probable max losses in a row

[imofe]

Originally Posted by overthehill

i dont understand why he thinks progression will help him. if anything there is a likelihood that 1. he is in a slump that will be exacerbated by progression, 2. his increased betting size will effect the pools. in my opinion it is very difficult to project 45% winners with confidence under any circumstances. yes it may average out that way over thousands of bets, but its a fallacy to think that therefore there is any certainty that for any race or small group of races that the odds of winning is 45%. horse trainers jockey are not machines and the surface changes and weather effect results as well. i think there have been sequences at new york tracks of a favorite not winning for three days.

the only person i have heard of making money from some sort of progression was a guy i met years ago, who seemed like an astute handicapper though he was an admitted alcoholic. he said he made a living by playing a couple of place parlays a week. he said he would hit 50% of the time and get better than $7 back.

The previous weekend I did not see him, but I saw him two days ago on Saturday. Up to this point he said he is winning with the progression hitting in the low 40's and getting back 95 cents on the dollar. The problem is he has lost the winnings on pick 4's and carryover pools. He is now thinking of hiring someone to place his bets so that he is not at the track losing the profit on other bets.

[thoroughbred]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

you gotta eat a LOT of chalk to have 45% winners...but, it can be done if you just pick and choose and stick with prime horses who are 1-2 odds or lower.

Stillriledup,
Very true.
There have been analyses which show that if you bet every race and choose only one horse to WIN, then it is just about impossible to have a win rate of 40%.

I've thought about why this is so, and concluded it is basically for the same reason that no major league ball player has had a batting average of 400 ever since Ted Williams did it in the 1950's. While the physical parameters of horse racing and baseball are so different, the same kind of limiting restraints are at work.

[ultracapper]

1941. I'm a baseball junkie. Couldn't let the Williams inaccuracy go. By the way, that was the same year DiMaggio hit in 56 straight games. DiMaggio's batting average during the streak was .406, exactly the same as Williams's on the season. Joltin' Joe batted .356 for the year and took down the MVP. If the voters would have known that .400 would probably never happen again, I'm sure Williams would have gotten it, even though the NY media hated him with a passion. Last time a NL player hit for .400 was Bill Terry of the NY Giants in 1931. John McGraw was the manager. How's that for historical perspective. The same McGraw that refused to play in the 1904 WS because he considered the AL an inferior league and wouldn't subject his brilliant team to a "World Championship" series with a minor league champion. That was all a very, very long time ago now.

I digress. Carry on.

[thoroughbred]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

1941. I'm a baseball junkie. Couldn't let the Williams inaccuracy go. By the way, that was the same year DiMaggio hit in 56 straight games. DiMaggio's batting average during the streak was .406, exactly the same as Williams's on the season. Joltin' Joe batted .356 for the year and took down the MVP. If the voters would have known that .400 would probably never happen again, I'm sure Williams would have gotten it, even though the NY media hated him with a passion. Last time a NL player hit for .400 was Bill Terry of the NY Giants in 1931. John McGraw was the manager. How's that for historical perspective. The same McGraw that refused to play in the 1904 WS because he considered the AL an inferior league and wouldn't subject his brilliant team to a "World Championship" series with a minor league champion. That was all a very, very long time ago now.

I digress. Carry on.

Ultracapper,
Thanks for the date correction. At my advanced age, many dates of long ago sort of blend together.
As a baseball junkie, you may wish to know my conjecture as to why Williams was able to do what is obviously a difficult thing to accomplish, i.e. bat over 400.
I have read, from time to time, that when Ted Williams was entering the Navy in World War II, the examination of his eyesight showed that it was exceptional. I understand, that in all the time since then, again from what I read from time to time, no other recruit has equaled his great eyesight. It was this extra capability, that I believe had him bat over 400.