Originally Posted by
regnis
I am not going to get into the EV nonsense of this and the Regnis thread, and by no means am I going to try to speak for Redietz. I have been involved in sports betting and horse racing for over 50 years. When I was seriously involved with sports betting (I gave it up when they legalized betting horses nationwide), we had contacts at almost every team (not the small schools) that would update us on injuries, problems, etc. Certainly, this gave us some degree of advantage. But it was only one part of handicapping. Like Redietz, I would never disclose, even now, what other factors we used. I am sure that there are modern algorithms and computer applications that can have success. But in my opinion, and I think what Redietz is saying, is that nothing can replace 50 years of study, knowledge, and experience.
Similarly, in horse racing, I know definitely there are computer programs and algorithms that are successful. However, again, I have over 50 years of experience that cannot be replaced. I have studied breeding for 40 years; I try to either watch every race looking for "troubled trips" or at least review the charts of every race. Yes--it takes quite a bit of time and effort yet I love every minute of it. I know trainer tendencies. Again, I would never disclose exactly how I handicap a race. In the old days, when I could only bet local races, I befriended the head of track maintenance and would call him every morning to see what he had done to the track that morning. Was it rolled or harrowed. What was the depth. How deep was the turf course and had it been watered. You can't replace that kind of info at a cost of a bottle of good scotch. Is that EV? Probably, but I am not a believer in EV.
Like Redietz has stated, it still all comes down to my opinion, whether right or wrong. But in my mind, that opinion is based upon more knowledge than the average bettor, and that is my advantage.
Reply With Quote