My recent posts on the topic of being a \"professional\" horseplayer has generated a lot of response, some of it pretty vitriolic! I\'m not a \"professional\" player, but have loved and enjoyed the game for the last 10 years. I know this is a short time compared to many of you guys, but I\'m also not a rank amateur or a person who approaches this game like the fool many of you seem to think I am.
This attitude of many horseplayers, that only they can possibly know or understand this game I find amusing. When somone questions whether this game can be beat regularly, the \"insiders\" respond with rather emotional and derogatory posts.
I guess the question I\'m getting to essentially is: Do we consider horse betting to be gambling- is there an element of chance which is involved? Many forum members seem aghast to think that horseplaying is gambling. They would prefer to consider it to be a deterministic task- all you need to do is study the PP\'s and sheets correctly, and you will be able to win.
They further say that the \"smart\" horseplayers will be able to be better at their interpretation of handicapping materials so that their results will be sufficient to beat the takeout imposed on our wagers by the state.
I have the opinion that horseplaying is gambling. It has an element of chance and uncertainty that cannot be divined by study and hard work. Despite the excellent data that is available-like Thorograph- you will never be able to predict the outcome of a future event like a horserace- no matter how much you may wish it to be so.
The state and regulatory bodies consider horseplaying to be a gambling enterprise, and impose taxes and rules upon it as such. Coupled with the need to pay the people who create this wonderful sport, we must contribute around 20% of our wagers to the takeout. Sadly, the presence of takeout makes the long-term ability to be a winner impossible. That doesn\'t stop me from playing for fun, just as I occasionally play dice when I\'m in Vegas.
Lets all take a deep breath- I love horseracing too- I\'m just in favor of calling it what it is- a beautiful game of chance.
Kent-- we used to have another guy like you on this site, until I threw him off (three times). Not that I\'m going to toss you, you haven\'t done anything objectionable, you\'re just wrong.
The way you two are similar is, when someone would make a specific point he would not address it, just keep saying the same things over and over. When someone would respond directly to his points he would ignore those things too, just keep saying the same things over and over. And over.
I\'m going to briefly take on one amazing comment of yours from yesterday, the intelligent sounding one that everything must regress to the mean for the group as a whole. Let\'s use the example of free throw shooting, and the NBA.
Let\'s say the mean for the league is 75%, and let\'s say Rick Barry/Mark Price/Reggie Miller shoots 90% for a 5 year stretch. According to you, RickMarkReggie has to end up at 75%. So that means over the next 5 years they\'re going to shoot around 60%, right? Wanna bet?
The reasons so many here are annoyed by you are a)you keep saying the same things over and over, and b)you are saying something can\'t be done that we know for a fact is being done. Both your facts (your takeout rates ignore rebates) and logic (see above) are a mess. There is one well known guy using software and a team of handicappers that last I heard was making about 7% (after maximum rebates) on handle of over 200 million a year. And FYI, when you get to the really big players, everyone who is in the parimutuel industry (as opposed to fans like you) knows what they do, and not based on what they say they are doing-- based on money being transferred in and out of parimutuel sites.
On the question of their being randomness involved making it not a game of skill, that\'s ridiculous. It\'s all percentages. To go back to an example MJ used here, there is no way to guess the result of a coin toss with 100% accuracy, or anything close to it. But if you give me 3/2 on what I can accurately assess as a 50/50 proposition, we can sit down and do it about as long as you like, or at least until you run out of money.
Over the years I\'ve run into a lot of Ragozin guys who say they can\'t win any more (especially in NY), the game has gotten too tough. I say, our guys do pretty good, why don\'t you try our data, you might do better. They say no, it won\'t make any difference, game can\'t be beat. Then they go back to using Ragozin.
You remind me of them.
Of course it is a game of percentages- there are horses of greater skill and speed/stamina who must be favored. That\'s what handicapping is all about-rank ordering the contestants based on known abilities. But when a race is run the random element enters, making the prediction of future events impossible.
There are so many discussions of a race possibilities prior to the race being run, but very little ownership of when those predictions turned out to be dead wrong. That\'s the accountability I think is missing in racing prediction.
What I\'m also noticing is the discussion of the big players- the \"whales\", etc. They seem to play under different rules than the rest of us- how do these rebates work? I play either at the windows at the track, and also have a ADW account where I get the same payout that I\'d get at the track. It strengthens my argument about the problem of takeout if the only way to be a longtime winner is to get favored relief from the 20% takeout doesn\'t it? Also- doesn\'t this rebate system threaten the financial viability of the tracks and horsemen?
Rather than being attacked, I\'d think that \"pro\" players should be happy for people like myself. If their skills are superior to me, they will eat my lunch and continue to prosper. Since the game supposedly pits player-vs-player they will be taking my money. I do think that the game is more a player-vs- takeout issue, but that\'s my stated opinion.
Lastly, if you find my posts too threatening to listen to, I\'ll gladly return to my cave! I have found this forum interesting to read as a customer, but can live without it too. I will say it has some of the best reading on the subject of racing and handicapping- its hard sometimes to be a fan in today\'s racing climate.
Kent,
Bottom line is this. No one is saying racing is easy. But your fundamental assumption that take out makes it mathematically impossible to beat the game is dead wrong. Also, a horse race is not a game of pure chance, although I will concede that there can be an element of chance that can sometimes enter the equation and influence the results. Just watch the head bobs in a photo finish sometime...
But anyway, whatever that element of chance can be, I can assure you that it is not enough to render a good handicapper ineffective over the long term. This is exactly what I meant when I said you can lose the race because of bad luck, but over the long term you can\'t lose at the races due to pure chance. If you doubt me about any of this, go ask a mathematics professor.
I do not mean to insult or antagonize you anymore than your comment comparing pro horse players to Santa Claus insulted me.
Peace Out
Seriously, Kent, considering how uninformed you are and the level of play on this site, why don\'t you just read all the posts here for about 6 months before you start telling industry pros what they can and can\'t accomplish.
Fair enough, I\'m back in my cave.
You guys have this echo chamber all to yourselves..
Yeah, that\'s the problem with this site, everybody agrees all the time.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, that\'s the problem with this site, everybody
> agrees all the time.
I haven\'t stopped laughing. This is funny.
Let\'s be scientific about this.
What would it take to prove to smithkent that he was wrong?
1 lifetime winner. 2? 200?
Can\'t be proven wrong because the mind is made up?
Playing Freud here, I think what happens is some horseplayers are so discouraged by the level of skill needed to actually profit, that they decide it\'s more convenient to declare its impossibility.
At that point you are dealing with an emotional issue, and not one of reason.
Most successful horseplayers are not in the public eye, and for good reasons, that I don\'t have to enumerate.
smithkent, you may be gone by now, which is unfortunate, because you contribute to the give and take. However, I have seen very little take on your part, with some compelling arguments from other folks here who have really been around the block quite a few times. Sorry to make it personal, but, I find that a troubling trait for someone in the medical profession, and I can only hope you assimilate contrary and informed opinions with more of an open mind in that arena.
The game is bettor vs. bettor, and it is also bettor vs. take-out (minus the rebate, which would be foolish to ignore if this is one\'s livelihood). One obviously needs to create a bigger edge in the first category to offset the disadvantage in the second, and clearly this has been done by a seasoned few. The randomness of events (more commonly known as \"racing luck\") will certainly affect some outcomes, but, over time this will start to level out as a more relevant application of the \"regression to the mean\" principle. If you want to make a more compelling argument for the challenge of making a profit in this game, let alone making a living, I\'d go down the road of medication, testing variations by jurisdiction, etc. I\'m not sure if the pros have found a way to account for all those variables, to the extent they can even know them, but, it would be a deal breaker for me.
You\'d never convince him, because he\'d just keep saying you\'ll regress to the mean and lose at the rate of the takeout. If you\'ve won for 10 years, he\'ll say you\'ll lose for the next 20. If you\'re even for the past 10 years, he\'ll say in the next 10 you\'ll lose at the rate of the takeout, etc. It\'s an argument the successful horseplayer can\'t win---your sample size will never be big enough.
It\'s certainly not easy to make a living wagering on horses. There aren\'t many people skilled enough to do so, but they do exist. I do think it\'s certainly plausible that a smart player can at least make a small profit most years (or lose a small amount 4 out of 5 years and have one big profitable year in the fifth year to cover it), enough to pay for their hobby and have some cash left over. It\'s not easy but it\'s not impossible.
One thing not mentioned, aside from the 800 pound gorilla(the takeout),is the 5% random/chaos factor.The greatest handicappers in the world also have that to contend with the infrequent unpredictable random/chaos results which they hate.With all of their data, computer programs etc, they cannot factor that possiblity race to race and must overcome it with their overall betting model.
We won\'t go into the \"drugs\"on/off problem that is also a challenge for any pro but who is probably compfortable with his \"list\" of move up trainers.Still with a 10+% rebate there are people taking down a profit with computers combing certain pools.
The handicapper without the 10+% rebate, computer progaram, and the necessary data has a minuscule chance of beating the game in the long term. Not impossible but extremely difficult.
Mike