Wagercapping - "Bill V" approach in action!

[RichieP]

I got this email last night regarding RDSS and the Bill V approach laid out in the RDSS tutorial section

[RichieP]

Here is the spreadsheet attached to that email.

Any questions/comments feel free to jump in.

Shows a sweet 50% win % betting 2 horses and a terrific 42% positive ROI.

The gentleman gave permission and encouraged me to put this up to help some of the MANY new RDSS users.

Thank you

[RichieP]

Just received this followup on the races shown here.

ok

[tfm]

These are very good results no doubt.

However, this is pretty small sample. Not doubting that it'll port over but......


Recently, I had a > 40% return on winners betting one horse per race over just more than 100 races/bets. Since then, I've had a free fall. (For a number of reasons: an incredible string of tough beats ---2nds and photo losses---; and too much exacta/double action).

While I have no doubt that one (including myself) could show such results, it would probably take a larger sample (something around 1,000 races) to hammer the point home.

I think it's time to do away with all these myths about what is and isn't possible in terms of ROI. I'm tired of reading about 5% ROI (and begging for rebates) being something to strive for.

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by tfm

I think it's time to do away with all these myths about what is and isn't possible in terms of ROI. I'm tired of reading about 5% ROI (and begging for rebates) being something to strive for.

Hear, hear. Doc would say, he wouldn't cross the street for less than 25% ROI (or was that 50% ?). Regardless, and allowing for hyperbole, records like this serve to drive home that it IS possible to achieve such results, first and foremost to oneself, then by inspiration, to others. It serves to highlight, as the initial writer said and elaborated on further, what to focus on, what to not get distracted by - once you have a successful analysis and wagering method.

I know that Doc received hundreds of these type of forms in his day, many showing similar or better results, but like tfm skeptically (and wisely) says, let's see how it bears up over many more cycles. Not that I have any doubts it would - IF one maintains selectivity and mental focus.

FWIW, I will provide in RDSS the record keeping tool to automate the keeping of such records, in $1, $2, $10, $20 etc normalized betting units, timestamped if you like to prove they were selected pre-race; exportable for posting anonymously (or for bragging, here). Even if no one else sees them, if you see and heed them and constantly fine-tune what they tell you (or draw inspiration from others), it's another brick in the foundation of the Methodology.

Ted

[tfm]

Ted

You pick a lot of winners. Many of those on this forum pick a lot of winners. Hell, even I pick a lot of winners. In fact, I just passed on the winner of the 3rd at DEL, a turf race, my specialty, at 5:1, because I was arguing a point at another forum. So much for worrying about when my next one is coming in.

However:

You're developing software, I'm contracting out my services, and the others, for the most part, have a day job.

My point is not that it can't be done over the short term OR the long term. But as an empiricist, I need to see long term evidence. Not necessarily from others but from myself. I'm presently working on that now. And, it's not about picking winners. It's all the peripheral issues that come with this: the money management, the confidence issues, etc. This game is brutal and anyone going in without the proper perspective will be in for a rude awakening.

Between this forum and Paceadvantage, I'd warrant that we probably have 99.9999999% of all the winning players in the world covered. Of course, there aren't so many of them around in the first place, so, simple math dictates that, there can't be so many of them on these forums.

I mean, let's face it, based on my projections, and betting an amount I'd be comfortable with, with a manageable number of races per day, I'd certainly make LESS per year than just about any job I presently qualify for and invested equal time and effort towards. And this is certainly the case for just about anyone else I know who's presently playing.

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by tfm

Ted

You pick a lot of winners. Many of those on this forum pick a lot of winners. Hell, even I pick a lot of winners. In fact, I just passed on the winner of the 3rd at DEL, a turf race, my specialty, at 5:1, because I was arguing a point at another forum. So much for worrying about when my next one is coming in.

However:

You're developing software, I'm contracting out my services, and the others, for the most part, have a day job.

My point is not that it can't be done over the short term OR the long term. But as an empiricist, I need to see long term evidence. Not necessarily from others but from myself. I'm presently working on that now. And, it's not about picking winners. It's all the peripheral issues that come with this: the money management, the confidence issues, etc. This game is brutal and anyone going in without the proper perspective will be in for a rude awakening.

Between this forum and Paceadvantage, I'd warrant that we probably have 99.9999999% of all the winning players in the world covered. Of course, there aren't so many of them around in the first place, so, simple math dictates that, there can't be so many of them on these forums.

I mean, let's face it, based on my projections, and betting an amount I'd be comfortable with, with a manageable number of races per day, I'd certainly make LESS per year than just about any job I presently qualify for and invested equal time and effort towards. And this is certainly the case for just about anyone else I know who's presently playing.

tfm,

I know a number of people who make between 100k and 250k a year playing blackjack based on a 1% ROI. Well-known handicapper Ernie Dahlman makes over $750,000 per annum based on a 3% edge. Football handicapping pros have roughly a 2% edge. With any kind of an edge at all, you can make more money than you will ever be able to spend. I don't know what you're ROI is, but if it is positive (and I think you are absolutely right in insisting on a large number - recall that William Benter used a 1000-race sample to contruct his immensely profitable handicapping model) you can do very well. Worth remembering that Benter's ROI was only 28%, but he still was able to make 35 million a year.

With a 20% ROI, betting, let's say 2% per race, you should be able to double any bank playing 10 races a week for six months. Of course, most people have jobs, but conditional handicapping is available. With Bill's ROI (and given his excellent and thorough handicapping, I believe this is a stable figure) he could double a bank in three months.

People have varying levels of risk aversion, and you know what yours is better than I do, but there is no question that, if you have a positive ROI, you have the ability to make a great deal of money.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[Bill V.]

I just want to say thank you to whoever wrote to Richie
Please remember that basically what I do is what Doc
told me to do. So a Bill V. way of working races is not really
anything more than reading and following guidelines.
I believe in my ability to win betting two horses.
Its very nice to see anybody doing well.
I made a promise to a person who I look up to
last year at Saratoga

I have a game plan, That dream will come true
Life is a major factor in winning

Bill

[tfm]

Originally Posted by BJennet

tfm,



With a 20% ROI, betting, let's say 2% per race, you should be able to double any bank playing 10 races a week for six months. Of course, most people have jobs, but conditional handicapping is available. With Bill's ROI (and given his excellent and thorough handicapping, I believe this is a stable figure) he could double a bank in three months.

Jeff P has written a number of times about 'growing' a bankroll. I wonder how many have actually done so. Especially starting with small bets. I'm in the process of doing this and it's a very tedious process. It is, however, an incredible learning experience. My ROI is every bit as good as anyone's here, btw. But picking winners and winning is NOT the same thing. Having learned how to pick winners, one then needs to learn how to win consistently. This is a process every bit as challenging as the former. Maybe that's why so many here, and elsewhere, still have day jobs.

When I have a large enough sample to draw conclusions from, which won't be till next year at this time, I'll pick this up again.

As for your math:

10 bets a week would be 500 for the year. How much would you bet per race? $20? That would be a $2k profit for the year. $100? that would be $10K profit for the year. You'd need to bet $500 per race to make $50k for the year. How many can stomach a $500 win bet? And, how many can make more than $50K doing something else (putting in less time and effort, probably)?

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by tfm

Jeff P has written a number of times about 'growing' a bankroll. I wonder how many have actually done so. Especially starting with small bets. I'm in the process of doing this and it's a very tedious process. It is, however, an incredible learning experience. My ROI is every bit as good as anyone's here, btw. But picking winners and winning is NOT the same thing. Having learned how to pick winners, one then needs to learn how to win consistently. This is a process every bit as challenging as the former. Maybe that's why so many here, and elsewhere, still have day jobs.

When I have a large enough sample to draw conclusions from, which won't be till next year at this time, I'll pick this up again.

As for your math:

10 bets a week would be 500 for the year. How much would you bet per race? $20? That would be a $2k profit for the year. $100? that would be $10K profit for the year. You'd need to bet $500 per race to make $50k for the year. How many can stomach a $500 win bet? And, how many can make more than $50K doing something else (putting in less time and effort, probably)?

tfm,

Whether it's possible to profit from handicapping, given a positive ROI and whether one wants to make a living from it are two different questions. I think we agree on the former, but only you can answer the latter. As you seem to realize ROI is not about winning races, although this, of course, necessary, but about making positive expectation bets, which is, as you say, the challenging part. But others have done it, and from what you say you're doing it as well.

You seem to imply that everyone would like to turn pro, but my guess is that's not a goal for many handicappers. Of the few playing with an edge (not referring to those on this site), most are either satisfied with their occupations or, like most people, are too risk-averse to consider handicapping as a profession. Nassim Taleb's 'The Black Swan' has some valuable insights on the drawbacks of risk-aversion that might be of interest.

I appreciate the tedium of turning a small bank into a larger bank, but I know a number of people who have turned 1k and 2k banks into heavy six and low seven figure banks. To return to my example, a 1k bank, doubling twice a year would yield 3k - 300% - most on Wall St. would be pretty happy with this number. (BTW, this is assuming the bet-size doubles when the bank does - standard Kelly betting). If we assume an initial 10k bank, doubling twice a year, after three years we've made $640,000. Is this worth thinking about?

My basic point is that with even a 10% ROI you have an edge that most professional gamblers can only dream about.

Cheers,

B Jennet