The only one absolute truth toward profitability

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You say that there are four essential measuring tools in a race...and that each of these measuring tools can, individually, determine whether a horse wins or loses a race. Does this mean that you regard these "measuring tools" to be equal in value and importance...or do they vary in significance?

If a 10-horse field runs at 10 different configurations of the same distance...is there a very good possibility that we will have 10 different winners?

They vary in significance. A sprinting type horse facing 1 1/16 types will more than likely win at 5 1/2 furlongs, due to the distance, whether it would be in a straight line, or around one turn. Change to a three turn, the sprinting type may not be the most likely winner. Alright three turns may not be physically possible at 5 1/2, but you get the concept, the measurement itself determines which potential, winning or losing will happen

Yes, it is a good possibility to have possibly 10 different winners based on configuration. It takes a different type horse to win on the SA down hill course, than another course, just like Kentucky Downs.

That is why horse racing is dynamic and challenging you need to decide which essential factor is the important one. Change each individually, the distance, the configuration enough, the surface enough, the competition enough you will get varying results.

[Dave Schwartz]

I understand about tossing out one low price horse, even better if you can toss two. I guess the question, I am asking, do you wager only on the horse with matching natural odds, what do you do with the other top choice who is a contender, or other contenders who have less than their natural odds?

The way, I understand the capper al's statement you bet just the natural odds horse. I may be wrong in my interpretation and that is why, I asked the question.

I understand about tossing out one low price horse, even better if you can toss two.

First, my experience is that when I am tossing two low-priced horses, I (or my approach) probably has misunderstood the race. I do not play such races.


do you wager only on the horse with matching natural odds, what do you do with the other top choice who is a contender, or other contenders who have less than their natural odds?

Actually, what I do is to make a probability line for everyone in the race and penalize the non-contenders severely.

I have experimented with automatically playing those "natural odds" contenders and they are, in fact, significantly profitable. However, the question of how to play them is a big one because they really do not win very often. I am looking for more consistency, and that generally comes from the other profitable contenders.

Of course, this pre-supposes that you are good at tossing low-priced horses; that when you say they are "losers" they really are.

An important reminder: That does not mean the horses you toss cannot win. It means that the win few enough races relative to the way they are bet that their backers lose huge money. (Like 40% or more.)

If you really want to know how I play, and how YOU can duplicate what I do to make a probability line, just order the Renegade Handicapper.

Just to make it easier for anyone interested here, I have lowered the price to $47 for a few days (usually $77).


Dave

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by magwell

After further review.... Nobody knows "the one absolute truth to profitability"......

Is that it?

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

If I understand you correctly, is this what you mean?

8 horse field, natural odds are 1/8, which translates to 12.5 percent. So the absolute truth is to bet the contender with odds of 7 to 1?

That's it-- 7/1 or higher for an 8 horse field. Actually Dave's Basics of Winning does not state the axiom as a truth, Dave shows the implementation of the lost truth that we all see when we start playing the game. One gets the 'how to' from Dave.

The only thing that we know for sure (and thus why it is called the only absolute truth) is that handicapped horses beat random horses, so why beat anything less than random odds?

We are inspired when we first start playing the game and hitting maybe 20% winners beating out the random 12.5% of an average 8 horse field. We then get hooked and figure if we can just find a way to hit a few more winners or a few more higher priced winners then we've got it. But alas we go down the wrong path with this misunderstanding-- we are doomed forever. As anyone can see now, there is nothing relative about this truth. It applies to all. Relative truths are for losers who get lucky at times.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Al,I think we are moving along different but parallel lines in how to operate.I think the first x amount of years are spent complicating reality(learning) as thoroughly and deeply as possible.After a requisite understanding of the game is achieved the outlook needs to be purified and efficient as possible.It needs an a to b to c simplification.A clear cut purpose and vision for achieving the goal.I have looked at contender/noncontender status as a hub for a few years.Dave's method really cuts through and captures where that thinking should lead.At end we only differ in value and final decision interpretation.But no two individuals are alike in that regard anyway.

[magwell]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Is that it?

Past posting would be "the only one absolute way" if the truth be told........

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by magwell

Past posting would be "the only one absolute way" if the truth be told........

You get the only one absolute truth dropped in your lap and you fuss for words? I'm not discounting that people find their own ways to handicap which make for a what works senario or relative truth for one's own system. What I'm saying is at the end of the day, the one truth that stands between us all is that handicapped horses beat random. It can't be any other way or one shouldn't play the game.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

Al,I think we are moving along different but parallel lines in how to operate.I think the first x amount of years are spent complicating reality(learning) as thoroughly and deeply as possible.After a requisite understanding of the game is achieved the outlook needs to be purified and efficient as possible.It needs an a to b to c simplification.A clear cut purpose and vision for achieving the goal.I have looked at contender/noncontender status as a hub for a few years.Dave's method really cuts through and captures where that thinking should lead.At end we only differ in value and final decision interpretation.But no two individuals are alike in that regard anyway.

You're right from what I have seen when we played together.

Thanks

[maddog42]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

SMTW,

The issue that was left out was that you need to be able to do is to toss out one of the low-priced horses.

The presupposition here is also that you have a track record which supports the fact that when YOU toss a low-odds horse he significantly under-performs (i.e. returns very little monies to his backers).

Well that is the crux of the matter isn't it? The implication here is if you toss a false favorite or 2nd lowest odds horse that it frees up enough money to create value in the other legitimate contenders. While I certainly agree with this, there are other scenarios that happen MORE often. One of my theories is that the 4th and 5th contenders offer more value than any horse in a race. That is why I would quibble with the "natural odds" part of your system. A horse having only an 8% chance of winning can be a helluva overlay if it is 20-1. I find this happens in contentious 8,9,10 horse fields quite often.

Lest Dave think I am picking on him (really only nitpicking) let me give his method,( I haven't purchased it) as described some praise. I have defended
his and Al's statements and actually think this may be close to an absolute truth.
I had a great conversation with Dave about toteboard odds and whale betting a few months back and it was enlightening.
Thanks Dave.
If you can select legitimate contenders in a horse race you are more than half way to winning.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by maddog42

Well that is the crux of the matter isn't it? The implication here is if you toss a false favorite or 2nd lowest odds horse that it frees up enough money to create value in the other legitimate contenders. While I certainly agree with this, there are other scenarios that happen MORE often. One of my theories is that the 4th and 5th contenders offer more value than any horse in a race. That is why I would quibble with the "natural odds" part of your system. A horse having only an 8% chance of winning can be a helluva overlay if it is 20-1. I find this happens in contentious 8,9,10 horse fields quite often.

Lest Dave think I am picking on him (really only nitpicking) let me give his method,( I haven't purchased it) as described some praise. I have defended
his and Al's statements and actually think this may be close to an absolute truth.
I had a great conversation with Dave about toteboard odds and whale betting a few months back and it was enlightening.
Thanks Dave.
If you can select legitimate contenders in a horse race you are more than half way to winning.

If you pick contenders well then you'll find yourself using the fourth or fifth favorite several times. They are almost one in the same. There is nothing to quibble about.

[Pace Cap'n]

Scared money don't win.

What's scared money? Any bet made with the hope of recouping prior losses (chasing). Last-race betting to "get out for the day". Any wager made that you really can't afford, or any wager you'd like to make but can't. Any bet that imperils your bankroll, yet you feel compelled to make. And scared money don't win.

[Show Me the Wire]

Dave,

Thanks for your answer.

I agree with you. Knowing you look, from reading your postings and listening to some videos, for more consistency, and that generally comes from the other profitable contenders I really doubted the focus, it seemed, capper al placed, on natural odds.

My compliments to you regarding your theories about value.

Also thanks to capper al for starting this worth while thread.

[Show Me the Wire]

Sitting and watching HRTV. Kurt Hoover and Millie Ball, wife of Tim Yakteen, are doing the analysis. Yakteen's trainee, Grand Giant, is the even money favorite at post time.

I don't have the PPs, so I can't comment on the quality of the field, only on Millie's statement about distance being the determinate factor, in this race.

Millie stated in response to Kurt's question asking why Grand Giant had some real good races and some poor races that the connections believed Grand Giant was suited to routing, but they found out he was a better suited to sprinting.

He was entered because the timing of the race and not the distance. She further added , she thought Grand Giant was a vulnerable favorite, due to the distance. Grand Giant ran a good race setting reasonable fractions, but lost.

If the public knew this information before the race, do you think the horse would have been bet down to 4/5? On the other hand the public sill was correct as the second choice won the race.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Millie stated in response to Kurt's question asking why Grand Giant had some real good races and some poor races that the connections believed Grand Giant was suited to routing, but they found out he was a better suited to sprinting.

He was entered because the timing of the race and not the distance. She further added , she thought Grand Giant was a vulnerable favorite, due to the distance. Grand Giant ran a good race setting reasonable fractions, but lost.

If the public knew this information before the race, do you think the horse would have been bet down to 4/5? On the other hand the public sill was correct as the second choice won the race.

I don't have the PP's, either, but (based on your post) regardless of the beliefs or intentions of the horse's connections, wouldn't Grand Giant's distance preferences have been discernible from prior races, and taken into account by the public in setting its odds (even if the horse might have been overbet)? Or had the horse's connections somehow darkened the horse's form to conceal its preference for sprints from the public?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Sitting and watching HRTV. Kurt Hoover and Millie Ball, wife of Tim Yakteen, are doing the analysis. Yakteen's trainee, Grand Giant, is the even money favorite at post time.

I don't have the PPs, so I can't comment on the quality of the field, only on Millie's statement about distance being the determinate factor, in this race.

Millie stated in response to Kurt's question asking why Grand Giant had some real good races and some poor races that the connections believed Grand Giant was suited to routing, but they found out he was a better suited to sprinting.

He was entered because the timing of the race and not the distance. She further added , she thought Grand Giant was a vulnerable favorite, due to the distance. Grand Giant ran a good race setting reasonable fractions, but lost.

If the public knew this information before the race, do you think the horse would have been bet down to 4/5? On the other hand the public sill was correct as the second choice won the race.

The horse would have been bet down. His last two figs of 73 towered over the next best entrant's 64, and the main competition, Rob's Pal, (5/2 ml) was scratched due to "off the turf". Grand Giant was dropping from maiden-special-weight into Maiden $75,000 claiming with Bejarano, and had only tried a route once on the grass, weakening at the 6f mark after dueling at 5-1 odds. His best two finishes were seconds at 6f, 6 1/2 f, closing as much as 3 3/4 lengths from the half mile to the finish.