It is not who you bet, it is how you bet

[cj]

I will answer your questions (5, by the way), to be fair.

1) I have no idea, and don't really care. I'm only worried about one person making a profit.

2) Of course 10% would be acceptable, anyone who says otherwise is out there.

3) I would say this used to be true, but not so anymore with rebates. If your rebate is higher than your loss, you can profit.

4) This is slightly better than the takeout, so not bad.

5) No, I don't think an AVERAGE selection system can be made to turn profits. Average in my book would be losing the track take.

[FortuneHunter]

Originally Posted by cj

No, I don't want to watch, I am smart enough to know that any system based on progression is doomed eventually. Short run results don't mean much, because they always look good, until that long run out comes.

Question 5) You don't think a progressive system can be modified to mitigate the killer losing streak?

Question 6)You don't think that if you know your performance over several meets you can't figure out a way to skim the gravy off the mutuel pools?

Question 7) Why is a modified progressive system doomed to failure?

Question 8) Just becuase you don't know how to play a Fender Stratocaster or a Gibson Les Paul, does that make these instruments worthless?

Maybe you could answer the first 4 questions and the 4 above.

I really would like to know what you think.

I have to go shovel snow right now, probably the 1st time of many before Monday.

When I come back maybe you will have made some contribution to this thread? (You don't have to answer THIS question)

FH, running fast, but in the wrong direction?

[FortuneHunter]

cj, thanks for the answers, it takes me so long to write my post, I sometimes miss the responses. Sorry I got behind you.

I left you some more questions, if you don't mind

FH

[cj]

Okay, I'm a little confused, you asked 5, then started this one with 5, but I'll play.

5) No, every computer simulation ever run has proven that progression, no matter how modified, will be a loser in the long run for a losing system. Its also not the best way to bet a winning system.

6) I don't really understand the ?, you either have a winning strategy or losing stategy. Your past results can help you improve that strategy.

7) See #5

8) Of course not, I could sell them to someone else that could use them. Of course if I knew how to play them, I'd hang on to them.

[ElKabong]

Originally Posted by Steve'StatMan'BTW

That "frankguru" wouldn't by chance also go by Rembrandt, and John Frank, would he?

Thanks in advance for any insights.

Steve,

I'm not aware of those nicks, so I dunno. That dude had 40 something nicks working on yahoo at one time, so it wouldn't surprise.

I'lll send a pm tomorrow sometime on what little I knew about that whole mess. After awhile it really got boring to everyone but the few going back n forth. To me it eventually ruined the yahoo board unfortunately.

[kenwoodallpromos]

yes
yes
no
no
would be tempted to bet too much.

[toetoe]

Oh, you've been shoveling for quite a while ... compadre.

[FortuneHunter]

Originally Posted by cj

Okay, I'm a little confused, you asked 5, then started this one with 5, but I'll play.

5) No, every computer simulation ever run has proven that progression, no matter how modified, will be a loser in the long run for a losing system. Its also not the best way to bet a winning system.

6) I don't really understand the ?, you either have a winning strategy or losing stategy. Your past results can help you improve that strategy.

7) See #5

8) Of course not, I could sell them to someone else that could use them. Of course if I knew how to play them, I'd hang on to them.

cj,

#5) ".... every computer simulation ever run ....", Wow, you must be omnipotent. Now you have access to one more simulation, but maybe the outcome will be different this time? Maybe we are doing something different?

#6) I believe that knowing your past statistical performance can give you the key to make make a losing strategy into a winning strategy.

Oaklawn Week 1 is over, although it was only a 3 day week we managed to make a $60.60 profit on $298 bet for a ROI of $1.20 (where $1.00 is breakeven).

Here is the direct link to the "pdf" results report for week 1:

Oaklawn Week 1 Results

kenwoodallpromos,

We learned this summer that you can't be tempted and you can not deviate.

Quit when you make your daily profit target. If you make your daily profit target after the first race, quit. You may miss some winners later in the day, but it has shown in other simulations that it yields a better ROI reloading and continuing play. I wish I could explain right now but I can't, I am working on it.

You want to keep your daily profit target to 1% of your bankroll

You want to keep your daily profit target between $20 and $100 to keep your handle down

If you want to invest more, we think you should play more than 1 track. You should set up a seperate bankroll and wagering tract for each Meet and play away.

The nice thing about this system is as soon as the previous race is official and you realize the payoff, then you can calculate the wager for the next raceand bet it. Then you can relax and enjoy the fresh air, read the paper. check out the ladies sunbathing in the backyard at the Spa.

The ML Odds or "off Odds" have no relevence. You know that statiscally your 5/2 horse will be there. When your bet and win the 6/5 horse, you reduce your debt and slow the handle. What really helps the profit line is to go a few races without a winner and then have a 9/2 horse win for you in the 8th race. Sweet.

The key is knowing the statisics of your selection system. And that is where the computer/database fits perfect. Computer are stupid, but they store alot of information and do calculations real fast. Complex computer programs to selection a winner in a horserace is overkill. The outcome of a horserace is just not that predictable. I think a simple program based on a handful of principles does just as well. A program that does the mundane calculations you use in your handicapping is a good use of the computer.

I think most racing fans spend way too much trying to pick winners. Some people buy expensive programs that crunch numbers and spits 3 selections, some labor over the DRF for a 1/2 hour per race. They are trying to predict the unpredictiable event called a horse race.

Having a quality selection system is a key component to a mutuel pool profit system, but the wager system is just as important. But most people spend 1/2 hour handicapping and don't know how they are going to wager with 2 MTP.

What do you all think?

FH

[Partsnut]

In my humble opinion:

It's not about how many winners you can pick.
It's all about the money. Naturally, you will need to know
what is winning at the track you are currently playing. This can easily be achieved with the use of a good database software.
I will not recommend any specific software because if I did, I'm sure
some moron would accuse me of giving a sales pitch.
The ones that complain the loudest are usually the biggest violaters.
Please see the following illustrations attached.

[FortuneHunter]

Originally Posted by Partsnut

In my humble opinion:

It's not about how many winners you can pick.
It's all about the money. Naturally, you will need to know
what is winning at the track you are currently playing. This can easily be achieved with the use of a good database software.
I will not recommend any specific software because if I did, I'm sure
some moron would accuse me of giving a sales pitch.
The ones that complain the loudest are usually the biggest violaters.
Please see the following illustrations attached.

I have 2 observations:

First is your Win% of 20% and Avg Odds of 6.5 to 1 for your illustration:
Those figs give you a ROI = $1.50 (where $1.00 is breakeven).
Here are my calculation for a flat $2 Win:
Number of races bet:500
Total amount wagered: $1000 wagered
Total races won: 100
Win Frequency: 20% (your number)
Avgerage Payoff: $15.00 (your number)
Total Amout Collected: $1500
ROI: 1500/1000 = $1.50

I think an ROI of $1.50 is not realistic. Shit man, I would quit my day job if I had a selection system that yielded an ROI of $1.50 over 500 races. Whales are happy with ROI of $1.05.

We are trying to turn an ROI of $0.90 which says you lose 10 cents on a dollar on a flat $2 win bet into a profit maker.

We think ROI is a figure that measures the quality of the selection system. I have never seen a documented system that can achieve ROI of $1.50 over 500 race sample. Does anybody know of one?

The whole root of this thread is this:

• Can a computer selection system that loses money on a flat $2 Win bet be a profit maker by using the right wagering strategy and if so, by how much (i.e.ROI)

Second, a win frequency of 20% is too low for a modified progressive bet system. The losing streaks are too long. We think you need to be above 25% win frequency.

Let me know if I misunderstood your figures, FH

[Partsnut]

The method that I use is as follows:

1 - I bet at 5-1 odds or better.
I used $ 15.00 as an average mutual in my analysis but for the
most part the payoffs are generally higher.

2 - In a 9 race card I will only play 1-4 races if they qualify.
They have to qualify by their odds and the race has to be what I consider to be playable. I pass the race if there are 2 or more first time starters.
I am very selective.

3 - I use a track profile from a computer program to
see what factors are winning and at a substantial Win and ROI percentage. The profiles are broken down by distance and track condition.
( I will be glad to tell you which program I use if you choose to email me.)

4 - My bet is generally $20.00 to win.

Last week at Aqueduct 3 winning races brought me in over $ 700.00.
Let's see what happens this week.

[Valuist]

Steve-

Don't forget to add "Painting is Cool" along w/Rembrant and JF and the other monikers the guy has used on barntowire.com

[Partsnut]

Steve-

Don't forget to add "Painting is Cool" along w/Rembrant and JF and the other monikers the guy has used on barntowire.com

I think this was posted to the wrong forum.
My name is not "Steve".

Please Clarify????

[Exactaman]

what exactly is better about the race i bet more on that is going to make me win more.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Originally Posted by Partsnut

Steve-

Don't forget to add "Painting is Cool" along w/Rembrant and JF and the other monikers the guy has used on barntowire.com

I think this was posted to the wrong forum.
My name is not "Steve".

Please Clarify????

Partsnut and others - Sorry if any confusion - Its not part of the main discussion, but a comment from the earlier posts in the thread (page 1) regarding people from old internet forums, and where they are/'who they' might be now.

Steve