To all those who say you can't win using speed & pace figures only...

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by jasperson

I can't agree more. I have decided a long time ago that I was never going make a living betting the races. I choke at a $20 bet. Since I am retired and on a relatively fixed income I just make my $2 bets and enjoy handicapping the races. I don't win much or lose much,but enjoy the races.

I cannot see where the handicapping enjoyment (!) is coming from!

Of course I understand the fact that you do not have the necessary skills to ramp up your betting; this is the fact with the vast majority of bettors who eventually realized that the game is "unbeatable" and there is nothing surprising with it.

Still, I am really puzzled when people keep on talking about the "enjoyment" they are getting by following the races! Personally, if it was not for betting, I would never pay any attention to horse racing and spend even a minute of time thinking about it.

[jimmyb]

To each their own. My handicapping is based on betting to win. It the one thing I do relativly fair. I have no interest in earning a living thru gambling and my bankroll wouldn't survive the downs of exotic wagering if I did.

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

I didn't handicap, nor even watch the race, and I know the horse paid $100+, but I'd like to know why making the horse a 7/5 pick on a personal odds line is incorrect, particularly after choosing the winner.

I've had numerous horses over the years I would have made odds-on and been paid $15, $20, even $30+.

simple.

you'd have to prove that the horse belonged to a 'set' of plays where they won at the 7/5 rate. It's not likely that that particular horse did, but it's certainly possible, and you'd be a very rich man if you could come up with more than a few plays a year.

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by pandy

I think we have to assume that the majority of horseplayers aren't that good at handicapping or betting, or both. Some odds on favorites are so obviously flawed yet people bet them, hard to fathom.

Darin Zoccali has an article about betting on drf today. The main profit he made on this today came from exotic wagers. As Pace alluded to, if you want to make any sort of meaningful money from betting horses, it's going to be very tough to do betting to win.


http://www.drf.com/news/zoccali-trus...ping-game-bust

Actually, I was referring not so much to chalkeaters, but, those that are betting to win generally on all kinds of horses. I'm skeptical of the notion that pro's dont bet to win, as the win board is generally right in line with the exotics, which would not be true if the so called smart money avoided plain old win betting .

[traynor]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

I cannot see where the handicapping enjoyment (!) is coming from!

Of course I understand the fact that you do not have the necessary skills to ramp up your betting; this is the fact with the vast majority of bettors who eventually realized that the game is "unbeatable" and there is nothing surprising with it.

Still, I am really puzzled when people keep on talking about the "enjoyment" they are getting by following the races! Personally, if it was not for betting, I would never pay any attention to horse racing and spend even a minute of time thinking about it.

Complete agreement! That is why the "horse race industry" in the US and Canada is in such decline. There is little or no real motivation for any newcomers to do anything more than scratch their heads and wonder what all the talk is about (other than a process of socialization for those who no one else will listen to, or put up with, discussing things that no one else cares about).

Show the newbies how to make a profit, and business will boom.

[DeltaLover]

Questing whether the GG's odds set by PA were wrong or correct is meaningless as the hypothesis can not be tested using empirical data.

If PA is able to provide a quantitative description of the metrics he used to arrive in his odds line we might become capable of verifying to what extend his algorithm is "correct" or "wrong" (for example using R-Squared or something similar); still I doubt that even if he is willing to do so he can really express his decision making procedure in a repeatable fashion as intuition has to play a significant role in the way he is making his decisions.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by pandy

I think we have to assume that the majority of horseplayers aren't that good at handicapping or betting, or both. Some odds on favorites are so obviously flawed yet people bet them, hard to fathom.

Darin Zoccali has an article about betting on drf today. The main profit he made on this today came from exotic wagers. As Pace alluded to, if you want to make any sort of meaningful money from betting horses, it's going to be very tough to do betting to win.


http://www.drf.com/news/zoccali-trus...ping-game-bust

That is more than anything an example of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy--shoot first, and whatever you are able to hit, call it the target. I know people who make a substantial profit wagering--both primary and secondary--who wager almost exclusively win. The whole thing boils down to an advantage. If you can pick enough winners that show a profit over time, HOW you do it doesn't matter as much as that you are ABLE to do it.

The win bettors I know tend to NOT be "value seeking bettors" playing one race at a time as if their ego survival depended on the outcome. They tend to be high volume bettors wagering many, many races--with an overall statistical edge. Many of those wagers are in the mutuel range(s) usually avoided by "value seeking bettors"--even money to 2/1.

That may sound preposterous to those unfamiliar with the processes involved, or who are not accustomed to wagering a large volume of races based on computer models and "statistical advantage." That is GREAT! Somebody has to lose the money the others are winning--many times every day at many tracks.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

Actually, I was referring not so much to chalkeaters, but, those that are betting to win generally on all kinds of horses. I'm skeptical of the notion that pro's dont bet to win, as the win board is generally right in line with the exotics, which would not be true if the so called smart money avoided plain old win betting .

That skepticism is warranted. Chasing rainbows is an endeavor favored by those who lack the skill/knowledge/whatever (including software apps and/or programming skills) to pick enough winners that pay enough to make a profit over time. It is not so much that it is "impossible" as that it may take more work than most "horse players" are willing to exert.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

I cannot see where the handicapping enjoyment (!) is coming from!

Of course I understand the fact that you do not have the necessary skills to ramp up your betting; this is the fact with the vast majority of bettors who eventually realized that the game is "unbeatable" and there is nothing surprising with it.

Still, I am really puzzled when people keep on talking about the "enjoyment" they are getting by following the races! Personally, if it was not for betting, I would never pay any attention to horse racing and spend even a minute of time thinking about it.

That's just it. I don't think you handicap but instead you enjoy designing programs to data mine for "things". You enjoy the programming part to spit out an answer for you.

But do you really understand why in any given race your selection is the best selection?

I understand jasperson's comment because the handicapping and selection(s) process is also the allure for me. And, his betting comfort level is just different than yours. Nothing wrong with that. At least he realizes what that level it is.

[EasyGoer89]

I think the difference between computer number guys vs replay guys is this. If your life depends on making one pick and winning one race, you really need to see the replay of the horse that has your life hanging in the balance.

BUT, if you don't need one race to live and you are counting on consistent results that takes the visual emotion out of the equation, not watching The replays is a good idea since a replay can mean one thing one day and the same exact replay might have different meaning to the watcher depending on mindset, mood and a bevy of different human factors and emotions.

No wrong way to do things If it's working.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

Very good results over 800/400 +/- race selections.

But, I'm just wondering how much better your ROI or whatever would've been, had you learned how to watch replays and maybe avoided some of those losing selections.

You may have noticed the horseplayers I'm used to are a tough group to please.

Btw, I'm one of those advocates of watching replays but I've also tried to add that there are a number of ways to Win playing the horses. Watching replays can only help your handicapping, IMO.

Again, very good handicapping.

I remember a horse racing Guru, R. Stein used to say something like, "very good, but what have you done for me lately"?

I'm paraphrasing so, maybe SRU can jump in and provide the exact wording?

PA, I hope you realize I was trying to help you and wasn't just trying to "bust your balls" maybe just a little bit with my response.

The reason I'm re-posting is because I just remembered an old saying which is appropriate.

It's not how fast they run BUT, how they run fast.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

PA, I hope you realize I was trying to help you and wasn't just trying to "bust your balls" maybe just a little bit with my response.

The reason I'm re-posting is because I just remembered an old saying which is appropriate.

It's not how fast they run BUT, how they run fast.

I didn't think you were busting balls.

I'm too lazy to watch replays, that's the bottom line. It would probably mess me up more than help me at this point.

[EasyGoer89]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I didn't think you were busting balls.

I'm too lazy to watch replays, that's the bottom line. It would probably mess me up more than help me at this point.

Sometimes I'll handicap on paper and if I decide I love a horse I'll go and watch the tape. There are too many races around the country to watch replays of every horse in that race just not enough time, I've done the hunt n peck method on occasion w just watching the horse I'm leaning towards.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by EasyGoer89

I think the difference between computer number guys vs replay guys is this. If your life depends on making one pick and winning one race, you really need to see the replay of the horse that has your life hanging in the balance.

BUT, if you don't need one race to live and you are counting on consistent results that takes the visual emotion out of the equation, not watching The replays is a good idea since a replay can mean one thing one day and the same exact replay might have different meaning to the watcher depending on mindset, mood and a bevy of different human factors and emotions.

No wrong way to do things If it's working.

Exactly. If a computer modeler switches his or her choices or go/no go decision based on whatever is current, they may as well toss the models and concentrate on enjoying the (emotional ups and downs) of the moment.

Whatever works best for a bettor is what she or he should do, regardless of what is working or not working for someone else.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by EasyGoer89

Sometimes I'll handicap on paper and if I decide I love a horse I'll go and watch the tape. There are too many races around the country to watch replays of every horse in that race just not enough time, I've done the hunt n peck method on occasion w just watching the horse I'm leaning towards.

Well, I've previously mentioned to you (well maybe not this version of you) that you play too many races. Too bad because I think you have a good idea of how to watch replays.