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

[classhandicapper]

There are no right or wrong ways. Even among methodologies that are measuring the same things in different ways, there are very few rights and wrongs. There are mostly strengths and weaknesses and different types of errors.

The main thing is to search for value. And a general rule, you are more likely to find value in places where other people are not looking. Nothing pleases me more than to study something and already know the answer, but to have people disagree with me.

[ReplayRandall]

In short, I have used nothing but TimeForumUS speed and pace figures in my handicapping. And here is my record on my posted plays to date:

Quote:
ALL PLAYS (OVERLAYS ONLY) (39 Days):

124 for 844 | $1688 Wagered | $1574.70 returned | $0.93 ROI ($1.00 = Break Even)

TOP PICK (OVERLAY ONLY) Running total (39 Days):

73 for 352 | $704 Wagered | $776.50 Returned | $1.10 ROI ($1.00 = Break Even)

What's truly impressive about what you've accomplished, is you've now passed the "outlier" threshold, meaning that your top play ROI will still be positive, even if you take your highest payout out of your totals...

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

Whodo....your handicapping is atrocious. Why on earth would you assume someone "hasn't learned" to watch replays? You said something to me yesterday along those lines--I didn't care to argue the point so just let it go.

It's plain as day you aren't a winning horseplayer....instead of constantly giving advice--learn to take some.

Before you begin your rebuttal....total up your ROI for your Belmont posts.

Before you reply you should know exactly what you're criticizing and maybe just pay attention a little better.

My Belmont posts are BRIS Prime Power #1 selections. The reasons are for my own benefit because I'm definitely not posting it for yours. I replied to your initial criticism about them that if you don't like them then ..... Don't read them!

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

If you've read this thread, you'd see I already acknowledged that my results would probably improve by working in other handicapping factors.

Not my point in creating this thread though. Besides boasting about my positive ROI on my top pick over close to 400 races, the major point of the thread is to show proof that you CAN obtain a positive ROI by ONLY using numbers to the exclusion of everything else. Something a lot of people think is nearly impossible to do in this day and age, when most EVERYONE is using numbers.

I read that comment but also you specifically pointed out that watching replays aren't necessary which is the reason for my response. It seemed you were forgetting or don't realize that watching replays can help identify potential winners but also those which shows that the numbers are misleading.

Btw, I also use pace and speed numbers plus other variables.

[lamboguy]

at the end this game boils down to only one thing, is the risk reward priced right?

it doesn't matter if you only use numbers or have some other system. if you bet bad prices you go clean. its very simple.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Tom

Or how much worse had the replays cause him to avoid some of the winning ones too.

This is true. I was looking at it from the POV that you would be able to see where the numbers may be misleading.

[NorCalGreg]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

Before you reply you should know exactly what you're criticizing and maybe just pay attention a little better.

My Belmont posts are BRIS Prime Power #1 selections. The reasons are for my own benefit because I'm definitely not posting it for yours. I replied to your initial criticism about them that if you don't like them then ..... Don't read them!

Your picks show a level of unsophisticated handicapping. CONQUEST PRANKSTER yesterday?

The horse just broke his maiden, topped out by 11 points--took 64 days off with one work the past month...is a classic sucker bet...is less than 2-1---and this is one of your two picks of the day?

Did you really expect that horse to step on the track with winners- as sharp as when he left 2 months ago?

Seriously--that's mind bogglingly bad. I don't give a sh*t what you post...stop with the dispensing handicapping "advice".

I already know how to find Bris Prime Power.

You were the only person I had on ignore for any length of time--and I didn't even ignore EMD.

Later

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

Your picks show a level of unsophisticated handicapping. CONQUEST PRANKSTER yesterday?

The horse just broke his maiden, topped out by 11 points--took 64 days off with one work the past month...is a classic sucker bet...is less than 2-1---and this is one of your two picks of the day?

Did you really expect that horse to step on the track with winners- as sharp as when he left 2 months ago?

Seriously--that's mind bogglingly bad. I don't give a sh*t what you post...stop with the dispensing handicapping "advice".

I already know how to find Bris Prime Power.

You were the only person I had on ignore for any length of time--and I didn't even ignore EMD.

Later

This is a hilarious reply.

You just don't get it that was a BPP#1 selection. Do me a favor and maybe provide a list of things which piss you off so, I can probably avoid them. It will save me time coming up with a list on my own.

Why'd you take me off ignore?

You really shouldn't have. I never noticed and it wouldn't bother me one bit.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It isn't realistic to expect a profit on ALL your overlays, because by wagering in such a manner, you might be betting on half of the horses in the race. Showing a 10% profit on your top pick after 352 races is unquestionably a GREAT handicapping exhibition.

Can you go into some more detail, please. I need this pounded into my head.

First off, I hardly ever bet on half the horses. If you look over my threads, it's usually 2 to 3 at most....sometimes 1...but a lot of times just 2. And I tend to avoid short fields and try and concentrate on field sizes of 9 or above, so I'm never really betting on half the field.

I'm losing about 9% on ALL of my overlays. Which is beating the take by a pretty good margin. But it's still losing.

I am winning about 8% at the moment on my top pick only.

Shouldn't an odds line that makes almost 10% on its top pick overlay also do pretty well on it's other contenders? If not, it's not a very good oddsline at all, wouldn't you agree? And it could and should be studied to make it better.

Is it that unrealistic to think that if you can make money on your top pick overlay, you should be able to also make money on your other contenders when they are overlays as well?

Obviously, my line isn't all that good (you see the whacky lines I post sometimes), but it also obviously has some merit, since it's winning.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Can you go into some more detail, please. I need this pounded into my head.

First off, I hardly ever bet on half the horses. If you look over my threads, it's usually 2 to 3 at most....sometimes 1...but a lot of times just 2. And I tend to avoid short fields and try and concentrate on field sizes of 9 or above, so I'm never really betting on half the field.

I'm losing about 9% on ALL of my overlays. Which is beating the take by a pretty good margin. But it's still losing.

I am winning about 8% at the moment on my top pick only.

Shouldn't an odds line that makes almost 10% on its top pick overlay also do pretty well on it's other contenders? If not, it's not a very good oddsline at all, wouldn't you agree? And it could and should be studied to make it better.

Is it that unrealistic to think that if you can make money on your top pick overlay, you should be able to also make money on your other contenders when they are overlays as well?

Obviously, my line isn't all that good (you see the whacky lines I post sometimes), but it also obviously has some merit, since it's winning.

Interesting topic. Years ago at Sports Eye, myself, Jack Rubin, and several others in the office were discussing betting overlays. At that time, I was about 25 years old, I did not believe in betting overlays on horses that you normally wouldn't bet. In other words, if I made a horse 12-1 odds, and the horse went off at 20-1, unless that was a horse I was interested in betting in the first place, because I thought it had a good chance of winning the race, then I didn't think it should be bet. I understood the math, but I also understood that you can lose a lot of bets on horses you actually think have a strong chance of winning...if you start betting horses that your really don't think are strong contenders, because of the odds, you are probably going to have very bad losing streaks.

Another thing, pertaining to your odds line, I think you're much more likely to have a good line on your top or second pick in the race. These are horses that you feel have a good chance of winning, and you understand why they have a good chance of winning. Once you drop down to horses that you ranked 4th, 5th, 6th, these are horses that you do not necessarily believe are strong contenders. In some cases, you may feel that they are marginal contenders, or have a small chance if chaos occurs. So because these horses are not as keen on your radar, I believe that it's harder to estimate true value on these marginal contenders. Should they be 12-1? or 20-1?

Of course, if you do bet any and all overlays, you are going to need a few bombs to make up for what is surely going to be a lot of losers you won't have if you only bet overlays that were your top pick, or maybe your second ranked pick.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by pandy

Interesting topic. Years ago at Sports Eye, myself, Jack Rubin, and several others in the office were discussing betting overlays. At that time, I was about 25 years old, I did not believe in betting overlays on horses that you normally wouldn't bet. In other words, if I made a horse 12-1 odds, and the horse went off at 20-1, unless that was a horse I was interested in betting in the first place, because I thought it had a good chance of winning the race, then I didn't think it should be bet. I understood the math, but I also understood that you can lose a lot of bets on horses you actually think have a strong chance of winning...if you start betting horses that your really don't think are strong contenders, because of the odds, you are probably going to have very bad losing streaks.

Another thing, pertaining to your odds line, I think you're much more likely to have a good line on your top or second pick in the race. These are horses that you feel have a good chance of winning, and you understand why they have a good chance of winning. Once you drop down to horses that you ranked 4th, 5th, 6th, these are horses that you do not necessarily believe are strong contenders. In some cases, you may feel that they are marginal contenders, or have a small chance if chaos occurs. So because these horses are not as keen on your radar, I believe that it's harder to estimate true value on these marginal contenders. Should they be 12-1? or 20-1?

Of course, if you do bet any and all overlays, you are going to need a few bombs to make up for what is surely going to be a lot of losers you won't have if you only bet overlays that were your top pick, or maybe your second ranked pick.

Some very good points in here as usual Pandy. I don't distinguish anymore between my top 2 choices because they win at roughly the same frequency. This year they represent 20% of the field % and win 56% of the races. I bet whichever one is the higher odds unless they both have attractive odds. If both are 3-1 or less I pass. That's it. My whole betting strategy! And as you said marginal contenders really are marginal and the odds would have to be astronomical to even consider betting. My secondary contenders represent 29% of the fields and only win 33% of the time. You have to chop off seeking value anywhere here because there is none.

[NorCalGreg]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

Before you reply you should know exactly what you're criticizing and maybe just pay attention a little better.

My Belmont posts are BRIS Prime Power #1 selections. The reasons are for my own benefit

LOL..no further comment necessary --thank you for explaining🤡

[PaceAdvantage]

Let me ask another question...

How the hell can anyone make a living win betting? I don't think you can. Not how I am currently doing things.

Let's say what I'm doing with my top pick is legit. I have almost 400 races in the books. I have about a 10% ROI (it's at 9% at the moment, but let's use round numbers).

I am only averaging 9 plays a day with my top pick as an overlay. And I look at EVERY race in the USA and Canada.

And we all know you can't bet even $100 at many of the tracks I've had plays at before you start affecting your own odds.

And even if you were able to bet $100 per win bet without hurting your prices at all tracks...that's $900 a day and $27,000 per month. At 10% ROI, that's only $2,700 a month profit. You can't live off of that. You move up to $200 or $500 bets, and you definitely will be killing your prices at the small tracks, which makes up a hefty portion of my action.

No wonder you never hear of a full time win-bet-only player. Do they exist? I suppose they do if you've found a way to get a decent amount of plays at the larger pool tracks.

And yet I hear people all the time say..."if I had a bona fide 10% ROI, I'd be a rich man in no time"

Really? What am I missing?

[cnollfan]

I thought Kate Jackson was very attractive.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Really? What am I missing?

I think what I'm missing is that not all 10% ROIs are created equally...