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.

Thanks for your input, Tony.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think this is anecdotal but I've always heard that on any given day, 95% of the people at the track lose — Steven

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.

At my age, having a good day IS long term.

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.

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.