Panda,
Quote:
|
You're correct in your assessment that most of the people who post here are social and recreational players rather than professionals, and I think that's always been the case with the Methodology. I think that few have career aspirations. And Doc himself perhaps misled clients...
|
This was
BJennet's lead up comments to the quoted comment troubling you. So far, you haven't stated whether you have aspirations of professional play (i.e. sufficient ongoing cash-flow to be a primary income source).
For the record, I have no evidence that Doc himself lead people to naively think they could quit their day jobs and make gads of money betting horses. He would say in writing that folks could supplement their income, make it a profitable hobby, but it goes without saying that individuals themselves would naturally interpret his life's work to enable consistent profitable betting, as inviting the possibility of making at least a regular middle-class level of income, or better. In Follow Ups and seminars, he certainly did not shy away from laying out the cold hard realities of what would have to happen to make good money: hit-rate, average mutuel, bet size, work ethic, one's psychological limitations.
In 1994, at a seminar in Baltimore, while sitting with my wife and with Tom Ainslie (Dick Carter), I asked Howard in an open session if one could expect to make a decent professional living betting horses. He equivocated. He said something like 'professional compared to what? - If you're a doctor or a lawyer, consider not quitting your day job.) Dick asked me what I did for a living and I replied 'software developer'. He said something like 'keep your day job and turn it to horse-racing on the side'. (And my wife and I stayed in touch with Dick for years after that.)
Last year, on Doc's final birthday, he and I talked for a long while and he mentioned that he still felt that someone with a mature grasp of the Methodology, but focusing on the BL/BL and a 'wagercapping' approach, and demanding value could make 'millions'. I took 'millions' to mean 'a large sum', and the context of that discussion led me to believe that the comment was not merely the fading hope of an old man, but of one who knew well the potential of good tools married to proper mental approach and an understanding of the logistics of betting.
I doubt I could make 'a large sum' annually betting only into WPS pools, and certainly not if a fair percentage of those bets occurred at small handle tracks (PEN, MNR, FL, FE, etc). But establishing a steady hit rate and decent average mutuel and even modest ROI Win/Place betting - then becomes the foundation for exacta betting and frequently larger mutuel pools, then Double and Pick 3 betting (serial Win betting) with larger pools again. And exacta betting becomes the foundation for trifecta betting (and .10 Suprefectas), Etc, etc. Also, some very formful tracks have large enough pools (e.g. Woodbine) to be betting decent sums in any pool to not knock down your own odds.
Perhaps 10-15% ROI Win betting is readily achievable by most who have the time and mental preparedness using RDSS. But I suggest that better ROI than that is available on aggregate, on going, by gradually adding in exotic pools. A 'big hit' every now and then provides padding, and we've seen that 'big hits' are well within our grasp. If you build a $500 bankroll to $5000 over several months, sticking to say 2% of total bankroll (or more depending on your tracking of your edge, or bet sizing protocol: fractional Kelly, HMI, etc) 2% (or whatever) soon starts to look like real money and you'll have to start carefully distributing your bet units among tracks and mutuel pools that can handle it. Your personal requirements may permit you to level off well before that hypothetical level. Again, depends on your goals.
In reality, your sense of caution, your degree of enthusiasm and tolerance for failure and understanding and acceptance of 'stochastic' events (here, random distribution of bettable events in the short term) will govern your success and enjoyment, regardless of whatever methodology or software tools you choose.
I don't accept that Doc purposely sought to mislead people to think they could make lots of money without lots of effort and preparedness, and by the way, I don't think that was necessarily what BJennet was suggesting in his post - merely that one had to be clear-eyed about the requirements and rigours, both logistical and psychological.
Ted