Decisions

[traynor]

"There is now a mountain of evidence to show that politics doesn’t just help predict people’s views on some scientific issues; it also affects how they interpret new information. This is why it is a mistake to think that you can somehow ‘correct’ people’s views on an issue by giving them more facts, since study after study has shown that people have a tendency to selectively reject facts that don’t fit with their existing views."

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160907-how-curiosity-can-protect-the-mind-from-bias

Something every handicapper and bettor should be aware of: what one sees is not what is there, but rather is a biased and skewed "interpretation" created because it fits one's preconceptions. The degree to which people tweak "the facts" to be what they want them to be is mind-boggling.

[VigorsTheGrey]

....quote from above article..."But smarter people shouldn’t be susceptible to prejudice swaying their opinions, right? Wrong. Other research shows that people with the most education, highest mathematical abilities, and the strongest tendencies to be reflective about their beliefs are the most likely to resist information which should contradict their prejudices. This undermines the simplistic assumption that prejudices are the result of too much gut instinct and not enough deep thought. Rather, people who have the facility for deeper thought about an issue can use those cognitive powers to justify what they already believe and find reasons to dismiss apparently contrary evidence. "

Interesting. Curiosity has always been one of my traits....I ask a lot of questions....a lot...this leads to frustration for those I question because often they don't know either but think that I am questioning "them" like they are supposed to know....and trying to make them look stupid or something....I'm just interested in lots of stuff and find many things that are taken for granted...well...rather....curious...

[thaskalos]

"There is now a mountain of evidence to show that politics doesn’t just help predict people’s views on some scientific issues; it also affects how they interpret new information. This is why it is a mistake to think that you can somehow ‘correct’ people’s views on an issue by giving them more facts, since study after study has shown that people have a tendency to selectively reject facts that don’t fit with their existing views."

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160907-how-curiosity-can-protect-the-mind-from-bias

Something every handicapper and bettor should be aware of: what one sees is not what is there, but rather is a biased and skewed "interpretation" created because it fits one's preconceptions. The degree to which people tweak "the facts" to be what they want them to be is mind-boggling.
How else can a horseplayer justify using the same handicapping and betting methods...even after a lifetime of losing?

[VigorsTheGrey]

How else can a horseplayer justify using the same handicapping and betting methods...even after a lifetime of losing?

People often lack the drive, motivation, or imagination for real change...before I quit drinking I simply could not IMAGINE never having another beer....it seemed not only improbable but IMPOSSIBLE... I celebrated my 1 year anniversary of being completely abstinent on Sept 4 2016...

....I now realize that my previous position boiled down to a failure of imagination... Of the ability to see myself as a different person...to see myself as a.....happy person....without the booze!.....

Previously, I used all of my mental acuity to reinforce or justify my status quo ante of being a drinker....

....now I must guard against another failure of the imagination.... The distinct possibility, in spite of my new found freedom, of intentional relapse...

...if I can remain sober I will count THAT a victory over a bias for personal if not moral, weakness....

[barahona44]

People often lack the drive, motivation, or imagination for real change...before I quit drinking I simply could not IMAGINE never having another beer....it seemed not only improbable but IMPOSSIBLE... I celebrated my 1 year anniversary of being completely abstinent on Sept 4 2016...

....I now realize that my previous position boiled down to a failure of imagination... Of the ability to see myself as a different person...to see myself as a.....happy person....without the booze!.....

Previously, I used all of my mental acuity to reinforce or justify my status quo ante of being a drinker....

....now I must guard against another failure of the imagination.... The distinct possibility, in spite of my new found freedom, of intentional relapse...

...if I can remain sober I will count THAT a victory over a bias for personal if not moral, weakness....
Good for you, Vig, hoping you keep up your positive life change :ThmbUp:

[traynor]

....quote from above article..."But smarter people shouldn’t be susceptible to prejudice swaying their opinions, right? Wrong. Other research shows that people with the most education, highest mathematical abilities, and the strongest tendencies to be reflective about their beliefs are the most likely to resist information which should contradict their prejudices. This undermines the simplistic assumption that prejudices are the result of too much gut instinct and not enough deep thought. Rather, people who have the facility for deeper thought about an issue can use those cognitive powers to justify what they already believe and find reasons to dismiss apparently contrary evidence. "

Interesting. Curiosity has always been one of my traits....I ask a lot of questions....a lot...this leads to frustration for those I question because often they don't know either but think that I am questioning "them" like they are supposed to know....and trying to make them look stupid or something....I'm just interested in lots of stuff and find many things that are taken for granted...well...rather....curious...

Curiosity is good. I wonder how many people had their curiosity crushed at a tender age by endless repetitions of "curiosity killed the cat." But why? What was the cat curious about? Why won't you tell me? Is this all some kind of sinister plot?

I take it as a compliment when my occasional bowhunting companion, Katherine Jung, looks at me with that super-serious expression and says, "You are a really curious person."

[traynor]

How else can a horseplayer justify using the same handicapping and betting methods...even after a lifetime of losing?

Stuff changes faster than people. I think pragmatism is a good adjunct to curiosity. That tends to make old unworkable strategies rather easy to discard. That is a big advantage in a field where (old unworkable) ideas are still vigorously defended.

[traynor]

People often lack the drive, motivation, or imagination for real change...before I quit drinking I simply could not IMAGINE never having another beer....it seemed not only improbable but IMPOSSIBLE... I celebrated my 1 year anniversary of being completely abstinent on Sept 4 2016...

....I now realize that my previous position boiled down to a failure of imagination... Of the ability to see myself as a different person...to see myself as a.....happy person....without the booze!.....

Previously, I used all of my mental acuity to reinforce or justify my status quo ante of being a drinker....

....now I must guard against another failure of the imagination.... The distinct possibility, in spite of my new found freedom, of intentional relapse...

...if I can remain sober I will count THAT a victory over a bias for personal if not moral, weakness....

I have no idea how old you are, or if you ever saw the old Larry Hagman "Its a snap" TV spots to quit smoking, but behavior modification is (usually) so effective that the "therapists" hate it.

If you don't want to do something, or you want to stop doing something, put a rubber band on your wrist. Think about doing whatever. Snap the rubber band. If you think of doing whatever at some other time, snap the rubber band.

Simple stuff. Consider it a highly efficient way to send a strong signal to yourself. "Hey, Self, I don't want to do this anymore."

You might even try it the next time you find yourself justifying how and why you made a losing bet. You might even discover--in VERY short order--that you are winning more "because you really, really hate to lose."

[chadk66]

the best thing that could happen to this country, and probably the only thing that can save it, is to get rid of party politics. No more party affiliations. No more mention of any parties. All voters have to do their own research. No more endorsements from any newspapers, etc.

[Nitro]

"There is now a mountain of evidence to show that politics doesn’t just help predict people’s views on some scientific issues; it also affects how they interpret new information. This is why it is a mistake to think that you can somehow ‘correct’ people’s views on an issue by giving them more facts, since study after study has shown that people have a tendency to selectively reject facts that don’t fit with their existing views."

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160907-how-curiosity-can-protect-the-mind-from-bias

Something every handicapper and bettor should be aware of: what one sees is not what is there, but rather is a biased and skewed "interpretation" created because it fits one's preconceptions. The degree to which people tweak "the facts" to be what they want them to be is mind-boggling.That’s ONLY because of interference between their mental process and their ego. Many horse players are not humble enough to recognize (or accept) the short-comings of their decision making before the race. It’s only after the race that they’re inevitably humbled and often self humiliated.

[classhandicapper]

How else can a horseplayer justify using the same handicapping and betting methods...even after a lifetime of losing?

Ticket construction? :lol:

[traynor]

That’s ONLY because of interference between their mental process and their ego. Many horse players are not humble enough to recognize (or accept) the short-comings of their decision making before the race. It’s only after the race that they’re inevitably humbled and often self humiliated.

Superficially, that may be so, or at least appear to be so. Beyond that are two very large and very discrete areas. In the first, humility doesn't go very far in picking winners (or making a profit), and is best saved for the post-race re-cap. I know quite a few "successful" bettors. None could be called "humble" (although several put on a great show of being so). It is not humility that enables one to see the error of his or her ways. Accurate records do that quite well. In the second, the self-humiliation is the goal. People do what people do for what (may) seem to be many diverse, strange, and wondrous reasons, but most come down to the simple fact that they do what they do because they like doing it. Including losing year after year. Nothing more complex than that.

[thaskalos]

Superficially, that may be so, or at least appear to be so. Beyond that are two very large and very discrete areas. In the first, humility doesn't go very far in picking winners (or making a profit), and is best saved for the post-race re-cap. I know quite a few "successful" bettors. None could be called "humble" (although several put on a great show of being so). It is not humility that enables one to see the error of his or her ways. Accurate records do that quite well. In the second, the self-humiliation is the goal. People do what people do for what (may) seem to be many diverse, strange, and wondrous reasons, but most come down to the simple fact that they do what they do because they like doing it. Including losing year after year. Nothing more complex than that.

IMO...horseplayers play the game as they do, not because they "like" losing...but because they don't know how else to play. They lose year after year, and that causes them to make alterations to their game...but they continue to lose. In the end, it becomes a choice between continuing to lose...or quitting the game altogether. And, as the man said..."The best thing in life is to play and win. And the second-best thing is to play and lose". :)

[Nitro]

Superficially, that may be so, or at least appear to be so. Beyond that are two very large and very discrete areas. In the first, humility doesn't go very far in picking winners (or making a profit), and is best saved for the post-race re-cap. I know quite a few "successful" bettors. None could be called "humble" (although several put on a great show of being so). It is not humility that enables one to see the error of his or her ways. Accurate records do that quite well. In the second, the self-humiliation is the goal. People do what people do for what (may) seem to be many diverse, strange, and wondrous reasons, but most come down to the simple fact that they do what they do because they like doing it. Including losing year after year. Nothing more complex than that.Actually those players who can’t differentiate between objective and subjective information have the most difficulty humbling themselves to the realities of the game. As far as I’m concerned and from what I’ve witnessed the majority seem to rely solely on PP data, be it printed or manipulated by software. Of course there’s also some who try and interpret past race re-runs to enhance and support this data. All of this type of information can only lead to an eventual decision process resulting in subjective and more often then not flawed assumptions. The objective information available is completely ignored and omitted from this process.

The problem as I see it is that if a player (who is an outsider) thinks for one minute that their personal assessments are more revealing than the knowledge of an animal’s current physical and mental well-being or the intentions of those in control of these animals, then their egotistical stance will produce the inevitable. Records (if they even bother keeping them) can only substantiate this. They don’t provide an explanation for a flawed decision process to begin with. If players were just humble enough to recognize that there’s more to this game then what they’ve been indoctrinated into believing they would have a much better chance of succeeding.

Once again I offer a portion of a critique from a reliable source that I hold in high regard:
(I've high-lighted the objective information I was referring to)

“What One Must Know to Play the Races”

Playing the races appears to be the one business in which men believe they can succeed without special study, special talent, or special exertion. For that reason the bookmakers ride around in automobiles, and eat at Delmonico's, while the majority of the regular race-goers jokingly congratulate themselves lucky if they have the price of a meal and carfare.

Why a man, sensible in other things, holds this idea I have never been able to satisfy myself. He knows, and will acknowledge, that such methods would mean failure to him as a merchant, or as a broker, or as a business man in any other walk of life, but he never seems to apply that knowledge to racing. It must be that the quick "action" hypnotizes him, or the excitement dazzles him, or that he thinks himself too lucky to lose---I never could tell exactly which.

There are many men playing the races, nowadays, and the majority of them are losing. Some are winning, however, and while they are few, they are the characters that we must analyze and whose methods we must study if we would succeed as they do.

Seldom does one hear anything about these men until facts are studied below the surface at the race track. Then you hear everything about them. They are envied; they are called lucky; they are said to be men who always have some unfair advantage in a race. In fact you hear all reports about them except the truth. I am not putting the plunger in this class; that is the man who accumulates a bank roll one day to lose it the next. He is the comet of the racing world. He lights up everything one minute and the next minute he "lights out." Think it over yourself, and count on your fingers the names of the men who have made the flashlight bank rolls at the track. Where are they now? Few can answer. There is no comparison between them and the good solid speculator who studies and works hard to insure success.

Concerning the class that I mentioned above, the class that includes the men who are winners year after year, one seldom hears of them until able to separate all the elements that go to make up racing. They are orderly, decent and quiet. They go about their business without bluster. They are calm, no matter how much excitement may be around them, for they are only there for business. They would have succeeded, I believe, had they turned their talents in some other direction than toward racing, and when you have analyzed their mental force you will have found men who are cool, deliberate in action, men of strong will power and of a philosophical nature. You will find that all have energy and the bulldog trait of sticking to one idea. You will find them exceedingly quick in sizing up a situation and just as quick to take advantage of it. It does not matter what their breeding may be, their birth or training afterwards, if they have these talents they are almost certain to be men of success. They have gone a long way toward winning before they ever began to bet…..

Now what do the form players and successful handicappers know about horses? Well, I might say, incidentally, that they know the capabilities of every good horse in training, and have an accurate idea of what he will do under all circumstances. They know its habits, and its disposition as well, and perhaps better than you know your own brother. They know when he is at his best and when otherwise. They know what weather suits him, what track he likes best, what distance he likes to go, what weight he likes to carry, and what kind of a jockey he likes to have on his back. They know what the jockeys can do and what they cannot do, and in addition to that, they are close observers in the betting ring. If there is anything wrong it generally shows in the market.

Does not that mean some study? Can a man who regards racing as easy, who spends only an hour or so looking up the "dope," figuring upon horses as they would on a piece of machinery by time and weight, know as much as they do? It takes them years of constant close, cool-headed observation to acquire this knowledge, and at that the returns are often meager.

CHAPTER 1 -- Pittsburg Phil - 1908 Information that's as valid today as it was over a 100 years ago!

[NorCalGreg]

"Something every handicapper and bettor should be aware of: what one sees is not what is there, but rather is a biased and skewed "interpretation" created because it fits one's preconceptions. The degree to which people tweak "the facts" to be what they want them to be is mind-boggling."

Absolutely Perfect choice of words, Traynor.

[pandy]

This is true. In the last election, a lot of people thought that Romney was going to win, despite being behind in the polls, because they believed that Romney was the stronger candidate. I thought he could pull an upset, for the same reason, bias. This type of biased thinking can certainly hurt a gambler. I see this a lot with jockeys and harness drivers.

For instance, some people don't even realize it, but they are biased against certain jockeys, so they'll choose the slower horse over a faster horse because of the jockey. Meanwhile, they are unaware of the fact that the jockey they chose actually has a much lower ROI than the one they refuse to bet.

[traynor]

IMO...horseplayers play the game as they do, not because they "like" losing...but because they don't know how else to play. They lose year after year, and that causes them to make alterations to their game...but they continue to lose. In the end, it becomes a choice between continuing to lose...or quitting the game altogether. And, as the man said..."The best thing in life is to play and win. And the second-best thing is to play and lose". :)

That is my point. They enjoy losing. If they did not, losing would quickly extinguish any desire to "play."

[traynor]

Actually those players who can’t differentiate between objective and subjective information have the most difficulty humbling themselves to the realities of the game. As far as I’m concerned and from what I’ve witnessed the majority seem to rely solely on PP data, be it printed or manipulated by software. Of course there’s also some who try and interpret past race re-runs to enhance and support this data. All of this type of information can only lead to an eventual decision process resulting in subjective and more often then not flawed assumptions. The objective information available is completely ignored and omitted from this process.

The problem as I see it is that if a player (who is an outsider) thinks for one minute that their personal assessments are more revealing than the knowledge of an animal’s current physical and mental well-being or the intentions of those in control of these animals, then their egotistical stance will produce the inevitable. Records (if they even bother keeping them) can only substantiate this. They don’t provide an explanation for a flawed decision process to begin with. If players were just humble enough to recognize that there’s more to this game then what they’ve been indoctrinated into believing they would have a much better chance of succeeding.

Once again I offer a portion of a critique from a reliable source that I hold in high regard:
(I've high-lighted the objective information I was referring to)

Information that's as valid today as it was over a 100 years ago!

Generally, I agree with what you are saying, but not about how you are saying it. In particular, I don't think "humility" has anything to do with understanding that one is using flawed decision-making processes. Humility (and a lack of self-efficacy) is what created the flawed decision-making processes initially--uncritically accepting the statements and admonitions of others without subjecting those statements and admonitions to rigorous validity testing. From that perspective, humility can be far more a problem than a solution.

[boxcar]

"Something every handicapper and bettor should be aware of: what one sees is not what is there, but rather is a biased and skewed "interpretation" created because it fits one's preconceptions. The degree to which people tweak "the facts" to be what they want them to be is mind-boggling."

Absolutely Perfect choice of words, Traynor.

There is truth in this...but the better way to express this, I think, is that a person should never take anything at face value (in terms of past performances) but should learn how to dig deeper into the data to get at the probable facts. A great example of this is when horses with dismal recent finish positions in the PPs romp home to light up the board. The public's knee-jerk reaction to this kind of score is manifold -- ranging anywhere in the spectrum from chicanery to just blind luck. While in some cases, such winners did not figure well no matter what, in many other cases if the crowd had looked more carefully and closely at the data, they would have seen evidence that the long shot winner had been slowly rounding into good form coming into today's race -- perhaps by recently earned early pace numbers, or by "concealed workouts" within a race or by a string of revealing workouts, or by how the trainer has entered his horse in today's race, or by the trainer's choice of jockey today, etc., etc. Conversely, at the other extreme end of the current form range, the public tends to bet down horses who have turned in big performances recently, forgetting many times that each race either contributes to a horse's current form cycle or detracts from it. The last thing a smart bettor should want to do is back a horse that is not likely to improve today off its recent efforts.

For me the whole complex game distills down to answering two simple questions: Which horse is most likely to improve today off his recent efforts, and why has the trainer entered his horse in today's race? Getting to these answers is not always easy, but it's very doable.

[traynor]

There is truth in this...but the better way to express this, I think, is that a person should never take anything at face value (in terms of past performances) but should learn how to dig deeper into the data to get at the probable facts. A great example of this is when horses with dismal recent finish positions in the PPs romp home to light up the board. The public's knee-jerk reaction to this kind of score is manifold -- ranging anywhere in the spectrum from chicanery to just blind luck. While in some cases, such winners did not figure well no matter what, in many other cases if the crowd had looked more carefully and closely at the data, they would have seen evidence that the long shot winner had been slowly rounding into good form coming into today's race -- perhaps by recently earned early pace numbers, or by "concealed workouts" within a race or by a string of revealing workouts, or by how the trainer has entered his horse in today's race, or by the trainer's choice of jockey today, etc., etc. Conversely, at the other extreme end of the current form range, the public tends to bet down horses who have turned in big performances recently, forgetting many times that each race either contributes to a horse's current form cycle or detracts from it. The last thing a smart bettor should want to do is back a horse that is not likely to improve today off its recent efforts.

For me the whole complex game distills down to answering two simple questions: Which horse is most likely to improve today off his recent efforts, and why has the trainer entered his horse in today's race? Getting to these answers is not always easy, but it's very doable.

That is a huge field, and a valuable one to understand. Way back, current form was an invaluable handicapping aid. Reason: Most trainers/stables raced their stock into form, using preliminary races as extended workouts. Sartin's POH/POR strategies (and Fiore's "diagonal line" sketches. Heyburn's Fast and Fit Horses, as well as other types of "speed carried further" scenarios) were great ways to uncover such improvement trends.

Today, not so much. A good race may often be followed by a couple of less-than-all-out-efforts-to-win to qualify for softer spots in "NW X$ Last howevermanyraces." In the 1980's, the most indicative races predicting today's performance were the last two, and especially the last. An unexcused poor last race was often cause to toss an entry as a non-contender. Today, not so much.

[classhandicapper]

IMO, a way to eliminate some of this as a handicapper is to generate large sample stats.

For decades there were no databases. So most horse players learned by trial and error. They made observations in their day to day gambling, added and subtracted ideas, and slowly learned and improved. The upside of that was that you learned the nuances of problems that often come up. The downside was that you often drew false conclusions from small samples that just happen to be clustered and made a big impression.

For years I struggled with some class vs. final time speed ideas and how I should combine them (if at all). The reason it was such a big struggle is that I didn't have any stats to actually evaluate. I was learning by fire going back and forth on it literally for decades. At any given time, my views reflected whatever I was doing at that time and I'd be resistant to conflicting evidence.

Now I have the ability to generate the stats in high enough volumes to answer questions. That made me realize why it was such a struggle. The differences are so negligible, it doesn't really matter much. :lol: At least now though, I have actual hard data. So when it conflicts with my previous views, it easier to change.

[thaskalos]

That is my point. They enjoy losing. If they did not, losing would quickly extinguish any desire to "play."
You are forgetting about the addictive nature of the game. The loser doesn't "enjoy losing". He WANTS to win...but he can't. And he is hopelessly addicted to the game...and can't "extinguish" his desire to play it. I don't know if you have battled any addictions of your own, but if you have...then you know that "extinguishing desire" isn't a cut-and-dried thing.

When it comes to "active" horseplayers...I place the addiction meter at about 80%.

[traynor]

You are forgetting about the addictive nature of the game. The loser doesn't "enjoy losing". He WANTS to win...but he can't. And he is hopelessly addicted to the game...and can't "extinguish" his desire to play it. I don't know if you have battled any addictions of your own, but if you have...then you know that "extinguishing desire" isn't a cut-and-dried thing.

When it comes to "active" horseplayers...I place the addiction meter at about 80%.

Not at all. There is nothing "addictive" about horse racing other than the pleasure one derives from it. If there was no pleasure in it (however one defines "pleasure"--whether from winning or losing) there would be no "addiction." Technically, it is the "unscheduled reward" aspect that makes most gambling seem to be addictive (the lab rat keeps pulling the lever because it doesn't know when the food pellet will drop). Even such learned behavior requires sufficient and reasonably frequent reinforcement to avoid extinction. In plain English, that means unless one is ahead often enough--and far enough--to make it seem "worthwhile," the tendency to "play" is extinguished fairly rapidly. Unless, of course, one enjoys the losing. Then one can declare himself or herself "addicted" as a way to avoid admitting to one's self that it is the losing part that one enjoys as much or more than the winning part.

As in, "The best thing in life is to play and win. And the second-best thing is to play and lose."

[thaskalos]

Not at all. There is nothing "addictive" about horse racing other than the pleasure one derives from it. If there was no pleasure in it (however one defines "pleasure"--whether from winning or losing) there would be no "addiction." Technically, it is the "unscheduled reward" aspect that makes most gambling seem to be addictive (the lab rat keeps pulling the lever because it doesn't know when the food pellet will drop). Even such learned behavior requires sufficient and reasonably frequent reinforcement to avoid extinction. In plain English, that means unless one is ahead often enough--and far enough--to make it seem "worthwhile," the tendency to "play" is extinguished fairly rapidly. Unless, of course, one enjoys the losing. Then one can declare himself or herself "addicted" as a way to avoid admitting to one's self that it is the losing part that one enjoys as much or more than the winning part.

As in, "The best thing in life is to play and win. And the second-best thing is to play and lose."

One thing that I have never understood about you is your utter DISDAIN for the word "player", when used to describe someone who engages in a supposedly profitable gambling endeavor. You seem to think that the word "player" somehow implies that the participant in the event must hold a FRIVOLOUS attitude about the event's outcome...instead of the "WAR-LIKE" attitude that you seem to prefer.

I have gambled around the world...and have rubbed shoulders with some of the best poker and backgammon "players" to be found anywhere...and I assure you that ALL of them used the word PLAYER to describe themselves. The words "play" and "player" have NOTHING to do with the level of "seriousness" that a participant puts into a gambling game.

Knowing that even David "Chip" Reese called himself a "player"...I feel silly calling myself anything supposedly more "noble".

[traynor]

One thing that I have never understood about you is your utter DISDAIN for the word "player", when used to describe someone who engages in a supposedly profitable gambling endeavor. You seem to think that the word "player" somehow implies that the participant in the event must hold a FRIVOLOUS attitude about the event's outcome...instead of the "WAR-LIKE" attitude that you seem to prefer.

I have gambled around the world...and have rubbed shoulders with some of the best poker and backgammon "players" to be found anywhere...and I assure you that ALL of them used the word PLAYER to describe themselves. The words "play" and "player" have NOTHING to do with the level of "seriousness" that a participant puts into a gambling game.

Knowing that even David "Chip" Reese called himself a "player"...I feel silly calling myself anything supposedly more "noble".

I thought your signature line came from Steve McQueen's almost identical line in Le Mans. Oh, well.

It is not my disdain for the term. It is the (to use Chomsky's term, as well as the later use of the concept by Grinder and Bandler) "deep structure" meaning associated with the term in (and by) most people. I think very few would consider "going to work" and "going to play" as equivalent in meaning--regardless of how well they liked the work they were doing, or how much they enjoyed it.

Way back, newspapers refused to list The Voice of Firestone in their tv listings (substituting "Barlowe Concert" instead) because the ad agencies had convinced the world (media publishers especially) that the mere mention of a product name was sufficient to irresistibly compel the poor, simple gerbils to rush out and buy some (and then to rapidly become "addicted" to consuming that product, apparently). It was utter nonsense, as most now realize. The same strategy is still used, but in more subtle (and some not so subtle ways).

Consider the initial catchphrase selected for the US efforts in the Gulf (until trounced by the Saudis) "Infinite Justice." Or the reference change of "soldier" or "military personnel" to "warrior." Or any of many, many other examples in which the intent is to manipulate people's perception with word choices. Remember. "Read my lips. No new taxes."? Piece of cake. We'll just call the new taxes "revenue enhancements." No one will notice.

[boxcar]

That is a huge field, and a valuable one to understand. Way back, current form was an invaluable handicapping aid. Reason: Most trainers/stables raced their stock into form, using preliminary races as extended workouts. Sartin's POH/POR strategies (and Fiore's "diagonal line" sketches. Heyburn's Fast and Fit Horses, as well as other types of "speed carried further" scenarios) were great ways to uncover such improvement trends.

Today, not so much. A good race may often be followed by a couple of less-than-all-out-efforts-to-win to qualify for softer spots in "NW X$ Last howevermanyraces." In the 1980's, the most indicative races predicting today's performance were the last two, and especially the last. An unexcused poor last race was often cause to toss an entry as a non-contender. Today, not so much.

I'm not so sure about that. I still think that most horses need to be raced into condition -- with the exceptions of high quality stock who can often be brought to good form through just the medium of workouts, or even cheaper horses who respond well to workouts-only training. But overall...the best way to get a horse to extend and exert himself is through the medium of actual races. The big exception to this general rule, however, is with maidens. With these workouts rule the day.

In my own handicapping, I prefer going 3 or even 4 races deep to get a line on a horse's current form cycle.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Not at all. There is nothing "addictive" about horse racing other than the pleasure one derives from it. If there was no pleasure in it (however one defines "pleasure"--whether from winning or losing) there would be no "addiction." Technically, it is the "unscheduled reward" aspect that makes most gambling seem to be addictive (the lab rat keeps pulling the lever because it doesn't know when the food pellet will drop). Even such learned behavior requires sufficient and reasonably frequent reinforcement to avoid extinction. In plain English, that means unless one is ahead often enough--and far enough--to make it seem "worthwhile," the tendency to "play" is extinguished fairly rapidly. Unless, of course, one enjoys the losing. Then one can declare himself or herself "addicted" as a way to avoid admitting to one's self that it is the losing part that one enjoys as much or more than the winning part.

As in, "The best thing in life is to play and win. And the second-best thing is to play and lose."

Eloquent, but totally wrong.

[traynor]

Eloquent, but totally wrong.

Differences of opinion are good. That is what makes a horse race.

[traynor]

I'm not so sure about that. I still think that most horses need to be raced into condition -- with the exceptions of high quality stock who can often be brought to good form through just the medium of workouts, or even cheaper horses who respond well to workouts-only training. But overall...the best way to get a horse to extend and exert himself is through the medium of actual races. The big exception to this general rule, however, is with maidens. With these workouts rule the day.

In my own handicapping, I prefer going 3 or even 4 races deep to get a line on a horse's current form cycle.

Again, I think that was more true in the past than it is currently. Just my opinion of course. YMMV.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Differences of opinion are good. That is what makes a horse race.

True, true, but your post seems detached from the reality of the compulsive gambler. Have you ever spoken to any or have you just studied the matter? From your post, I'm guessing the latter.

[boxcar]

Again, I think that was more true in the past than it is currently. Just my opinion of course. YMMV.

Most horses will not extend themselves on the training track. They simply know the difference between races and workouts. To get most horses' heads into the game, trainers know they need to bring them into form in actual race environments.

[traynor]

It is often good to follow the wisdom of the Ferengi in Star Trek:TNG. Always ask, "Where's the profit?" to understand the hows and whys of many things.

Consider the statements:
"The best thing in life is to play and win. And the second-best thing is to play and lose."

and ...

"It's not whether you win or lose that matters. It's how you play the game that matters."

Where is the profit? Who benefits from acceptance of the statements as "true"? I'll give you a hint. It probably is not those who are playing and losing.

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."
Adolf Hitler
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/adolfhitle385640.html

[traynor]

True, true, but your post seems detached from the reality of the compulsive gambler. Have you ever spoken to any or have you just studied the matter? From your post, I'm guessing the latter.

That assumption would be an error.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Most horses will not extend themselves on the training track. They simply know the difference between races and workouts. To get most horses' heads into the game, trainers know they need to bring them into form in actual race environments.

Box - you should post more on the racing side of the forum.

[traynor]

Most horses will not extend themselves on the training track. They simply know the difference between races and workouts. To get most horses' heads into the game, trainers know they need to bring them into form in actual race environments.

Again, differences of opinion are good. I don't expect anyone to uncritically accept any of mine. Conversely, others should not expect me to uncritically accept their opinions. In both cases, they are only opinions, regardless of how much personal observation or experience has gone into the creation of those opinions.

[PaceAdvantage]

Box - you should post more on the racing side of the forum.He can't...he doesn't want to get rid of his avatar.

[barahona44]

He can't...he doesn't want to get rid of his avatar.
Boxcar's avatar's sell by date is coming up soon. :)

[traynor]

An interesting work on the hows and whys of the formation of opinions. What one believes to be his or her own opinions are often nothing more than that which one has been conditioned to believe. So thoroughly that one accepts the notions as one's own.

The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing (1956, World Publishing Company)(Reprinted 2009, Progressive Press, ISBN 1-61577-376-2)

Available free online at:
https://archive.org/stream/RapeOfTheMind-ThePsychologyOfThoughtControl-A.m.MeerlooMd/RapeOfTheMind-ThePsychologyOfThoughtControl-A.m.MeerlooMd_djvu.txt

[thaskalos]

An interesting work on the hows and whys of the formation of opinions. What one believes to be his or her own opinions are often nothing more than that which one has been conditioned to believe. So thoroughly that one accepts the notions as one's own.


This applies to your OWN opinions as well...right? Or are you just talking about OUR opinions?

[boxcar]

Boxcar's avatar's sell by date is coming up soon. :)

:lol: :lol: I just hope I don't have to find a new one for Nurse Ratchet if she gets elected.

[thaskalos]

:lol: :lol: I just hope I don't have to find a new one for Nurse Ratchet if she gets elected.
I am curious; did you have a similar avatar during George W's presidential tenure?

[boxcar]

Again, differences of opinion are good. I don't expect anyone to uncritically accept any of mine. Conversely, others should not expect me to uncritically accept their opinions. In both cases, they are only opinions, regardless of how much personal observation or experience has gone into the creation of those opinions.

I'm very comfortable in my opinion because to this day I still successfully use the same arsenal of racing angles that I used back in the '70s (slightly expanded upon over the decades, of course) by which to make my selections. And my racing angles are grounded in the hypothesis that most horses need to be raced into shape.

[boxcar]

I am curious; did you have a similar avatar during George W's presidential tenure?

Nope. But since Obama is, in all likelihood, our first commie president, I had to get something special for him.

[traynor]

This applies to your OWN opinions as well...right? Or are you just talking about OUR opinions?

Of course it applies to my own opinions every bit as much as it does to everyone else's opinions. I found early on that it was always good to do some serious questioning about the whys and hows of opinion formation and belief formation--especially my own.

[traynor]

I'm very comfortable in my opinion because to this day I still successfully use the same arsenal of racing angles that I used back in the '70s (slightly expanded upon over the decades, of course) by which to make my selections. And my racing angles are grounded in the hypothesis that most horses need to be raced into shape.

Do you handicap many "minor" tracks? And--even more importantly--do you find your methods as profitable today as they were back then? I am assuming that you are wagering reasonably regularly (other than on paper), and that you are making a profit (or at the very least breaking even).

[VigorsTheGrey]

An interesting work on the hows and whys of the formation of opinions. What one believes to be his or her own opinions are often nothing more than that which one has been conditioned to believe. So thoroughly that one accepts the notions as one's own.

The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing (1956, World Publishing Company)(Reprinted 2009, Progressive Press, ISBN 1-61577-376-2)

Available free online at:
https://archive.org/stream/RapeOfTheMind-ThePsychologyOfThoughtControl-A.m.MeerlooMd/RapeOfTheMind-ThePsychologyOfThoughtControl-A.m.MeerlooMd_djvu.txt

I agree 100% with this statement....I often wonder if anyone has any original thoughts at all....our conditioning is so strong and pervasive...we are often unaware of what is going on....we think our thoughts are our own...we think we are original...we think we are unique...methinks we don't know who we really are....

[boxcar]

I agree 100% with this statement....I often wonder if anyone has any original thoughts at all....our conditioning is so strong and pervasive...we are often unaware of what is going on....we think our thoughts are our own...we think we are original...we think we are unique...methinks we don't know who we really are....

For your info, your last statement is definitely not original.

[boxcar]

Do you handicap many "minor" tracks? And--even more importantly--do you find your methods as profitable today as they were back then? I am assuming that you are wagering reasonably regularly (other than on paper), and that you are making a profit (or at the very least breaking even).

My approach is more profitable today than when I started using it. Chalk it up to experience.

And, no, I stay away from minor tracks for a few reasons. Horses are cheaper and, therefore, less reliable/predictable, making them riskier ventures. Additionally, cheap horses cannot retain their form for long. Also, cheap horses cannot work out as nearly as often as horses at the classier "A" or "B" tracks. This means I lose a lot in the way of my workout angles of which I have many. Also, even the workout data that is extensively quantified in one of the programs I use is compromised at the cheaper venues. Therefore, for me there is no upside to betting the minor ovals.

[Tom]

I am curious; did you have a similar avatar during George W's presidential tenure?

He had a good one.....

Better
United
States
Here

[traynor]

My approach is more profitable today than when I started using it. Chalk it up to experience.

And, no, I stay away from minor tracks for a few reasons. Horses are cheaper and, therefore, less reliable/predictable, making them riskier ventures. Additionally, cheap horses cannot retain their form for long. Also, cheap horses cannot work out as nearly as often as horses at the classier "A" or "B" tracks. This means I lose a lot in the way of my workout angles of which I have many. Also, even the workout data that is extensively quantified in one of the programs I use is compromised at the cheaper venues. Therefore, for me there is no upside to betting the minor ovals.

Much of my early experience was betting at minor tracks. In the early 1980s, current form was (almost as) important at minors as at the majors. Over the years it has become MUCH less so at the minors, and noticeably less so at the majors. Hence, my comments.

One of the carryovers from that early experience is that I place very little emphasis on public workouts. It is interesting that you are successful using an aspect of racing that I (almost) completely ignore.

[boxcar]

Much of my early experience was betting at minor tracks. In the early 1980s, current form was (almost as) important at minors as at the majors. Over the years it has become MUCH less so at the minors, and noticeably less so at the majors. Hence, my comments.

One of the carryovers from that early experience is that I place very little emphasis on public workouts. It is interesting that you are successful using an aspect of racing that I (almost) completely ignore.

Race horses are nothing less than equine athletes, so like any athlete to compete successfully they must enjoy good, current physical condition (form), which makes me puzzled over your dismissive attitude toward this handicapping factor. Race horses must be in good physical shape to run competitively. For me, Current Form is the most important handicapping factor -- because even classy stock must enjoy good physical condition before they can exert their class on the track.

I think there are many who share your mindset with respects to public workouts. Workouts, I think, are huge mysteries to many players. My experience leads me to believe very few players know how to properly assess workouts. And I'm fine with that. :)

[Saratoga_Mike]

I think there are many who share your mindset with respects to public workouts. Workouts, I think, are huge mysteries to many players. My experience leads me to believe very few players know how to properly assess workouts. And I'm fine with that. :)

Are your workout assessments trainer-dependent? I don't put too much stock into workout times, but I do pay attention to the spacing of works, especially if a horse has missed time.

[boxcar]

Are your workout assessments trainer-dependent? I don't put too much stock into workout times, but I do pay attention to the spacing of works, especially if a horse has missed time.

No, they're not trainer-dependent but the times and/or patterns can often tip me off as to what is on the trainer's mind for today's race. Trainers have reasons for everything they do. And what should be remembered about workouts is that the trainer is in complete control. He's the one setting the schedule, determining the distances, establishing the times he wants to see out of his horses' works, etc. So...the Trainer's Intentions Factor looms very large with workouts.

And workout times, incidentally, can be very significant for maiden races.

Just as an aside, the longest price horse I ever bet was several years ago at either SA or HOL (I forget which now) and he was a first time starter who had 9 workout angles in his chart. (Since then I have never again seen a horse with as many workout angles in his PPs.) :D He paid close to $200. When I bet the horse, I had no doubt what was on the trainer's mind that day! :)

[Saratoga_Mike]

No, they're not trainer-dependent but the times and/or patterns can often tip me off as to what is on the trainer's mind for today's race. Trainers have reasons for everything they do. And what should be remembered about workouts is that the trainer is in complete control. He's the one setting the schedule, determining the distances, establishing the times he wants to see out of his horses' works, etc. So...the Trainer's Intentions Factor looms very large with workouts.

And workout times, incidentally, can be very significant for maiden races.

Just as an aside, the longest price horse I ever bet was several years ago at either SA or HOL (I forget which now) and he was a first time starter who had 9 workout angles in his chart. (Since then I have never again seen a horse with as many workout angles in his PPs.) :D He paid close to $200. When I bet the horse, I had no doubt what was on the trainer's mind that day! :)

Get rid of the Avatar and come on over to the racing discussion. I must say, though, it almost feels sinful you talking horses/gambling.

[boxcar]

Get rid of the Avatar and come on over to the racing discussion. I must say, though, it almost feels sinful you talking horses/gambling.

You're right. I should repent in sackcloth and ashes. ;)

[thaskalos]

I'm very comfortable in my opinion because to this day I still successfully use the same arsenal of racing angles that I used back in the '70s (slightly expanded upon over the decades, of course) by which to make my selections. And my racing angles are grounded in the hypothesis that most horses need to be raced into shape.
When you say "raced into shape", I assume you mean things like "in-the-money finishes", and "x-number of days between starts"...right? I ask because, judging from all current reports, such handicapping staples of the '70s no longer apply today.

[boxcar]

When you say "raced into shape", I assume you mean things like "in-the-money finishes", and "x-number of days between starts"...right? I ask because, judging from all current reports, such handicapping staples of the '70s no longer apply today.

No! I meant just what I said. In spite of what today's convention wisdom might say, from what I continue to see most horses are brought into good form through the medium of actual races, that is to say, they are raced into good condition! Again, the major reason this is so for most horses is because it doesn't take a horse very long to learn that there is a difference between a workout and a race.

Heck...my cats know the difference between food prep time and actual feeding time! In the case of the former, not one of them will get up off their lazy butts to check out what's going on -- but when they know it's actually feeding time at the zoo, it's a very different story. :D