I'm so confused. Fenwick bet down to 7/1??? — Dustin Korth

Fenwick finished last, 40 1/2 lengths behind. — RanchWest

Probably just got a bad trip :lol: — Dustin Korth

Hey that was my 10k bet you're making fun of. — Biniak

My condolences. The memorial service will be on Tuesday. — RanchWest

My next line is I was the jockey. So don't say "bad ride", it was just nerves. — Biniak

You guys are hilarious.
:rofl:

First line in my post.

(This is a re-release of a blog post from PaceMakesTheRace.com.) — Dave Schwartz

The concepts are still solid.

BTW, I spent some time researching my current approach and think I have found a way to improve it.

Needs more races.

One of the things I like to do is watch handicapping videos. One thing I’ve noticed is that Dave Schwartz and Michael Pizzolla have two totally different styles. Michael says if a race doesn’t have value he doesn’t play it. Dave says he plays them all! no race is unplayable! Here's Pizzolla's Preakness rant. I always give him credit for these because he does them before the race. Who's style would you say your playing style is more like? — Mark

Key point is that all races have a way to play them.

They can be quantified as:
1. Bet Against 1.21
Bet Against a horse projected to be less than 1.22:1
This race is considered chaotic and there will be no handicapping.
(Can't have a Chaos Race with less than 7 horses.)

2. Bet Against Low Odds (BALO)
Bet Against a horse projected to be less than 3/1
This race will be a conventional Contender Selection race, after the BALO horse(s) have been removed.

3. Single 1.21
Race with a 1.21 horse who deserves to be singled.

BTW, I used to do quite a few Live Play Sessions but only for HSH users.
When I release Studio I'll go back to doing them.

As I write The Studio, I am acutely aware of the difference between my coding now and 20 years ago because I have dozens of functions to import. It is downright depressing to see my poor coding habits from the past.

However, things that have been in place for a decade or more, or something that is very complex, needs to remain as is.

Going forward, I am committed to:
Zero documentation.
Because the code is so clear and the variables named so obviously that no docs are needed.
This includes function names.
(Often called writing explicit code.

Always code to my own standards.
Standard icons, button sizes, window ratios, etc.
Every button has a tool tip, etc.

Never write the same code twice.
Turn it into a function or procedure if possible.

Code that fits on a single page
If it's going to stretch across multiple pages, then there should be functions or routines that contain the excess code.

Avoid too much Overloading
Only use the obvious

Declare all variables
Variables should not be declared via use, but rather declared as local or global variables.

Avoid Global Variables
... except when absolutely necessary.

The "#BALO" is a hashtag which makes it searchable.

"BALO" means "Bet Against Low Odds."

How do we find the BA LO horse? — RanchWest

The video provided 2 solid ways.

BALO - I like it!

[edit]
Added as a hashtag in the original post.

If I could magically tell you the winner of a single race with 100% sureness and give you $100, how do you bet it? — Dustin Korth

Great point. :100:

I ask this question a little differently: "What is the best way to EXPLOIT what I believe to be true about this race?"

This is what I refer to as "Leverage Points."

#LeveragePoints #LevPts

I did the same thing with you that I did with everyone else: I changed the setting and forgot that I have to scroll way down the page and hit save.

Fixed now.
Sorry.

Fixed now.

The whale's rake is much smaller. The track's take is way too much! — Biniak

But combined... it's even worse.

It seems to me the whales are on the "best horse" a lot. We have to find races where the "best horse" is vulnerable. It's still a parimutuel game... yes, the whales can bet a horse to 1/5, but that means there may be a 7/1 with a shot. — RanchWest

... that doesn't win.
THAT's the problem.

88% of the races are won by horses under 8/1.
That upper 12% - there are 25 starters for every winner.

In my opinion - If you want to win, you have to be able to find a losing proposition among the low-odds horses. Not a horse that WILL LOSE TODAY, but a horse that will lose money long-term.

This demands a new way to look at the race.

Maybe we should be thankful for the whales keeping our game alive. Seems to me like they are the equivalent of market makers in the stock market, taking a small percentage in exchange for keeping the order flow liquid. — Biniak

That's what the tracks say, but what it does is take money out of the game.

Think of it like a poker table with 2 dealers - both taking a rake.

Can you please be a reference when Woodbine calls for the analyst position in the next few weeks? — Conley

That would need to be a private discussion.

You've captured my meaning perfectly! And explained it in a much more erudite manner.
And, yes, it must be tested, but to remain effective(if it is) it must not become common knowledge...and if its faulty then we must continue to modify the approach. — William Zayonce

I've been doing this for so many years.
In my experience, the only people who jealously guard what they do are those who consistently lose.

Not saying that professionals will give away all their secrets, but, as a general rule, I have found that they are very willing to share their knowledge and much of what they do.

Historically, when I've shared my current strategy completely in a seminar, not 1 person in 20 will handicap more than a couple of dozen races before changing something.

My point is that short of publishing a book that sells (say) 10,000 copies - sharing what you do will simply not change your prices or ROI.

BTW, someone asked me recently why my system changes from year to year. The answer is because the GAME is changing year-to-year, and often quite drastically.

Whales, whales, whales.
They deserve what they have because they've earned it.
But they've ruined the game for the rest of us.

WE MUST FIND A WAY TO BE COMPETITIVE.
Working on it.

BTW: Ron Stabiles Figs Winning System doesn't have a copyright on it's cover — Conley

Doesn't make it not copyrighted.

Sharing how a system works is NOT a copyright infringement.
It is a patent infringement - assuming one has a patent.
(Which would be a pretty poor assumption.)

What you can't do is simply copy what the author wrote.
That IS a copyright infringement.

So, explain it in your own words and everything is fine.

I have heard so much about Whales over the last few years. Do they have access to different data than we normal guys have available to us? Or is it their computer programs are far superior to anything we might be able to get our hands on at present? For instance, if we were looking at a race where John Henry was going to run, what would Benter's people see that we couldn't? I chse J. H. cause I loved that horse...LOL — Handiman

The SEE what we see in terms of the data they get. And that includes the tote feeds.

The difference is their PERCEPTION because they simply have better models.

Question:
If you had (say)...

• 20 people doing studies for you
• 5 statistical analysts (Master's Degrees or PhDs)
• 2 quants
• 20 people to watch races and fire the bets
• 4 programmers

... Do you think your results might get better?

Thanks, I didn't mean to underestimate. If they weren't really good, they wouldn't be risking millions of dollars. On the other hand, it is not impossible to find plays to beat them. When you can beat them, the rewards can be great. — RanchWest

Agreed.

Didn't mean it as criticism.
People think there is just a small difference between them and the whales.

Here's some more.

To be competitive the whales must PLAY (roughly)...

• 85% of all tracks
• 85% of all races at those tracks
• 85% of all the pools in those races

Typically, whales lose in December & January - yet to keep their deals, they have to keep their handle up to their norms.

A whale - or even a large player - who is consistently betting $2.10 horses to place or show will have their account restricted or even canceled.

They just make huge bets, aiming to break even or make a small profit. They make their profit from rebates. Apparently their software is fairly good, but the problem is that they bet so much on the logical horses that it is difficult for everyone else to make money on the logical horses. If you don't get a rebate, you can do just as well as them and still make only a very small profit. If you're betting $10 a race, a 5% average return is not going to net much. If you bet thousands, get the 5% and get a rebate on top of that, you're doing pretty well. — RanchWest

I look forward to the opinions of others.

Apparently their software is fairly good
I will simply say that you have them severely underrated. Their software is way beyond fairly good.

Also, it encompasses tote board predictions, which include the current tote as well as the movement. They use this to predict what the winner circle odds will be.

the problem is that they bet so much on the logical horses that it is difficult for everyone else to make money on the logical horses.
Nailed this one. Perhaps impossible would be a better word.

The real problem for old-timers like us is that we spent decades using a paradigm best called, make a line and bet into it.
Because so much handle is concentrated within the hands of (essentially) 6 betting entities, the swing after the gate opens is wild.

Here are some important statistics.

• 1 out of every 6.5 dollars wagered in North America comes from one of those 6 entities.
• 74% of all winners will show as bet down between "gate odds" and "winner's cicrle."

That 2nd one is killing American racing even more than the takeout.
It means that when you're making a bet at the last minute, if you are betting "into the line"
THE ODDS WILL...

• Go down if you win
• Go up if you lose

The point I was feebly attempting to convey was that we have access to soft data that can help with our final selections but often neglect its importance in identifying contenders that might be overlooked in the betting because of shortcomings in the "hard" data ranking . For me, this is the "fun" and "satisfying" part of handicapping. As to "good odds", my threshold of enthusiasm is about 9/2 but I'll gladly take as low as 2/1 in some circumstances . Generally, I'm just looking for contenders that aren't in the top 3 in the betting but ought to be but I'm not detered from betting if my pick is second or third in the betting at 3/1 or better . — William Zayonce

You speak truth in what you say.

The point - which you actually made very subtly is one I agree with wholeheartedly with: There must be a non-data component or we are doomed to fail in today's era.

If we use pure data, we are, in effect, challenging the whales head on. Data-driven handicapping, by its nature, pushes the winners to the top. Said another way, it pushes the obviously good horses to the top - which is precisely what the whales do.

That will not likely work out well for us. We - and that includes me - WE simply do not have the horsepower to compete.
______________
I believe that it takes an intersection of artfulness and datafulness to win in this age.
(Yes, I invent words as needed. LOL)

Of course, I will never be artful myself.
Simply not in my nature.
Instead, I contrive SYSTEMATIC non-data processes to substitute for artfulness.

Like you, I will design them in such a manner that the whales would not ever consider using them in their own theater of operations. As such, we can be the guerilla warfare experts.

But, there is a catch.
Our non-data approach, must be verifiable.
That is, we must make an effort to track our approach - whether it is true art or systematic.

We must be willing to objectively test what we do - and, if something isn't working, we must be willing to admit that our idea, concept, angle, etc. is a failure and replace or modify it.

YOUR THOUGHTS?
(And anyone else, of course.)