Truly looking for honest opinions.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by Grits

BigGuy, Tom could be right. What is one's source of entertainment, hobby, etc? What would you be spending annually if you were a golfer? A country club or golf club membership, along with greens fees each round? I could be wrong but I'd think far more than what's recorded here.

This is a great point. I used to own an airplane. 4 seater. Cherokee 180. It was a ton of fun. Lots of work but challenging to stay current, fly at night etc. it was expensive. But not huge. Sold the plane a month before 9-11. Was planning an upgrade, but after 9-11 gave it up.

I had a couple of buddies with the same class of plane. Both owned businesses. Played golf at nice courses throughout Carolina's and such. They used to tell me that flying down to play golf was the cheapest part of their trips. The plane fuel etc was half the price of their hotels, green fees and extras. One eventually gave up the golf to keep his plane when the recession hit.

Fuel is almost $6 bucks a gallon now. Keeps me out of the plane game.

[Dave Schwartz]

Depends on the goal of playing.

Originally Posted by Grits
BigGuy, Tom could be right. What is one's source of entertainment, hobby, etc? What would you be spending annually if you were a golfer? A country club or golf club membership, along with greens fees each round? I could be wrong but I'd think far more than what's recorded here.

I think the key point is, "Why does he play?" More important, "Does he care enough to want to improve?"

I also think that golf is the perfect analogy.

When one thinks of a golfer, it is logical to assume that he does not intend to ever be good enough for the PGA tour. However, that does not mean he does not wish to improve.

Most golfers that I know think of "practice" as hitting a bucket of balls at a local driving range. The truth is that rarely does this fall into the realm of "practice" anyway. It is usually just a little exercise.

Now, that's certainly okay, but my point is that a golfer (or horse player) that truly cares about improving their game will do more than hit a bucket of balls because there is more to improve than that.

Actually going somewhere to practice hitting the ball out of a sand trap, or hitting a few balls from the rough with concentration on improvement takes not only extra effort but commitment to an improvement plan.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Overlay

Tom Ainslie used to say that anyone who couldn't do better long-term than to lose the combined percentage of the take (for whatever type of wager) plus breakage (5%, on the average) should refrain from wagering real money until they can at least do better than that from a valid sample of paper bets, since betting totally randomly (without any handicapping at all) would produce that result.

Ainslie was wrong. It's worse than that for random bettors. They lose more than the track take plus breakage. The reason is simple. The track is going to get their share no matter what, but some people make a profit and that profit comes from people who bet randomly or handicap poorly. I did a paper study of this a few years ago, hypothetically betting on the horse whose name came first alphabetically. It produced an ROI of about $1.00, i.e., on average losing half the bet amount.

On the other Ainslie was correct in saying you should refrain if you are losing more than 20%. It's not that hard to keep your ROI above $1.60 .

[Pensacola Pete]

507 and 720 bets are small samples.

It looks like the person is playing about $20 per bet. I'm guessing it's in lateral picks (DD, P3, P4).

For example, in the 720 race sample, this person bet an average of about $20 per play, hit 120 winners (16.67%) paying an average of $91.00 each. If these are lateral bets, this person's ROI is right around the takeout, meaning that that person is running into the whales (DD) and serious players (P3 and P4).

To answer your question, something probably needs to be done differently. I don't know what to recommend without knowing more about the types of bets, methodology used, ticket structuring, etc.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by BettinBilly

Depends on the goal of playing.

If, like some of us, the person in question is in it for entertainment, then that is what his/her entertainment cost. End of story. Too bad they could not be on the plus side, but c'est la vie.

If it's for increasing the bankroll, they need to change their betting style and handicapping toute suite.

IF the goal was monetary gain, it is obvious they are losing. If there was any essence of entertainment value involved, then it depends on the philosophy of that person.

Personally, other than the TC this year, I'm well under water. Saratoga has been especially Brutal to me, with a capital B. Luckily, I chalk it up to entertainment value. Still, winning would have been nice. Winning for me adds to the entertainment value, and money is always welcome in my wallet.

What is the actual entertainment? Is it the handicapping and watching the race unfold the way you envisioned or is it the act of betting? If one draws their entertainment from the act of betting I doubt they will ever become winners.

[JohnGalt1]

I found my results were inconsistent. Until I went to the KISS principle.

Advice I've read said to bet the low take out simple wagers like win bets, (possibly exactas or dd's) until you make a profit, then if you desire, to then move to more difficult wagers like pick three's and trifectas and others.

Also make small bets. Betting $2 or $10 to win and losing is better than betting $50 or $100 and losing. But betting $2 or $10 and winning means you can progress forward to more types of wagers and higher simple wagers.

If you can't win one race consistently and profitably, how are you going to win 3 in a row?

[BettinBilly]

Originally Posted by AndyC

What is the actual entertainment? Is it the handicapping and watching the race unfold the way you envisioned or is it the act of betting? If one draws their entertainment from the act of betting I doubt they will ever become winners.

My S.O. loves Slot Machines. It's HER entertainment. She loves going to Vegas and putting in her money and watching the reels spin. She obviously looses much more than she wins. They don't build those casinos and hotels on winners. She is hooked. She'd go to Vegas tomorrow to play the Slots just for the sake of playing. It's exciting for her.

I'm into Horse Racing in much the same way. I enjoy everything about it. Being at the track, visually handicapping the horses, handicapping the PP's, placing the bet, watching the race, collecting the money. It is much more exciting when I win of course. To me it's a hobby as much as it is a passion. I just love it. Always have. I could never make a living at it. Not wagering. Other areas of our sport, maybe.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Actor

Ainslie was wrong. It's worse than that for random bettors. They lose more than the track take plus breakage. The reason is simple. The track is going to get their share no matter what, but some people make a profit and that profit comes from people who bet randomly or handicap poorly. I did a paper study of this a few years ago, hypothetically betting on the horse whose name came first alphabetically. It produced an ROI of about $1.00, i.e., on average losing half the bet amount.

On the other Ainslie was correct in saying you should refrain if you are losing more than 20%. It's not that hard to keep your ROI above $1.60 .

Logically I am having a hard time accepting your answer. It would mean that random selection would put you on underlays averaging twice the track take. Of course you would also randomly pick horses that are overlays as well.

The following study showed a random bet loss of 23% from the 90's. Given the whales and rebates I would have to believe that random betting would do better today. The favorite-longshot bias has been reduced because of large bets made on favorites.

Favorite-longshot bias

[cj]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Logically I am having a hard time accepting your answer. It would mean that random selection would put you on underlays averaging twice the track take. Of course you would also randomly pick horses that are overlays as well.

The following study showed a random bet loss of 23% from the 90's. Given the whales and rebates I would have to believe that random betting would do better today. The favorite-longshot bias has been reduced because of large bets made on favorites.

Favorite-longshot bias

The studies I've done show it has gone up slightly, around 25%.

[VeryOldMan]

Originally Posted by Thebigguy

he plays doubles and pick 3's because he always likes more then 1 horse per race and his specialty is beating over bet or bad chalks.

What does "specialty" mean when compared to his losing results? If he is truly good at betting against bad chalks, couldn't you test that hypothesis directly and cheaply with win wagers (possibly even more than 1) against the "bad chalk"? If your friend is simply going for the exponential factor of a horizontal wager involving longshots, it may mean he's an action junkie chasing the big score and that he doesn't really have a specialty. No shame in that, so long as he can afford it as a hobby.

[Thebigguy]

Originally Posted by Actor

Ainslie was wrong. It's worse than that for random bettors. They lose more than the track take plus breakage. The reason is simple. The track is going to get their share no matter what, but some people make a profit and that profit comes from people who bet randomly or handicap poorly. I did a paper study of this a few years ago, hypothetically betting on the horse whose name came first alphabetically. It produced an ROI of about $1.00, i.e., on average losing half the bet amount.

On the other Ainslie was correct in saying you should refrain if you are losing more than 20%. It's not that hard to keep your ROI above $1.60 .

So he should quit? We/He is to the point where we want to make money. Its not as entertaining anymore. We feel like we have good opinions and most of the time it goes to waste.

[Thebigguy]

Im reading everyone's comments and Im thinking people agree with me. He should quit? I tell him he has lost to much alone, and we have lost to much together to keep going this way.

[VeryOldMan]

Originally Posted by Thebigguy

Im reading everyone's comments and Im thinking people agree with me. He should quit? I tell him he has lost to much alone, and we have lost to much together to keep going this way.

I'm thinking it's more about taking a hard look at whether he (or anyone else in his position) is an advantage player. His results thus far suggest that he is almost the opposite of an advantage player and is running no better than the 25% effective takeout and worse on some bets.

Everyone has a hobby/vice/etc. that others wouldn't share - expensive car, golf club membership, private flying, booze, cigarettes, Civil War re-enactor, Star Wars nerd, etc., etc., etc. If his hobby/vice is horse racing gambling, that's fine, so long as it's within financial limits. I am in no position to judge.

Maybe he needs to bring it back to a lower level until his results justify playing higher. If he says he can't play a $2 win wager, then there is something else going on.

[Thebigguy]

Is the something else going on a gambling problem? Because I have suggested win/place $5 and $5 all day. He tells me thats not for him....

[VeryOldMan]

Originally Posted by Thebigguy

Is the something else going on a gambling problem? Because I have suggested win/place $5 and $5 all day. He tells me thats not for him....

We all have things we enjoy that others wouldn't spend money on - if your friend can afford his losing wagering and that is his equivalent of a country club membership, nice car, single malt scotch, or Marlboros, etc. - I am in no position to judge. We all have hobbies and/or vices that others wouldn't share and spend their money on.

The key is whether he can AFFORD it. If it is more than he "should" be wagering on this sport - then there is a problem, particularly given just how hard it is to win at this sport. 25% takeout (giving effect to breakage) is a killer.