Rob Singer banned

[mickeycrimm]

Redeitz, I remember reading about a guy that owned and published a sports handicapping rag called The Gold Sheet. I think this has been a few decades ago but he was kind of an honest guy in competition with all the bullshit handicappers. He challenged those handicappers to a contest where he put up a $100,000 prize. Any of those touts that could hit 70% winners through 100 picks would get the $100,000. It started with a bunch of handicappers. The last handicapper left dropped out of the contest at about 25 picks. The handwriting was on the wall. No one was going to even come close to 70% winners.

PS: I personally consider consistently winning sports handicappers to be AP's. And I think the rarest of all AP's is a consistently winning horse handicapper.

[redietz]

Redeitz, I remember reading about a guy that owned and published a sports handicapping rag called The Gold Sheet. I think this has been a few decades ago but he was kind of an honest guy in competition with all the bullshit handicappers. He challenged those handicappers to a contest where he put up a $100,000 prize. Any of those touts that could hit 70% winners through 100 picks would get the $100,000. It started with a bunch of handicappers. The last handicapper left dropped out of the contest at about 25 picks. The handwriting was on the wall. No one was going to even come close to 70% winners.

PS: I personally consider consistently winning sports handicappers to be AP's. And I think the rarest of all AP's is a consistently winning horse handicapper.

A copy of the first interview I ever gave regarding sports handicapping was in the "package." The interviewer asked me if I did horses. I said something like, "Too hard. I'd sooner bet on three-legged giraffe races."

Mort Olshan was one of the industry founders with his Gold Sheet. Nobody real shoots for 70%. And straight-up handicapping doesn't tell the whole story these days, either. Numbers move so much and so fast in college football that half the skill is knowing which way they'll move and when they'll move.

The best combined college/NFL year I ever had was about five years ago. I hit 66% (66-34, obviously) over a hundred games, and that was including a 17-game winning streak that I wrote about during the streak. The record and streak were documented in a contest online for handicappers sponsored by a subsidiary of Marc Lawrence and Jim Feist. I did not win -- another dude was unconscious picking college totals in the Pac 12 and Mountain West. He actually beat me. And of course, second place got zero cash.

Anybody winning 55% is doing a stellar job. That's the bottom line.

[bocce ball]

The interviewer asked me if I did horses. I said something like, "Too hard. I'd sooner bet on three-legged giraffe races."

Is that because of the inherent difficulty of handicapping, or because the vig is unbeatable? The latest Nevada gaming revenue report shows a 15.5% win for race books, and only 5.4% for sports (12 months ended August 31st, statewide).

http://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdoc...cumentid=12385

As for your abilities, you've already given ironclad examples of arb opportunities. But not everyone relies on evidence when evaluating a claim.

[redietz]

The interviewer asked me if I did horses. I said something like, "Too hard. I'd sooner bet on three-legged giraffe races."

Is that because of the inherent difficulty of handicapping, or because the vig is unbeatable? The latest Nevada gaming revenue report shows a 15.5% win for race books, and only 5.4% for sports (12 months ended August 31st, statewide).

http://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdoc...cumentid=12385

As for your abilities, you've already given ironclad examples of arb opportunities. But not everyone relies on evidence when evaluating a claim.

Don't get me wrong. There are people who have gone through extended periods being able to win at horses (regnis is one). But these people have intimate knowledge of tracks, the tendencies of owners and trainers, why certain jockeys take what mounts, the "non-verbals" of horses in the paddock, and so on. Anyone trying to win at horses without the "in-family" long-term knowledge base is just a civilian, like me.

Plus, the idea of trying to overcome the 15-20% vig gives me the queasy shivers. I wouldn't even know how to mentally deal with that kind of disadvantage.

Quick aside: 30 years ago, back in the good old days, comps for betting sports and races were the same. Back then, it was great. They were lumped together, and you could get real sports comps. Now it's more like a 5-to-1 ratio -- you get five times (at least) in comps for race betting as for sports. Race comps have stayed pretty much the same as 30 years ago; sports comps have been dramatically reduced.

[regnis]

The interviewer asked me if I did horses. I said something like, "Too hard. I'd sooner bet on three-legged giraffe races."

Is that because of the inherent difficulty of handicapping, or because the vig is unbeatable? The latest Nevada gaming revenue report shows a 15.5% win for race books, and only 5.4% for sports (12 months ended August 31st, statewide).

http://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdoc...cumentid=12385

As for your abilities, you've already given ironclad examples of arb opportunities. But not everyone relies on evidence when evaluating a claim.

Don't get me wrong. There are people who have gone through extended periods being able to win at horses (regnis is one). But these people have intimate knowledge of tracks, the tendencies of owners and trainers, why certain jockeys take what mounts, the "non-verbals" of horses in the paddock, and so on. Anyone trying to win at horses without the "in-family" long-term knowledge base is just a civilian, like me.

Plus, the idea of trying to overcome the 15-20% vig gives me the queasy shivers. I wouldn't even know how to mentally deal with that kind of disadvantage.

Quick aside: 30 years ago, back in the good old days, comps for betting sports and races were the same. Back then, it was great. They were lumped together, and you could get real sports comps. Now it's more like a 5-to-1 ratio -- you get five times (at least) in comps for race betting as for sports. Race comps have stayed pretty much the same as 30 years ago; sports comps have been dramatically reduced.

I have always said that horses are a full time job. You have to put in the time and my 50 years doing it does help (I started when I was 12). The 20% (approximately) hold is tough. But the key in horses is that you are not playing against the house. You are playing against the other bettors who are mostly uninformed (stupid). That makes up for the hold.

I don't know how much time you put in on a weekly basis Redietz, but I am sure it is quite a bit, even if just shopping the lines. As discussed somewhere on this forum, I worked for and was the top handicapper for a football tip sheet many years ago. I came to a mutual agreement to leave when I was ordered to give out both sides of games. I was doing pretty well at the time with a few plays per week in pro and college football but my "employer" was not someone you argued with. Lately I have considered getting back into sports but realize the time it would take to become knowledgeable again makes it impossible. Despite a few mind bet wins I don't want to delude myself that I have the ability today. But if horses become too much of an effort maybe.

I don't know what the comps are now for sports betting, but the comps for horses are negligible. I usually meet with the race book director and negotiate my rate. Otherwise it is almost not worth even using your card.

P.S.

Never considered myself an AP either. I don't consider knowledge or brains to constitute one being an AP. Someone that beats the system in some way like Mickey vulturing to me is an AP.

[Treeshade]

Redeitz, I remember reading about a guy that owned and published a sports handicapping rag called The Gold Sheet. I think this has been a few decades ago but he was kind of an honest guy in competition with all the bullshit handicappers. He challenged those handicappers to a contest where he put up a $100,000 prize. Any of those touts that could hit 70% winners through 100 picks would get the $100,000. It started with a bunch of handicappers. The last handicapper left dropped out of the contest at about 25 picks. The handwriting was on the wall. No one was going to even come close to 70% winners.

PS: I personally consider consistently winning sports handicappers to be AP's. And I think the rarest of all AP's is a consistently winning horse handicapper.

A copy of the first interview I ever gave regarding sports handicapping was in the "package." The interviewer asked me if I did horses. I said something like, "Too hard. I'd sooner bet on three-legged giraffe races."

Mort Olshan was one of the industry founders with his Gold Sheet. Nobody real shoots for 70%. And straight-up handicapping doesn't tell the whole story these days, either. Numbers move so much and so fast in college football that half the skill is knowing which way they'll move and when they'll move.

The best combined college/NFL year I ever had was about five years ago. I hit 66% (66-34, obviously) over a hundred games, and that was including a 17-game winning streak that I wrote about during the streak. The record and streak were documented in a contest online for handicappers sponsored by a subsidiary of Marc Lawrence and Jim Feist. I did not win -- another dude was unconscious picking college totals in the Pac 12 and Mountain West. He actually beat me. And of course, second place got zero cash.

Anybody winning 55% is doing a stellar job. That's the bottom line.

Horses to hard