• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Robert Tierney, psychic gambler

KRAMER

Former challenge facilitator
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
1,434
I just received a reply from this applicant after I'd written to him asking for more data on what he believed to be the PSI phenomenon behind his gambling prowess.

It has just been posted on the ROBERT TIERNEY thread in the Challenge Applications section. Go have a look, and then let's discuss whether or not this claim is even a paranormal one.
 
Well I'd have to work that all through for a while but a couple of things jump out:
The degree of success is not necessarily the barometer in horse race predicting.
Erm, huh?
All selections are made utilizing only a horse's number, morning-line odds and the numbers derived from the random deal of the cards.
Well, firstly, I love the way the actual horses odds is kind of tossed in as an afterthought.
It's almost like a dowser saying "I can detect underground pipes using only two beechwood twigs, a specially blessed 'holding' cloth, a water authority map, and my SACRED CAP of DOWSING."

Secondly, of course, why could he not also be using knowledge of the turf condition, horses' previous form, weather conditions, jockey information etc. etc. Like, say, a professional gambler? How could the JREF possibly ensure his isolation from all this gambling information?

The cards are agreat littl prop, but, ultimately, I would imagine a knowledgeable and organised, disciplined professional gambler could achieve these same results.

Doesn't sound too paranormal to me.

See if he can do it with coin tosses - that would be more convincing, and he only has 2 choices each time. AND he already knows the odds.

Or can we add "It only works with horses" to our burgeoning list of claim excuses?
 
Kramer,

From Bob Tierney's letter:

"I chose horse racing for this demonstration for two reasons:
1. Its immediacy. you get the results real fast.
2. Its sublime lack of ambiguity - either you cash a ticket or you don't. THAT IS THE INDISPUTABLE BOTTOM LINE. That is what I demonstrate; PROFITABILITY. "

This seems to imply that he can apply his method to other types of gambling. Ask if he can peform in a type of gambling based only on random chance, such as craps or roulette. If so this makes a better test becuase it is not muddied by the odds factor.
 
Yay, something I'm a near expert on. I've been betting the horses every week for a few years now.
This guy is just gambling that he'll have a good, or really just a decent day at the track when he's tested.
It's not hard placing show bets based on morning line odds.
If you do test him, don't let him look at the jockeys, they're listed with the odds.
 
Let's see how I do. Here are my $2 place and show bets at Meadowlands tomorrow night, November 3. I assume this guy means a single $2 bet per race. If not he's just going to bet all the long shots to place and show for 100 races and hope he gets lucky, well that's what I'd do.
Anyway...
Race
1. 7 to show
2. 1 to place
3. 6 to place
4. 10 to show
5. 1 to place
6. 6 to show
7. 3 to place
8. 2 to show
9. 6 to place

I'm not expecting to win much because I skipped the favorites in an attempt to win more that $2.10.
 
Brian, any feeling (or better yet, calculations) on what the odds are of having a good showing at the track betting like this guy does. I don't follow the ponies, but I suspect it's significant. Say at least 10%? Heck, I'd go for a 10% chance for a win for a million dollars when I don't have to stake anything but a few hours of my time. Kramer, sign me up!
 
roger said:
Brian, any feeling (or better yet, calculations) on what the odds are of having a good showing at the track betting like this guy does. I don't follow the ponies, but I suspect it's significant. Say at least 10%? Heck, I'd go for a 10% chance for a win for a million dollars when I don't have to stake anything but a few hours of my time. Kramer, sign me up!
I'm sorry that I can't give calculations, lousy at math, but I've watched hundreds of races.
I need to know exactly what he wants to do.
I need to know:
Is it one $2.00 bet per race, place or show only? (In this case it would be hard to bet $200 and win $280, but it could happen)
Is it ok if he gets a sheet of paper with nothing but race number, the horses numbers and their odds?
Is it that he expects to win $1.40 or so for every $1.00 he bets in the long haul.
One track, several tracks decided in advance, or any number decided on the fly after he sees the morning line odds?
 
I wasn't sure whether he was making a paranormal claim or not.

It seems like he might be making a nonparanormal claim. It seems like he has a system for betting on the horses that involves looking at the odds, the horses number and the result of a random card and deciding whether to bet that race or not based on some unspecified criteria.

The confounding thing here is the introduction of things seemingly unrelated to a correct selection (the horse's number and the result of a random card draw) to things that might be part of a horse picking system that didn't involve the paranormal (the odds and the unspecified criteria as to when to place a bet).

In California I believe the tracks take 15% of the total take and redistribute the rest of the betting pool in the form of winnings. That means that somebody needs to be doing significantly better than chance with their bets to make money at California tracks. I don't know whether this is commonly achieved by insiders and or professional betters. Can people make a living betting on horse races in Californa?

ALthough the above is academic with regard to the question of whether this person is making a paranormal claim, I think even if horse picking systems that do enough better than chance to win money don't seem to exist right now, the existence of one would not necessarily rely on paranormal effects. It is plausible, that without violating TLOP a successful horse picking scheme could exist.
 
I would ask him something like this. We know that info on horse racing is public, and the payout is dependent on how many other people think that horse will win. To reliably make money on horse racing, you would need to be better at predicting than most other people. This is difficult, but not impossible, and we're not racing experts.

This business with the cards does seem to be a paranormal factor, however, and that is what we would need to test. How could you show that your results are due to the cards, and not due to knowledge of the horses?
 
Sounds like he's a professional gambler who wants a chance to gamble for a million without even having to put up a stake.
 
CurtC said:
I would ask him something like this. We know that info on horse racing is public, and the payout is dependent on how many other people think that horse will win. To reliably make money on horse racing, you would need to be better at predicting than most other people. This is difficult, but not impossible, and we're not racing experts.

If I understand his claim properly, he predicts the outcome based only on the odds of the horse (and the card things), not on knowledge of the actual horse in question. Those odds are determined by the popularity of the horse to other betters (who will study a horse's form). Bookies set the odds such that the payout for any particular horse winning is less than the total stakes placed on all the horses. (Precisely how they set the odds, I do not know.)

If his claim were to win at roulette based on using his cards and the odds of different *kinds* of bets, it would seem more obviously paranormal. But that analogy is flawed as a horse race is likely to only have one choice of 36:1 but the roulette table has 36 *different* choices of that single odd.
 
nathan said:
Bookies set the odds such that the payout for any particular horse winning is less than the total stakes placed on all the horses. (Precisely how they set the odds, I do not know.)
My understanding of pari-mutual betting (it's been more than 20 years since I've bet on horses) is that "bookies" don't set the payout odds, it's just a simple formula based on how many people are making that bet. Because of this, as more bets are made, you see the payout odds change by the moment, up to "post time," when betting is stopped, and the race is about to begin. The odds are calculated in a such a way that the house gets a percentage of the total and pays out the rest to the winning bettors.
 
CurtC said:
My understanding of pari-mutual betting (it's been more than 20 years since I've bet on horses) is that "bookies" don't set the payout odds, it's just a simple formula based on how many people are making that bet. Because of this, as more bets are made, you see the payout odds change by the moment, up to "post time," when betting is stopped, and the race is about to begin. The odds are calculated in a such a way that the house gets a percentage of the total and pays out the rest to the winning bettors.

What you say is true, this is how the payouts are determined. However, the morning-line odds are different. These are set the by the track handicapper and are his estimate of the eventual odds.
 
Bob Le Flambeur

Not a peep from Gambling Bob since his last email.
 

Back
Top Bottom