HANDICAPPING IS RANDOM - Page 4 - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

DeltaLover · 06-23-2015, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It seems that we have BOTH extreme views voiced on this board. Some believe that horse racing is nothing but a physics problem waiting to be solved...while others think that the game is random, and it's "randomness" cannot be overcome. And then there are the rest of us...who believe that BOTH these opinions are wrong.

I'm glad that I'm not some confused newcomer...who is coming to this site seeking some sort of direction in this game. Whom does the newcomer believe?

I think that both of this views are easy to justify:

(1) Of course, racing (as any other physical activity) can be viewed as a physics problem. Still, this view is not very helpful for betting purposes. simply because although dominated by the laws of nature, a race remains a chaotic event that is impossible to predict deterministically

(2) A very casual look on the rankings of each horse in a race, as it is determined by the crowd, is enough to convince us that the the game is not a random event, in the sense that each horse does not have the same chance as the all the other starters in the same race.

The newcomer needs to understand and believe, that he is betting againt a very
competitive public, that is leaving very few possibilities for profitability, given
its accuracy in its assessments. He also needs to realize, that the game is not
about picking winners but about finding possible systematic errors in the way the
betting crowd is forming its opinion. Still, the margins for profit are extremely
tiny in this game, not only because the pools are very competitive but also because
the extremely high take out, converts even a better than average horse gambler to a
long run looser.

thaskalos · 06-23-2015, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

The newcomer needs to understand and believe, that he is betting againt a very
competitive public, that is leaving very few possibilities for profitability, given
its accuracy in its assessments. He also needs to realize, that the game is not
about picking winners but about finding possible systematic errors in the way the
betting crowd is forming its opinion. Still, the margins for profit are extremely
tiny in this game, not only because the pools are very competitive but also because
the extremely high take out, converts even a better than average horse gambler to a
long run looser.

And then we wonder why the newcomers don't stick around long in our game.

Robert Fischer · 06-23-2015, 03:09 PM

we ought to look into fields such as probability, and borrow a bet-sizing methodology

thaskalos · 06-23-2015, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

we ought to look into fields such as probability, and borrow a bet-sizing methodology

Borrow it from whom?

Flysofree · 06-23-2015, 03:11 PM

What has remained constant throughout is that Favorites win about 33% of all races... (Ok 31 to 35%) if that make you feel better. If you have a big enough bankroll and can bet at the very last flash of the toteboard And you are on one of those sites that give you high rebates... you can make money.

Hugh Bankroll + Favorite + Rebates = Profit.

DeltaLover · 06-23-2015, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thaskalos

And then we wonder why the newcomers don't stick around long in our game.

Unfortunately this is the truth, even if we want to accept it or not.

Still, horse racing has a huge potential as a betting game, but it needs to find its
way to the 21st century first, and then it will have valid hopes to attract the lion's
share among the younger gamblers.

Following the example of more advanced countries (always from the betting prespective of course), the industry needs to adopt changes like betting exchanges and fixed odds provided by electronic bookies. These are important directional changes to make the game more attractive and popular among bettors.

Of course, the reality is not exactly promising when it comes to the future of the "game" part of horse racing, which seems lost in the anachronistic betting instruments of the beginings of the last century.

Magister Ludi · 06-23-2015, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PIC6SIX

I have come to the conclusion that picking winners is random. Losers pick winners. Winners pick overlays.

You can read all the books on handicapping and know trainer angles, body language, pace and speed figures but all is just junk theory.

If picking winners is an art and science that can be mastered then why did BEL have a pick-6 carryover of $321,000 C/O today Insufficient data to choose overlays.

why don't hcp software developers win consistently I do.

lorem ipsum

AndyC · 06-23-2015, 04:37 PM

If picking winners is an art and science that can be mastered then why did BEL have a pick-6 carryover of $321,000 C/O today?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magisiter Ludi

Insufficient data to choose overlays.

Choosing overlays has no bearing on whether or not there is a carryover.

Robert Fischer · 06-23-2015, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyC

Choosing overlays has no bearing on whether or not there is a carryover.

No, but a 'wacky' pick-6 outcome is not meaningful in an argument that claims that 'handicapping is random' and that trying to pick overlays is futile.

raybo · 06-23-2015, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Exactly because the winning frequency is not correlated with the quality of a player. Increasing the number of winners this is clearly NOT the objective of the game and the same can be said for ROI figures as well

It is correlated with the quality of the handicapper, which I'm sure you knew is what I meant. Or, are you also saying that horse racing is random? He didn't mince his words, he flat stated that "horse racing is random", period.

We all know that hit rate does not determine profitability, by itself, so we don't need to go there, again. But, if horse racing was indeed random, the better handicappers could not pick more winners than everyone else. But, of course, most of us know that if that is what the better 'capper wanted to do, he/she certainly could.

raybo · 06-23-2015, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It seems that we have BOTH extreme views voiced on this board. Some believe that horse racing is nothing but a physics problem waiting to be solved...while others think that the game is random, and its "randomness" cannot be overcome. And then there are the rest of us...who believe that BOTH these opinions are wrong.

I'm glad that I'm not some confused newcomer...who is coming to this site seeking some sort of direction in this game. Whom does the newcomer believe?

The newcomer should strive to find out what is true and what isn't, for him/herself. It isn't rocket science, and the most green new player, who has an average amount of intelligence and common sense, should certainly be able to figure out who's full of it and who isn't, just by using his/her noggin a bit.

AndyC · 06-23-2015, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

No, but a 'wacky' pick-6 outcome is not meaningful in an argument that claims that 'handicapping is random' and that trying to pick overlays is futile.

For many handicappers handicapping is random and finding overlays is a function of making the right mistakes.

DeltaLover · 06-23-2015, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raybo

It is correlated with the quality of the handicapper, which I'm sure you knew is what I meant. Or, are you also saying that horse racing is random? He didn't mince his words, he flat stated that "horse racing is random", period.

We all know that hit rate does not determine profitability, by itself, so we don't need to go there, again. But, if horse racing was indeed random, the better handicappers could not pick more winners than everyone else. But, of course, most of us know that if that is what the better 'capper wanted to do, he/she certainly could.

I clarified already, that horse racing is not random, in the sense that all the horses have the same chance to win and it would be funny for someone to claim so.

I think that the OP could have expressed his statement in a better way, but as I have said before, when he says random, he is referring to the PNL rather than the hit rate.

EMD4ME · 06-23-2015, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by green80

You know your horses.

Ha ha. Thank you green80. I wish I knew more. In life you can never learn enough.

That horse was the only example that stuck out in my mind. It was a random stab.

I hope we have a Deja Vu moment over and over again LOL. I love and I'm sure you love $36 horses as well.

Some_One · 06-23-2015, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

I clarified already, that horse racing is not random, in the sense that all the horses have the same chance to win and it would be funny for someone to claim so.

I think that the OP could have expressed his statement in a better way, but as I have said before, when he says random, he is referring to the PNL rather than the hit rate.

Well P&L doesn't reflect randomness, but efficiency of markets which is a whole other discussion.