Ask the Experts

I\'ve been kind of debating whether to say this here, but I\'m going to. Like all horseplayers, I have an ego.

I\'m closing out what is arguably the best year in the history of pari-mutuel wagering. There are those who have made more-- there\'s at least one guy who bets 200 million anually and makes 7% on it, after maximum rebate (meaning he\'s betting into about an 8% blended takeout). He makes more in absolute terms. But I don\'t think anyone else has ever made 30% on handle BEFORE rebates on handle of 7 figures.

I have no real explanation for this-- to be fair, I had relatively small losing years while betting less in 2009 and 2010 (which was driving me nuts, since I knew a lot of guys who were making money using my data. As Parcells said, at some point you are what you\'re record says you are, and I was not happy about what mine said). I did do very (VERY) well on Pick 6\'s this year, which previously was my worst area (big loser before this year), but I was a pretty good winner aside from them. I killed California and NYRA, got killed at all three Kentucky tracks, but obviously bet a lot less there. The other tracks were all over the place but an overall profit, with much lower handle.

The other thing is, I was losing for the year until mid-June. As crazy as the overall numbers are, they\'re nothing compared to the ones for the last 6 months.

Anyway, betting this much has been incredibly stressful (which I mostly notice when I lose patience and snap at someone. I came close recently to getting into two bar fights, and I haven\'t thrown a punch in anger since high school). I am totally sick of betting horses, races  I look at are a blur. So I\'m done betting for a while.

Unless there\'s a big carryover...

Never did congratulate you for having two of those five winning tickets a couple of Fridays back, so, well done on that and the great year.

Thank you.

I guess one thing I did do differently this year was take a different approach to Pick 6\'s, but it\'s not something that will help too many here, since it\'s hard for smaller bettors. Basically, I started figuring out what races I really had strong opinions in, went narrow in those, and spread out in the others. The theory is if you\'re going to lose, make sure it\'s because your opinion is wrong-- don\'t get knocked out in wide open races where you have no opinion. Sounds simple, but it\'s expensive.

That Aqu pick 6 was a pretty good example of that, as I described in my earlier post. I had no strong opinion in several races-- on one of the tickets that won I \"alled\" two races.

This definitely is something even smaller players can use in Pick 4\'s, where the bet size and combos are smaller. You\'re often better off going 2x6 than 4x4.

Congrats Jerry!  Stressful I get.  I\'m a big Redskin fan and of course was excited when the legend Joe Gibbs came out of retirement and returned to coach the Skins.  Well I knew it was never going to work when I saw Gibbs turn away from watching his own kicker attempt a game winning field goal!  He literally turned to the stands, dropped to his knees, closed his eyes and prayed rather than watch the field goal.  The head coach! And he did this a couple times after he came back.

I say this because that\'s how I\'m getting now watching a race with any kind of real money bet on it.  I find myself turning away and not even watching until they hit the lane.  I\'m losing my stomach for it, even though I fully realize that kind of nervous energy is what makes the sport so invigorating.

Anyhoo.. Congrats again on killing them in the 2nd half.  Nice way to head into the holidays.  On another note.. I think you need a new product.  Something like your race of the week but more of a race of the day or several best bets of the day, or a wekend stakes package for those of us who don\'t have time, or more likely too lazy to do their own serious handicapping on a regular basis.  I\'d buy that one regularly instead the Analysis product.

Congratulations.  Even though it\'s parimutual, always glad to congratulate the one that gets it right - or even lucks into it.  Sometimes hard to put one\'s money where their mouth is.  Well done.

What do you think was going on in Cali and NY vs. KY?  I have not touched Cali in years and would be curious as to what you had to say about it and what you think works there, if you could isolate anything.  Any particular track-to-track moves on the circuit that work?  As for NYRA maybe you have a \"homecourt\" thing going or is it something else?  

Could be just as valuable if you could figure anything specific out about what did not work in Kentucky.  Any factors beyond figs that helped/hurt you, or you leaned heavier on the pure fig angles or what?  

Finally, maybe there are a few trainers/jocks you\'d have good/bad comments on?  Or not.  You\'re probably not retiring on top right?  LMAO.  

Anyway answer any or none of the above.  I know you\'re not blowing smoke so congrats.  HP

Jerry,

I usually play pk\'4 as my main focus and this past Saratoga meet there were more than a couple opportunities to make HUGE scores on the pk4\'s... I would have my single (Strongest opinion) in a race then I would try to spread in the other three and just missed the HUGE score by not spreading a little more getting 3 out of 4... it gets expensive! I can really see where a PK6 can get VERY expensive when you do not have an opinion on a race or two.

Anyways, Well done and congrats!

Congrats on the wagering and on this site.  It is informative and well structured.  The Race of the Week and the Redboard services are exceptional considering they are offered free of charge.  I don\'t use figs regularly, but if I am going to check any out for particular races, these are the only ones I look at.  Thank you to you and everyone associated with your organization. And to all the regulars whose contributions are also greatly appreciated, whether agreed with or not.

Congrats Jerry, its incredibly satisfying to have that huge year (or, in your case, a huge 6 months) that\'s good stuff. I love success stories like this because it gives everyone hope that yes, you can get red hot and destroy the windows and this is a great game that can be beaten.

If I only have one opinion in a sequence of races I\'m not playing pick 4\'s or 6\'s (unless there\'s a carryover). If you like one horse bet it to win. Don\'t make your result depend on other races where you DON\'T have an opinion.

HP-- As far as Ky goes, I\'ve had no shot at Kee for years, even before they went poly. There is at least one guy who uses our data (he\'s probably the best day-in-day-out pro horseplayer not using software) who beats that place to death. He\'s very trainer conscious-- not just who is \"hot\", but in terms of who uses Florida just to get them ready for Keeneland and later in the year, etc. I spent a few days down there with him last Spring, hated some of the horses he bet. He won, I got killed. Again.

I don\'t know why I didn\'t do better at CD. The biggest handicapping factor in the game now is surface, with all these different synthetics, and horses going from one to another. The fact that a lot of runners at CD are coming off synth races could be a factor in my results, but the bottom line is if I knew what I was doing wrong I would have changed.

NY of course doesn\'t have synthetics, which is a plus. I have finally adjusted to the synth stuff in California. At that circuit and NYRA I feel like I have a good feel for what the questions are, and I\'m able to come up with a lot of the answers. At Keeneland I feel like I don\'t know the questions-- certain type feet? Works over the track? They run short meets, it\'s tough to get a handle on things.

Other things also make things easier in California and NY-- workout info (I use Harrington) in Cali, Maggie Wolfendale commenting from the paddock in NY. In both cases you have to know how to interpret and integrate their opinions (which is what they are). The workout stuff was partly responsible for my biggest hit of the year, and Maggie had a lot to do with my having the only 5 live tickets for a pick 6 with carryover a month or so ago. Didn\'t hit it, but she also gave a push that day to a first timer I was using anyway, so I bet it straight. It paid $80.

One final thing, and some people won\'t like it. The fact that Ragozin\'s figures have gone in the toilet is a big plus. It used to be they were landing on the right horses a lot, but now any place a lot of people are using their data there is a ton of dead money in the pool. California and NY are two of those places.

Congrats JB. I wonder where all of the \"it\'s impossible to make money in this game because of the takeout\" whiners are now......

Congrats, can I borrow a few hundred k to buy Agave Kiss?

Does Rudy come with her?

Yep, congrats indeed.  Inspirational post.

JB - Very good stuff here, thank you.  I can\'t sign on to respond from my work computer or I would have come back earlier.  On KEE, bet the SPEED right?  That was the old saw.  Always struck me as random, like the first week or two at SAR.  

Feel free to ignore these follow ups...

what are the \"questions\" at NYRA and Cali?  You don\'t have to give the answers, but what are you ASKING?  

On workouts and observations...I read that Bonnie Ledbetter book etc.  I\'ve taken care of horses, fed them, rode them, etc.  Real thoroughbreds at the track, forget it.  That\'s good that you have a line on that.  This year Shackelford was a horse that was a good example, if they sweat they SWEAT.  I looked at Shack and said \"forget it\" and he ROCKED.  I understand that some horses don\'t have proper sweat glands so it\'s not good if they DON\'T sweat.  You have to see them start to start.    

Would love to hear some specifics on trainers and jocks, but that\'s real money.  

Best regards and I will buy the next round(s)  - HP

The discipline is what kills me..... PATIENCE!

Thanks...

What I mean by that is that in NY and California the questions you have to answer are the standard handicapping ones, the ones that can be answered by what we publish (figures and profiles), as well as by the physical info you can get from other sources, and just by paying attention.

I play a lot of exotics, a lot of boxes against bad favorites, and if I lose I usually have an idea why-- the favorite didn\'t bounce, etc. But if I box 3-5-9 and it comes in 2-6-10, and that happens all day a couple of days in a row, I may have a problem that\'s not short term and can\'t be corrected. If the horses I like aren\'t running at all, especially if they are longer than they figure to be, or if horses I don\'t like at all are taking unusual money and running well, there\'s something happening I don\'t understand. Somebody knows more than me, and that\'s a table I shouldn\'t be sitting at (which doesn\'t always stop me, I\'m stubborn). That was happening at Keeneland last spring, an example being the McPeek horses.

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But if I box 3-5-9 and it comes in 2-6-10, and that
> happens all day a couple of days in a row...

Sounds like Woodbine to me -- were you checking your tickets?  :)

That place is a fluster cluck, just inscrutable racing and ridiculous results.

And yet, there will be a story of a guy who is \"making a killing\" there...

Yep, same guy who kills Keeneland. Which may mean he understands poly better than you and I do. Though I did very well at DMR-- but just that one.

On the \"what are the questions front\"-- the single most important one in handicapping California is, can this horse handle this surface.

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yep, same guy who kills Keeneland. Which may mean
> he understands poly better than you and I do.

Oh, there\'s no wiggle room when it comes to me.

I was utterly convinced that there was nothing in this world I understood less than women...then, along came Poly.

Funny how there is also Stress when you are winning.
Like a good run in the Stock Market.
You keep expecting the bottom to drop out on your wagers but also find yourself saying I cant get out because Im winning.

Nice problem to have. Up 30% on handle. WOW.
BTW-When do you have time review make numbers. And find four-legged prospects to acquire.

LOL....maybe you should give up your day job!! Congrats!!

Rick B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yep, same guy who kills Keeneland. Which may
> mean
> > he understands poly better than you and I do.
>
> Oh, there\'s no wiggle room when it comes to me.
>
> I was utterly convinced that there was nothing in
> this world I understood less than women...then,
> along came Poly.

Good one, still laughing. I groaned first.

Way to go host.  Glad to see somebody is hitting them.  You mean those bad beats do eventually even out?

Note to TGAB - Good time to ask for a raise..........

P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good one, still laughing. I groaned first.

Thanks. I groaned when I wrote it. Glad someone got it.

Dear Mr. Brown,

First off, let me offer my congratulations on your recent success with wagering on the ponies. This is a brutally difficult undertaking we are all engaged in and a man who can earn a serious profit at it deserves more than a bit of unreserved praise.

I should probably keep my mouth shut, which I have pretty much doing for the better part of ten years \'round these parts, but being deep into my fourth bottle of Jaboulet\'s Parallele 45 Cotes de Rhone (which, as an aside, is in my humble opinion one of the greatest inexpensive bottles of red to ever have been offered in the American market) and having just had a brief consult with Dr. Grabow (boy, the stars are lovely in the middle of the night in upstate New York at this time of year), I gotta speak my piece.

Please don\'t get yourself into a fight, Mr. Brown. I say this as a fan and sometimes-user of your product. Please don\'t go get your face smashed into a million pieces. Yes, I am sure in your youth you handled yourself with honor and aplomb, as  did I back in the day (another aside: from what I surmise from postings around here, you should picture me as someone who could pass as a slightly older brother of jimbo66) but times have changed, and the world has become a lot meaner in our middle-to-late-middle-age. Did you happen to notice a woman pepper-spraying her way to Christmas shopping glory at an LA Wal-Mart the other day? We\'ve spun off the axis at this point. Look at it like I do: there\'s nothing left to prove at this point, I delivered my emergency-room-inducing beatings more than twenty years ago, and nowadays it seems behind every corner lurks a bat-shit insane psycho who would gut someone just for the thrill of it. Do you really want to get involved in a bar-fight in these crazed times?

My own admittedly amateur advice would be to bag the LES (? - seems like where it\'s at for you these days, forgive me if I\'m wrong) bar scene and the betting world, take a little of that hard-earned profit, buy a plane ticket someplace warm and at least fifteen hundred miles from here and find a nice stool to sit on and get hammered like a gent you are underneath it all for a few days, with little-to-no threat of a dangerous altercation in the forecast.

Now, I admit I have not wagered at the levels you have, but hear me out anyway. I have played for some seriously high stakes. I have sat and watched as my thirty-eight year old wife, the mother of my three children, bled to death, and I have had to come home the following morning and tell those children, the youngest of whom was fourteen months old at the time, that their mother was dead. I\'ve played for the health insurance premium for those children; I\'ve played with no cards other than a last few bucks and your figures and I\'ve turned that weak-ass hand into months of their insurance premiums, of their rent, of their heat, of their breakfasts and lunches and dinners. I hit a Pick of my own on a $96 ticket back in the day, using at a minimum the theories I\'ve read here, and I nailed Noble\'s Promise what seems like two hundred, not two, year\'s ago. Yeah, you can scoff at my numbers but not at their depth; I\'ve played pretty serious, if I don\'t say so myself.

So take it from someone with a little hard-won wisdom: get the fuck outta Dodge, as soon as possible. Take some of that profit, and say goodbye to the potential bar-fights, say goodbye to playing these god-forsaken races. Go. Go somewhere and leave this shit behind for awhile. Get outta town, take a break. You\'ll be glad you did. Seriously.

Here I thought Charles Bukowski died seventeen years ago.

I\'ll have what he\'s having.

So, basically what you are saying is that you are an incredibly handsome guy..... :)

Congrats on the successful year!

I was wondering if you would be willing to share a little more in detail what your ROIs were on various bet types at the various circuits.  What I\'m not yet following is, did you have a huge year simply because of the pick6s you hit?  Or do you consistently have positive ROI on win bets, Tri/super exotics, and pik4/6?

I am just a part-time player and one of those idiots who spreads most of my bankroll on the pick3s/4s and has a tough time posting a profit because of it.  I realize I should probably switch over to single race win bets and exotics, but after hitting some 4 and 5 figure multi-race wagers, it is hard to stop playing them!

JB - You have to hate yourself at least a little to bet on horses, and being stubborn helps.  Hopefully you will keep it going.  Thanks for the responses.  Good stuff in there.  HP

What are your feelings regarding 2 year olds with maybe 5-6 races who\'ve run fairly well and then are gelded?

Thanks,
flighted

Don\'t really have any feeling about gelding, my guess is it\'s case specific.

Tread-- about 85-90% of my action is exotics. This year about 80% of the profit came on Pick 6\'s, but that\'s an abberation-- as I said, historically it was not a good (in fact my worst) category. The key thing with exotics is to know when and how to use them-- somewhere on this site is a list of my situational betting guidelines. I say this again, in all seriousness-- almost everyone could benefit from doing one simple exercise while handicapping: ask yourself \"what do I like about this race\". The answer almost always defines how you should be playing the race (if at all).

Horses are gelded at that time for usually two main reasons:  they are intractable with their raging hormones, or the testicles are physically becoming battered and painful during the running of races, causing the horse to run poorly.

So consider the horse in your example to be now pain free, or able to concentrate on his job.

Edit:  one other thing:  sometimes it\'s apparent by this point that their genes are going to be no great contribution to the TB lineage, and they will be gelded to keep them from forming the larger muscle mass of a stallion (and that larger mass is harder on thin-framed horses, thin legs, legs with a penchant for trouble etc).  Some like them to have those hormones while they are forming bone and muscle as 2-3 year olds, then get rid of it if there is no hope to be a stallion or they want to help keep them sound.

Generally if you always look at this gelding as a positive thing, you\'ll do okay.

Sight,

 Thank you.

Fwiw:Senor Rain, who was 45-1, got back to the Peter Miller barn bouncing like he had just won the race, leading the trainer to a different conclusion.

"He's going to be a gelding," Miller said. "We're looking for race horses, and he doesn't have his mind on business. So we'll change his mind – call it a form of brain surgery

from the drf 11/30/2011

Black book that one\'s next race out end of January ....

what is the typical timeframe for recovery mentally and physically?

\"Generally if you always look at this gelding as a positive thing, you\'ll do okay\".


Hi Beth,

Doubt the horse agrees:)

I\'st time gelding automatic play for some.Stats for 1 year(early 2000\'s) at NYRA tracks somewhat inconclusive with 2 winners from 19 reported first time geldings.
Anyone with more comprehensive data?

Mike

\"Mentally\", they don\'t know what happened, nor do they seem to care about suddenly waking up post-anesthesia and saying, \"Oh. Had a bit of a blackout there! \".

Post-op:  forced walking for 7-10 days to reduce swelling, then by 21 days they are usually good to go.  So they are off training - walking only - for 3-4 weeks.  Three weeks is about the time you start losing noticable and significant muscle mass with enforced layoff, so they have to get that back, which takes about another 3 weeks.

It takes about 60 days for the hormonal influence to go away entirely (if a colt is really studdish)

And in a move ensured to make everyone groan, here\'s a detailed video of the procedure.  You can castrate a horse \"standing\" or lay him down under anesthesia.

http://www.vet.uga.edu/lam/teaching/mueller/castration/anesadmin.html

QuoteI\'st time gelding automatic play for some.Stats for 1 year(early 2000\'s) at NYRA tracks somewhat inconclusive with 2 winners from 19 reported first time geldings.
Anyone with more comprehensive data?

Mike

Would Formulator pull that up?  Stats for first off gelding, and second off gelding?

I think it\'s the disruption in training - thus fitness - that\'s most significant, so that depends upon when the trainer gets the horse back in it\'s first race post-procedure.  

And gelding doesn\'t make them any faster (unless they were painful running, as some are)

*** And sorry, TGJB, for hijacking your thread - congrats again on a stellar year.

Perhaps there is a book coming out??? I for one would be very interested to read it! Writing is my life, so I could probably help with that side of the equation (not saying you need/want any help).

Congrats though!

Sometimes these things can\'t be explained all that well, especially if you\'re not doing anything radically different than in past years.

The master of probability, my man Taleb, would interject a huge slice of chance and randomness above and beyond any and all expertise and ability into the situation; I realize we always like to take personal credit (that\'s just human nature), but the luck/randomness factor cannot be discounted. If we do discount chance, we usually have mighty crashes that follow the boom periods!  

I myself also think that confidence (and there\'s a fine line between confidence and ego--confidence is quiet and comes from inside while ego needs to let everyone else know how great we are) makes a huge difference and winning breeds more winning as does losing. So much is about mindset and trusting in your own time-tested and proven ways (and information!) even when they don\'t work in the short term. The great thing (if there is a great thing) about gambling on horses is you can have these intense winning periods that make up for long losing periods, especially if you\'re playing pick sixes and the like. That\'s kind of fun, like we get to speed up time or something!

In the end perhaps it is best to just enjoy it, and if you can take time off, why not do it? Fly first class (or in a private jet) to some beautiful island somewhere--get away from the stress. One habit extremely successful people have is after winning or positive periods in their life--they CHANGE something. Most people would say, I want to keep doing exactly what I\'m doing (DON\'T CHANGE ANYTHING), but the super-successful people take the opposite route. They evolve! They go off in new directions and keep challenging themselves in different ways--that\'s rare in most humans, very counter-intutive.

I\'d say you might want to give something away, but you already give a lot away as you have for many many years. I think few people on the data end of things are as generous as you, so maybe there\'s even a little good karma coming back at you! That wouldn\'t surprise me one bit. :)

\"The master of probability, my man Taleb, would interject a huge slice of chance and randomness above and beyond any and all expertise and ability into the situation\"


Dana,

Well put. After many moons of research, study and review,it\'s fairly clear that many horse players win or lose depending on which side they fall of the unpredictable \"X\" factor, takeout aside. If you are on the wrong side of the X factor more often than not, you will probably lose in spite of the best data, planning, betting discipline, good handicapping knowledge/analytical skills.

If you think of all the serious horse players you know and add up all of their legit \"bad beats\" you\'d have many millions.The number of times you will get beat with the best horse will far exceed the number of times you win with a horse that was not the best, an X factor example, there are others.Incidentally 99.99% of the time,it does not equal out.
 
Have played the same way for many years, there are periods when I am delusional enough to think I\'ve got it mastered only to be completely humbled shortly thereafter.

Toughest game in the world, by far.


Mike

I agree completely, and I think it takes an honest and wise person to admit that there are many factors that go into winning and losing equations -- we can take credit for is showing up and doing our homework -- after that there\'s a whole lot of randomness going on! I agree it is a tough game, strictly for masochists! If you just want to make money go into something \"simple\" like financial engineering! One of my former students is doing that, and I thought to myself, now there\'s a smart kid--21 years of age and he knows where the big money is buried! God bless him. At his age I was hanging out in an OTB in Staten Island!

Miff-- there is no question that in the short term-- or even relatively short term-- the results of photos etc. outweigh everything else, as I have said here before. The results in this game are leveraged like in no other, and the difference between going 7-3 and 3-7 in photos with 5-1 returns over 50 races is so big that no handicapping can overcome it. But over the long haul, if that stuff doesn\'t exactly even out, it comes close. Not true for the small bettor, where one photo in a pick 6 race going one way or the other can be life altering, at least in terms of lifetime bottom line-- but true for a pro playing multiple tracks 150-200 days a year.

That is why I included the previous two (losing) years in my original post. The proper way to look at this is to take the three years as one big representative sample. Last year, I took two different tough beats for about 50-100k each within a week of each other, and definitely was a big net loser on photos-- in fact I would say that was true through June of this year. Since then, I definitely have gotten the breaks. So the key thing if you\'re good enough to win is to overcome sample size-- to get enough at bats. A great hitter is more likely than not going to make an out in one at bat, and over ten anything can happen. They even have off years. But give them enough at bats...

A couple of the breaks I got this year had nothing to do with photos-- two involved gate scratches. In one, in the second leg of a pick 5 at Hol I was using two horses against a 3/5 shot. They were about 5/2 and 6-1. The 3/5 shot got scratched, throwing all those who had bet him on to the 5/2 shot, who now was 3/5, and 1/5 in the pick 5 because of the money from both horses. The other one (who I liked more and had twice as many tickets with) won. He was 5/2 on the board, but 6-1 in the pick 5, and I had only one horse to beat, not two. Pure good luck.

The other came about a month ago, also at Hollywood. I made a pretty tight pick 6 play pressing two short priced Baffert horses in the sequence-- without either winning I could have it once, with one I could have it twice, with both 6 times but it wouldn\'t pay much. They both won (one winning a photo over a horse I didn\'t use), and I was live to 6 horses, 6 times each. One was gate scratched, so I now was live to the post time favorite 12 times. The two 5/2 shots ended up in a photo, I had no idea who to root for-- as it turned out the one who won had 2k more bet on him, he was the favorite. The pick 6 was only 5k but the way it worked out it was a score.

I also was lucky in my biggest score of the year (and life). In the scond leg of the pick 6, maiden claimers, there was a 6/5 shot in a huge field. He was a universal single for those who could not spread, but to me there were a lot of questions, I had strong opinions in 3 other legs, so I went 7 deep. The 6/5 shot ran second to a $50 horse I didn\'t particularly like but used for coverage, a second out lifetime who ran lousy first out but looked like he might wake up (relatives, trainer profile, Harrington, I use a lot of price horses second out). That race knocked out 99% of the tickets. If he had improved about 8 points instead of 10 the favorite would have won.

The previous two years the breaks went against me. This year they went for me. You have to get enough at bats. That means staying in action if you\'re good enough to win, and not beating yourself.

\"You have to get enough at bats\".

An interesting and (I\'d think) apt analogy.

In what may strike some folks as being odd or counter-intuitive, besides being a good hitter, what is the most important ingredient in winning a batting title?

Answer: Not walking too much.

Now, you may think that not walking very much would be a result of swinging at too many bad balls. But yet, almost all of the serial batting title winners were guys who did not walk very much.

Take a look at the guys who have won multiple batting titles in the last 50 years. Almost none of them walked a lot. Gwynn; Madlock; Carew, Rose; Oliva; and Clemente.

The exception that proves the rule is Wade Boggs. And, a few generations back, Williams. But, otherwise, you want to win the title? Swing the bat!

JB,


Agree in general but have seen many very deep pocketed \"pro\" players go broke over many years.I\'m probably playing longer than you and have been taken down for $88k and $126K in pick sixes a while back. Both only\'s, both won easily, both fouled, neither foul would have changed the win position.Have 3 beats just this past week alone for very decent money. I\'ll disagree its\' evened out for me but get your drift.

Not sure what you define as a \"pro\" but to me it\'s not only something to do with how much they bet. I met a so called pro-whale from Cali at the BC at GP years ago, monster bettor,millions per week when he played, a few times per week.A stone sucker,yet \"known\"as a pro because he bet so much and occasionally made scores comensurate with his plays.

To me, a pro is a computer batch bettor, wired live to the tote,skimming a break even model and relying on the rebate.There are very few so called pro\'s that can consistently beat the game with just data/handicapping/software/info, but no rebate.Did every so called pro beat the game over the long haul, pre rebate,I doubt it then and now.

With pools still shrinking at most venues and countrywide overall handle down again in November.One whale that I know is backing up because shrinking pool liquidity making a very tight betting model tougher yet.

Mike

Miff-- I\'m not talking about bet size, I\'m talking about people who make their living in this game, who show a profit over the long run. And yes, almost nobody can do it without rebates. There are some who can do it without software.

In the long run, theones who win do bet quite a bit. Grinding it out on 5-10% of handle (even after rebate) you still have to bet pretty good to make a living.

Miff-- I\'m not talking about bet size, I\'m talking about people who make their living in this game, who show a profit over the long run. And yes, almost nobody can do it without rebates. There are some who can do it without software.

In the long run, theones who win do bet quite a bit. Grinding it out on 5-10% of handle (even after rebate) you still have to bet pretty good to make a living.

JB,

A math whiz who plays the game decently theorizes that if the decline in handle continues, it will force the grinders out since that model doesn\'t work unless the pools have a certain minimum of liquidity.Can any pro with that model that reads here expand on that theory?

That\'s a scary thought because if the 10-15% of the players that bet 60-70% of the handle disappear, whats left?

Mike

You ain\'t kidding. What I think will happen is that you will see less tracks running at one time, with bigger pools. There will be some seismic changes in this industry over the next 5 years.

Seems to me that the grinders depress the average winning payout.

 good riddance to them.

 It\'s a bit like asking, what if all the speed handicappers leave the game.  

 That\'s what you want.

 Of course, there\'s a limit to this, and if the handle drops too much it may be a problem on all fronts.

Great thread. Lot\'s of good stuff. Afew questions. When you mention software what software are you talking about? Are there guidelines for the smaller bettor to even be involved in the Pik 3-4-5-6? It seems to me that your bankroll needs to be huge to play into these pools. I lost last year for the first time in many years (i\'m a weekend warrioe not a pro). My thought is the 5-7 to 1 that I made money on is now 3-1 or less because of all info that\'s out there. Thoughts? I buy your data every week and swear by it. Any comments would be appreciated. Congrats on the big year! Ed

Dana666 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At his age I was
> hanging out in an OTB in Staten Island!


Which one the one in new dorp  plaza? i hung out there 16 years ago

Vired.

The software referred to comes in several varieties.In brief,some whales,pro\'s use these software programs to assist with their betting models.It runs the gamut from facilitating with many late robotic bets to live hookups to the pool seeking imperfections in the wagering on exotics(I understand this happens at rebate shops mainly)There is a string on the site with more details.The hook up to the live pool version is the most dangerous thing I can think of re pool integrity and fairness to all players.Clueless Clowns at NYRA would only say they were CERTAIN of the integrity of their betting pools. Would prefer hearing confirmation of that from an independent outside source with details of encryption and time stamp.

Not a conspiracy theorist but with modern technology and geek brilliance, this worries me.Lightweight racing thieves, the \"fix sixers\" almost got away with millions and had they a clue about how to go about it, they would still be robbing millions from the pools without detection.

The Clueless Clowns/Lords Of Racing still yakking about public perception of the game but have done nothing to stop the odds from dropping mid race.Yeah, we all know that huge sums pour into the pools VERY late. Fix it, morons!!

The introduction of the .50 cent pick 4 and 5 is the absolute best bet for the smaller player(somewhat the enemy of the larger player via pool dilution)The Pick 6 is a very tough play for any bankroll and without \"standing\" in a race or two, and getting lucky, can be a long road to huge losses.


Good Luck


Mike

No Richmond Ave, I think? Near the shopping center with Gino\'s pizza.

My favorite was the tiny OTB on Broad Street in Tompkinsville next to the
methadone clinic. My father never knew that one existed and could never find me.

I have not seen a single former OTB location in Staten Island or Manhattan which
has new occupants following the closing last year.

Richie:

  The OTB next to the methadone clinic in Tompkinsville??? You are a braver man that I Gunga Din!! I thought I was hard core spltting time between the Forest Ave. and Hylan Blvd locations!!

John

\"next to the methadone clinic\"
That\'s classic! You can\'t make this stuff up!

Jerry, do you mind if i ask you a question about Calif vs NY? Your thread seems to indicate that you\'re really into So Cal pick 6s, is there any reason you\'re not putting your full effort or concentrating on NY pick 6s? I know the NY pick 6 pools arent as big as the Calif pick 6 pools, is pool size and the amount of decent carryovers the reason you\'re concentrating on Calif? NY has had plenty of decent carryovers this year, do you find the races in calif \'easier to beat\' than in NY?

A one day carryover in California is about twice as big as one in NY. I decide whether to play based on size of carryover and what the races look like, not location.

I\'ve been fascinated by this thread as many of us have been, and I\'ve decided to add my 2 cents.  According to my online account with TG, I\'ve spent $11,585 on sheets since 1999.  Estimating conservatively, if I include hard copy purchases prior and subsequent to that year, I\'ve spent $20K on TG, who knows how much on forms, BRIS, etc.  I can turn and look at my bookshelf and see over 40 books on horses, horse racing, and handicapping.  I\'ve worked for and been friends with a triple crown race winning trainer. I\'m an avid lurker, occasional poster on this board.  Enough with the bone fides, like just about everyone else on this board, I know a thing or three about horseracing.
  After handicapping the sh*t out of the breeder\'s cup and showing a significant loss once again, I quit over handicapping and my results have sky rocketed.  My approach the last month has been toss out the favorite, zero in on horses that figure at good, or at least not low odds, then play relatively large p3, p4, and p5 tickets using at most one favorite.  I know, it\'s what we all say we should do, look for value.  But, I\'m finally doing it, and the key to success has been not overhandicapping and falling in love with particular horses because I put 3 hours in on the card the night before.  
  I know about variance.  I know this will change.  But I feel like I finally \"let go of the side of the pool\" and have discovered swimming in the deep end is the same as swimming in the shallow.
The $3K P4 at the Big A today is an example.  Wasn\'t going to play today at all.  Watched the first few races online, decided that speed was the way to go.  Put in a $24 ticket using horses that had early speed or had not yet demonstrated they didn\'t have early speed.
  The point is this.  I\'ve known for 20 years that proper betting, not exceedingly thorough handicapping, is the key to making money. I\'m finally doing it and its amazing.  Like I said, I\'m not so naive as to not realize that there is luck, variance, etc also involved in this.  But, if you are stuck in a rut with handicapping, open up your betting instead of putting more time in handicapping the night before.  If you\'re on this board, you probably know an awful lot about handicapping.  Put that to good use by allowing it, not strangling it.  Step up the plate as previous posters have been saying; take as many at bats as you can to give yourself a chance to win.  Just make sure you aren\'t using the favorites.  I\'ve heard the cliche a thousand times, but the all-button really is your friend.

Dodie-- if you were only spending around $1,000 a year with us, clearly that was the problem.

I would make a point related to the one you made, but coming from a different angle. I think people get scared to throw out a favorite just because it has a decent shot to win. If you have an even money shot that is really only 25% to win (or 50% to be in the exacta) he\'s a clear bet against in both pools. You have to be prepared to lose some bets in exchange for getting value. Again, if you get enough chances it will work out in your favor. And short priced favorites are GREAT throwouts in multiple race wagers-- people have to find a place to take a stand, and they are way overbet.

The tricky part comes when you like a price horse, and have to decide whether to protect under the favorite, even though it\'s an underlay. That\'s where it gets complicated.

And that\'s where taking lots of at bats comes in to make a profit.  You have to throw out  that favorite that has a chance enough times in order to make the profit that the expected value allows for. So I guess what we\'re saying is bet more, bet more, bet more to expose yourself adequately to those profits that are available.  Bet more, and of course, as you so ably pointed out, Mr. Brown, buy more sheets. :-)  (I won\'t get in to the personal circumstances and small bankroll that only allowed me to spend $1000 a year on sheets.)

Too your last point, Jerry . . .although I\'m working with a woefully small sample, the answer for me has just been to throw that favorite out.  In fact, if I\'m willing to get involved in the sequence, I\'ve backed up with ANOTHER price horse in that race with the favorite that has a shot.  I know it will eventually catch up with me.  That favorite I\'m afraid of that I\'ve tossed, is going to start coming in instead of my price horse or the other longshot back-up.  I\'ll go through a downswing.  But, I will have made enough profit the last month through throwing out that favorite to weather that downturn, and I now KNOW it will turn around.  But everyone is right, those photo losses can be devastating if you let them be.  Ultimately, enjoy and appreciate those good runs.

Dodie: What was your average Pik 4 play before and what is the average now?

This is anecdotal.  (Yes, I know I should have detailed records . . .) My average play is about the same, $36-$96 per sequence, all tickets totaled. The difference is, I\'m not making that stand on a favorite.

I was kidding about buying more sheets, but again yes on the rest. It\'s not necessarily bet more money, it\'s about staying in action.

Do you multiple tickets where you could hit it more than once or one bigger ticket?

I\'ve been on the board long enough, Jerry, to pick up on your wry humor.:-)  And yes, bet more OFTEN is what I should have wrote, but heck, bet MORE too when you\'re on a roll too.

Vired
  I usually play one P4 ticket. Most tracks have concurrent P3s or doubles, so that\'s where I press my top value picks.  If there\'s a P4 and a P4 only, then maybe I\'ll put in a press ticket, but my sense has always been to include another horse in a chaos race than to \"double up\" on the horse you think \"just can\'t lose.\"  You are leveraging value in these multi-race bets, and that leverage is leveraged even more with a long shot.  Again, your hit percentage goes down, but, when you hit, you are rewarded disproportionately.  You just have to have the bankroll and emotional fortitude to watch that $400 P4 come in that includes a favorite you left out, because the 2 longshots you used in that race instead would have paid $3-4000, and they just ran second by a length.  
  Writing this stream of conscience stuff is really re-inforcing stuff I\'ve known for years, but just haven\'t had the courage to follow through on.  I wish they were running the BC again tomorrow.  God, I would\'ve had Court Vision and Drosselmyer on some tickets!

Thanks for your reply. Funny you bring up Court Vision because i had the $1 pik 3 for 5000 BUT it was only because i had the all! BC day i play amuch bigger pool of money that a group of us put in. What i\'m trying to figure out is how big a bankroll i need to play these pik 4\'s. I know every one is different but if you bet a 96.00 ticket you might not be able to hit the all button. Maybe i need to recruit partners. Thoughts from you and JB would be appreciated. Thanks

You\'re absolutely right, vired,.50 P4s are within range for me, but not $1, to use the all.  Looking at a $192 instead of $96 just isn\'t within my bankroll or gambling mentality and that needs to change, at least the mentality part, which is what I guess all this rambling has been about for me. I love the challenge of handicapping.  I love the passion with which others on the board talk about the performance figures and how they\'re crafted.  I love the beauty of the horse, leading me to work on the backside during vacations.  But the grinding truth of betting on them into usurious take out rates is that you have to accept that in a 10 horse field, all other things being equal (and I know they are not :-) ) each horse\'s fair odds is 9-1.  Toss out the extreme long shots (Quirin\'s great study demonstrated that they won at much less a percentage than their odds indicated [that\'s right, his study showed that essentially 25-1 shots won %2 of their races, not the %4 their odds indicated]) and skip the races where there is a 3/5 shot or less (Quirin showed that they actually win MORE often than their odds indicated) and you can start thinking about actually overcoming the takeout rate.  But then, this odds analysis alone assumes that pari-mutuel wagering is an efficient market reflecting each horses true value, which is what we are trying to exploit.   Jerry and others have said it time and time again here:  You have to be getting rakeback to make a profit and churning at least mid-six figures through the windows (both brick and mortar as well as online, excuse the non-sexual double entendre)to make a marginal living betting horses. So where does that leave us?  For me, its enjoying the little streak I\'ve been on.  Just like our hero Jerry, but on a much smaller scale. :-)

FWIW, my dissertation prospectus is due Friday, and I\'ve been working on it pretty heavily the last month.  Betting and posting here has been a way to procrastinate.  I see it all clearly now.  Once I turn the thing in, I\'m sure my horseplaying will go down the toilet.

Dodie, great post, im in the same boat as you, handicapping the stuffin out of the Breeders Cup only to realize its just like throwing darts. Im sure some people crush the BC, i\'m not one of them.

The absolute key is to bet big against badly overbet favorites. Seems like the most overbet favorites are horses with a fancy jock/trainer combo. One of the problem\'s im struggling with now is HOW to bet my \'sneaky longshot\'. If you key your sneaky longshot for 4th in the superfecta, you can make a boat load of money. You can also make a boatload if you key him for 3rd, 2nd or 1st. Of course, depending on how well you structure the wager with all the other horses in the race.

Recently, my \'good bombs\' have been outrunning where i think they\'ll finish. Ive been saying to myself \"this is an interesting 25-1 shot, maybe he can sneak into 4th and create a nice superfecta\" only for me to see that bomb finish in the top 2 and beat my supers AND my trifectas (which key him for 3rd).

Handicapping very good these days, maybe a bit too good...these bombs i\'m picking are finishing higher than i need them to.

There\'s no reason for the adw\'s not to offer an \'api\' that could be used by decent programmers to create a usable front end for players.

 The online offerings I\'ve seen to date range from pitiful to clumsy.

 It\'s almost as if they are going out of their way to make it hard to wager in an efficient manner.

Plastic and Oscar
  I will say this that gets to both of your latest posts.  I split my play pretty evenly these days between an online adw and a racebook that has terminals where you punch in your own bets.  For a couple of years I\'ve seen these guys sitting at the machines punching in bets like crazy.  It really reminded me of someone just sitting in front of a slot machine, which all of us wiseguy horseplayers know is just the height of gambling stupidity. :-) One specific guy has a computer printout that he down loads.  Never has a form.  The other guy has a form in front of him, but essentially waits for the call from his clocker buddy and jock agent buddy for \"the\" horses.  When I first noticed them, I thought, whatever, they\'ll be gone soon. Well, \"as far as I can tell\" (and what does that mean when trying to figure out if \"track buddies\" are ahead or behind) they\'re still in the game, and doing pretty well.  One guy apparently has an account with a rake back operation, and I\'ve watched him literally punching in bets on the machine while simultaneously repeating the bet on the phone to leverage his action.  Now, I\'ve thought as I exchanged niceties with these fellows how \"superior\" I was compared to them because I handicapped, and had insight, et cetera. It was almost as if I\'d be embarrassed to win some money on a long shot because he didn\'t \"dope out\" as the horse that \"should\" win. And that\'s delusional.  At the end of the day, its whatever works for YOU to show a long term profit, and I beginning to think that\'s what these guys must do, because I\'m having success betting lots of value combinations.  Who cares if that CC Lozez/Gullusco horse at 13-1 that went wire to wire in the stakes today at the Big A really \"looked like the fourth best horse\" based on sound handicapping principles that are \"the foundation of my erudite betting decisions.\" I didn\'t use the favorite in the race and instead used him because I knew he\'d be a better price, and I was rewarded.
Like I\'ve said, I haven\'t found the holy grail, I\'m not \"set for life\", but I\'m beginning to think you should use that 25-1 shot in all four positions, plastic.  I know you potentially need deep pockets because you\'re going to run into those photo losing dry spells.  Maybe I\'m just getting lucky.  But I do know this.  Based on the records I have kept, Gulfstream, and especially Oaklawn, are tracks where I\'ve done \"the best\" in the past.  It will be very interesting to see what happens after the new year.  I hope I can keep this whole zen approach going.
  I trust I can count on one of you fine fellows on the board to \"look me up\" in a month or two to see if I\'m still killing \'em.  Experience tells me I doubt I will be, but, in the meantime, I did put some tidy profits in a 91-day CD that comes due in February, so at least I\'ll be able to still be in action if I want. :-)
  Thanks for letting me ramble.  Instead of this quasi-redboarding post stuff, I\'ll share one of my 5-star, lead pipe locks of the century with the board this weekend.  All you\'ll need to do is go the opposite of what I say to score.  :-)

Jerry and Plastic
  I think if you are going to focus on horizontal wagers, the way to protect that price horse \"underneath\" is not to protect at all if it is the first leg of a P3, or the 1st or 2nd leg of a P4 or the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd leg of a P6/5.  I know this is imposing an artificiality based on how the races are positioned in the sequence, but, if you are like me, and you feel you are much better at picking winners than 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place finishers (which is why I focus on horizontals and not verticals . . . yeah, I know, I\'m leaving money on the table :-) ) you wait until the later legs when you start having an idea of what you could potentially make, and then protect accordingly.  I think this knowledge of payoff potential counteracts the fact that your 20-1 shot runs second by a nose to the favorite in the first leg, your P3s and 4s are dead, and all you have is a $1 exacta box because you don\'t want to feel completely stupid and at least you have \"something\" on the race.  One of the best feelings at the track for me is to see what the P3/4 is paying going into the last leg, figuring out how much I\'m going to make with my live tickets, and then structuring some savers.  This is anecdotal, but I\'m honest enough with myself to think the following are the guidelines.
 Put together your x-ta, tri, and super saver tickets, total how much they cost, and then only invest half that amount in the savers and use the other half to press bets on the horses you are live too.  I know, its counterintuitive, but I think many will support me; that\'s the right way to go.  Yes, your win % will go down, but, when you hit, your profits will more than make up for it.  Further, if you are playing your horizontals right, those horses you have to save against include at least one or two short prices, which you decided to take a stand against anyway.  Even further, if there are more DD, P3/4s to come, halve the money again that your putting on vertical savers and invest that money in the horizontals going forward on the horses you don\'t have; use that favorite with longshots going forward.  I don\'t remember any \"big score\" vertical savers, but I do going forward in horizontals.
  Again, these are the ramblings of a guy who\'s been on a hot streak, but in a month or two when things go cold I\'m going to come back here and read my own advice and be glad that these posts never go away.  :-)  It is the right way to play.

i know i moved out here to by Chicago 12 years ago and couldn\'t believe otbs are like the ones in atlantic city  with a restaurants just a few but they are nice ... and low and behold no 6.5% withholding only 2% lol

Dodie-- that\'s actually one of the most important posts about betting anyone has put up here. It\'s something I\'ve been doing more of this year-- keeping in mind not to use horses you don\'t really like in the first leg of a sequence just because you like things a lot in later legs. You\'re exactly right-- there are almost always multiple race bets starting with the next leg. And yes, it\'s very important-- crucial-- to learn how to use those later races for a hedge if you ARE live. The fact that after the first two legs of a pick 6 you can cover your ass in the pick 4 while still having a lot of leverage is extremely useful if you know what you\'re doing.

Congrats Jerry, and thanks for all you do here.

As for betting the KY tracks, I can\'t see how anyone does well at Keeneland. I am so confounded by that track now that I doubt I will ever place a major bet there again, unless they switch back to dirt, and good f\'n luck with that. This is a track I grew up with, even worked there while in high school.

The BC weekend was good to me. I was ahead a little on Friday. Had a nice day on Saturday, mostly thanks to the Hansen exacta. Couldn\'t lose on Sunday. If it rains at CD though, I bail.

I\'d rather bet River Downs than Ellis or Turfway.

Here\'s hoping the coming year is even better for you.

I too, found this a terrific thread and congratulate JB. If memory serves his \"winning streak\" started right after a very tough beat in the Belmont
when his pick three was short circuited when the Fu Peg freaked in the mud.

JB would be a good \'capper without integers as he makes good decisions, covers bases with large returns and generally takes a there is always tomorrow approach.

I must disagree with Dodie on \"overanalyzing\".  For me, the more data the better.
Having all the facts and putting them together properly is a simple formula for cashing.

For instance, a million times a year someone posts that they like a horses pattern and conclude it has had enough time to recover.  Many of these times the horse was entered and was a vet scratch.  They seldom acknowledge the scratch and may not know how a horse gets off the vet list! TG shows this data.

Patterns, or form cycles clearly can be read differently.  One need not look any further than the Hollywood Derby and the prerace analysis from a Thorograph competitor.  It read, summarized, that Ultimate Eagle had a bad pattern and was the least likely of a dozen sophomores to win!  As many will recall, the colt was undefeated since going to the grass and wired that field at a number.  How a competent sheet reader could come up with the least likely winner is hard to comprehend.

Other data regarding equipment changes, castration ( on which someone recently here wrote a knowledgable post) surface/trainer moves etc. are all pieces of an intricate puzzle.  How they fit requires information... all of it.

Lastly, favorites often can be a sequence bettors best friend.  A race is carded, horses are entered and a that point many in the racing office \"know\" who is going to win.  I realize there are bad public choices but a third of the time they win.

On one unrelated point,  it is Christmas time and my email is inundated with TG competitors seeking donations for worthless information.  While this may not be the venue to discuss their collective trash, please let me know if it is allowable.  Their individual claims are comical and would make for good reading. bbb

BBB-- actually, I am interested in what others in this industry are selling, and how. Fire away.

I realize by selecting only one worthless \"handicapping service\" email might upset some of the others, but time constraints and all.

And the winner is... RPM!   Whoever they are.   The last email came from a Len Czyz...ski indicating it was my last chance to purchase one of their guaranteed money making systems.   This weeks price was $57, down from the week before of $78 and along way short of the week before that of a robust $125.

Marketed as the \"best handicapping product\" on the web RPM actually has about three dozen \"systems\" that \"they\" sell as middlemen.   The owner who goes by Clint, or Dave, although sometimes Tom or Len et. al claims 50% of \"their\" picks win.  Their last winner paid $157.40 in the fifth, December 2nd in Louisiana.  

If you act today bonus programs are added for free!

First runnerup was sadly a tie between winning ponies and gapfire.

The former claims they \"know every angle at over 140 tracks\" and their picks have \"paid\" over $10,000,000 in 2011.    Unfortunately, in order to cash that 10 very large, you had to invest some thirty three million.

Gapfire claimed they had the breeders cup classic exacta but their posted FIVE horse box did not contain Drosslemeyer.   No matter substance aplenty here with twelve winners in as many heats at Turfway last week,   AND all ten winners at Holly wood Saturday.   Before you knock down the door and buy their trash look at todays selection 12/14/11!   Paraphrased  {  \"We have not played FG in years.  Who knows what will happen but our top selection is #3 in race number nine.  However, we are not convinced how this one will run today\" }

Next time someone complains about this sites ROTW remember there is other options out there!!! LOL. bbb

Reminds me of one of the greatest handicapping books ever, \"The Dot System\".  Written by a guy named Henkin who had never been to the track.  Must have been in the early seventies when OTB reared its ugly head.  Essentially he gave \"Dots\" to horses picked by the handicappers in the Daily News and his \"system\" was to box the horses with the most dots. Of course the key to making money was to bet the \"No DOT\" special which was of course a long shot because no one had picked him.  Hysterical stuff and I think he sold a ton of books.

Edgorman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reminds me of one of the greatest handicapping
> books ever, \"The Dot System\".  Written by a guy
> named Henkin who had never been to the track.
> Must have been in the early seventies when OTB
> reared its ugly head.  Essentially he gave \"Dots\"
> to horses picked by the handicappers in the Daily
> News and his \"system\" was to box the horses with
> the most dots. Of course the key to making money
> was to bet the \"No DOT\" special which was of
> course a long shot because no one had picked him.
> Hysterical stuff and I think he sold a ton of
> books.
Oh My God!!!
I read that book at the ripe old age of 10.  My older cousin who lived in our basement had that book and I borrowed it from him to read.  I tried it using all three area newspapapers (Post, News and Newsday)...I quickly realized at 10 that this was stupid..My cousin stopped gambling after a couple of years of using this system and getting killed..
Brought back some memories with that book name.

Lawton was the can\'t lose picks that some in my family clung to.  A bunch of them would chip in and buy it and bet whatever he picked religiously.

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So I\'m done betting for a while.

I think your timing is excellent for another reason.

I can\'t remember such unappetizing racing -- and I mean whole cards, almost everywhere -- as I have seen since the BC races were run.

I do a whole lot of handicapping, and next to no betting...and it\'s making me sour. Maybe I need time away, too, to relax and get refreshed; luckily I don\'t have Jerry\'s problem of having to count up mad stacks of money won.   :P

\"there\'s at least one guy who bets 200 million anually and makes 7% on it.\"

LOL!

If I held 7% I would not boast about it.
It is extremely risk averse betting which has undoubtedly resulted in mega losses to the bottom line.

and it not that I don\'t believe you, it\'s  just that I know it is false.

It would be interesting to know how you could \"know\" that even if you were right. It\'s like Ragozin saying in his book that he \"knows\" no track has ever changed speed except when there was rain or a freeze (p 35).

 The guy in question is the same one who made the famous \"mistake\' bet on Monarchos in the Florida Derby that changed his odds from 9/2 to 5/2 during the running of the race, in a very big pool. Some of us had (and still have) doubts about when that bet was put in. He originally made his money (a real lot of it) in software.

He-- and some of the others who are taking a lot of money out of the pools while getting maximum rebates due to extremely high volume-- are not American.

\"The guy in question is the same one who made the famous \"mistake\' bet on Monarchos in the Florida Derby that changed his odds from 9/2 to 5/2 during the running of the race, in a very big pool\"

JB,

Speaking of odds dropping during the running of the races, GP a cesspool. Don\'t know if it\'s past posting or just antiquated software but the odds are changing like crazy during the running at GP.

Clueless Clowns circle jerking about all sorts of rather mundane issues without correcting this obvious \"perception\" problem, fools!!

Mike

Yeah, could not agree more miff.  While there \"probably\" is nothing untoward going on (maybe...), just the perception is horrible for the game.  This really is the number 1 issue.  If you don\'t have odds integrity in betting, what do you have.  (Volponi?)

...more \"stuff\" for the Clueless Clowns:

Yesterday at Hollywood the winner of the 5th race paid 173 to win, the winner of the 6th race paid 23. The rolling DD paid 174(should pay near 2K) pool size was like 23k.

If I were part of Hollywood\'s management, I would immediately publicly say that we are looking into that very small payoff and after analyzing the betting, we\'ll get back with our findings.

The Clueless Clowns would ever think of such a thing in these type circumstances, too stupid,out of touch with their customers.


Mike

Pretty extreme case there, you dont see it much (winning, that is)

 Looks like an \'extra\' $200 on that #, hard to fathom.  

 But I doubt anyone would be so dumb as to past post a number like that and open themselves up to investigation.

 Easy enough for them to go back and see when the money came in.

 imo this is a form of \'cherry picking\' as you dont notice the 100\'s or 1000\'s of combos bet crazy every day that DON\'T come in.

Box,


Not even close. There isn\'t hundreds or thousands of possible pool aberrations like this one, every day.


Mike

Unless you\'re looking at lots of aberrant  payoffs BEFORE the race, you really don\'t know how often.

 There  are more of these than you think, though this is particularly odd.

 PS , unless someone just randomly found an open pool somehow, why would they do something so obvious? There are better ways to steal 20k and not get caught.

 They should certainly be looking at when and how the money came in here, a trivial task.

Box,

Not suggesting this was a past post.The point was that the Clueless Clowns have not shown enough interest in pool integrity.

Fyi,there are many guys charting exacta/double pools looking to spot big plays and ride with them.

Mike

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Box,
>
> Not suggesting this was a past post.The point was
> that the Clueless Clowns have not shown enough
> interest in pool integrity.
>
> Fyi,there are many guys charting exacta/double
> pools looking to spot big plays and ride with
> them.
>
> Mike

 I\'m sure there are, the question is where do they get the money to replenish their bankrolls when they tap out?

 I guess everyone saw the will pays on that 10-1 shot, but looks like next to nothing was bet accordingly.

The only possible innocent explanation would be a big backwheel of the second winner, but they absolutely should investigate.

\"The only possible innocent explanation would be a big backwheel of the second winner, but they absolutely should investigate\"


...possibly a drunk or a wrong punch maybe.

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yesterday at Hollywood the winner of the 5th race
> paid 173 to win, the winner of the 6th race paid
> 23. The rolling DD paid 174(should pay near 2K)
> pool size was like 23k.

\"Should pay near 2K\"? Says who? Where is it written that the win pool -- or any other separate, independent pool -- is the final arbiter of what the serial bets should pay?

You can compare pools all you want. They might even \"line up\" frequently, depending on what formula(s) you use. Statistically speaking, though, it don\'t mean shit...and I don\'t care if you or anybody else has been doing these comparisons for 100 years: it\'s outright rubbish...mental masturbation that proves *nothing*.

Now, was the DD on the \"low\" side, as compared to numerous other somewhat similar race sequences and DD payoffs we have all witnessed in the past? Sure, but what ought to be plainly obvious is that the horse in the first leg had no business paying $173+!! And what the hell was the Mitchell horse doing paying $20+? Mitchell\'s been on fire. There are the statistical anomalies!

Still not buying it? OK, fine: did you do the math on this one, Miff?

I did. There was about $240 wagered on the winning double combo.

That\'s $240 out of a total DD pool of about $25,900.

Who were the \"insiders\" that \"stole\" the DD here -- a bunch of blue-haired grandmas that all threw in a sawbuck? Three homeless guys and a stooper? Some betting coup there.

>The Clueless Clowns would ever think of such a
> thing in these type circumstances, too stupid,out
> of touch with their customers.

Or maybe they are tired of their Paranoid Patrons frothing at the mouth at things they could have thought through for themselves.

Cuts both ways, Mike.

Agree. Doesn\'t hurt to take a look.

I just question whether the conspiracy theorists out there would accept an explanation that doesn\'t involve organized skulduggery, featuring Al Qaeda, Rick Dutrow, and the Illuminati. People prefer juicy tales of wrongdoing vs. boring reality and reasonable explanations.

I already said there was an extra $200 on the number. No calculus needed for that.

 I don\'t know how many standard deviations away from normal a 1/10th payout is , but its quite a few.

 And unless you\'re thinking past post, then what you\'re really asking for here is an intervention for the imbecile that took 85-1 on a 1000-1 parlay.

 Can\'t discount the possibility that some offshore bet was laid off in a clumsy way.

Well that\'s a pretty easy one unless I\'m misunderstanding something. The DD pools would have been closed after the 5th race so you should have been able to see the $174 probable payout before the 6th race was run. No opportunity for past posting that I can see.

I\'m not suggesting it was a coup but a $173 winner and a $23 winner coming back a $174 double is pretty weird. Would love to see what the other double probables were for the rest of the horses in the 6th. I do chart sometimes and an aberration like that is a pretty good tell.

good point, you can\'t past post a double.

 so it was just a math impaired plunger.

Rick, Technically you make valid points. However, it doesnt make any real sense that you\'re so passionate in questioning someone who\'s suggesting that a \'weird price\' should be investigated. If this same post was made right after the fix 6 scandal (and before the fix became public), you might have posted the same thing and would have been wrong.

Its always good to question authority. When a price is low like that, i\'m all for the entire base of racing fans to go nuts demanding an investigation. Personally, as someone who bets into America\'s racing pools, i\'d prefer a large segment of the public to \'go nuts\' and demand this be looked into...i\'m just not sure why you would defend the opposite side of this.....which is to look the other way and just assume its legit.

As far as a DD not being able to be \'past posted\' it CAN be past posted, but the bet has to be placed in the 30 seconds to 1 minute before the prices go up for leg 1.. The person with the open window can see the big longshot win and then crush an \'all\' as soon as the winner crosses the line.

plasticman, I think you\'ve made several bad assumptions.

1. Nowhere did I say that this payoff *shouldn\'t* be investigated, nor did I say that we should look the other way. In fact, had you looked at other posts in this thread, you would have seen that I seconded TGJB\'s suggestion that the payoff should at least be investigated.

2. Regarding the Fix Six, I am on record (on @derby) as being one of the very first horseplayers to call for a full-scale investigation into that matter; I also offered to head up an independent forensic investigation into the betting of that Pick 6 for FREE -- that\'s how sure I was that foul play was involved.

My point is (and remains): do the math *first*. Take the time to figure out how much actual money was bet on a so-called \"too short\" payoff, and take a sniff: did someone REALLY take all that risk (remember, the Fix Six guys got caught, and pretty damn fast, I thought), only to bet a tiny amount of money, and then get back not a whole hell of a lot? And, does it make any sense?

Most times, no...and frankly, having checked into a fair number of these payoffs over the years, I can only remember one time where the calculations provided strong evidence of an organized race outcome.

Yes -- someone look at this one, and the next, and on and on. Give us a detailed explanation of the betting patterns, assure us that the time stamps were verified and that file controls were not tampered with, etc...and when the rancor over short payouts finally dies down, maybe we can move on to teaching horseplayers how to watch race riding so they stop shouting \"the jock stiffed \'im!\", when all that really happened was the complainant simply made a losing bet.

Rick, Thanks for clearing that up, i just felt that your position was \"someone made a good bet and/or a good score, leave it alone\" and if that wasnt your intention, my apologies.

I think what makes this look fishy (to me) is that who bets a large DD into a small pool with two bombs? Who does that? If you have any kind of brains, you arent going to destroy your own price into a little pool when the win pool and pick 3 pools are more than twice as big. It makes no sense that someone would bet in that fashion, i think that\'s why the red flag went up.

Rick:

You are forgetting to include my favorite new conspiracy theory: that the
Drone which was grounded by Iran is actually a Trojan Horse.

App 12 Billion being wagered in the US annually. You would think that the players would receive some indication that the pools are always pure.Not too much to ask.

Mike

Unless one is named Dana, Peter, Zjelko or the guy from Elite who\'s name just flew out of my head- they are not betting $200million,
sorry Mike is not betting $200million-that is comical as hell.

and none of those people are holding 7%.


I do get it though.

With the price of your product being astronomical,
it is important to broadcast ludicrous hold numbers so the cost seems relatively inexpensive. The reality is at 1% which is reality, the first $2500 or whatever a Tgraph customer bets-the profits go to pay you.

Afterall the only people that care about hold percentages and win/loss records are touts. The rest of us care about maximizing the bottom line which means teeny hold.

Have a happy holiday, at some point early next year,
I will have a list of the 100best figs since the advent of fake dirt,
and i am going to query why it is that 95% of them are on dirt.

Breakage--Don\'t know who Mike is, Peter is the guy I was talking about. And the last I was told (about 2 years old) is that he was making 7% AFTER rebate, as I said. So he would be losing into a full takeout (or actually, not playing).

How much would you like to bet I can prove my numbers for this year, which can be found at the top of this string? You evidently know some people in this game, guessing we can find someone we both trust to hold the bet. In honor (ahem) of Romney, 10k? More? My percentages are down slightly since that post because I\'ve been losing in occasional action (though  I did have a couple of tickets on the pick 6 at Hol yesterday which got some back).

Re the synthetic figures-- that subject has been hashed to death on this site, use the search engine. Guessing you are new here, and don\'t use our figures.

And yes, any profit, even 1%, is good in a pari-mutuel game with a usurious takeout, even after rebates. I can provide the best data in the history of this industry and teach people how to use it, but so far I haven\'t been able to get takeout reduced.

The double with the odds-on favorite was paying about $440.

It seems impossible, but with the DD paying about the same as the win price, I\'m wondering if it could be a conso...

I have never seen a double at a major track where a combination was uncovered.  I think someone or some group pounded the second leg winner with all in the first leg.  They did not have to bet into the win pool in the second leg hence the $23 win price.

hmmm, interesting thought.  Considering that only $40 or so would have naturally been wagered on that combo, its not beyond impossible.

 tried calling HOL but they were closed.

Best guess,a drunk!Conso makes sense, no one had it for a buck, but wouldn\'t that mean that the back end is an all?

Many here missing the point though.Even if they did/are looking at it,they, i.e the clueless clowns, should always make a statement in cases of an insane payoff.Make us think there\'s a heartbeat there.

First post in a very long time. I\'ve been on my own self imposed sabbatical for a bit. Other than a disastrous Breeder\'s Cup I\'ve made made about a dozen total plays since Saratoga. I\'m dipping my feet back in at the Gulfstream meet slowly.

Interesting string that says it all about the state of this game. The DD pool at Hollywood was only 25k !!!!! Those are Finger Lakes or Philly Park type pool numbers.

Good luck all,

FD

the money is spread out all over the place, tri/super/exacta/doubles horizontal bets.

 25k not quite as bad as it sounds.

Boscar,

Cali handle numbers have been in the toilet since they went plastic.( Deservidily so ) Pre poly  rolling double pools were easily 100k.

What do you expect when you card 8 races of 5 and 6 horse fields ?

JB -

thanks for the data.  I think it is great and keeps getting better.

A question for you if you don\'t mind:

you mention hitting the pick 6 at hollywood yesterday.  Congratulations.
I think this was very hittable, but I whiffed, missing the 2 yo\'s in the 10th.

After missing the last race (singling the favorite), I looked at the sheets and the winner made sense, as it had (in my mind) the best sire, trainer stats, jockey combo, etc.  I was kicking myself for not spending the extra measly 10 bucks, as the analysis surely would\'ve had the winner.  In redboarding today, I\'m surprised it didn\'t, and in fact mentioned another horse as having the best sire, trainer stats.  What did I miss? Am I reading the data incorrectly (i hope not as I\'ve been using sheets for 20+ years).

Anyway, this is not a criticism, just wonder how you forge your view these first timers outside of works (Harrington) and some other nuggets (i.e. dam) that you\'ve graciously shared over the years. I weigh yearling costs, prep, numbers 1st out and 2 yo for sire/dam, trainer stats, surface, thoughts on well meant, etc. and combine for overall view, without a strong weight or bias towards anything (probably most towards parents #\'s).  But I typically struggle with the firsters especially when other indicators like the betting is a few legs in.

I presume that in a horizontal structure where you like the other legs, the 2 yo unraced legs just require a spread unless a few are likely.  Is this how you approach it and what you did yesterday in the last ?

For second timers, I have given far more weight to the trainers TG #\'s from start 1 to start 2 than their percentages, ROI, and it seems like a a good predictor, but for first timers, I struggle. Any insight into what you weigh heavily on the 2 y.o.\'s and how you structure horizontal bets with many unraced and unknowns in the legs would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

p.s. I\'ve been trying to sign in with the account I\'ve had forever, but it didn\'t work so had to create new id fwiw.

First of all, I didn\'t do the analysis. I had no real opinion in the race and went 5 deep. My opinions were in other legs.

You\'re pretty much on top of it with your general analysis, I\'ll just make a couple of points. First, I\'m much more interested in 2yo sale prices than those for yearlings (they are based far more on the indivdual than on pedigree), and best of all is when you can compare both. Second, in terms of predicting ability (or tendencies, like plus grass or distance), the dam side info is both more relevant and less reflected on the tote board than the sire info. Very valuable.

Not sure if anyone heard this, but I was listening to the replay of Steve Byk\'s show and someone at Suffolk made a $200 Dbl ALL/Mitchell horse basically taking down the whole pool.


I found this on the TVG community site and thought it was pretty comical.

1) it was already stated this morning that a $200 back wheel of Mitchell was bet at Suffolk

2) the horse is owned by William J Sims

3) some very rudimentary digging finds that there is a William J Sims that is President of Joule Inc.

4) Joule Inc is located in Massachusetts

5) Suffolk is located in Massachusetts

what\'s your point?

Jerry - thank you for the insight. I\'ve probably been giving to little consideration to 2 y.o. sales prices, and the occasional big jump from yearling-2yo pricing.  Thanks for the response.

If factual, that bet would totally explain both the Double payoff and the inflated win price in the second leg.

It explains the double , but if anything the win price should have been lower as all the genii spotted the low DD payoff, and rushed to participate in the goodthing.

Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It explains the double , but if anything the win
> price should have been lower as all the genii
> spotted the low DD payoff, and rushed to
> participate in the goodthing.

Normally they would, but my guess is the long layoff and crappy last race at DEL scared most of the \"will pay watchers\" away.

Remember, the average handicapper looking at a cold, dry piece of paper thinks he knows more about a given horse than the trainer, who spends time with the horse most every day, and depends on his training acumen and the horse\'s ability to run so that he can feed his family.