. i knew a guy by the name of DOMINIC that would go the whole meet and maybe make 3 total bets looking for the right foot situation. that guy has been doing this for as long as i can remember, and whenever i show up to those places he is there.

before the widespread use of numbers to handicap races, i knew guys that made up their own numbers and did very well with them. this was way before BEYER. i also knew about track variants before they published in the racing form. i also knew old timers that bet GREYHOUND racing before they graded them A-B-C-D. those guys had great story's how they beat dog racing.

the point that i am trying to make is that people that win or claim to win have their own innovation's that sets them apart from the 99% of the people that lose on a constant basis at this game. for the 1% that are left that give this game a good battle, there is nothing guaranteed, just a process that has shown good results in the past.

when a guy tells me that all he has to do is throw a bunch of numbers into a computer program and it spits out winners, it just opens up questions that never gets answered. anything is possible, but when you deal in probabilities, to me its very unlikely. if you want to make money at anything in life, you need to put hard work behind your efforts and suffer through many failures.

[Shelby]

If reading this whole thread doesn't make a person who thinks she's a half-way decent horse player humble,I don't know what will. I've realized that any wins--especially a few years ago--were definitely more luck than skill.

I'm not even in the same universe as you guys. Any fleeting thoughts I ever had of actually making money from this have certainly left my head.

I've tried absorb every word and learn. If anything, I definitely made fewer wagers and lost less money over the weekend because I kept thinking back to the main mantra that I've learned here. Patience. Patience. Patience.


It seems like a lot of you use a LOT more tools--computers etc.--I never knew so many programs existed. My tools=pp's and a pen. Usually it's a red pen. Sometimes I use blue, but never black because it gets lost in the pp print.

Windoor, in reading how you handicap and win, to me, you do make it seem easy. Not that it's a BAD thing by any means! I wish I could do as well!


Thask, this question is probably out of order of the discussion, so you can defer and answer it when the time is right. Do you ever just "throw" a long-shot into your superfecta just "because"? When I say "because" I mean because of a feeling, or because it's the longest shot on the board. I like to play the 10 cent supers...I use too many horses, though. I played 3 yesterday at Keeneland. I hit 2 and lost one. The one I lost was the very last race where a 99-1 came in 4th. I went back to see what I missed on that horse and couldn't find a thing that would have caused me to use him.

Lambo, what do "turf feet" on a horse look like?

[lamboguy]

i am not the greatest foot man, but the best way to describe it is they look like "pancakes".

i started in this game with one of the best foot man in the history of this sport, trainer JJ KELLY. his greatest words were "no hoof no horse". there is another guy that is still alive today, he is about 96 and he still works on feet every day in OCALA, his name is RED CURTAIN. i only mentioned those names because some people here will recognize them.

[Shelby]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

i am not the greatest foot man, but the best way to describe it is they look like "pancakes".

i started in this game with one of the best foot man in the history of this sport, trainer JJ KELLY. his greatest words were "no hoof no horse". there is another guy that is still alive today, he is about 96 and he still works on feet every day in OCALA, his name is RED CURTAIN. i only mentioned those names because some people here will recognize them.

Interesting, as always. Thanks

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Shelby

Thask,.....I use too many horses, though. I played 3 yesterday at Keeneland. I hit 2 and lost one. The one I lost was the very last race where a 99-1 came in 4th. I went back to see what I missed on that horse and couldn't find a thing that would have caused me to use him.

Shelby - I know that this question was directed at Thaskalos but let me chime in here.
I played that race as well. As I recall they ran in 1/3/8/6.
I did not play the super tri.
The #1 Kowboy Kody and #3 Toastmaster were bet down with the exacta only paying $13 and change. #8 Stormy Ocean was something like 8-1 and he was a logical third on old Beyers compared to the rest of the pack.
The tri paid in the neighborhood of $58 bucks.
But that fourth horse #6 Two Step Hero was 99-1.
First of all that 99-1 was the odds on him to win.
But what were the odds on him to finish 4 th??
This 6 year old gelding had raced 22 times.
In those races he had finished 1 win, 2 seconds, 3 thirds.
In his most recent race he finished 35 lengths behind the winner.
The trainer then gave a 3 month layoff.
The trainer's success has been 11% wins with horses coming off layoffs of this length. So that stat tells us he's reasonable, but not great, with freshened horses.
But what catches my eye the most is that out of 22 races this animal has ran third 3 times. That's 1 out of every 7 times he has finished third, and I don't know how many times he's finished fourth.
On that stat alone, I'd suspect that this runner is not 99-1 to finish fourth, so that shouldn't deter you from using him in the fourth line.
Also, one other point.
In some races "anything can run fourth." (Actually, in some races "Anything can run third too.") That's because the main competitors for the win have been sent and spent and slugs lumber in to those third and fourth finish positions. Of course when you see that, the tris and super tri's multiply in size.
I usually don't play trifectas and super tris.
I know some good players who do.
In weak races such as the 9 th at Keeneland yesterday, they've been known to take the board.
Yes it costs more. But with two obvious players set to score the win and the third player a logical third, the #6 could have been taken on probability of finishing third or fourth in spite of his odds. Or the board could have been taken for the fourth line in a race where a lot of the runners were questionmarks.
Of interest with #6 Two Step Hero running fourth that super paid $1,005.
No I didn't play it.
Yes the horse looked terrible for the win. But fourth? Not impossible.

[raybo]

Shelby,

I had the 6 horse in race 9 graded 8th, so I would have had to go 7 deep on the 4th row to get him. The only thing I see that might have helped him get 4th was his average distance run. He had the highest average distance in the race. Having run longer distances than his competitors might have helped him "survive" to get 4th. Other than that I don't see anything for him that would cause me to include him on my superfecta ticket.

In a 10 horse field I normally go 1/2 the field size plus 1, on the 4th row, which is 5+1 or 6 deep (barring ties which could increase that number).

Personally, I look for reasons to add horses to my tickets, horses with good odds, but in this case I couldn't justify adding this horse, he just did not have enough showing to include him.