having a terrible year, thinking of giving it up

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

That's it, Dave.

My "artfulness" is attempting to incorporate "luck" as Ken Pomeroy describes it, " a measure of the deviation between a team’s actual winning percentage and what one would expect from its game-by-game efficiencies".

My "luck" description capturing inefficiencies that elude data, is mostly the potential for a horse's trip and jockey decisions to be different from the linear way in which I anticipate. Or, the horse I subjectively prefer is only going to win roughly 20/35% of the time. Within that 65+ % uncaptured by my interpretation of data, is certainly and significantly a trip I did not foresee but was within the realm of possibility.

In other words, I consistently downgrade the horses I initially and superficially preferred, tying to be as objective as possible, because I'm usually wrong about them, and upgrade previous discounted horses. I replot their anticipated trip to incorporate a possible trip I ruled out. Then I mesh my odds with the public ala Benter.

Sort of the Monty Hall problem, without insisting on the initially equal chance of the "doors".

Boy, would I like to hear more about this.

2 reasons - I love contrarian & you've got a history of being sane. LOL

(Well, at least at the races.)

[ranchwest]

As Johnny Oates (and others) said, luck is when preparation and opportunity meet.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by ranchwest

I agree that it is desirable to find a fit horse. But, exactly how VALUABLE is it? You probably have some guidelines and look for horses that fall within those guidelines. But, when do those guidelines succeed and when do they fail? Do they apply across all ages of horses? For both males and distaffs? For various distances, surfaces, tracks? How does the form cycle fit in? Do works fit in? What about jocks and trainers? And, that's before we consider the rest of the field.

There's a lot of variables and knowing when those variables work and when they don't has real VALUE.

You could have posted this yesterday, [I]before[I] I took a bath at FL opening day. I was careful to only bet fit horses, and got beat by a bunch of fitter ones!
At least after the bath, they hosed me off.

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by Tom

You could have posted this yesterday, [I]before[I] I took a bath at FL opening day. I was careful to only bet fit horses, and got beat by a bunch of fitter ones!
At least after the bath, they hosed me off.

FL had 2 fit horses in the same race?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

You bring up a really good point: Welcome to the ERA of ARTFULNESS.

Since the whales are purely data-driven, one of the best ways to win is to NOT be so dependent upon statistics.

+1

IMO, there are way too many very smart people out there for most of us to compete head to head with them using the same handicapping information and ideas about betting and be good enough to overcome the take. The problem of course is that the smartest people are using the information that explains the outcomes well. So you either need different information that's equally valid or you have to find the little holes in conventional wisdom.

After really breaking through in the mid 90s as I got more value oriented, my results began deteriorating around 5-6 years back. But I started rolling again in 2020, 2021 and now in 2022.

I think several things account for that.

1. I'm doing a better job of structuring my bets to match my value oriented opinions.

2. I'm doing a better job of recognizing the races where I actually have an edge.

3. I'm trying to avoid horses where I find myself in complete agreement with conventional wisdom.

4. Probably a little good fortune

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by PalaceOfFortLarned

The way I look at it is you aren't going to beat the CAWs with 7 MIT grads crunching numbers and putting forth 1,000 factors into each and every wager they make. They will dilute the pools and hammer any possible overlay out there from a shear numbers standpoint.

I have to use my 30+ years of handicapping experience and draw from things that aren't easily recognizable from a pure numbers standpoint. Speed ratings, jockeys, trainers, and easily identifiable figs are readily available on any search engine that pushes out numbers. They already know Graham Motion is 5 for 12 on turf at KEE when off a 90+ day layoff. I have to be better than that.

I need to concentrate more on the intangibles that can't be easily described.

My Ego wants to sit in a quiet room and glance at a race calculate the positions against the 7 MIT grads and use my **Adrenaline** competence in the various significant models that happen to drive specific horse racing scenarios and I want to either show them superior use of their resources or at least equal them in a 'stalemate'. I want to channel frustration and show I could belong there.

but the real way is

Originally Posted by PalaceOfFortLarned

I need to concentrate more on the intangibles that can't be easily described.

You see something. You have a strong Opinion, and as a matter of fact; you KNOW it. It's in your happy zone. It's something you are competent at. 'Mastered' even. And then you bet an appropriate piece of your bankroll (think kelly criterion or similar).

Then you repeat. If you can really do it, you slowly build your wager size as your bankroll grows.

If you bet the Obvious low priced stuff - that's where the CAWs are taking their slices of the pizza. You are going towards a slow death of your bankroll with that stuff.

[riskman]

Thanks for Half Smoke who started this thread. Reminds me of the times when there was some lively discussions by a group of experienced cappers approach to the game.Your contributions here were knowledgeable,considerate and thoughtful. Thanks to you all !

[Franco Santiago]

This is a great thread. Thanks to the OP for his honesty.


You will all probably laugh at my story, and I would have cared some years ago, but now, I feel as though your opinion is none of my business, so here goes:



My story is different. I lost every year for the past 35 years until April of 2021. And what did I do differently? I stopped trying to be selective about the races. I now bet doubles, pick 3s, p4s, and p5s without discretion. If a race starts with a P5, I bet the P5. If I lose the first leg, I bet the next longest horizontal, like the P4, and so on and so forth. I started betting every race at every track, except for those obscure tracks that run two days a year with $2,500 purses. And what do you know? I have been winning consistently ever since. I only made one other change: I changed my definition of a contender. I expanded it and it caused me to have about 1/2 of a contender more per race. That half a contender has resulted in three things: more cost per race, more cashing of tickets, and (this is important!) more cashing of tickets that pay large enough to cover lots of losses and lots of losing streaks, and once in a while enabling me to hit a home run. A "home run" is when my top 2 or 3 selections win consecutively and pay hugely, and thereby cause the horizontals to explode. I rarely "single" a race. Not my style, and I don't care that the "experts" say it's necessary or desired.



My question for most people that say they had a "good year" is "how many bets did you make that year?" 500? 1,000? Because 500 and 1000 bets in a year in this game is hardly the "long run"...meaning that it shouldn't be a surprise to see things go south or fall apart the next year or for months at a time.



Will my own success continue? I believe it will, but I am well prepared monetarily and mentally to withstand MONTHS of lousy results to find out. That's just the way it is with horse racing. It's a game of handicapping and betting skill, but boy oh boy is there a lot of luck in the short run.



As with most games of skill where the skill is borne in the long run and lots of good and bad luck affect the short run (like football and poker), the team or individual that makes the fewest mistakes is (usually) the winner. It's not NECESSARILY about doing things spectacularly...it's about making less mistakes than your opponent (and yes, every time we enter into a parimutuel pool, we are opponents of each other). And of course, in games where it's all skill (like chess or a basketball free-throw shooting contest), it's ALL about not making mistakes and far more about the process.


My humble advice:


1. Review with a fine tooth comb your contender selection process and model. Slight changes to your process or algorithm can make a huge difference. You might be eliminating your profit before you even construct your bet. That is what I was doing. This is a HUGE mistake.



2. Don't believe all the old sayings. Most were made up by losers. For example, have you ever heard the saying, "Save for a rainy day"? Well, do you know what you get when you save for a rainy day? You get a bunch of fkg rainy days, that's what. "Pick your spots". <=== this is hogwash. How many juicy winners are you giving up by picking your spots? If you don't know the answer to this, then why are you picking your spots? Stop it.



3. Figure out a bankroll you will need. Then double it or triple it. Then be willing to risk it. Step out. Jerry Jones overpaid for the Dallas Cowboys. They called him and Jimmy Johnson "Jedd and Jethro" when they took over the Cowboys. 10 billion dollars later, who is Jedd and who is Jethro? Not Jimmy, and definitely NOT Jerry. If you lose your bankroll, so what? You did your best, but you can't win if you are "playing cheap" by not throwing in the extra horse that *might" pay boxcars or, conversely, including the morning line favorite because you are afraid of losing.



4. Make sure the type of bet you are betting is one where there is an inefficient pool. The win pool is not inefficient. It is EXTREMELY smart. AMAZINGLY smart. If you think you can beat the win, place, or show pool for 2,500 races or more, be my guest. I cannot. So I don't even try.



5. Stop complaining about jockey rides, trainers doping horses, the odds changing mid-race, and in general, how players keep getting screwed by track management. These thoughts are toxic and they won't serve you well. In fact, they will affect your judgment, and when your judgment is affected by negative thoughts, do you know what happens? Yep, you get a bunch of rainy days. :-).



That's it for me. Good luck all. It's a great game, it's our passion and it is WORTH doing. Have fun and enjoy it now because it doesn't have to last forever.


Best,


Franco

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

+1

IMO, there are way too many very smart people out there for most of us to compete head to head with them using the same handicapping information and ideas about betting and be good enough to overcome the take. The problem of course is that the smartest people are using the information that explains the outcomes well. So you either need different information that's equally valid or you have to find the little holes in conventional wisdom.

After really breaking through in the mid 90s as I got more value oriented, my results began deteriorating around 5-6 years back. But I started rolling again in 2020, 2021 and now in 2022.

I think several things account for that.

1. I'm doing a better job of structuring my bets to match my value oriented opinions.

2. I'm doing a better job of recognizing the races where I actually have an edge.

3. I'm trying to avoid horses where I find myself in complete agreement with conventional wisdom.

4. Probably a little good fortune

That's excellent.

I think what gives you the best shot is that you're willing to do two things:

1. Look at your play with a critical eye to improve the process.
2. You're not in love with your approach as much as you are with the reality of producing a positive result.

[Dave Schwartz]

FRANCO:



Sincerely,
A Kindred Spirit
(On every point)
(Except the part about losing. When I begin to lose "unnaturally" I stop playing until I figure it out. Once went 3.5 years without making a bet because I couldn't win.)

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Boy, would I like to hear more about this.

2 reasons - I love contrarian & you've got a history of being sane. LOL

(Well, at least at the races.)

I haven't done this since my fledgling days when I attempted to follow Beyer's Picking Winners slavishly, right down to his checklist in the back for "Putting It All Together". But let's say I'm a conventional speed handicapper looking merely for consistency, in tomorrow's ninth at Tampa Bay (because under the free Brisnet sire PP's, Animal Kingdom is the first working link & gives us that race among a couple others tomorrow).

After noting that #3 and #5 both seem to weaken after a mile, I settle on #1, Latin Nikkita, with most recent figs of 74-73, which I prefer, albeit narrowly, over #8, I'm Buzzy's 73-72. Now I depart from Picking Winners in order to contrarily beat Nikkita, since I know my subjective win selection is going to lose roughly 67% in a ten horse field.

She breaks from the subtly slowish rail on straightaways, after benefitting from the outside in her last two, and quite possibly chases the lone leader #6, Mining Chrome, before the far turn.

Let's say I do this all the way down, arriving at #10, Water Witch, whose most recent 46 was achieved in the same race as a few others in here. I try mightily to upgrade her and speculate, without seeing the race, that she was likely wide and already trying to recover and improve on the first turn under urging, since she moves only from 9th to 8th at 4-1 odds, and since I know from experience that horses take some strides when asked to accelerate before doing so.

Perhaps I assign #10 33 win percentage pts. (7/5ish), and #1 roughly an 8th place finish and 3 win pct. pts. I will then bring my subjective "model" back in line with the "wisdom of the crowds" by odds-smoothing, while retaining my subjective "model" as having value input. I will have done so by utilizing predictive qualitative data, rather than quantitative data that the vast majority of pool money reflects.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I haven't done this since my fledgling days when I attempted to follow Beyer's Picking Winners slavishly, right down to his checklist in the back for "Putting It All Together". But let's say I'm a conventional speed handicapper looking merely for consistency, in tomorrow's ninth at Tampa Bay (because under the free Brisnet sire PP's, Animal Kingdom is the first working link & gives us that race among a couple others tomorrow).

After noting that #3 and #5 both seem to weaken after a mile, I settle on #1, Latin Nikkita, with most recent figs of 74-73, which I prefer, albeit narrowly, over #8, I'm Buzzy's 73-72. Now I depart from Picking Winners in order to contrarily beat Nikkita, since I know my subjective win selection is going to lose roughly 67% in a ten horse field.

She breaks from the subtly slowish rail on straightaways, after benefitting from the outside in her last two, and quite possibly chases the lone leader #6, Mining Chrome, before the far turn.

Let's say I do this all the way down, arriving at #10, Water Witch, whose most recent 46 was achieved in the same race as a few others in here. I try mightily to upgrade her and speculate, without seeing the race, that she was likely wide and already trying to recover and improve on the first turn under urging, since she moves only from 9th to 8th at 4-1 odds, and since I know from experience that horses take some strides when asked to accelerate before doing so.

Perhaps I assign #10 33 win percentage pts. (7/5ish), and #1 roughly an 8th place finish and 3 win pct. pts. I will then bring my subjective "model" back in line with the "wisdom of the crowds" by odds-smoothing, while retaining my subjective "model" as having value input. I will have done so by utilizing predictive qualitative data, rather than quantitative data that the vast majority of pool money reflects.

I'm up past my bed time. Will have to come back and distill this a bit.

Thank you.

[Franco Santiago]

Originally Posted by Suff

Blockchain predictive markets are one of many emerging technology's that Pari-mutuels should be examining.


Virtually anyone can make a market, take bets and manage payouts with anonymity. Pari-mutuels are anonymous peer-to-peer in the end.. Smart contract technology running on crypto rails makes it possible.

Additionally, DAO's (decentralized autonomous organizations) are ideal technologies for fractionalized ownership of assets.
Almost all of horse ownership is fractionalized.
DAO's could be a shot in the arm for bringing in new owners.

The gambling businesses are going to change or die. Not in the future, or next year , but now. Change now or die.

The Blockchain Vig is 1%.

These are tremendously good ideas. You should be horse racing's blockchain/smart contract/ guru. What about races in the Metaverse? We could be at the track and bet with "HRT" (horse racing tokens). Right?

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by Franco Santiago

These are tremendously good ideas. You should be horse racing's blockchain/smart contract/ guru. What about races in the Metaverse? We could be at the track and bet with "HRT" (horse racing tokens). Right?

I'll believe the 1% overhead when I see it. Would definitely be a game changer, but I can envision no scenario where the politicians (who firmly control all vices) would give up their cut, and of course the tracks and horsemen need a slice too.

Best case scenario would be a reduction to 10-12%, from current purse distribution metrics.

[Parkview_Pirate]

I strongly disagree with the idea that more technology is the answer to making profits, at least for the little minnows that most horseplayers are. You spend a lot of time learning somebody else's tool, developing your own, or tweaking models to arrive at....something that will not be as good as the whales' approach.

The game has changed where the pools are more efficient to the point it's very difficult to overcome the takeout. I would describe myself as a comprehensive handicapper, following the methods laid out by Davidowitz and Beyer, but that no longer works - at least for me. We now have to have the specialized or "zag" or "artful" approach to making a profit, with discipline being the biggest factor on winning or losing. If you can limit your technology to identifying the niche plays, then it can help - but for most players, it's tough to integrate that.

Discipline is not something I can easily overcome. When simulcasting came out, it was a big hit to the bankroll to play all the prime opportunities. At first I thought, "how sweet" to be able to use the PPs for all the tracks in the Form. When online contests became the thing, it was very difficult for me to pass a race without an action bet - since I had to handicap them all anyway.

The latest challenge is the decline in the quality of the product, which I doubt will improve over the years ahead. We're looking at an economy in decline, less discretionary money for owners and players to toss in the kitty, and contraction will continue. Like Thask pointed out, weekday racing is awful, and now I skip Sundays too. Saturdays I hope to find three or four bets.

I've given up sports betting and was never into the casino games or poker, but racing is definitely getting tougher to justify the effort. I've really enjoyed the last 37 years to so playing the ponies, but like the OP it's been a grind into the dust for me too.