"Intuitive" handicapping

[traynor]

For those who have read "Blink," the examples provided (and explanations) for what people call "intuition" are thoroughly grounded in reality, with no digression into "psychic phenomena" or things that go bump in the night. The author argues that "intuitive" decision making is based on experience, previous knowledge, and subconscious analysis of relevant information.

The issue of preferring one wager over another, one rating over another, and one horse over another is often "intuitive"; whether based on the consensus of several computerized ratings, the combination of jockey, trainer, and certain key past performance indicators, or something else entirely, it is central to earning a profit wagering on horse races.

In a recent post, melman observed that the accuracy of ratings posted on PA was very high, and better than paid rating services. His observation brings up the issue of intuitive choices. In short, what process do you use to choose x over y? If the ratings posted on PA are profitable, are you betting them? Are you making money betting them? How long have you been betting them? How long have you been making money betting them?

The answers are for you, not me. I don't expect you to post them. I think it might be beneficial for you to consider what yanks your chain, so you can either use it to better advantage, or ignore it in the interest of greater profits. Suppose melman's observations are correct over time? That implies that all that is necessary to earn a substantial profit is to follow the recommended wagers of several posters, and laugh all the way to the bank.

No more handicapping, no more agonizing over pace lines, no more expensive data downloads, no more squirrely software applications that crank out yet more numbers and ratings--just bet the selections and win. Nothing could be easier. You get all the action, most of the profit, and none of the hassle.

I am curious how many do that, if any. The main content on every horse racing forum is prognostication--postings of the opinions of various handicappers about the outcome of upcoming races. Do you actually bet on the selections posted, and, if so, what motivates you to select one selector over another? And have you found one or more selectors that you follow faithfully, whose recommendations have generated profits for you over extended periods? If that selector posts a day of big wins, do you bet the selections for the following day, expecting a repeat? If the selections show a loss on the day you bet, do you switch to another selector's recommendations for the following day, or stay with the same selector?

The typical pattern is that a prospective bettor sees a list of selections for the days races that includes some nice winners, and bets heavily on the next day's offerings by that selector. Or, conversely, sees a string of losses and avoids betting the selections the following day. That would imply that choices are made as knee-jerk response to recent events, rather that performance over time, and that the decision process used is seriously flawed. That is, rather than using intuitive processes, the potential bettor would be using availability, or some other influencer, to decide whether or not to bet.

Intuitive processes, as clearly explained in Blink, are based on analysis and experience, not one-dimensional criteria. In the case of handicapping selections, it might be useful to consider it as an alternative to conventional race analysis, or as a way to augment conventional race analysis.

For those of you dedicated enough, and persistent enough, to get this far in a long, boring, rambling post, I offer a small piece of advice. To a degree, melman is correct. There is a LOT of value in the selections posted on PA. The trick is to find each selector's strong points, and leverage them to your advantage. One immediate example is George's postings ("WhoBet"). He is a whiz with exotics. Kinda shaky on the win side, but a killer in the exotic pools. His selections can often be used in conjunction with those of other selectors who specialize in win position choices to wire together some impressively large exotic payoffs.

What does all this have to do with intuitive handicapping? Everything. Choosing which of the PA selectors to follow should be no more difficult than "finding the proper pace line" or "finding the true contenders"--both of which are primarily intuitive decisions. If melman is correct, that may offer a potential for profit that is being seriously underutilized.

[dav4463]

I have found that when my own picks are in line with a certain handicapper, I do quite well. If we disagree completely on a race, chances are.. we are both wrong. I use a lot of intuition in my picks which makes it hard to quantify, but the patterns are there and I can usually identify them...at least enough to eke out a profit!

[traynor]

I have found that when my own picks are in line with a certain handicapper, I do quite well. If we disagree completely on a race, chances are.. we are both wrong. I use a lot of intuition in my picks which makes it hard to quantify, but the patterns are there and I can usually identify them...at least enough to eke out a profit!

You point out one of the key issues in intuitive handicapping--recognizing patterns. Experience helps a lot, but pattern recognition helps even more, because it works both ways. That is, it is as useful (and profitable) to have a sense of what doesn't work as it to have a sense of what works.

One of the strangest things I discovered in associating with professional bettors is the combination of computer analysis and intuitive decision making. Some use them almost as a "double" approach, and tend to win more when they agree, less when they differ.
Good Luck

[twindouble]

For those who have read "Blink," the examples provided (and explanations) for what people call "intuition" are thoroughly grounded in reality, with no digression into "psychic phenomena" or things that go bump in the night. The author argues that "intuitive" decision making is based on experience, previous knowledge, and subconscious analysis of relevant information.

Sometime I wonder why I even bother to post, that's exactly what I said on another thread, and got zero comments. Blink, Blink. :bang: What I said was, where there's no experience there's nothing for that gut feeling to go on in making dicisions. Common sense to me. Oh well such is life. :cool:


T.D.

[DJofSD]

No more handicapping, no more agonizing over pace lines, no more expensive data downloads, no more squirrely software applications that crank out yet more numbers and ratings--just bet the selections and win. Nothing could be easier. You get all the action, most of the profit, and none of the hassle.

That's been my goal but not my reality -- yet.

I'll use my "inner voice" to change a bet, not bet into a race (do you really understand this one? No, then don't bet).

Sometimes intuition tells to do something and other times it's a warning, that feeling in the pit of your stomach.

[DJofSD]

BTW, the are other books out there about intuition. Not having them right at hand I recall a few written by Laura Day.

While "Blink" is an excellent book, I would be a little careful about jumping to any conclusions about intuition after just reading one book.

[DJofSD]

One of the strangest things I discovered in associating with professional bettors is the combination of computer analysis and intuitive decision making. Some use them almost as a "double" approach, and tend to win more when they agree, less when they differ.

I would say this is learning to use both halves of the brain.

Not everything can be reduced to an equation and have a cold, calculated process associated with it. Often times, it's that non linear other side that allows us to make that leap of insight.

Sometimes, you'll be "in the zone" where you can't do anything wrong. Horses jump off the page, you get a gut level feeling that the odds-on horse just will not do it today dispite what the computer screen says.

[shanta]

The past 4 months I have been fortunate to have worked many races before they ran with Jim Bradshaw.

The most consistent thing he does is ALWAYS act on his FIRST impression or "feel" about a particular:
1) horse
2) paceline
3) race

There is an absolute TRUST in his first impression of something the likes of which I have never seen before in my life. He acts IMMEDIATELY on this and NEVER second guesses himself.

He also PREPARES himself mentally each time before working a card by
" getting quiet" with himself through a form of meditation he is teaching me.

At 75 years young he is very impressive.


Richie

[Tom]

Rhichie,
Miuke Pizzolla does someting similar - probably got it from Jim - the soft touch - just looking over the PPs before getting into them, letting things sink in.
I now do that too - just gist the PPs a couple of times, then scan them, then read them. Noting more than seeing what my eye catches each time.
When I get to looking at the horses, I have a nice overview of the whole race in there somewhere.

[joeyspicks]

Been doing this for years.....usually the night before. I've always been a bit reluctant to talk about it as some get the wrong impression. However I do feel it definitely improves my profitablity when I take the time to do this correctly.

I think both this and the psycology of winning are both overlooked areas. Winners have a methodogy and a particular way of thinking that is worth study for those having a hard time.

[delayjf]

DJ of SD,

Were is Phil when you need him most??? Boy could he sink his teeth into this one.

[DJofSD]

Jeff,

Definetly, Phil would be a great asset.

[andicap]

Rhichie,
Miuke Pizzolla does someting similar - probably got it from Jim - the soft touch - just looking over the PPs before getting into them, letting things sink in.
I now do that too - just gist the PPs a couple of times, then scan them, then read them. Noting more than seeing what my eye catches each time.
When I get to looking at the horses, I have a nice overview of the whole race in there somewhere.


"Soft focus" in what Pizzolla calls it and I agree, Tom, it's an excellent way to get an overview of the race at hand. Lets it seep into your subconscious and you get a nice feel for the race's set-up.

The trick is not to think too hard while doing it, just let your eyes wander over the PPs taking everything in but not trying to handicap.

[ryesteve]

"Soft focus" in what Pizzolla calls it
The way he described it, it reminded me of those stereograms, where you're supposed to be able to see a 3-d image when you focus your eyes past it. I could never get those to work either... :D

[traynor]

BTW, the are other books out there about intuition. Not having them right at hand I recall a few written by Laura Day.

While "Blink" is an excellent book, I would be a little careful about jumping to any conclusions about intuition after just reading one book.

So would I. What Blink offers is name recognition--a lot of people have read it. It also avoids the "Gee whiz, I must be getting messages from the Great Beyond" syndrome that tips too far in the direction of over-reliance on intuitive decision making.

[traynor]

Rhichie,
Miuke Pizzolla does someting similar - probably got it from Jim - the soft touch - just looking over the PPs before getting into them, letting things sink in.
I now do that too - just gist the PPs a couple of times, then scan them, then read them. Noting more than seeing what my eye catches each time.
When I get to looking at the horses, I have a nice overview of the whole race in there somewhere.

I think Mikey calls it "soft focus."

[Tom]

I love those things - first thing I look at in the Sunday paper.
I never could see anything, now, I can get it almost instantly.
Nothing like 3D pigs skiing to start your day! :rolleyes:

Andy - I think 80% of the time, I will pass a race that doesn't somehow appeal to me after soft focus. The ones I bet something draws me in, but I don't know what exactly.

I do the same thing with all the HTR screens, too - just flip through, looking, changing PL modes, not really seeing the horses, just the races, several times. I think sub conciously, your mind goes back to things on each pass.

[traynor]

The past 4 months I have been fortunate to have worked many races before they ran with Jim Bradshaw.

The most consistent thing he does is ALWAYS act on his FIRST impression or "feel" about a particular:
1) horse
2) paceline
3) race

There is an absolute TRUST in his first impression of something the likes of which I have never seen before in my life. He acts IMMEDIATELY on this and NEVER second guesses himself.

He also PREPARES himself mentally each time before working a card by
" getting quiet" with himself through a form of meditation he is teaching me.

At 75 years young he is very impressive.


Richie

He has had more practice than most, so his first impressions are more often correct. The "acting on first impressions" may work well for him, not so well for someone with less experience.

[traynor]

Been doing this for years.....usually the night before. I've always been a bit reluctant to talk about it as some get the wrong impression. However I do feel it definitely improves my profitablity when I take the time to do this correctly.

I think both this and the psycology of winning are both overlooked areas. Winners have a methodogy and a particular way of thinking that is worth study for those having a hard time.

"usually the night before" can put an entirely different spin on things. When I started handicapping seriously, I always got the next day's DRF, went through it lightly to pick contenders, possible pace lines, interesting details, but no opinions. Sort of like Pizzola's soft focus, but the whole card, rather than just one race. Then I went to sleep.

Oddly, when I woke up and looked at the races again, more often than not I had a very clear opinion of the race outcome. Not always, but often enough to realize that I did much better scanning the information initially, then "studying" it the next day.

[dav4463]

I guess I've been using the "soft focus" technique without realizing it. I like to quickly scan the race and see if any horses jump out that I know the public will be betting on. Then I try to find those that can beat that horse at a price and key my bets around those one or two "value" horses.

[andicap]

I think Mikey calls it "soft focus."

That was at 9:28 p.m. Sometimes I wonder if people actually read the posts and why even bother.

I wrote this at 7:21 p.m. in reply to Tom.

"Soft focus" in what Pizzolla calls it .....

Or maybe I'm on his "Ignore" list.

In reality, an honest oversight I know, but it's still annoying. You want to wave your arms and shout, "Here I am! Hello -- I just wrote this. You think no one will believe me so you have to confirm it?"

Reminds me of "Get Smart," where 99 would say something and Max would scold, "Quiet, 99, I'm thinking," and then repeat exactly what she said. :D

People, no one likes to be treated as if they were invisible on the board. So please read the damn posts before you reply to someone....

[traynor]

That was at 9:28 p.m. Sometimes I wonder if people actually read the posts and why even bother.

I wrote this at 7:21 p.m. in reply to Tom.

"Soft focus" in what Pizzolla calls it .....

Or maybe I'm on his "Ignore" list.

In reality, an honest oversight I know, but it's still annoying. You want to wave your arms and shout, "Here I am! Hello -- I just wrote this. You think no one will believe me so you have to confirm it?"

Reminds me of "Get Smart," where 99 would say something and Max would scold, "Quiet, 99, I'm thinking," and then repeat exactly what she said. :D

People, no one likes to be treated as if they were invisible on the board. So please read the damn posts before you reply to someone....


Time of posting is irrelevant. I read the posts in order, beginning with the first one that I have not read. What you are suggesting is that everyone should read every post on a thread before responding, to assure that no one gets his or her nose out of joint. No one is regarding you as invisible. The fact that an earlier posting got a response before your (later) post was read should not be taken personally. Linear responses are appropriate for linear media.

[Red Knave]

Linear responses are appropriate for linear media.Yes, but linear in time.

[traynor]

Yes, but linear in time.

Not really. The techniques appropriate for asynchronous communication are fundamentally different than those used for synchronous communication. "Linearity" is not a factor of time, but of content; response to posting D is made before reading postings E through J.

[Red Knave]

Well, at least you got that one linear.

[traynor]

Well, at least you got that one linear.

Yes. And this is, in line, the first time I have seen your response. Notice the time lag. It is a problem for people in too much of a hurry to relish the nuances of meaning and depth of perception displayed in large numbers of postings.

Or, back on topic, one could say it is a perfect example of subconscious, intuitive information processing. I scan threads looking for new postings whenever I have the chance. Not just one thread, to read and re-read my own pithy comments, but multiple threads. When that scanning locates a posting that is new to me, I respond. Like a frog who ignores the fly buzzing beyond the reach of its tongue, I have no interest in the later postings until I have responded to the earlier ones. Linearity in practice.

Focused scanning (not an oxymoron) also does wonders for picking the right horses. Some of the best bets I have ever made were in response to scanning the DRF a minute or so before a race went off. Some of the worst bets I have ever made were in response to excruciatingly detailed "analysis" of a multitiude of factors that proved--in the event--to be irrelevant to the outcome of the race.

[twindouble]

Focused scanning (not an oxymoron) also does wonders for picking the right horses. Some of the best bets I have ever made were in response to scanning the DRF a minute or so before a race went off. Some of the worst bets I have ever made were in response to excruciatingly detailed "analysis" of a multitiude of factors that proved--in the event--to be irrelevant to the outcome of the race. Quote Traynor

Now that I like. I think I'll use that as my signature. :ThmbUp:


T.D.

[Robert Fischer]

soft focus , or focus scanning ... is necessary if you hope to attain a high volume of wagers through manual handicapping. A comprehensive scrutiny of each race is more conducive to spot plays. At what cost is the focus scanning to your win percentage? Knowing yourself.

[twindouble]

soft focus , or focus scanning ... is necessary if you hope to attain a high volume of wagers through manual handicapping. A comprehensive scrutiny of each race is more conducive to spot plays. At what cost is the focus scanning to your win percentage? Knowing yourself.

Wecome to the board Robert. I just (read) the form. What they are calling soft focus boils down to allready being flimular with what's in hand. In order to "scan" the form that knowledge has to be there. Sure I can quickly get a handle on the race as a result.


Good luck,

T.D.

[highnote]

The best use of the unconscious mind is to dream who the winner will be.

Take a race. Handicap it from every angle; from inside out and upside down and back to front. Put it aside and come back to it again. Get to know every aspect and detail of that race.

That night, if the winner of the race comes to you in a dream bet that horse.

Of course, if you have a nightmare (pardon the pun) you might want to pay for a handicapping service to make the picks for you. :D