Horse Racing as a Profession?

[moosepalm]

I dislike the take-out in principle, but, it would not be a deterrent to me were I so inclined to try the game as a professional.  My own handicapping skills, however are sufficient to keep that vocation at bay.  Nonetheless, when I look at the take-out, it is one piece of the pie, and a much bigger piece of it may well be filled by \"contributions\" of the utterly clueless.  This is not a level playing field like the roulette table where fate is an equal opportunity abuser.  I\'ve stood behind bettors in Vegas, who are poster children for the \"more money than brains\" rubric.  With fists full of money they bet tracks they\'ve never even heard of.  Yes, the blind squirrel finds the acorn on occasion, but, over time they are simply enlarging the pools at eighty six cents on the dollar, for those who have the savvy and discipline to make the right moves.  I can\'t help but think it\'s at least a wash against the track and state rake, but, obviously that\'s much more intuition than empiricism.

[bellsbendboy]

Smithkent

You, at least to me, draw a murky distiction between \"making a living\" and showing a profit.

I would not offer argument on making a living but your initial post this thread you wrote, in bold type, that players could not be a winner in the long run.

In essence, accusing me, and others of losing money over the long run.  Clearly, to me you need to improve your game.  Many of us show a profit over the long haul and have the tax returns to prove it.  BBB

[Boscar Obarra]

It\'s a popular pastime for failed horseplayers and those on the outside to insist that beating the game can\'t be done.

 Most of us here know better. However , except for a very few, the dollars earned per hour spent would probably be in the burger flipper category for many.

 Of course, the psychological rewards are infinite.

 The takeout only guarantees that horseplayers as a group must lose. The individual can make his own way, though the onerous rake is an impediment even to the highly skilled, else we\'d have long ago retired to Tahiti.

[smithkent]

To make my point further, take the situation of a takeout rate of 100%.  You all would grant me that it is impossible to show a long or short term profit-right?

OK- then howabout takeout of 90%?  Perhaps there may be an occasional player who would be a winner, but the far more frequent result is total loss, especially the longer one plays.

OK- now take it to the current 25% takeout.  It may seem as if there are some real winners- some of you guys may think you are \"smart\" enough to beat everyone else because you have had some winners.  You think your winnings are because of superior skills, or maybe even some luck.

I argue that you all will eventually be totally cleaned out- no matter how smart.

If you look at the stats that honest \"pro\" handicappers post, you will see that their long-term results always end up with a loss of around 25%- whatever the takeout rate is.  This is fairly simple mathematics guys.

Now- you may have an occasional big winner- say a guy gets lucky on the pick6.  But his win is counterbalanced by the cumulative losses of thousands of others.

There was a large study of many thousands of races that showed the odds of a horse winning were overall reflected in the final odds as determined by the bettors.  This shows a generally \"efficient market\".

Now- if you have some inside information- injury, illegal medications, etc- you may be able to get an edge on a particular race.  But overall, even if you can occasionally parlay this information, you will still get screwed by the takeout.

I know this line of thinking is heresy on a board like Thorograph. Heck- I buy a fair number of their products, because I enjoy thinking that \"just this one time\' I\'ll end up a winner!

I suppose its human nature to think that you will be different and specially gifted- that you will be smart enough to beat that 25% takeout.

Keep playing- the takeout from your bankroll maintains the view I love at Santa Anita...

[moosepalm]

Again, your argument is based on the assumption that the take-out (which is not 25% on every bet, and the smarter players are quite aware of that) has the same affect in racing as it does in Vegas games of chance (excluding blackjack) where the only determinant is the roll of the dice or the wheel. The odds are not set by the \"house\" in horse racing.  They are affected by people who don\'t have the knowledge or skills to make prudent decisions.  Often, I am one of them.  But, the disciplined pros have an edge, and that edge can overcome the take-out.  I have met a few.  Some actually make a living doing this, but, it\'s not a recreational pursuit.  Others don\'t have the discipline or skill to be successful, or they just flat burn out.  But, the fact that some can do it, profitably, shows that it can be done, just as serious card counters can overcome the house edge in blackjack.  Unless you\'re betting your house numbers, this is not a random game of chance.

[jack72906]

Cove,

I read this book recently. It\'s called Horse Players Life at the Track. A very entertaining read by Ted McClelland.

He spent a year at Arlington and Hawthorne here in Chicago and wrote about his experiences gambling and the many \"characters\" and their failures at the track. My common thought while reading the book was \"thank God for these guys\". Some of the decisions that were made as to why a horse would run well were hilarious. Especially when they were using \"inside info\".

Jerry, you\'d be interested to know that Ragozin is mentioned in the book. Not directly but one of the \"guys at the track\" was known for showing up at the post track bar with handfuls of video taped race replays. The writer mentioned that he would go home, watch the races and then figure out what the wind was at O\'Hare and come up with figures based on that.

[nyc1347]

I will also add that on top of all these factors what really puts people who are playing exotic wagers at a big disadvantage is the factor of contradiction. You are literally betting against YOURSELF! Lets say you play an exacta..  not only is the exacta a higher takeout at the track but for the most part people tend to most play different combinations in conjuction with their opinion on the race (straight number combos, boxes, etc..).

Heres an example of what i mean:  someone plays a 10 horse race., they make a $1 exacta box wager with 3 horses in this box ($6 wager, 6 combos).   lets assume that this person gets back $30, that would be 5 times the money back for a $24 profit.   Heres the key.. lets say that this person loses the box but then plays another box for $6 again and this time hits for $30..  this person has won but has spent a total of $12 to get back $30..  4 to 1 ROI QUICKLY turns into 2.5 times the back with OVERALL investment taken into consideration.   When a player wins that 6 horse box, FIVE wagers lose thus making the ROI much lower.  I understand that the payoffs arent consistent and the ROI can be compromised with a higher payout.. Im just stating that this is more of an uphill climb for players playing this wager cause the added factor of needing something to pay higher to compromise a higher ROI or to get more money is present.  

I take that out in my personal method cause i play one race, one wager, one horse, and take a stance on something i really like.  There are many factors into a show bet alone i cant imagine the stress and the adjustments that would have to be made in order to make money in the longhaul doing exotics.  Once you lose \"X\" amount of times the player is naturally looking for a bigger score, longer shot wager such as a super (with even more of a chance to lose), a horse with bigger odds and/or handicapping becomes much different.  even if we assume a player remains consistent with the approach they have they still have a higher hill to climb to just get money back to even compared to something more simple.  Again I know payouts are different but the contradiction, in my opinion, is a silent killer.

Just wanted to add my take on the contradiction aspect of wagers cause I dont think I have ever seen something on here or heard anyone ever talk about that angle with wagering on horses.  lemme kno what ya think!

[mjellish]

Well Kent,

You are entitled to your opinion.  But you are just flat out wrong.  While I agree that the takeout does need to be overcome, you are forgetting the parimutuel aspect of this sport allows you to do that.  It is a completely different form of takeout than what occurs at the casino, where you are actually playing against the house, and your logic is deeply flawed.  At the track, you are playing against the other players.  Show me a casino game where I am playing against other players and I will bet you that I could figure out a way to beat that game.  Are you saying there are no such things as a professional poker players because the rake makes it impossible?

Ludicrous...

There is nothing special about me and I made a living at horse racing.  You want to call me a liar then that is your choice, but I have the tax returns to prove what I say.  There are other people all over that make a living at the track as well.  These are real, walking, talking, breathing human beings that are not named Kaiser Soze.  But I guess you are just going to keep saying they don\'t exist anyway.

[miff]

\"There are other people all over that make a living at the track as well\"

Kent/Mjellish

...talk about ludicrous.There is some data which indicates that 97% of all regular horseplayers lose over the long term and the 3% that win have a fair number of rebate whales in their ranks.

People all over making a living at the track, not even close!


Mike

[Flighted Iron]

SmithKent,

\"I\'ve learned the hard way that you can NEVER be a winner in the long run\"

\"It really is the most beautiful and enjoyable way to gamble, just so impossible\"

We are absolutely entitled to our opinions.We\'re absolutely never correct all
the time.How long exactly is the \"long run\" and is \"so impossible\" more than
just impossible?

mjs

[smithkent]

Actually, horseracing is in fact a game of chance.  The fascinating part of it, which keeps me interested, is that there is a well defined \"market opinion\" available on the tote board- established by thousands of bettors opinions.  Study of thousands of races show that the final odds do in fact reflect the probability of a given horse winning are accurately reflected by the odds they eventually go off at.

However- there is a random element to the game- in any given single race, the crowd may be incorrect.  We call those underlays or overlays.  We spend a lot of time trying to identify those situations, since that is when you can make some  money, disproportionate to the odds that are establish by the bettors.

The problem is that you never know in advance whether a given race is going to turn out to be an overlay or not.  Only when the race is run do we get to discover whether we were right or not.

Frustrating?  Yes.  Some people like me find the combination of chance and certainty to be unique, and compelling.

But make no mistake- the longer you play- you *will* end up a loser.  The takeout (which can be 17-33%) will eventually get you.  Its like the 2nd law of Thermodynamics- everything eventually tends to entropy.

So- if you want to proudly show me your tax returns, I say- Keep your day job friend.  Eventually you will be needing it.  If you are ahead overall now- consider retiring as a \"pro\" now and count yourself among the lucky...

[colt]

Jack72906 wrote
-------------------------------------------------------------------Not directly but one of the \"guys at the track\" was known for showing up at the post track bar with handfuls of video taped race replays. The writer mentioned that he would go home, watch the races and then figure out what the wind was at O\'Hare and come up with figures based on that.

Jack,

I laughed so hard that I almost cried - this should be reserved for SNL.

[Wrongly]

\"Greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was getting people to believe he doesn\'t exist.\" Verbel Kint.

[jack72906]

Lol! I had to look up the passage in the book. Here it is:

\"(Horse Player) banged through the screen door, stepping from the bright summer evening into the saloon dusk from behind a beer belly that could have cushioned a headlong run into a brick wall........

...he gulped his beer and explained that he\'d stayed late at the track to pick up films of that week\'s races. He analyzed them for the Sheets. A service started by Len Ragozin, an ex-communist and professional gambler from NYC....the Sheets attempted to improve on speed figures by taking into account wind resistance, weight, and ground loss....

..he charted every horse\'s trip, collected wind readings from O\'Hare, and reported his findings to NY.

Ted McClelland
Horseplayers
A Life at the Track

[Rick B.]

smithkent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The takeout (which can be 17-33%) will eventually
> get you.  Its like the 2nd law of Thermodynamics

No, it\'s not.
 
Look, you are clearly sour on gambling as a possible way to make a living -- we get that. That\'s your right.

This is quite possibly the most intelligent bunch of horseplayers you will find on the Internet, though, and your attempts to use logic to explain decisions you\'ve made with emotion won\'t fly here. You\'ve had it explained to you in at least 3 different reply posts that takeout in horse racing is in fact a very different animal than casino or lottery takeout...and you\'ve just flat out ignored these explanations, and repeated \"the takeout is going to get you\".

Is it possible that you are being stubborn about this? Or do you just \"know what you know\"?