Is a Positive ROI Attainable and Sustainable- How Would You Know?

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I may have mentioned this at some other time, but there was one night at Mountaineer when you could have bet every horse on the card to win, boxed the entire field in every race in the exacta, boxed the entire field in each race in the trifecta, and did the same in the Superfecta and you'd have been ahead something like $16,000 for the night. No handicapping, just a big enough bankroll.

Yes, if anyone doubts that, that can happen.
I remember a table of high rollers in our O.T.B. at the Breeders Cup one year in the 90's who all chipped in and played that theory. As I recall, they did very well that day. (They were up thousands, but I don't remember how much.)
They tried that for several years after and lost big time all of their previous winnings. I don't recall for certain that they played Supers or horizontal bets.
But that does, can, and did happen, at least once in my memory.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I may have mentioned this at some other time, but there was one night at Mountaineer when you could have bet every horse on the card to win, boxed the entire field in every race in the exacta, boxed the entire field in each race in the trifecta, and did the same in the Superfecta and you'd have been ahead something like $16,000 for the night. No handicapping, just a big enough bankroll.

If only this strategy could work for more than one unforeseen night.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

You have to remember you are playing against other bettors. If you choose to play at Saratoga or Santa Anita, you are often playing against the best handicappers around. But if you play tracks like Arapahoe Park, Delta Downs, Albuquerque, and maybe even tracks like Emerald or Canterbury.

It stands to reason that the more expert the crowd, the harder it is to beat them, and vice versa.

1. Would you agree that the "best handicappers around" are most likely the whales?

2. Would you agree that the percentage of pool wagered by the whales goes up at the higher rebate tracks?

If you can agree with both of these statements, then you this statement would be exactly backwards.

If you choose to play at Saratoga or Santa Anita, you are often playing against the best handicappers around. But if you play tracks like Arapahoe Park, Delta Downs, Albuquerque, and maybe even tracks like Emerald or Canterbury.

The "better" handicappers would (technically) be at the smaller tracks and the bigger tracks would be easier to beat.

This has been exactly my experience.


Dave

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

1. Would you agree that the "best handicappers around" are most likely the whales?


Dave

I can't see Halv saying Yes to that, IMO.
1. No.
Their advisors probably.

Do "Whales" even handicap horses themselves???
and don't say that you don't know.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Wizard of Odds

But that must have been an ususual night where longshots won almost every race. If you bet like that every night, you would lose more than 20 cents for every dollar you bet on ANY track (an exception would be betting into a huge carryover pool)

In order to win big money, you would normally want to bet into the big NY and CA tracks to get into big pools so your own bets don't crush the odds for you.

It's an interesting discussion. A big fish in a small pond can make good money, even betting smaller than he might at a big track. I know that for years before there was real intertrack wagering, Centennial Race Track was where I played. I had a lot of really good years, and I'm sure it had a lot to do with who I was betting against.

Of course, that Mountaineer night was unusual, but I was emphasizing the point that the unusual rarely ever happens at the bigger tracks. I can't remember the last time I saw a superfecta pay to an all in the fourth slot in NY. There's enough money that somebody always seems to have even the ridiculous combination covered.

It all comes down to where you think you can make whatever level of return works best for you. The crowd or the ambience at Saratoga or Del Mar is an attraction, and you can put a lot of money through the mutuels without screwing yourself, but I think for a lot of people who bet no more than $200-$300 a day, a smaller track might represent a better choice.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

I can't see Halv saying Yes to that, IMO.
1. No.
Their advisors probably.

Do "Whales" even handicap horses themselves???
and don't say that you don't know.

Of course "they" do.

So, you do not believe that the whales are the best handicappers?

I am shocked that you would say "No."


The only guys I am aware of who attempted to use a "think tank" approach lost almost a million dollars between them trying to make it work.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Of course "they" do.

So, you do not believe that the whales are the best handicappers?

I am shocked that you would say "No."

C'mon Dave, you're a very bright man. We all respect that.
Unless you know otherwise, please bring us up to speed on what you disagree about the following:

A. No. They are not the "best" handicappers.
B. You know that.
C. They have good advice
D. The "Whales" are astute about weighting betting - when, how, and how much
E. I don't think that you are shocked I'd say No.

[Wizard of Odds]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

It's an interesting discussion. A big fish in a small pond can make good money, even betting smaller than he might at a big track. I know that for years before there was real intertrack wagering, Centennial Race Track was where I played. I had a lot of really good years, and I'm sure it had a lot to do with who I was betting against.

Of course, that Mountaineer night was unusual, but I was emphasizing the point that the unusual rarely ever happens at the bigger tracks. I can't remember the last time I saw a superfecta pay to an all in the fourth slot in NY. There's enough money that somebody always seems to have even the ridiculous combination covered.

It all comes down to where you think you can make whatever level of return works best for you. The crowd or the ambience at Saratoga or Del Mar is an attraction, and you can put a lot of money through the mutuels without screwing yourself, but I think for a lot of people who bet no more than $200-$300 a day, a smaller track might represent a better choice.

To put this into perspective:

Let's say an avid fan of this small track is a great value handicapper and can attain a sustainable ROI of 1.25 (25% positive is, indeed, VERY high) on their bets and let's further assume that their own bets have no reductive influence on their ROI (surely there would be some, but let's say none).

If our ace value finder bet $250 a day for 200 days, where he spent 5 hours a day including his "handicapping" work, at his track, for the year then he would be expected to win:

$250 x 200 x .25 = $12,500 for 5 x 200 = 1,000 hours of his time resulting
in a $12.50 profit per hour (i.e., near the minimum wage for many
states/cities).

While I understand this might be a great hobby/entertainment, I just wanted to provide perspective regarding someone who had this amazing ability and made this choice.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

From what I have been able to find from tracking, one of the longest trends I have seen in terms of ROI was C C Brown’s Maiden Special Weight Turfers at Belmont for a period of 4 straight years his barn was yielding a 28% return per $2 win place and show wager. From May 4th, 2014 until June 20th, 2018.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...ghlight=astute

I believe after June this trend finally ended in terms of profits.

However, it would have required a great deal of discipline and patience to just stick to those bets and even then in year 4 it stopped

I don’t think there’s one thing you can rely on over a period of time like the Treasury it’s a constant search combined with discipline and patience to hopefully come out on top by the end of a season if that’s even possible

My experience with trainer patterns is that it gets very tricky.

The most success I've had with a trainer pattern over 40 years is when I caught on to something very early and it only came up 2-3 times a year so very few people noticed it.

The other has been trainer changes, but that gets even trickier.

Some patterns continue on and other will totally fall apart. Unfortunately, there's no way of knowing beforehand which will do what. If you play them all, the ones that fall part wipe out any benefit from the ones that were sustained. Also, the larger the sample the more people catch on and start reducing the prices.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Yes.

1. just plain old feel like playing some horses
2. you got a 'watch-list' horse coming up, or a popular stakes race coming up
3. "man with a hammer" misjudgment where you have a couple angles that you can 'hammer' and have to be careful not to rationalize that an upcoming race is a 'nail'...

these are all ever present

That just about sums it up...

The funny part is, while I know some people claim that it's all business and they never watch races, if you don't have some of the first one in you, you probably never put enough time or interest in racing to learn how to be profitable in the first place.

And, once you ARE winning, it's very, very hard to avoid the third one. It's part of the fun of horse racing (or any gambling), thinking you're more clever than the rest and have the right angle. But of course overall 99.9% of us lose money on these.

If you can overcome these issues consistently, then bless you my child, you are one of the anointed ones...

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by castaway01

That just about sums it up...

The funny part is, while I know some people claim that it's all business and they never watch races, if you don't have some of the first one in you, you probably never put enough time or interest in racing to learn how to be profitable in the first place.

And, once you ARE winning, it's very, very hard to avoid the third one. It's part of the fun of horse racing (or any gambling), thinking you're more clever than the rest and have the right angle. But of course overall 99.9% of us lose money on these.

If you can overcome these issues consistently, then bless you my child, you are one of the anointed ones...

the basic process is relatively easy;

1. screening
2. fundamental analysis
3. valuation

but we have to remember that the racing racket is at heart a 'wealth concentration mechanism'. It is designed to separate the herd from it's $.

TAKEOUT , bright lights, colors, salesman, and an array of psychological biases are at play


The simple answer is easy;
how do ya know?

you gotta know based upon 'competence'...

when you have competence, you can use critical thinking to form your own opinion, separate from authority, and separate from the herd.

[Wizard of Odds]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

the basic process is relatively easy;

1. screening
2. fundamental analysis
3. valuation

Please define these terms in the context of horse racing betting.

Thank You

[sjk]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Of course "they" do.

So, you do not believe that the whales are the best handicappers?

I am shocked that you would say "No."


The only guys I am aware of who attempted to use a "think tank" approach lost almost a million dollars between them trying to make it work.

Dave,

Do you think the whales are able to accurately project their go-forward average ROI and its variability?

I have been betting races the same way for nearly 20 years and have 70k races in the results table and I don't really know what to expect in the months and years ahead.

If a whale was trying to make a single digit return and he hit a sour streak I don't know how he could know whether the downturn was temporary or permanent.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

1. Would you agree that the "best handicappers around" are most likely the whales?

2. Would you agree that the percentage of pool wagered by the whales goes up at the higher rebate tracks?

If you can agree with both of these statements, then you this statement would be exactly backwards.



The "better" handicappers would (technically) be at the smaller tracks and the bigger tracks would be easier to beat.

This has been exactly my experience.


Dave

For the most part, the whales are making their money on the rebate, and in order to make a living they have to bet a lot of money. The best handicappers around are not necessarily the whales, but the whales certainly bet big when they bet.

I'm sure you've heard the name Maury Wolff, maybe the biggest of the whales. He allegedly bets $1.5 billion a year at a 4-10% rebate. Not many can bet that sort of money. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/26/s...t-rewards.html Some of the whales would actually lose money without the rebate. An 8% loser with a 10% rebate makes 2%. Wolff would still make $25 million a year.

I'd say that if any good handicapper with a decent bankroll was able to get a 10% rebate, he'd have a good chance of making money. So I would agree that the percentage of the pool wagered by whales goes up at higher rebate tracks/ADWs. Obviously a track handling $200,000 a day would hardly be worth the effort for them.

There is only a small percentage of horseplayers who can finish ahead without a rebate, and that includes the good handicappers. Even those who make money may not make enough to live well. There may be good handicappers at small tracks, but they aren't making the kind of money whales make at the larger tracks.

One other thing. A lot of the whales have computer programs that can generate high percentage bets at a multitude of tracks. That isn't handicapping in my book.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Wizard of Odds

Please define these terms in the context of horse racing betting.

Thank You

1. screening = 'race selection'
2. fundamental analysis = 'handicapping'
3. valuation = 'getting a good price'