David Milch Lost $100 Million at the Track

[Fox]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

Do you think he received rebates which means he lost quite a bit more than $100 million?

Since, he is pretty much out of the game and he was backing so many losers, does this mean the payouts will be quite a bit lower at the tracks which he played?

2: Whether he got a rebate or not crossed my mind as well.

6: Not necessarily. When he was on the winning horse/combo, it hurt the payoff. When he wasn't on the winner, it improved the payoff. If he was beating the takeout rate, such as recovering 85 cents on the dollar in a 20% takeout pool, his removal from the ecosystem would help more payouts than hurt. If he was losing more than the takeout, the opposite would be true. It's a little complex than that but that's how I see it on a basic level. Whether it helps or hurts also depends on what pools he was playing, whether they were blind, and when he put in his bets. Just because he lost millions doesn't mean he was that bad. Maybe he was only losing 8 cents on the dollar, but if you bet huge amounts, it adds up.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Fox

2: Whether he got a rebate or not crossed my mind as well.

6: Not necessarily. When he was on the winning horse/combo, it hurt the payoff. When he wasn't on the winner, it improved the payoff. If he was beating the takeout rate, such as recovering 85 cents on the dollar in a 20% takeout pool, his removal from the ecosystem would help more payouts than hurt. If he was losing more than the takeout, the opposite would be true. It's a little complex than that but that's how I see it on a basic level. Whether it helps or hurts also depends on what pools he was playing, whether they were blind, and when he put in his bets. Just because he lost millions doesn't mean he was that bad. Maybe he was only losing 8 cents on the dollar, but if you bet huge amounts, it adds up.

I understood he lost it all which is why I think it would be the opposite effect as you noted.

Since he lost it all and owes additional, you can't get any worse than that.

[Robert Fischer]

I treat her like a queen.

just kidding

long story short:
i see pattern types of plays and then I figure out a kelly estimate for that pattern.

long story:
To share some of my own actual style, I may only bet 3% of my bankroll on a play such as the example(suggested 8.3%).

I'm not married to to the exact Kelly figure under exact circumstances.

Instead I ask Kelly to tell me what the bet size would be after I make a low-estimate for Hit% and Final Odds.

I work hard with my bread and butter plays, and I know how they work. I also know how the odds change.

I have no problem with making good enough estimates for my bread and butter plays.

And as I develop a new play, I generally have no trouble going within an odds range for that play-type and working out Kelly and then finding where my comfort zone is for that wager type.

Ultimately, Kelly is a point of reference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Fischer
I think with horse racing, you basically want a bet-size that is:
1. A percent of your bankroll, so that you grow exponentially.
2. Low enough to minimize risk of ruin.
3. High enough that you aren't needlessly leaving a lot of money on the table.

Kelly, and your basic understanding of the game, should be combined to find a percent of bankroll that is a safe, relatively efficient 'ballpark' estimate for a given wager or subset of wagers.

[Robert Fischer]

Anyone interested in the Kelly Criterion discussion sidebar should check out this thread.
I asked a question that I had a brain-cramp about concerning a 'bad apple' scenario, and we had excellent contribution and discussion across the board from some of our best wagering players from this site, as well as a guest contributor.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

Do you remember which month and year?

I still have a number of issues and probably read it the first time around but I'd like to see if I have it.

I had forgotten the mag folded and didn't publish their last issue where the article would have appeared. However, the first part, the Magic Number was in one of the last issues. Anyway, you can get Risk Intelligence here. http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=397

By the way, if you have Horseplayers from about 2009, I appeared pretty regularly. My first piece when the magazine was taken over by Tom Quiqley was a rant about how poorly horseplayers are treated. I loved Horseplayer because they let me print a wide range of stuff (from Horseracing at the Movies to Inside Information to Betting on the Turf). Plus for the last three years it was published I was the analyst for the Breeders Cup Juvenile Fillies Turf and I was one of the handicappers for the Kentucky Derby picks. When I wrote for American Turf Monthly it was more formulaic.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Anyone interested in the Kelly Criterion discussion sidebar should check out this thread.
I asked a question that I had a brain-cramp about concerning a 'bad apple' scenario, and we had excellent contribution and discussion across the board from some of our best wagering players from this site, as well as a guest contributor.

Thanks RF.....

There are 2 posts in the thread of the highest level of creative intellect, the posters being "Game Theory" and "Aaron Brown", that I highly recommend for inexact/exact parameter methods of applying the Kelly criterion:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...5&postcount=34

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...2&postcount=35

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Thanks RF.....

There are 2 posts in the thread of the highest level of creative intellect, the posters being "Game Theory" and "Aaron Brown", that I highly recommend for inexact/exact parameter methods of applying the Kelly criterion:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...5&postcount=34

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...2&postcount=35

You have a sharp eye. Two of my favorite posts on the subject.

[Stillriledup]

Milch would have been much better off paying a few hundred grand salary to a proven winning horseplayer team and let Them do all the handicapping and betting with MILCH bankrolling the operation and have the hired 'team' just tell him who to root for. Same excitement and action and he wouldn't have lost all that money.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I had forgotten the mag folded and didn't publish their last issue where the article would have appeared. However, the first part, the Magic Number was in one of the last issues. Anyway, you can get Risk Intelligence here. http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=397

By the way, if you have Horseplayers from about 2009, I appeared pretty regularly. My first piece when the magazine was taken over by Tom Quiqley was a rant about how poorly horseplayers are treated. I loved Horseplayer because they let me print a wide range of stuff (from Horseracing at the Movies to Inside Information to Betting on the Turf). Plus for the last three years it was published I was the analyst for the Breeders Cup Juvenile Fillies Turf and I was one of the handicappers for the Kentucky Derby picks. When I wrote for American Turf Monthly it was more formulaic.

Okay, I'll take a look. I think I started subscribing with their first issue around 1993 or 1994. I thought it had so much potential. I always thought Quiqley was the one who started the mag. I stopped my subscription because of foul ups and poor customer service to resolve them in a timely manner which was a couple of years before their final issue. So, I may not have 2009.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

Okay, I'll take a look. I think I started subscribing with their first issue around 1993 or 1994. I thought it had so much potential. I always thought Quiqley was the one who started the mag. I stopped my subscription because of foul ups and poor customer service to resolve them in a timely manner which was a couple of years before their final issue. So, I may not have 2009.

They had stopped publishing for a while and in the early 2000's for exactly the reasons you said. When they started up again anyone who had subscription left got picked up again. Quiqley took over the publishing duties and Frank Scatoni came on as editor, but as the years went on it became harder and harder to make a buck. I believe they published the last issue in 2013.

[rrpic6]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

They had stopped publishing for a while and in the early 2000's for exactly the reasons you said. When they started up again anyone who had subscription left got picked up again. Quiqley took over the publishing duties and Frank Scatoni came on as editor, but as the years went on it became harder and harder to make a buck. I believe they published the last issue in 2013.

Not me. Kept my check, ignored my calls when my subscription stopped with 2 years left, insulted my intelligence when I finally was able to speak to someone there. Never bothered to refund my money or solve the problem. THIEVES!

RR

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Milch would have been much better off paying a few hundred grand salary to a proven winning horseplayer team and let Them do all the handicapping and betting with MILCH bankrolling the operation and have the hired 'team' just tell him who to root for. Same excitement and action and he wouldn't have lost all that money.

But no horseplayer wants to be told who to root for. Yeah, he'd probably be much better off that way but a celebrity like that? A big ego guy? I doubt he'd just want to bet others selections.

[Dark Horse]

He was a heroin addict in the 1980's. Tells you a little something about his personality. Easy to replace one heroin with another. Add directing Luck, the HBO series, and the stage is set. Combining tv work with gambling. Can't lose. Until Peta steps in. What a downer... Man, I need a fix.

As far as brilliance... Every horse player is a genius when he wins, at least until the next race. Huge payouts for exotics are heroin too. It takes a sharp mind to put those tickets together, but you still have to let the moments of brilliance come to you; can't go chasing them.

[Dark Horse]

Gambling is a perfect mirror. In time it will show every weakness in the personality, every crack in the armor. That's why the general public thinks of it as 'bad'. But the mirror is entirely neutral. It takes a certain type of person to see himself as he is, and not as he wants to see himself or wants to be seen.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

He was a heroin addict in the 1980's. Tells you a little something about his personality. Easy to replace one heroin with another. Add directing Luck, the HBO series, and the stage is set. Combining tv work with gambling. Can't lose. Until Peta steps in. What a downer... Man, I need a fix.

As far as brilliance... Every horse player is a genius when he wins, at least until the next race. Huge payouts for exotics are heroin too. It takes a sharp mind to put those tickets together, but you still have to let the moments of brilliance come to you; can't go chasing them.

Exotics are Heroin, but when you get 12 dollars for a super beating the 1-2 shot and getting a 55-1 in 3rd, that Heroin turns into a whiff of second hand smoke from marijuana.