Bowling alleys and race tracks

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by MJC922

Probably the same as then I would guess, about 2 prime bets per day. Other races action. Would have to handicap all races and watch all races every day. So there's no betting in the AM and then go do your 9 to 5, that IS your 9 to 5. And if it isn't the 10% isn't possible. So yea 2000 bankroll $100 on primes right? that's like 10 prime bets per week for your track, 1000 invested , 4k per month invested, you made $400. I think the low rent in this area is $1400 at the moment so yea you're getting rich quick.

I was pulling your leg before but now I am dead serious. If it took me from 9 to 5 to come up with 2 prime betting opportunities a day...then I would have never gotten interested in this game.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I was pulling your leg before but now I am dead serious. If it took me from 9 to 5 to come up with 2 prime betting opportunities a day...then I would have never gotten interested in this game.

I hear ya. I put a lot into it then. I don't remember my whole routine but I remember that I overslept a lot and had a 30 minute drive one way, then get out to the track and spend a long time at the replay booth requesting this and that, had to wait your turn too because other people were requesting stuff too, you remember all of this, right? It was a whole different world then.
After the races pay for the next day's form on the way out and drive home. Total up all of the bets you made in the program and log all of the results into the notebook. Open the new form to the charts, I made my track variants and calculated all of my own Beyer figs, penned them into the next day's form just like Andy did in the books. Dude this was a lifestyle and ulcers came with it. The one good thing is if you felt like crap you could stay home and take time for yourself, go to the bookstore and chill or whatever. Aside from that level of freedom feeling I would not recommend it to anyone. As soon as you walked back in you had to climb right back into the straight-jacket.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I thought that a smart Republican guy like you would be a bit more observant than that.

Come on man...really?

Don't bring that shit here. No politics in the horse racing posts. You know this.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You are wrong once again Poindexter, I don't "constantly" talk about sports betting, nor have I ever posted about "how easy it is to beat sports". I thought that a smart Republican guy like you would be a bit more observant than that. I talk about sports betting very infrequently here...and I have only said that it's easier to beat sports than it is to beat the horses. "Easy" is not a word that I would ever use when referring to the profit potential of any gambling game.

Wrong again implies I was wrong a first time. if you are going to accuse me of being wrong, you need to point out on what position I was wrong. Otherwise it is discrediting, without me having a chance to defend my position.

Regarding sports betting being easy and bringing it up constantly, if you feel that is an inaccurate read, I will take your word or it. Clarification is all that is needed. I sort of recall you making a post to the tune of I don’t know why people think sports betting is so hard to beat. I don’t really consider it a huge leap to think you are conveying a message that sports betting is pretty easy to beat. The point of my post was to explain to horse players who may have the perception that sports betting is easy money, be careful, it is a tough game too.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Wrong again implies I was wrong a first time. if you are going to accuse me of being wrong, you need to point out on what position I was wrong. Otherwise it is discrediting, without me having a chance to defend my position.

Regarding sports betting being easy and bringing it up constantly, if you feel that is an inaccurate read, I will take your word or it. Clarification is all that is needed. I sort of recall you making a post to the tune of I don’t know why people think sports betting is so hard to beat. I don’t really consider it a huge leap to think you are conveying a message that sports betting is pretty easy to beat. The point of my post was to explain to horse players who may have the perception that sports betting is easy money, be careful, it is a tough game too.

You were wrong a first time when you said that I should consider a $354 bet to be a “paltry wager” simply because I make many $200 bets during a day’s action. I replied to you and told you that you were wrong, and that a player’s total day’s betting handle isn’t indicative of what constitutes a “paltry wager”. A bettor whose betting unit is $200 can’t possibly consider a $354 bet to be a “paltry wager” no matter what that player’s daily betting handle is. Each wager is a separate entity…and $354 is almost twice the amount that the $200 bettor normally bets on a race.

You are are also wrong when you suggest that I would ever imply that making money in any gambling game is “pretty easy”…I never talk like that. What I have said is that sports betting is easier to beat than horse betting is, provided that the player applies himself to the type of research that he normally conducts when he handicaps his horses. Beating sports is easier than beating the horses, and the “handicapping” takes less time…but you are taking a “huge leap” when you interpret this as me saying that “beating sports is pretty easy to do”.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Come on man...really?

Don't bring that shit here. No politics in the horse racing posts. You know this.

Yes, I know this. That’s why I made my reference very brief.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I was pulling your leg before but now I am dead serious. If it took me from 9 to 5 to come up with 2 prime betting opportunities a day...then I would have never gotten interested in this game.

You would have quit a long time ago if you were me.

I've spent many a day at AQU, BEL and SAR where I didn't find a single horse going off at a price I thought was worth opening my wallet for.

About the best I can say now is that I stopped wasting a lot of time on replays and handicapping races I know are very unlikely to lead to a bet. I may miss bets here or there, but the time is more valuable and I'm not in it for the money anyway. I love the high end of the sport and intellectual challenge of trying to find an edge.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You were wrong a first time when you said that I should consider a $354 bet to be a “paltry wager” simply because I make many $200 bets during a day’s action. I replied to you and told you that you were wrong, and that a player’s total day’s betting handle isn’t indicative of what constitutes a “paltry wager”. A bettor whose betting unit is $200 can’t possibly consider a $354 bet to be a “paltry wager” no matter what that player’s daily betting handle is. Each wager is a separate entity…and $354 is almost twice the amount that the $200 bettor normally bets on a race.

You are are also wrong when you suggest that I would ever imply that making money in any gambling game is “pretty easy”…I never talk like that. What I have said is that sports betting is easier to beat than horse betting is, provided that the player applies himself to the type of research that he normally conducts when he handicaps his horses. Beating sports is easier than beating the horses, and the “handicapping” takes less time…but you are taking a “huge leap” when you interpret this as me saying that “beating sports is pretty easy to do”.

Now I know what you are talking about. Imo the paltry wager comment is personal perspective and not a matter of being right or wrong. You disagree, that is okay. Imo this game is far more beatable (at least for me) trying to hit pick 5’s and pick 6’s in good value carryover situations when the play looks good, solid single(s), solid a choices, affordable and enough value in the mix to indicate that I am going to get paid if I hit. What works for me may be terrible for you and vice versa.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

You would have quit a long time ago if you were me.

I've spent many a day at AQU, BEL and SAR where I didn't find a single horse going off at a price I thought was worth opening my wallet for.

About the best I can say now is that I stopped wasting a lot of time on replays and handicapping races I know are very unlikely to lead to a bet. I may miss bets here or there, but the time is more valuable and I'm not in it for the money anyway. I love the high end of the sport and intellectual challenge of trying to find an edge.

To be honest, I don’t love anything about this game anymore…nor do I consider any part of it to be an “intellectual challenge”. The short fields, the winter conditions leading to track cancellations…but mostly just the massive amounts of time that this game demands if someone takes it as a profit-generating enterprise. It just isn’t worth it anymore for me.

Now I handicap baseball and basketball, play a little poker once in a while…and find myself a lot more relaxed. I don’t burn the midnight oil anymore. And I have found that the “intellectual challenge” is there in every gambling/investment venture that the player seriously gets involved in.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by MJC922

Some of these 'pros' we hear about today had a massive hit or two. They didn't grind. They hit something massive, banked it and now I guess you could say it allowed for an existence. Do you even want that type of existence? Frankly I don't.

I agree with you. I don't even consider people like that to be pros. There are people out there that have made 1-2 huge life changing scores that are net positive for their lifetime but would be losers over the very long term if they played long enough. IMO some of them are not even very good horse players.

In the high variance pools with huge payoffs some people are going to get lucky and win more than their fair share given their skill and others are going to get unlucky and win fewer than their fair share despite significant skill. That's partly why I've never been a fan of them.

To me, a pro is someone that is looking at a variety of pools, playing in whichever is likely to provide the best value in that race or series of races and getting a significant enough amount of money through the windows at a high enough ROI to generate enough profit to live comfortably over an extended period of time. Big scores or even random big years are more likely to be statistical noise than an indication of sustainable profitability.

IMO, the biggest challenge is confidently getting enough money through the widows at a positive expectation.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

To be honest, I don’t love anything about this game anymore…nor do I consider any part of it to be an “intellectual challenge”. The short fields, the winter conditions leading to track cancellations…but mostly just the massive amounts of time that this game demands if someone takes it as a profit-generating enterprise. It just isn’t worth it anymore for me.

Now I handicap baseball and basketball, play a little poker once in a while…and find myself a lot more relaxed. I don’t burn the midnight oil anymore. And I have found that the “intellectual challenge” is there in every gambling/investment venture that the player seriously gets involved in.

Perhaps now you understand why I moved on from racing several years ago.


For me an intellectual challenge does not have to be linked to a profit-generating endeavor.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I agree with you. I don't even consider people like that to be pros. There are people out there that have made 1-2 huge life changing scores that are net positive for their lifetime but would be losers over the very long term if they played long enough. IMO some of them are not even very good horse players.

In the high variance pools with huge payoffs some people are going to get lucky and win more than their fair share given their skill and others are going to get unlucky and win fewer than their fair share despite significant skill. That's partly why I've never been a fan of them.

To me, a pro is someone that is looking at a variety of pools, playing in whichever is likely to provide the best value in that race or series of races and getting a significant enough amount of money through the windows at a high enough ROI to generate enough profit to live comfortably over an extended period of time. Big scores or even random big years are more likely to be statistical noise than an indication of sustainable profitability.

IMO, the biggest challenge is confidently getting enough money through the widows at a positive expectation.

Surely you don't believe that if someone plays the high variance pools then those are the only pools that the person plays. For me grinding was the way to survive between the big scores.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Perhaps now you understand why I moved on from racing several years ago.

Yes, now I understand. Time becomes more precious as we get older.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by AndyC

For me an intellectual challenge does not have to be linked to a profit-generating endeavor.

This is true. I neglected to mention that I have also taken up chess.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Surely you don't believe that if someone plays the high variance pools then those are the only pools that the person plays. For me grinding was the way to survive between the big scores.

That's not what I was saying.

I think if all your lifetime profits come from 1-2 huge scores, there's a better chance you've just been lucky than if your profits have come from an edge in multiple pools including the lower variance ones like Win, Exacta, Double and Pick 3 and also have a few scores in the Pick 6.

The reverse is also true.

I think it's likely there are at least some skilled players out there that have a small edge over Win, Exacta, Double and Pick 3 bets but lost all that money and more playing Pick 6s not because they weren't just as good at finding value and structuring tickets in that pool, but because of variance. They just had a fairly long run of bad luck in the Pick 6 pool that wiped out their small overall edge on the game. Very long term, they'd beat Pick 6s also (assuming they live that long .

I have a friend in the 1st category. Year to year he's a net loser on the low variance bets and the Pick 6, but he made one single monster score along the way and is a big net winner for his life. IMO, there's no way he's a winning player long term.