Well how about that...

[TiffaniO]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I wish I had some winning tickets to post...

I’ve felt the same way many times!

[Appy]

Beautiful hit Tiffanio.

"every system works occasionally"

There ya go. But it takes a lot of bank to cover long dry spells.
Years ago I developed my own "Big Strike" system. It was database driven but filtered for high odds frequency that produced relatively consistent hit intervals. For a period of about 8 weeks I went trough an ungodly run of luck. Haven't hit another one like those for several years now, ever since I took up pace handicapping! LOL.
Anyway, I always reminded myself to always remember that there are 2 ways to win big. 1) Put lots of risk on the table, or 2) play horses than can pay big.

Love to hear about someone hitting a big one. Congrats and I'm really happy for you.

[GMB@BP]

The ABC X ticket allows my, if I am right in a couple other legs, to go fairly deep in others. There are some races I want 8-10 horses in the sequence because a race is that wide open, I have to play within a bit of a budget, I would be broke with multiple 1K tickets with any kind of a dry spell.

I fully understand that may speak to my poor handicapping skills and economic situation but it is my reality.

[RunForTheRoses]

Saw Crist at the NHC seemed down to earth, was with Watchmaker (ok the brutha has some flaws-just joking). As far as the abc system i really only use it on a modified basus. You have to be real real good to discern As from Bs and Cs and i don't think Im at his level. I will play a caveman like ticket and another one or two where if some horses i like win Ill have more going for me in other races.
Crist was quite good on Harvey Pack and his Spa blog. His memoir is essential Horsehead reading.

[thaskalos]

IMO...the staple of the horizontal wager should be the caveman ticket. You start with the caveman ticket...and you use additional "a-b-c" tickets if you have confidence in your contender separation. But the foundation should be the caveman ticket...especially for pick-4s and beyond.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO...the staple of the horizontal wager should be the caveman ticket. You start with the caveman ticket...and you use additional "a-b-c" tickets if you have confidence in your contender separation. But the foundation should be the caveman ticket...especially for pick-4s and beyond.

I am confused. Isn't a caveman ticket one where you use all of your contenders on 1 ticket? If so, how would additional "a-b-c" come into play? With the significantly lower betting limits caveman is doable today but playing $2 P-6s in years past in that style would have been financial suicide for most players.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I am confused. Isn't a caveman ticket one where you use all of your contenders on 1 ticket? If so, how would additional "a-b-c" come into play? With the significantly lower betting limits caveman is doable today but playing $2 P-6s in years past in that style would have been financial suicide for most players.

So what? I could easily say that betting on horses PERIOD is "financial suicide for most players"...and, although true...it would have meant NOTHING.

I play my pick-6s using the strict "caveman" approach, and, surprisingly enough...I am still active in the game. Unlike some of my "more learned" counterparts...

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I am confused. Isn't a caveman ticket one where you use all of your contenders on 1 ticket? If so, how would additional "a-b-c" come into play?

Yes...the caveman ticket uses all the contenders on one ticket. I start with the caveman ticket...because I don't want to screw myself out of a huge payoff due to "advanced" ticket structure. And the additional "a-b-c" ticket(s) would predominantly use my MAIN contenders...so I could have several smaller winning tickets, should the wager feature only shorter-priced winners.

[garyscpa]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes...the caveman ticket uses all the contenders on one ticket. I start with the caveman ticket...because I don't want to screw myself out of a huge payoff due to "advanced" ticket structure. And the additional "a-b-c" ticket(s) would predominantly use my MAIN contenders...so I could have several smaller winning tickets, should the wager feature only shorter-priced winners.

Yes, did that on Preakness day on the pick 6. Got $41.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

So what? I could easily say that betting on horses PERIOD is "financial suicide for most players"...and, although true...it would have meant NOTHING.

I play my pick-6s using the strict "caveman" approach, and, surprisingly enough...I am still active in the game. Unlike some of my "more learned" counterparts...

Good for you. I didn't say it couldn't be done just that it is very difficult to do. We could discuss the logic or strategy of giving equal weight to marginal contenders on horizontal tickets but given your unwavering opinion that would be a waste of time.

I am happily inactive as a bettor. I don't miss the long hours of preparation and record keeping. It ceased being a "game" for me many years ago. It was a full-time job with a lot of overtime. I did well and put far more into the bank than I withdrew. But for me betting was a selfish endeavor. Success was dependent on someone else's failure. There was no gratification of building something or helping someone that can be associated with many other jobs.

[Denny]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO...the staple of the horizontal wager should be the caveman ticket. You start with the caveman ticket...and you use additional "a-b-c" tickets if you have confidence in your contender separation. But the foundation should be the caveman ticket...especially for pick-4s and beyond.

I'm with you on this one too Thask.

No way I'm leaving out a valid combination and then regretting not having it when it comes in.
Those are usually the big ones few people have.

I know from experience.

[Denny]

Who started calling it a "caveman" anyway?

Was it Crist? I really don't know, just wondering.

It's condescending of whoever did come up with the term..
Comparing people who use all their contenders to primitive cavemen.
Like they're not smart enough.

I won't use the term.

[Exotic1]

Originally Posted by TiffaniO

I get a kick out of it because someone clicked the reputation button and said “she doesn’t know much”.

Well what I do know is... this is the sole winning ticket.

Very nice !!

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Good for you. I didn't say it couldn't be done just that it is very difficult to do. We could discuss the logic or strategy of giving equal weight to marginal contenders on horizontal tickets but given your unwavering opinion that would be a waste of time.

I am happily inactive as a bettor. I don't miss the long hours of preparation and record keeping. It ceased being a "game" for me many years ago. It was a full-time job with a lot of overtime. I did well and put far more into the bank than I withdrew. But for me betting was a selfish endeavor. Success was dependent on someone else's failure. There was no gratification of building something or helping someone that can be associated with many other jobs.

This doesn't bother me at the track...but it has been bothering me more and more at the poker table. I'm not a natural "predator"...and it's not a pleasant thing for me to isolate on the "weak" players at the poker table, while I try to avoid the strong ones as much as I can. I once saw an animal channel program, where a hungry wolf was following a pack of wildebeests...hoping to feast on a sickly one that was too weak to stay with the group. At the time, that seemed to me to be a cowardly, lazy way to hunt for food...and yet that's what I do in the Vegas poker rooms 5 nights a week. It doesn't make me proud...and I try to rationalize it by telling myself that the fools will lose their money to someone else, if they don't lose it to me.

But this doesn't faze me at the racebooks...where the winners don't directly reach into the losers' pockets for their profits. Yes...gambling isn't a very constructive way to make a living...but the bills still need to get paid.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Denny

Who started calling it a "caveman" anyway?

Was it Crist? I really don't know, just wondering.

It's condescending of whoever did come up with the term..
Comparing people who use all their contenders to primitive cavemen.
Like they're not smart enough.

I won't use the term.

first person I heard it from was Andy Serling, and this was a decade before Crist wrote the book.