Once again, I find myself agreeing with the vast majority of your pts, particularly the one regarding mutual & meaningful dialogue. The argument typically thought to favor racetrack gambling is that unlike casino games, one doesn't have to deal with a mathematically based negative expectation. However, in 10 mins or less one can learn to play craps in such a way that the negative expectation is .25%, & there are certain video poker games, most located off the strip, which have a positive expectation. In contrast, learning how to handicap at a skill level high enough to overcome much higher "juice" takes a very long time & a lot of hard work. The problem with craps & video poker, & almost every other alternative, however, is that they are mind numbingly boring over any extended period of time. My take,then, is that handicapping has more appeal to intellectual-types than other forms of gambling.

While it might be correct to say that the probability of any horse winning in any given race is not related to its odds, the percentages over the longer haul have remained pretty much the same since they were 1st calculated. Two thirds of races are won by the 3 horses with the lowest odds, & the others win at the percentage suggested by their odds.

Finally, I could not possibly agree more that if one can make money handicapping, then the same set of skills can be used to make much more money in just about any field other than handicapping. In fact, I vaguely recall saying just that to a poster who announced on this Bd that he had decided to quit his job & become a professional. Not that the source of such wisdom is important, but I'm pretty sure that this concept originated in an article written by a handicapped handicapper yrs before the Ragozin book was published. I remember the article & that it influenced my thinking, but I can't for the life of me remember the name of the author. That alone should tell you something about how many yrs I've been going to racetracks.