Four Ways To Use My Ideas

[stephenNUTS]

The argument of the TRACK taking money out of the pool is instead of being a TRUE $10k Win Pool to payout from.....,,,after the track subtracts its 20% vig/juice.....the "adjusted" WIN pool now only has $8000 to divide amongst the various winners who played/bet on that particular horse/bet

So instead of the OUR FAV who would have been paid X to win....after the track T/O(we will call that y) you are now being paid x-y% accordingly based on the #of horses....amount bet on each horse...and the total $$$ in THE POOL

OUR... "hypothetical" pool would make it a ZERO sum gain over time,and award the "BEST" handicappers/luck boxes more money over time with same horses in the same race....with NO outside entity taking/PROFITING from our race betting pool

The tracks version(REALITY)results in 20% less money available to payout
With that LOWER TRACK pool taking this 20% of the money out ..... the ACTUAL odds are eventually affected accordingly in the payout

I think I am confusing you(i am confusing MYSELF....lol),and someone like David or other horse players can explain it better.....BUT you are not getting the TRUE THEORETICAL odds after betting at the track/OTB

Thats how they make their $$$$$,and makes it SO difficult to win over time

Some HELP please would be appreciated [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Stephen

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fuddy duddy FAs on this forum

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh.

Go ahead poker player/investors. Find investing strategies that are easy to implement while you are still playing the horses and poker 12 hours a day, avoid strategies that require actual hard work. Us Fuddy Duddy's will watch for your results with interest...

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that I wasn't calling them fuddy duddies because they were avoiding my more debatable suggestions. It was only the suggestion that they shrink their required discrepancy when that discrepancy can be explained and dismissed, thus giving them more picks, that they are fuddy duddies if they ignore.

As for the fact that my theories seem to indicate that there are winning strategies that don't take that much hard work or expertise, that's just the way it is. There are many, many endeavors where the person who does hard work will be an underdog to someone with only moderate knowledge and work ethic who comes upon a key concept or two that can be utilized against them. I do agree however that while the hard worker should have an open mind, if he is already successful, he should sit back and let others be guinea pigs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Warren Buffett took $100,000 and turned it into $50 billion buying stocks. He explained how he did it He scoured financial reports looking for companies with a competitive advantage selling at a significant discount to what an informed buyer would pay for the whole company. His time horizon was basically forever and once he bought a stock he did not let the price influence his decisions. He cited many other disciples with the same mind set who also achieved signicant performance. Why would a casual observer think they could improve on these methods? Bufffet has access to the best minds on Wall Sreet and laughs at trading, leverage, TA, short term trading and most exotiic investments. Either you can do what Buffett does or find someone who can and pay them to manage your money. Trying to use a horse handicapper to devine a system that will improve on Buffett seems extremley naive.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]

Warren Buffett took $100,000 and turned it into $50 billion buying stocks. He explained how he did it He scoured financial reports looking for companies with a competitive advantage selling at a significant discount to what an informed buyer would pay for the whole company. His time horizon was basically forever and once he bought a stock he did not let the price influence his decisions. He cited many other disciples with the same mind set who also achieved signicant performance. Why would a casual observer think they could improve on these methods? Bufffet has access to the best minds on Wall Sreet and laughs at trading, leverage, TA, short term trading and most exotiic investments. Either you can do what Buffett does or find someone who can and pay them to manage your money. Trying to use a horse handicapper to devine a system that will improve on Buffett seems extremley naive.

[/ QUOTE ]

he's not attempting to improve on buffet. he's attempting to exploit the same mispricings buffet looks for, but with a different method. he's not claiming that it's better than what buffet does.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]


he's not attempting to improve on buffet. he's attempting to exploit the same mispricings buffet looks for, but with a different method. he's not claiming that it's better than what buffet does.

[/ QUOTE ]

He claims it improves on what Buffett does (in the other thread), that Buffett would have higher returns if he incorporated David's approach. Let me make it clear I'm not convinced David is right or wrong yet, but I have biases that naturally make me skeptical of it.

I may write a letter to Warren Buffett just to see what he would say.

[maxtower]

I don't think its as easy as David thinks to handicap the stock market.
A good FA can determine the value of a company with enough accuracy to make money when its shares are mispriced.
We know the market price, and thats how we can tell whether or not to buy the company.
What I don't understand is how you come up with this other number about the expectation of price. Shouldn't the expectation be the value you determined?

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]

He claims it improves on what Buffett does (in the other thread), that Buffett would have higher returns if he incorporated David's approach. Let me make it clear I'm not convinced David is right or wrong yet, but I have biases that naturally make me skeptical of it.

I may write a letter to Warren Buffett just to see what he would say.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you do, please post it here first - i'm sure the forum will have some valuable feedback/suggestions.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fuddy duddy FAs on this forum

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh.

Go ahead poker player/investors. Find investing strategies that are easy to implement while you are still playing the horses and poker 12 hours a day, avoid strategies that require actual hard work. Us Fuddy Duddy's will watch for your results with interest...

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that I wasn't calling them fuddy duddies because they were avoiding my more debatable suggestions. It was only the suggestion that they shrink their required discrepancy when that discrepancy can be explained and dismissed, thus giving them more picks, that they are fuddy duddies if they ignore.

As for the fact that my theories seem to indicate that there are winning strategies that don't take that much hard work or expertise, that's just the way it is. There are many, many endeavors where the person who does hard work will be an underdog to someone with only moderate knowledge and work ethic who comes upon a key concept or two that can be utilized against them. I do agree however that while the hard worker should have an open mind, if he is already successful, he should sit back and let others be guinea pigs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Warren Buffett took $100,000 and turned it into $50 billion buying stocks. He explained how he did it He scoured financial reports looking for companies with a competitive advantage selling at a significant discount to what an informed buyer would pay for the whole company. His time horizon was basically forever and once he bought a stock he did not let the price influence his decisions. He cited many other disciples with the same mind set who also achieved signicant performance. Why would a casual observer think they could improve on these methods? Bufffet has access to the best minds on Wall Sreet and laughs at trading, leverage, TA, short term trading and most exotiic investments. Either you can do what Buffett does or find someone who can and pay them to manage your money. Trying to use a horse handicapper to devine a system that will improve on Buffett seems extremley naive.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a lot of things wrong with your post.

1. He wasn't a horse handicapper. He was a mathmetician. And he went on to beat the stock market with similar methods that he wrote about. Please read my posts more carefully.

2. I also laugh at all the stuff that Buffett laughs at. I'm concerned that some of the readers here are using my posts as an excuse to believe in nonsense.

3. As long as Buffett stuck to big companies where he had major disagreements with the market price, he didn't need to think about my stuff-as long as he is great at valuing companies and the public sometimes isn't. But what no one is getting here is that in spite of his words, I'm sure he agrees with me. In other words he agrees that the eventual worth, after present value adjustments, of companies he invests in are away from the market pice and toward his price but not ALL THE WAY. This is ridiculously obvious. Otherwise he owns the world. He doesn't mention it because it isn't relevant to him.

4. Almost no one is as good as Buffett at valuing a company and finding large discrepancies. So they have to pay more attention to the market's mindset. In fact Buffett himself might not be able to succeed with his methods as well he used to. The public is probably better now. So even if you are an expert, it is less likely that your valuation will differ as much from the market price. So if Buffett was starting now he would be forced to pick from smaller discrepancies and pay more attention to David Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem of Investing.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


he's not attempting to improve on buffet. he's attempting to exploit the same mispricings buffet looks for, but with a different method. he's not claiming that it's better than what buffet does.

[/ QUOTE ]

He claims it improves on what Buffett does (in the other thread), that Buffett would have higher returns if he incorporated David's approach. Let me make it clear I'm not convinced David is right or wrong yet, but I have biases that naturally make me skeptical of it.

I may write a letter to Warren Buffett just to see what he would say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if the returns are greater that doesn't mean that it's a better alternative because the risk may be greater as well (out of proportion to the extra returns). I keep coming back to the concept that investors want to achieve desired returns at the minimum risk possible. An analysis without quantifying the risk is an incomplete analysis.

Then we could get into investor utility. Not all investors desire the same rate of return.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


he's not attempting to improve on buffet. he's attempting to exploit the same mispricings buffet looks for, but with a different method. he's not claiming that it's better than what buffet does.

[/ QUOTE ]

He claims it improves on what Buffett does (in the other thread), that Buffett would have higher returns if he incorporated David's approach. Let me make it clear I'm not convinced David is right or wrong yet, but I have biases that naturally make me skeptical of it.

I may write a letter to Warren Buffett just to see what he would say.

[/ QUOTE ]

He knows of me so I doubt he will dismiss my ideas out of hand. Here are a few specific contentions of mine that you should mention where I think he agrees with me and you are skeptical.

When he says he ignores the actual stock price, he means that as long as he considers it seriously out of whack, he has a good play. And he need not concern himself with the contention that in the long run, his profits will certainly be less substantial then they would be if his predictions, on average, were perfect. All he needs them to be is substantially different form the markets predictions and in the direction his predictions would indicate. He doesn't even have to be closer than the market's predictions in order to become a multi billionare. And in fact that is what actually has been the case.

(If he agrees with that, then he agrees that once he sees the price he must shade his prediction. Even if he doesn't realize it.)

2. The idea that pure analysis will get you a good estimate of the price of a stock regardless of the market price is only a reasonable idea for some major companies. The idea that it is important to try to figure out WHY the market is disagreeing with you is not just a good idea for "fulcrum" stocks. It is important for a whole slew of stocks. Any stock where there is any kind of a chance your analysis might have missed something. But IF you can figure out why the market is disagreeing with you, and you can EXPLAIN why it is misevaluating, you should be willing to invest even if the disrepancy between prices is smaller than usual.

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fuddy duddy FAs on this forum

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh.

Go ahead poker player/investors. Find investing strategies that are easy to implement while you are still playing the horses and poker 12 hours a day, avoid strategies that require actual hard work. Us Fuddy Duddy's will watch for your results with interest...

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that I wasn't calling them fuddy duddies because they were avoiding my more debatable suggestions. It was only the suggestion that they shrink their required discrepancy when that discrepancy can be explained and dismissed, thus giving them more picks, that they are fuddy duddies if they ignore.

As for the fact that my theories seem to indicate that there are winning strategies that don't take that much hard work or expertise, that's just the way it is. There are many, many endeavors where the person who does hard work will be an underdog to someone with only moderate knowledge and work ethic who comes upon a key concept or two that can be utilized against them. I do agree however that while the hard worker should have an open mind, if he is already successful, he should sit back and let others be guinea pigs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Warren Buffett took $100,000 and turned it into $50 billion buying stocks. He explained how he did it He scoured financial reports looking for companies with a competitive advantage selling at a significant discount to what an informed buyer would pay for the whole company. His time horizon was basically forever and once he bought a stock he did not let the price influence his decisions. He cited many other disciples with the same mind set who also achieved signicant performance. Why would a casual observer think they could improve on these methods? Bufffet has access to the best minds on Wall Sreet and laughs at trading, leverage, TA, short term trading and most exotiic investments. Either you can do what Buffett does or find someone who can and pay them to manage your money. Trying to use a horse handicapper to devine a system that will improve on Buffett seems extremley naive.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a lot of things wrong with your post.

1. He wasn't a horse handicapper. He was a mathmetician. And he went on to beat the stock market with similar methods that he wrote about. Please read my posts more carefully.

2. I also laugh at all the stuff that Buffett laughs at. I'm concerned that some of the readers here are using my posts as an excuse to believe in nonsense.

3. As long as Buffett stuck to big companies where he had major disagreements with the market price, he didn't need to think about my stuff-as long as he is great at valuing companies and the public sometimes isn't. But what no one is getting here is that in spite of his words, I'm sure he agrees with me. In other words he agrees that the eventual worth, after present value adjustments, of companies he invests in are away from the market pice and toward his price but not ALL THE WAY. This is ridiculously obvious. Otherwise he owns the world. He doesn't mention it because it isn't relevant to him.

4. Almost no one is as good as Buffett at valuing a company and finding large discrepancies. So they have to pay more attention to the market's mindset. In fact Buffett himself might not be able to succeed with his methods as well he used to. The public is probably better now. So even if you are an expert, it is less likely that your valuation will differ as much from the market price. So if Buffett was starting now he would be forced to pick from smaller discrepancies and pay more attention to David Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem of Investing.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is much that is wrong with the David Sklansky Fundamental Theorem of investing. The first is that a company's earnings, cash flow and potential are not static. The movement in these variables can far outweigh any current descrepency in price and private market value.

Buffet says that in the short term the market is a voting machine, in the long term it is a weighing machine. This means he does not look at current market prices as representing anything other than a popularity contest. Stocks swing from in favor to out of favor around intrinsic value. The real key to his success though is a competitive advantage. His companies grow earnings at an above average rate which multiplies value over time.

While it may be nice to buy a company at a significant discount to estimated private value if you look at his big investment winners the main key was to identify company’s and management teams with a unique position in an industry that could generate abnormal returns. His gains are NOT a simple movement from undervalued to fairly valued, that is a small part of his gains. The real money has come in identifying companies that can generate abnormal returns because competition is generally limited due in many cases to a company’s brand name that can’t be duplicated at any price.

Market price to Buffett is but a barometer of investor sentiment. He knows what value should be. He stays away from complicated companies or industries he does not understand to eliminate the risk of the market knowing more about nasty suprises than he does. Coke, See's etc are American staples with many decades of earnings growth. He correctly identified many of these brand names as giving a company a unique advantage and could care less how the American public valued these companies.