• Dave Schwartz
    187
    Thread From PA:
    BETTING FAVORITES. KNOW WHEN TO HOLD THEM KNOW WHEN TO FOLD THEM AND KNOW HOW TO BET
    CHART SHOWING THE RESULTS FOR 22 FULL RACE CARDS, 190 RACES, 17 RACE CARDS WERE POSITIVE.
    I'LL ADD ADDITIONAL RACES AS LONG AS THERE IS "HOPE"
    IT'S WHAT I DO
    — formula_2002


    INTERESTING PART was this reply:
    What you are studying has academic value for sure.
    However, if at the end of the day, you make 5 $100 bets and make a $10 profit minus whatever pp acquisition costs, that's a pretty sad pot at the end of the rainbow. How much of your day are you willing to spend to earn that $10? It beats losing money, but you've forfeited the time you could have spent doing your own handicapping in the hopes of finding something worth your while.
    — Bustin Stones


    Bustin Stones response is the very essence of The Speed of Money concept.

    However, the greater risk lies in the fact that most players confuse "doing your own handicapping in the hopes of finding something worth your while" with being profitable.

    Formula is addressing (potential) LONG-TERM PROFITABILITY and Bustin Stones is addressing HAVING A GOOD DAY.

    These are two distinctly different concepts.

    What_do_you_think.png
  • Tony Kofalt
    277
    I agree Dave, totally different concepts. But I think that whatever concept you choose it has to fit your personality. From reading Formula's posts it's obvious he has a scientific approach to horse racing, and I would speculate life in general. That's his comfort zone. I'd assume that if Formula had an adequate sample size and showed profitability he would continue to research ways to improve on his results.
    I don't have a good 'feel' for Bustin Stones. But he seemed to believe that Formulas approach was wasting time for little benefit. He would be more comfortable swinging for the fences on any given day. Its been quite some time since I thought about the velocity of money.
    My two cents- I like a mixture of the two approaches. Formula is attempting to validate his research. It's a bit slow moving but a legit approach. I have confidence in my approach over the long run, but believe I have to take some chances as well.
    I loved the discussion about favorites though as I see vulnerable favs as a way to help overcome the take.
  • RanchWest
    278
    Thanks for your input, Tony.
  • Dave Schwartz
    187
    I agree Dave, totally different concepts. But I think that whatever concept you choose it has to fit your personality.Tony Kofalt

    That is a huge piece of understanding.

    I know that almost everybody says that they're "All about winning," but when questioned, they usually admit that they'd rather keep using their current approach because it's fun even if it means they lose long term.

    And that is completely fine.
    I know a lot of guys who really enjoy their personal approach to analysis, and the challenge that produces big pleasure on good days.

    I'm just cut from a different cloth. For me, the challenge is winning forever. LOL
  • RanchWest
    278
    I had a friend who would always tell me... it's easy to be successful in life. All you have to do is be willing to work half a day. You can work the first 12 hours or the last 12 hours, really doesn't make much difference.

    In horse racing, most people underestimate the power of skillful study and record keeping. When something works, stick with it until it doesn't. When something doesn't work, refine it until it does. Sometimes it takes a lot of work.
  • Steven
    108
    I would be simply ecstatic if I could break even. How does the joke go, "Please God, let me break even today, I need the money".

    If I remember right, Dave's HMI program has an example wherein the user is breaking even but with the MM concepts of HMI, he can show a profit.

    And yes, back to the subject of this thread, they are two different concepts. I think this is anecdotal but I've always heard that on any given day, 95% of the people at the track lose and of that remaining 5%, about 3% (or maybe even 4%) are only winners for that day, the remaining 2% (or 1%) are the only long term winners. So to beat the game, you have to be in the top 1% - 2% of the people there at the track.
  • Dave Schwartz
    187
    And yes, back to the subject of this thread, they are two different concepts. I think this is anecdotal but I've always heard that on any given day, 95% of the people at the track lose and of that remaining 5%, about 3% (or maybe even 4%) are only winners for that day, the remaining 2% (or 1%) are the only long term winners. So to beat the game, you have to be in the top 1% - 2% of the people there at the track.Steven

    My estimate is 4 out of every thousand.
  • Steven
    108
    So less than half a percent (0.4%). YIKES.

    I guess that's why there is so much mental anguish that goes along with horse playing. It's really tough to be a long term winner. It's much easier (and sometimes more fun) to play against a house edge of like 1.4% instead of what we face. Easier to hit longer winning streaks too.
  • Dave Schwartz
    187
    I think this is anecdotal but I've always heard that on any given day, 95% of the people at the track loseSteven

    I think that more people have winning days - maybe as high as 15% of REGULAR PLAYERS. It very much depends upon individual strategies.

    But this is all anecdotal. I could be far off on all of it.
  • Tom
    48
    At my age, having a good day IS long term.
  • andicap
    1
    With big rebates, wouldn't Forumla's work be profitable? Of course, I doubt few people have the means and temperament to throw the thousands of dollars (hundreds of thousands?) a day through the windows.
  • Dave Schwartz
    187


    Theoretically, yes.
    The standard approach for a whale group is to lose 3.5% and make it up on rebates.
    I'm not suggesting that his approach provides enough handle for whaledom, but it should work providing it is profitable and remains such.

    Because his selections (logically) are low-odds...
    • He can bet a lot of money if he chooses to ramp up.
    • It will take only 1,000 bets or so to verify that the system is valid.
    • The next statistical challenge would be some sort of seasonality.
      (i.e. the sample is from RECENT history. Will it work in August?)

    If I had such a system in my arsenal, I would use a mild chase-the-money strategy to level out the fluctuations and simply grind out a profit.
    This assumes I actually desired to be a 4-day-a-week player - i.e. have a job.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Please register to see more

Forum Members always see the latest updates and news first. Sign up today.