The Greatest of All Time - Bob Baffert

[airford1]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

And Barry Bonds is the greatest home run hitter ever...???

In my life time and yours too. Troy Persiville tried to get a 100mph fastball by him and we never saw a baseball leave the park so fast.

[classhandicapper]

Ivey is a degenerate gambler, who has lost many millions of dollars in irresponsible gambling of all sorts,

That kind of thing always amaze me because my perception of the winning gambler has always been thoughtful controlled wagering when you are fairly certain you have an edge.

The degenerate gambler is the exact opposite. They may want to win just as badly, but they like action so much they knowingly or unknowingly venture off into wagers where they are at a disadvantage.

It never occurred to me that you could be both, but in the poker world it seems like there are a lot of people like that.

[airford1]

I am amazed how the Losers love to Drag a successful person down to their losing level. Next y'all are going to be sending donations to PETA .

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Ivey is a degenerate gambler, who has lost many millions of dollars in irresponsible gambling of all sorts, so...it's no surprise to me that he failed to "make such calculations". A person can be a genius in one thing...and a moron in everything else. I'm not defending what Ivey did...what I am saying is that the casinos have done far worse. And they always get away with it...because the "law" always blows their way. There is a reason why the lawyers have the reputation that they do, Mr. Dilanesp.

You deal with the legal landscape the way it is, though.

None of this is the fault of the legal profession. This is just how contracts work. And part of gambling is understanding whether you are going to get paid, as well as considering whether you are betting on or against cheaters. It's not lawyers' fault you can't sue when someone fixes a horse race- it's the basic deal made between the sport of horse racing and the bettor.

Many countries don't have as many lawyers as we do, and yet you can't sue in their court systems for lost wagers either. Saying that we simply pay out on the "OFFICIAL" and that's it, is a good rule for bettors.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

That kind of thing always amaze me because my perception of the winning gambler has always been thoughtful controlled wagering when you are fairly certain you have an edge.

The degenerate gambler is the exact opposite. They may want to win just as badly, but they like action so much they knowingly or unknowingly venture off into wagers where they are at a disadvantage.

It never occurred to me that you could be both, but in the poker world it seems like there are a lot of people like that.

Not just the poker world.

Think about this. What gets people INTERESTED in gambling? We all start off as losers, don't we? So why did we get interested? Because gambling is fun.

Well, gambling does not stop being fun when you start winning. And even very smart people have gambling compulsions, engage in motivated reasoning, are too impatient to wait for spots, and overestimate their own abilities.

How about just within horse racing? How many people do you know who are good handicappers but bet too many races, or bet too many exotics, or are unable to pass races or horizontal wagers? How many people do you know who are good handicappers but who bet a lot on every big race like the Kentucky Derby or Breeders' Cup races whether or not they have any edge? How many people do you know who are good handicappers but put too many horses into their horizontals and verticals because they just want to cash a ticket?

One more thing. The gambling world is full of smart people with dysfunctional personalities. People who can't hold down 9 to 5 jobs. Who have drug habits or spending habits. Well- people like that are super-susceptible to getting themselves into situations where they have to gamble to win the rent money, or the money necessary to get their car out of hock, or whatever. Which leads to gambling in situations where there is no edge.

I love gambling. And I truly love the mathematical side of it. I try to be as rational and patient a gambler as I can be. But in my experience, the truly rational person who never bets in any situation where he or she does not have an edge is the rarest form of gamblers. Many more folks could actually achieve decent winrates if they would try to be that person. But it's really hard for the type of person who gets attracted to gambling in the first place to be that person.

[burnsy]

https://www.theonion.com/bob-baffert...ter-1846975498

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

........How about just within horse racing? How many people do you know who are good handicappers but bet too many races, or bet too many exotics, or are unable to pass races or horizontal wagers? How many people do you know who are good handicappers but who bet a lot on every big race like the Kentucky Derby or Breeders' Cup races whether or not they have any edge? How many people do you know who are good handicappers but put too many horses into their horizontals and verticals because they just want to cash a ticket?.......

Without having a thorough understanding of a person's gambling knowledge how could someone judge whether or not there are "too many" bets being made?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Without having a thorough understanding of a person's gambling knowledge how could someone judge whether or not there are "too many" bets being made?

1. Because there is a 15-22 percent takeout and therefore only a limited number of races and combinations can ever offer betting value

2. Because I understand human psychology as it applies to gambling, and the mental desire for action and rewards.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by airford1

I am amazed how the Losers love to Drag a successful person down to their losing level. Next y'all are going to be sending donations to PETA .

Bob? or maybe Bill?

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

1. Because there is a 15-22 percent takeout and therefore only a limited number of races and combinations can ever offer betting value

2. Because I understand human psychology as it applies to gambling, and the mental desire for action and rewards.

On the surface, both your replies are acceptable....

However, when it comes to players with rebates, certain horizontal plays and tournaments, the bets/plays are much more frequent than is taken into account from your previous statements.

I also believe you are well aware of these facts, just maybe not so much as a serious daily horse "player" is......Of course, same could be said for poker players, but it's more narrower for them in their overall scope.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

1. Because there is a 15-22 percent takeout and therefore only a limited number of races and combinations can ever offer betting value

2. Because I understand human psychology as it applies to gambling, and the mental desire for action and rewards.

1. I recall reading in one of Andy Beyer's books that he wagered on every single trifecta race offered during a Gulfstream meet....except for one. "I mustn't have been feeling good that day"...Beyer quipped. Does that make Andy Beyer a "loser"?

2. There is indeed a mental desire for "action"...but it isn't as widespread as you make it seem. There are plenty of people out there who look for "sure things' at the racetrack...and "pocket aces" at the poker table.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

1. Because there is a 15-22 percent takeout and therefore only a limited number of races and combinations can ever offer betting value

2. Because I understand human psychology as it applies to gambling, and the mental desire for action and rewards.

Again, what constitutes too many? Even if there was no takeout there would still be a limited number of races and combinations that offered betting value.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Again, what constitutes too many? Even if there was no takeout there would still be a limited number of races and combinations that offered betting value.

Let me think about that one for a second....

[AMPHAR]

The attempt of cheating will always be there. It’s up to the governing body to enforce the rules and gain the public’s faith to believe in fair competition.

Does anyone really truly believe the amount of NFL players that are Bo Jackson like today are just naturally blessed?

NFL does a good enough job testing and suspending to make it an after thought to sports gamblers. Although the player population is unhealthy juiced up beyond belief.

Now officiating; that’s a different story.

Major tracks with big races can gain market advantage by seperating themselves from others with a few suspensions and what seems to be hard line stances.

But you’ll always have cheaters when there is money to be won.

[MJC922]

There are real probabilities for every horse, even if it's all theoretical and unknown -- maybe only god knows what they really are but they do exist. That also means each horse's percentage of the pool is either higher or lower than that real probability. On average half of the horses will be higher with the other half lower than the actual probability.

So I agree, even with zero takeout then on average we have half the field running as underlays. With takeout applied however instead of maybe four overlays on average we likely have just one or two per race. In every race there's an overlay IMO but the handicapper would have to be so well-rounded to spot it each race that it's probably an unrealistic goal. Half the time it may have something going for it you don't even look at or notice. The other half it could be something negative we didn't notice about some other horse today which creates the overlay on some others that otherwise appeared to be right-priced on their own merits.

Betting every race and thinking we've spotted the overlay is still 'workable' though with variable bet sizes, something like prime and action bets certainly can be profitable (worked for me), something like half-kelly should work too if someone is really on point with their linemaking, but I'm fairly sure losing streaks will unhinge more than 90% of all players. Not many people have the ability to lose multiple days in a row, multiple weeks sometimes and stick to the program, they chase, they change things up, the handicapping goes off the rails etc. I did the prime and action thing successfully but it's not a pleasant way to get through life day to day having to call upon more self-control each week than most people have any need to use in a year.

Maybe some rare people handle the ups and downs better, maybe they meditate to get through this. During the season I practiced and raced motorcycles after my nine races at the track to help with the risk-taking urges that were pent up in my system. Unfortunately I nearly broke my neck more than once and eventually either the lord or that sharp line-making voice from the track spoke up and said hey you ... by now you surely know you're lucky that you aren't paralyzed (or dead). Sell the bike.

Of course I listened.