Solve This Puzzle

[Some_One]

After reading the 'looking to get into handicapping and betting' thread here and the 'strategies for finding overlays' thread over in the Handicappers Corner section, coming across the below video comes at a great time and it goes to the core of why I really don't think anyone should take most of the 'advice' in those threads seriously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo

[thaskalos]

After reading the 'looking to get into handicapping and betting' thread here and the 'strategies for finding overlays' thread over in the Handicappers Corner section, coming across the below video comes at a great time and it goes to the core of why I really don't think anyone should take most of the 'advice' in those threads seriously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo

For what it's worth...your assessment here, follows my rule.

[LottaKash]

After reading the 'looking to get into handicapping and betting' thread here and the 'strategies for finding overlays' thread over in the Handicappers Corner section, coming across the below video comes at a great time and it goes to the core of why I really don't think anyone should take most of the 'advice' in those threads seriously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo

"Fishing for Ideas" and "taking advice at face value", are two different things tho...Wouldn't you say ?

[Lemon Drop Husker]

For me, I truly believe that one's handicapping and playing the horses has to in some way mirror their everyday lifestyle.

You have to be comfortable with what you are doing. In that way, every person's handicapping/wagering style needs to be different in their own right to match their own personality and style.

There isn't a single guaranteed winning system out there that a guy can just plug into and win. I don't care how much money you spend.

Regardless of how anyone chooses to wager, they at the least, have to be comfortable with how they bet. Personally, I'm obviously a lot riskier than most (likely to an almost extreme), and I am fine with some tough and humble losing streaks and tough days. Others will like to be more chalky and look for profits/scores on a daily basis. And most will be somewhere in between. Your 401K investments should mirror your wagering style.

The reality is, each has to find their own style, and hopefully that style is one in which they can make a little, break even, or not lose all that much while enjoying this game.

To each their own, and to each the best.

[Pensacola Pete]

The way people react to this problem is an example of three phenomena:

The first phenomenon is the tendency for people to to over-complicate a situation; most will assume that each number in this problem is twice what the previous number is and attempt to duplicate that. They will get correct answers, but that's only a subset of the actual rule, which is that the three numbers are in ascending order.

The second and more important phenomenon is known by psychologists as "confirmation bias." Put simply, people hate to be told "no." They'll propose sequence after sequence, and if each follows the number-double-double order, they'll continue to get positive feedback.

Then they guess "each number is double the previous" (or "multiply by 2") and get told that they're wrong. The third phenomena occurs: confusion due to the rejection of their preconceived view. At this point, they continue on with different sequences, almost always ascending, and get positive feedback, but they now don't know what the rule is, because it didn't fit their preconceived notion. Eventually, they'll either guess the correct rule, or they'll try descending sequences and eventually figure out the rule.

Not oddly, only about 10% who do get the correct rule will ever be told "no" to one of their 3 sequences. The rest will continue to guess ascending sequences and eventually get the correct rule.

Understanding these phenomena is useful in many areas of life. It's applicable to horse race handicapping in this way: Somebody who is a firm believer that a certain type of rating is all-important has a preconceived notion of what the results should be. If the results confirm that, all is well. If not, they try to fit the results into their preconceived notion. The winner was the horse with the second best number, the horse with the best number out of the last 3 races, the horse with the best number in the past 90 days, the horse with the best number at this exact distance and/or surface, the horse with the best number who got out early, had the best jockey, had the best trainer, etc., until they can fit the results in somehow with their preconception (the rating). If they can't fit the results in regardless of what they do, they pass it off with an excuse such as "it was a fixed race," "there was a big traffic jam," "the winner got lucky and rode the rail while the others all went wide," etc. But they never change their preconceived notion that the specific rating is the way, the truth, and the light.

A simple example from greyhound racing is the common assumption that boxes 1 and 8 have a huge advantage over the other boxes in a 5/16ths mile race. While this is true at most tracks, there are some tracks in which the 1 box is subpar (and very overbet) and some at which the 8 box is subpar (and very overbet).

The point to all of this is that the people who do the best are those who adapt to circumstances, and who accept "no" is a valid answer when sufficient evidence indicates such, and who seek the correct solution, rather that trying to continue to fit results into what may well be a fallacious assumption.

[ultracapper]

The way people react to this problem is an example of three phenomena:

The first phenomenon is the tendency for people to to over-complicate a situation; most will assume that each number in this problem is twice what the previous number is and attempt to duplicate that. They will get correct answers, but that's only a subset of the actual rule, which is that the three numbers are in ascending order.

The second and more important phenomenon is known by psychologists as "confirmation bias." Put simply, people hate to be told "no." They'll propose sequence after sequence, and if each follows the number-double-double order, they'll continue to get positive feedback.

Then they guess "each number is double the previous" (or "multiply by 2") and get told that they're wrong. The third phenomena occurs: confusion due to the rejection of their preconceived view. At this point, they continue on with different sequences, almost always ascending, and get positive feedback, but they now don't know what the rule is, because it didn't fit their preconceived notion. Eventually, they'll either guess the correct rule, or they'll try descending sequences and eventually figure out the rule.

Not oddly, only about 10% who do get the correct rule will ever be told "no" to one of their 3 sequences. The rest will continue to guess ascending sequences and eventually get the correct rule.

Understanding these phenomena is useful in many areas of life. It's applicable to horse race handicapping in this way: Somebody who is a firm believer that a certain type of rating is all-important has a preconceived notion of what the results should be. If the results confirm that, all is well. If not, they try to fit the results into their preconceived notion. The winner was the horse with the second best number, the horse with the best number out of the last 3 races, the horse with the best number in the past 90 days, the horse with the best number at this exact distance and/or surface, the horse with the best number who got out early, had the best jockey, had the best trainer, etc., until they can fit the results in somehow with their preconception (the rating). If they can't fit the results in regardless of what they do, they pass it off with an excuse such as "it was a fixed race," "there was a big traffic jam," "the winner got lucky and rode the rail while the others all went wide," etc. But they never change their preconceived notion that the specific rating is the way, the truth, and the light.

A simple example from greyhound racing is the common assumption that boxes 1 and 8 have a huge advantage over the other boxes in a 5/16ths mile race. While this is true at most tracks, there are some tracks in which the 1 box is subpar (and very overbet) and some at which the 8 box is subpar (and very overbet).

The point to all of this is that the people who do the best are those who adapt to circumstances, and who accept "no" is a valid answer when sufficient evidence indicates such, and who seek the correct solution, rather that trying to continue to fit results into what may well be a fallacious assumption.

The final paragraph of this post should be pasted on every horse race handicapper's screen saver. Wake up in the morning, turn on the computer, and read that last paragraph before doing one second of handicapping. That is as profound a statement about handicappers in general as I have ever heard or read. Thanks Pete.

[appistappis]

For me, I truly believe that one's handicapping and playing the horses has to in some way mirror their everyday lifestyle.

You have to be comfortable with what you are doing. In that way, every person's handicapping/wagering style needs to be different in their own right to match their own personality and style.

There isn't a single guaranteed winning system out there that a guy can just plug into and win. I don't care how much money you spend.

Regardless of how anyone chooses to wager, they at the least, have to be comfortable with how they bet. Personally, I'm obviously a lot riskier than most (likely to an almost extreme), and I am fine with some tough and humble losing streaks and tough days. Others will like to be more chalky and look for profits/scores on a daily basis. And most will be somewhere in between. Your 401K investments should mirror your wagering style.

The reality is, each has to find their own style, and hopefully that style is one in which they can make a little, break even, or not lose all that much while enjoying this game.

To each their own, and to each the best.


great post....so true.