Creative Engagement

[Capper Al]

There once was a study on pilot psychology/social work programs as a whole. What was found was that pilot programs had a higher rate of success than rote programs once they were adopted for wider use. This begs the question why. How can it succeed in test and fail in application? Similarly someone in racing once quipped that the average system last 2.5 times in practice. Yet, I can't think of anyone publishing in racing who hasn't gone through several developments. Systems work for a while and seem to evaporate with their premise as soon as they are applied. Pittsburgh Philly and many others were keen on seeing them (the horses in the field) right as if this sight was a fleeting vision that comes and goes as the ebb and flow of the sea. Could this insight be our creative engagement as we search for the Holy Grail of racing? Do we hit upon something more because of our heighten awareness from our searching than instead of having found a true understanding of racing?

[Overlay]

Systems work for a while and seem to evaporate with their premise as soon as they are applied.
That's because (aside from any differences in the workings of the system itself that might arise between theory and application) the majority of handicapping methods are predicated solely on finding and betting the one most likely winner in a race, as if that horse had a 100% guaranteed assurance of finishing first, with no consideration of the actual winning probability of that horse or of other horses in the race, or of how those probabilities compare to each horse's odds. As soon as enough people start using such methods, odds on selections are driven below the probability of winning by being overbet, and any profits dry up.

[Capper Al]

Because the majority of handicapping methods are predicated solely on finding and betting the one most likely winner in a race as if that horse had a 100% guaranteed assurance of finishing first, with no consideration of the actual winning probability of that horse or of other horses in the race, or of how that probability compares to each horse's odds. As soon as enough people start using such methods, odds on selections are driven below the probability of winning by being overbet, and any profits dry up.

What you suggest is another system, a system of wagering. Another formula based on application not creative in the moment insight. Don't get me wrong. I agree with watching the odds and determining value. My focus here is on the spark of insight verse a system. Do we need to trust the force within us verse being compelled to playing by rote?

[Overlay]

What you suggest is another system, a system of wagering. Another formula based on application not creative in the moment insight. Don't get me wrong. I agree with watching the odds and determining value. My focus here is on the spark of insight verse a system. Do we need to trust the force within us verse being compelled to playing by rote?
I don't deny the possibilities of a sudden flash of insight or intuition when handicapping, but how can you trust it to be consistent from one race to the next, and how can you develop a means of gauging its strength so that you know how much you can safely risk on it? And do you achieve it solely through experience, or do you also have to possess some inner predisposition that can't be taught or acquired to go along with your tangible experience?

[Elliott Sidewater]

To borrow one of my all time favorite quotes from Dick Schmidt:

"In theory, practice is the same as theory. In practice, it isn't".

To wit, I saw a system that looked interesting in an ancient book called "The Treasury of American Turf". Results for one month in the JFK era showed about 26% winners and profit of roughly infinity. Tested it out on some back forms and lo and behold, it still won. The first 130 plays showed 23% winners and a 29.7% flat bet profit on win betting. I was still suspicious that the sample was tiny and the results might be fluky, so I ran a second trial and that one showed 19% winners and a 9.6% flat bet profit after 125 races. That second trial is still running, as I'm not convinced yet that it will hold up in the long run. A 16 race consecutive losing streak at my home track left me with the same amount of confidence that I have in weather prediction via groundhog. I am nearly convinced that if you look at any angle or system long enough, it will lose. Might as well face it, it's not easy, it's not automatic, for me there's still no substitute for full dress handicapping, and there probably never will be.

[Tom]

Many "systems" are seasonal.
HTR offers the ability to see your spot play results by week.
I have on Aqueduct spot pay that is long term profitable on Saturdays but a long time loser on Sundays! Talking over a year.
No clue why.

[traynor]

There once was a study on pilot psychology/social work programs as a whole. What was found was that pilot programs had a higher rate of success than rote programs once they were adopted for wider use. This begs the question why. How can it succeed in test and fail in application? Similarly someone in racing once quipped that the average system last 2.5 times in practice. Yet, I can't think of anyone publishing in racing who hasn't gone through several developments. Systems work for a while and seem to evaporate with their premise as soon as they are applied. Pittsburgh Philly and many others were keen on seeing them (the horses in the field) right as if this sight was a fleeting vision that comes and goes as the ebb and flow of the sea. Could this insight be our creative engagement as we search for the Holy Grail of racing? Do we hit upon something more because of our heighten awareness from our searching than instead of having found a true understanding of racing?

Basic human nature. It is called the Hawthorne Effect.

[Capper Al]

I don't deny the possibilities of a sudden flash of insight or intuition when handicapping, but how can you trust it to be consistent from one race to the next, and how can you develop a means of gauging its strength so that you know how much you can safely risk on it? And do you achieve it solely through experience, or do you also have to possess some inner predisposition that can't be taught or acquired to go along with your tangible experience?

Here's the hook. Most players want repeatable in a method and believes in the scientific approach and has a need to predispose and correlate a known independent variable to a result. The player is taken out of the equation with this approach. I'm not suggesting anything against the scientific method. The art is in making the final decision. We are surrounded by a wealth of information and figures, but as an interpreter, we must put the weight in what we believe is relevant to today's race which may be similar to hundreds and thousands of other races but is unique in its own way today.

[Capper Al]

To borrow one of my all time favorite quotes from Dick Schmidt:

"In theory, practice is the same as theory. In practice, it isn't".

To wit, I saw a system that looked interesting in an ancient book called "The Treasury of American Turf". Results for one month in the JFK era showed about 26% winners and profit of roughly infinity. Tested it out on some back forms and lo and behold, it still won. The first 130 plays showed 23% winners and a 29.7% flat bet profit on win betting. I was still suspicious that the sample was tiny and the results might be fluky, so I ran a second trial and that one showed 19% winners and a 9.6% flat bet profit after 125 races. That second trial is still running, as I'm not convinced yet that it will hold up in the long run. A 16 race consecutive losing streak at my home track left me with the same amount of confidence that I have in weather prediction via groundhog. I am nearly convinced that if you look at any angle or system long enough, it will lose. Might as well face it, it's not easy, it's not automatic, for me there's still no substitute for full dress handicapping, and there probably never will be.

This might be the Achilles heal of many software players in that they escape the full dress handicapping and let the numbers do the thinking. I know for myself, a software player, that I don't step back from the numbers and take a second look enough. And this is the plus for the Paper and Pencil handicapper, for they are engaged with their process.

[Capper Al]

Many "systems" are seasonal.
HTR offers the ability to see your spot play results by week.
I have on Aqueduct spot pay that is long term profitable on Saturdays but a long time loser on Sundays! Talking over a year.
No clue why.

Sounds like reason to speculate and get creativity engaged. You might find something.

[Capper Al]

Basic human nature. It is called the Hawthorne Effect.

And I can testify that it works at Hawthorne. I think Hawthorne has more of my money then I have theirs.

[Capper Al]

Others might call what this discussion is about as Gut Feeling. Gut Feeling can be derive from computer displays as well as Paper and Pencil or as well as physical inspection. A computer player might say to himself that their automatic selects for this sprint dirt race weigh pace the most, but in this current race these connections have been prepping this one horse for a win today and overturn what they normally do.

[Overlay]

Here's the hook. Most players want repeatable in a method and believes in the scientific approach and has a need to predispose and correlate a known independent variable to a result. The player is taken out of the equation with this approach. I'm not suggesting anything against the scientific method. The art is in making the final decision. We are surrounded by a wealth of information and figures, but as an interpreter, we must put the weight in what we believe is relevant to today's race which may be similar to hundreds and thousands of other races but is unique in its own way today.
I understand what you're saying and I'm not denying that each race represents a unique, never-to-be-repeated mix of circumstances. But, for me personally, any gain achieved by the "art" of using subjective or intuitive criteria to make the final decision about if and/or how to bet that race is outweighed by the additional time consumed, the uncertainty injected into the decision process, and the inability to reliably replicate performance from one race to the next. I prefer a systematic, bulk, objective approach where (at least in my experience) "breaks" occurring as a result of nuances that have been omitted from the analytic process tend to even out over time.

[Overlay]

And I can testify that it works at Hawthorne. I think Hawthorne has more of my money then I have theirs.
The Hawthorne in question was located in Cicero, Illinois (like the racetrack), but, in this case, it was an electronics manufacturing facility affiliated with Western Electric.

Here's an article about those studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_Effect

[CincyHorseplayer]

Here's the hook. Most players want repeatable in a method and believes in the scientific approach and has a need to predispose and correlate a known independent variable to a result. The player is taken out of the equation with this approach. I'm not suggesting anything against the scientific method. The art is in making the final decision. We are surrounded by a wealth of information and figures, but as an interpreter, we must put the weight in what we believe is relevant to today's race which may be similar to hundreds and thousands of other races but is unique in its own way today.

This is why understanding basic abilities about horses,male and female,a track,yourself,still will be profitable.Half the population doesn't even look at these things half the time.The Breeders Cup last year was a great example.Speed,pace,pars,horses that ran against biases,class,it was there in black and white and paid prices.Overall handicapping has at some point been deemed unprofitable.Applying basic ability in a individual race is not as prevalent as applying an angle to a thousand races.It's the handicapping equivalent of needing to prove God's existence before a wager.A single race,or a short run of truth like a bias or a conditioning extreme(route to sprinters having stamina in the winter for example).There is a lack of control in people's minds for these realities until there can be 1000 or 10,000 races to bite into.It's an attempt to strangle and suffocate reality and dictate the absolute truths.The concept is as old as the world itself.Control.Wether by war or by reason.Scientific method is as essential as intuition and imagination.One should serve the other.It is a whole.But in our game it is separated and conflicting.We deal with individual races and short runs of reality.The adaptability of thinking is the only thing that can solve it.There is so much handicapping information out there we all can only make educated guesses as the what is relevant for this race.We can all use completely different interpretations and not knock each other's profit out.Proof of is the 60%+ loss of favorites staying intact through the Renaissance of Handicaping Information.I think we can systematically wager in an intelligent manner but deciding dominant handicapping factors for outcomes will escape pure methodology.This is a fluid game and the truth if constantly changing race to race,day to day.There has to be a balance of reason and intuition.

[thaskalos]

What you suggest is another system, a system of wagering. Another formula based on application not creative in the moment insight. Don't get me wrong. I agree with watching the odds and determining value. My focus here is on the spark of insight verse a system. Do we need to trust the force within us verse being compelled to playing by rote?

I would trust "the force" more, if I could determine it was leading me towards prosperity...instead of down a path to ruin.

All gamblers hear a voice from within when they gamble. The horseplayer is told to press his bet because "this is THE race", or that the longshot is "ready"...while the poker player is assured that his opponent is bluffing -- or that the river card is a spade. Is this the voice of insight and keen intuition...or the voice of desperation and greed?

And I have given up on the idea that there is a "Holy Grail" in this game. "The voice within" was responsible for that misguided belief too...

[traynor]

And I can testify that it works at Hawthorne. I think Hawthorne has more of my money then I have theirs.

Oops. Pointless repetitive post. Overlay already explained it.

[traynor]

I would trust "the force" more, if I could determine it was leading me towards prosperity...instead of down a path to ruin.

All gamblers hear a voice from within when they gamble. The horseplayer is told to press his bet because "this is THE race", or that the longshot is "ready"...while the poker player is assured that his opponent is bluffing -- or that the river card is a spade. Is this the voice of insight and keen intuition...or the voice of desperation and greed?

And I have given up on the idea that there is a "Holy Grail" in this game. "The voice within" was responsible for that misguided belief too...

"The voice within" may operate on a different set of priorities than you do, and what may seem "problems" to you may in fact be "solutions" from that perspective. It is not a trivial topic. You might be interested in reading some of the works of Milton Erickson for a more insightful description of the nuts and bolts of the process.

[thaskalos]

"The voice within" may operate on a different set of priorities than you do, and what may seem "problems" to you may in fact be "solutions" from that perspective. It is not a trivial topic.
I agree with you!

I have long suspected that this "silent voice within" is trying to bankrupt me...so I can then avail myself to a higher, more "spiritual" calling.

[Capper Al]

The Hawthorne in question was located in Cicero, Illinois (like the racetrack), but, in this case, it was an electronics manufacturing facility affiliated with Western Electric.

Here's an article about those studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_Effect

I should made a funny face after it. It's poor when yoo have to explain your jokes. :confused:

[Capper Al]

This is why understanding basic abilities about horses,male and female,a track,yourself,still will be profitable.Half the population doesn't even look at these things half the time.The Breeders Cup last year was a great example.Speed,pace,pars,horses that ran against biases,class,it was there in black and white and paid prices.Overall handicapping has at some point been deemed unprofitable.Applying basic ability in a individual race is not as prevalent as applying an angle to a thousand races.It's the handicapping equivalent of needing to prove God's existence before a wager.A single race,or a short run of truth like a bias or a conditioning extreme(route to sprinters having stamina in the winter for example).There is a lack of control in people's minds for these realities until there can be 1000 or 10,000 races to bite into.It's an attempt to strangle and suffocate reality and dictate the absolute truths.The concept is as old as the world itself.Control.Wether by war or by reason.Scientific method is as essential as intuition and imagination.One should serve the other.It is a whole.But in our game it is separated and conflicting.We deal with individual races and short runs of reality.The adaptability of thinking is the only thing that can solve it.There is so much handicapping information out there we all can only make educated guesses as the what is relevant for this race.We can all use completely different interpretations and not knock each other's profit out.Proof of is the 60%+ loss of favorites staying intact through the Renaissance of Handicaping Information.I think we can systematically wager in an intelligent manner but deciding dominant handicapping factors for outcomes will escape pure methodology.This is a fluid game and the truth if constantly changing race to race,day to day.There has to be a balance of reason and intuition.

You're right. This is a big divide in handicapping between those who want to rely on numbers and those who want to understand the races. I believe the trick is to do both. Use your numbers and then make the call to your best understanding of racing. It's difficult and time consuming to do so.

[Capper Al]

I would trust "the force" more, if I could determine it was leading me towards prosperity...instead of down a path to ruin.

All gamblers hear a voice from within when they gamble. The horseplayer is told to press his bet because "this is THE race", or that the longshot is "ready"...while the poker player is assured that his opponent is bluffing -- or that the river card is a spade. Is this the voice of insight and keen intuition...or the voice of desperation and greed?

And I have given up on the idea that there is a "Holy Grail" in this game. "The voice within" was responsible for that misguided belief too...

I'm thinking thta we have to get burnt to understand.

[Capper Al]

"The voice within" may operate on a different set of priorities than you do, and what may seem "problems" to you may in fact be "solutions" from that perspective. It is not a trivial topic. You might be interested in reading some of the works of Milton Erickson for a more insightful description of the nuts and bolts of the process.

If I'm hearing you correctly that by challenging our numbers we might be getting a more realistic view of the races, I agree.

[traynor]

If I'm hearing you correctly that by challenging our numbers we might be getting a more realistic view of the races, I agree.

Not just the numbers, but the conclusions reached and actions taken on the basis of those numbers. As in the perpetual question of business analysts, "Does this stuff really mean what we think it means?" Often the correct answer is "no."

[Capper Al]

Not just the numbers, but the conclusions reached and actions taken on the basis of those numbers. As in the perpetual question of business analysts, "Does this stuff really mean what we think it means?" Often the correct answer is "no."


We're on the same page.

[raybo]

I believe that the underlying problem between just using your "numbers" versus living in the moment, intuitively, and deciding which "numbers" are relevant in this particular race and regarding this particular set of competitors, is that, in the case of the straight "numbers" player, most numbers players work with the same method, far too long, or they jump from one "numbers"set to another, way too often. We all know that the racing landscape is constantly changing, but not necessarily "spiking" suddenly, so switching "numbers" sets frequently is probably not something you would want to do. And, of course, since racing is constantly changing, staying with the same "numbers" set too long is probably not something you would want to do either.

So, something in between those extremes would seem to be more valid. Something that "evolves" gradually, as new data is added and older data is discarded. In other words, our method should be gradually and constantly changing, just as racing gradually, and constantly changes. Will racing have short term "spikes"? Yes, of course, but they are short term and occupy only a small percentage of the total, and we should, IMO, not be concerned with the short term, but rather with the longer term.

[thaskalos]

I believe that the underlying problem between just using your "numbers" versus living in the moment, intuitively, and deciding which "numbers" are relevant in this particular race and regarding this particular set of competitors, is that, in the case of the straight "numbers" player, most numbers players work with the same method, far too long, or they jump from one "numbers"set to another, way too often. We all know that the racing landscape is constantly changing, but not necessarily "spiking" suddenly, so switching "numbers" sets frequently is probably not something you would want to do. And, of course, since racing is constantly changing, staying with the same "numbers" set too long is probably not something you would want to do either.

So, something in between those extremes would seem to be more valid. Something that "evolves" gradually, as new data is added and older data is discarded. In other words, our method should be gradually and constantly changing, just as racing gradually, and constantly changes. Will racing have short term "spikes"? Yes, of course, but they are short term and occupy only a small percentage of the total, and we should, IMO, not be concerned with the short term, but rather with the longer term.

It is my contention that players do not "switch 'numbers' sets", because they fear that the racing landscape is constantly changing; they switch because of the eroding confidence in their own handicapping methods.

Most bettors don't react well to the inescapable downturns of fortune inherent in this game...and must find something to "blame" when things go wrong.

There seems to be a prevailing belief that all will be well, if we can just "tweak" our numbers the right way...:)

[CincyHorseplayer]

It is my contention that players do not "switch 'numbers' sets", because they fear that the racing landscape is constantly changing; they switch because of the eroding confidence in their own handicapping methods.

Most bettors don't react well to the inescapable downturns of fortune inherent in this game...and must find something to "blame" when things go wrong.

There seems to be a prevailing belief that all will be well, if we can just "tweak" our numbers the right way...:)

Yeah the human ego is an amazing thing.We have become masters over nature through our power of reason.But not masters over our own nature.When things go wrong in this game the thought is the machine is broken and it is a mechanical fix.But what happens when we break down?I don't think many can acknowledge that as even a possibility.It's a glitch,variance,cyclical.There are a lot of reasons why we play badly or underachieve.These are things I'm focusing on fixing.Inside the mind of a horseplayer,non handicapping version!

[turninforhome10]

It is my contention that players do not "switch 'numbers' sets", because they fear that the racing landscape is constantly changing; they switch because of the eroding confidence in their own handicapping methods.

Most bettors don't react well to the inescapable downturns of fortune inherent in this game...and must find something to "blame" when things go wrong.

There seems to be a prevailing belief that all will be well, if we can just "tweak" our numbers the right way...:)
I had heard it once that the average method for most players only last a few days or maybe a week. I totally agree with the loss of confidence stated by Thask. It is like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle, finding the borders and corners is the easy part, it when we dig into the meat of the puzzle the we can get lost and be constantly looking for that better way.

[raybo]

It is my contention that players do not "switch 'numbers' sets", because they fear that the racing landscape is constantly changing; they switch because of the eroding confidence in their own handicapping methods.

Most bettors don't react well to the inescapable downturns of fortune inherent in this game...and must find something to "blame" when things go wrong.

There seems to be a prevailing belief that all will be well, if we can just "tweak" our numbers the right way...:)

I didn't say why they changed so frequently, only that that would not be something you would want to do, with the constant changes that occur in racing. You would never know where you were, with any of your "sets". I agree, that most change quickly, and suddenly, due to loss of confidence, and not having the patience to play a method long enough for it to exhibit it's potential (if it indeed had any potential to start with of course).

I was merely expressing 2 extremes, and that, IMO, the better way is some where in between. One thing is pretty clear though, if your method, whatever it is, doesn't continue to evolve, with the game, you stand less of a chance of succeeding, going forward.

[HUSKER55]

if you develop a system that works for you and you monitor it, after awhile you are going to find weak spots. that is the whole purpose of keeping records. As our abilities grows so does our awareness. even still, I don't think anyone should be making changes on a weekly basis.

some of us are still learning how to write decent formulas. I don't think that should qualify as changing your method.

but if you try something for six month as it still is not pulling its weight then it is time to do something

but that is just me

[Capper Al]

The catch is that there is always more and better ways to analysis races. When I'm winning, I enjoy the moment. Most of my tweaking occurs during a losing streak. And why not? It seems to work for me. I ride the wave longer and longer with most iterations.

[raybo]

Come on guys, "tweaking" your method is not "jumping from one set of numbers to another set". Tweaking is a necessary part of evolution, the philosophy behind the method can be the same, you just end up on a few different horses.

By "jumping" I meant from one method to another.

[raybo]

I had heard it once that the average method for most players only last a few days or maybe a week. I totally agree with the loss of confidence stated by Thask. It is like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle, finding the borders and corners is the easy part, it when we dig into the meat of the puzzle the we can get lost and be constantly looking for that better way.

Exactly, "lost"!

[raybo]

Just ask any RS user how many versions of the program we have gone through. They are all based on the same philosophy, but have been tweaked.

[dlgreg]

Just ask any RS user how many versions of the program we have gone through. They are all based on the same philosophy, but have been tweaked.
I've only been a user of AllData RS since the latter part of December.
We've gone thru many improvements in that short time. Call them tweaks, enhancements or whatever; the bottom line is the program is better today than it was before. I can envision continued improvements in the future to stay profitable and ahead of "the crowd".
dlgreg

[raybo]

Right, imagine how many there were before you became a user, almost 2 years of "tweaks". And that's not even the most important part, that being that we update our databases daily, adding the new card and deleting the oldest one. This is the best "tweak" that is made, keeping what your selections are based on, for the most part, up to date with what has been happening in the past 4-5 weeks of the meet. This is what I really meant by "evolution", as things change gradually, your method should also change gradually. Of course, in my opinion.

[thaskalos]

I did not mean to cause a problem with my use of the word "tweak"...and I have nothing against improving our existing methods. I try to do that in my own play as well.

This is what I mean by negative "tweaking":

A player has created a handicapping approach...and has backtested it to a point where he feels comfortable using it with real money. The method starts off very well...and the player is coasting along earning a ROI of 1.50 for a month or two. Confidence is high...and all is well.

Alas...things begin to change, and the method starts losing. After a prolonged negative downturn, followed by an equally long break-even period, the method is showing a ROI of 1.12 after 6 months.

Our player, not realizing that peaks and valleys are the very nature of our game, thinks that there is something WRONG with his method of play...and it needs some "tweaking" -- or should even be overhauled completely. He thinks that the general trend of a bankroll should be UP...and that the prolonged downturns are the result of something going wrong. He gives up on a winning method of play...simply because the method will not comply with his unrealistic expectations.

I have seen this scenario play out in my own game...as well as the game of every other horseplayer that I have been acquainted with.

My conclusion:

We all experience periods when our ROI is 1.50+...and all is well with the world. But this is only a temporary occurrance...and things are sure to even out somewhere down the line. Losings streaks are the nature of the game...and they don't necessarily mean that something is wrong...or that something needs to be "tweaked".

Our results will fluctuate greatly in this game...and losing -- and winning -- streaks are the means by which these fluctuations occur. There is nothing abnormal about them.

If I have confidence in my handicapping methods, and I am a veteran of many gambling wars...then how flustered can I afford to be by an upcoming losing streak? Why should I tweak my methods?

Is it because I believe that my "tweaking" will eventually lead to a method that performes "consistently" over time?

I gave up on that idea a long time ago. There is no "consistency" in this game.

In fact...inconsistency and uncertainty are the serious horseplayer's constant companions.

[raybo]

I did not mean to cause a problem with my use of the word "tweak"...and I have nothing against improving our existing methods. I try to do that in my own play as well.

This is what I mean by negative "tweaking":

A player has created a handicapping approach...and has backtested it to a point where he feels comfortable using it with real money. The method starts off very well...and the player is coasting along earning a ROI of 1.50 for a month or two. Confidence is high...and all is well.

Alas...things begin to change, and the method starts losing. After a prolonged negative downturn, followed by an equally long break-even period, the method is showing a ROI of 1.12 after 6 months.

Our player, not realizing that peaks and valleys are the very nature of our game, thinks that there is something WRONG with his method of play...and it needs some "tweaking" -- or should even be overhauled completely. He thinks that the general trend of a bankroll should be UP...and that the prolonged downturns are the result of something going wrong. He gives up on a winning method of play...simply because the method will not comply with his unrealistic expectations.

I have seen this scenario play out in my own game...as well as the game of every other horseplayer that I have been acquainted with.

My conclusion:

We all experience periods when our ROI is 1.50+...and all is well with the world. But this is only a temporary occurrance...and things are sure to even out somewhere down the line. Losings streaks are the nature of the game...and they don't necessarily mean that something is wrong...or that something needs to be "tweaked".

Our results will fluctuate greatly in this game...and losing -- and winning -- streaks are the means by which these fluctuations occur. There is nothing abnormal about them.

If I have confidence in my handicapping methods, and I am a veteran of many gambling wars...then how flustered can I afford to be by an upcoming losing streak? Why should I tweak my methods?

Is it because I believe that my "tweaking" will eventually lead to a method that performes "consistently" over time?

I gave up on that idea a long time ago. There is no "consistency" in this game.

In fact...inconsistency and uncertainty are the serious horseplayer's constant companions.

Completely agree! :ThmbUp:

[CincyHorseplayer]

I'm coming into the homestretch of my 2 year "Journal" of playing days(120 pages under wraps)tweaking methods of play as I go along.Developing others from things I've read or things I've missed.The 3 together painting a clear picture.It seems that every 365 days I am,you are,a little bit or even a lot better/smarter than the preceding 365.The cool thing to me is,this journal I am undertaking,which I thought would simply be a posthumous,sentimental recollection to cherish at a later date,is starting to resemble an NFL Offensive Coordinator's playbook.I'm friggin gettin jacked up and excited about what the rest of this year holds in store!I dont know why I didn't do this a lot sooner.

[Capper Al]

I'm coming into the homestretch of my 2 year "Journal" of playing days(120 pages under wraps)tweaking methods of play as I go along.Developing others from things I've read or things I've missed.The 3 together painting a clear picture.It seems that every 365 days I am,you are,a little bit or even a lot better/smarter than the preceding 365.The cool thing to me is,this journal I am undertaking,which I thought would simply be a posthumous,sentimental recollection to cherish at a later date,is starting to resemble an NFL Offensive Coordinator's playbook.I'm friggin gettin jacked up and excited about what the rest of this year holds in store!I dont know why I didn't do this a lot sooner.

My journal is in my app's code.