Interesting article on decision-making

[traynor]

Every bet you make is the result of a decision. The better your decision-making processes, the better your bets. And the better your profits.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3870/is_7_20/ai_n6099199

http://www.darden.edu/varoom/documents/DecisionTrapsTalk-NOVA-v1-200304-Handout-3.pdf

[twindouble]

Every bet you make is the result of a decision. The better your decision-making processes, the better your bets. And the better your profits.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3870/is_7_20/ai_n6099199

Wouldn't that apply to just about anything your investing in? :bang:

[traynor]

Wouldn't that apply to just about anything your investing in? :bang:

Yes. Betting is a metaphor for all decisions involving money, or risk. The difference with betting is that it is highly Darwinian; the better choices enable bettors to profit, or last longer while breaking even (or close to it). Less accurate choices lead to greater and more frequent losses.
Good Luck

[twindouble]

Yes. Betting is a metaphor for all decisions involving money, or risk. The difference with betting is that it is highly Darwinian; the better choices enable bettors to profit, or last longer while breaking even (or close to it). Less accurate choices lead to greater and more frequent losses.
Good Luck

Wouldn't you think that goes without saying? If your saying there's a way to put a good handicapper in a better frame of mind, that would make sense to me.

[skate]

one way "not to over shop" is to sell the product.

i try to remind myself not to over shop, settle in on "your" Patern

[traynor]

Wouldn't you think that goes without saying? If your saying there's a way to put a good handicapper in a better frame of mind, that would make sense to me.

A good handicapper may or may not be a good bettor; a good bettor is not necessarily a good handicapper. "Framing" is a very important part of decision-making; how you choose to view a situation determines--to a large degree--what you perceive the options to be.
Good Luck

[traynor]

one way "not to over shop" is to sell the product.

i try to remind myself not to over shop, settle in on "your" Patern

Most decision theorists agree; the more "shopping choices" a person has, the more difficult it is to make a decision.
Good Luck

[DJofSD]

Most decision theorists agree; the more "shopping choices" a person has, the more difficult it is to make a decision.

More choices = greater difficulty arriving at a decision -- thank God.

For me, this is why I limit most of my bets to races with at least 8 separate betting interests.

Why eight? Mostly due to many years ago when I used the Dr. Z method to find overlays in the minor pools, I found I was wasting my time punching in numbers into my programmable calculator when the field size was too small. Either there weren't any overlays or they quickly evaporated. Eight seemed to be the magic number.

[twindouble]

Most decision theorists agree; the more "shopping choices" a person has, the more difficult it is to make a decision.
Good Luck

Yes, I had that problem when I was in my teens and 20's, but it wasn't about playing the horses. I think I let some real good ones get away. :D


A good handicapper may or may not be a good bettor; a good bettor is not necessarily a good handicapper. "Framing" is a very important part of decision-making; how you choose to view a situation determines--to a large degree--what you perceive the options to be. Quote traynor;

I agree with the above paragraph, that's been a theme of mine right along but the way I put it was. "a good handicapper can be a lousy gambler".

To call it "Framing" I think is a good way to put it, take the BC pick 6 for example. I think the decision I made was part of that process, there was no way I would risks serious money playing it, the overall conditions were to risky and not a good "GAMBLE". The fact there would be a lot of money in the pool should have no influence on that decision. The temptation can be to great for some.

Now the problem with all this is every player is different when it comes to making decisions, in most cases it deep rooted or they lack the experience.


T.D.

[traynor]

Yes, I had that problem when I was in my teens and 20's, but it wasn't about playing the horses. I think I let some real good ones get away. :D


A good handicapper may or may not be a good bettor; a good bettor is not necessarily a good handicapper. "Framing" is a very important part of decision-making; how you choose to view a situation determines--to a large degree--what you perceive the options to be. Quote traynor;

I agree with the above paragraph, that's been a theme of mine right along but the way I put it was. "a good handicapper can be a lousy gambler".

To call it "Framing" I think is a good way to put it, take the BC pick 6 for example. I think the decision I made was part of that process, there was no way I would risks serious money playing it, the overall conditions were to risky and not a good "GAMBLE". The fact there would be a lot of money in the pool should have no influence on that decision. The temptation can be to great for some.

Now the problem with all this is every player is different when it comes to making decisions, in most cases it deep rooted or they lack the experience.


T.D.

"Framing" is one of those decision-making buzz words that has a specific meaning; your BC description hit it squarely on the head. That is, you "framed" it as a condition of excessive risk--the balance between probable return and risk were tipped too far in the direction of risk. Within that "frame," as you pointed out, the amount of money in the pool should have no influence on the decision. Consider the "lottery fever" that overcomes tens of thousands when the jackpot goes up; it is still a hopelessly risky "investment," in which losses are framed as trivial in view of the (extremely remote) possibility of big reward.

Your last line is especially insightful; "deep rooted" is what psychologists and decision theorists call "heuristics"--people tend to make the same type of decisions based on the same processes they have used before, regardless of whether those decisions were successful or not. Lack of experience can be fairly easily overcome, if the handicapper or bettor realizes that what they are doing is either not working, or not working as well as it could (or should) be working.
Good Luck

[Valuist]

Most overused expression at the track:

"I'm a great handicapper but a lousy bettor".

I actually think the betting aspect of the game is easier to learn. I consider handicapping the entire information gathering process, which doesn't start the minute one opens their DRF (or prints it out). Making figs, watching replays, going thru charts are an essential part of the handicapping process; a part that many don't want to put the time into.

There's thousands of ways to view a race but one is relatively limited in their betting choices. Once the bettor/handicapper learns the basic dos and don'ts of betting, they should never blame losing on their betting habits.

[skate]

"Framing" is one of those decision-making buzz words that has a specific meaning; your BC description hit it squarely on the head. That is, you "framed" it as a condition of excessive risk--the balance between probable return and risk were tipped too far in the direction of risk. Within that "frame," as you pointed out, the amount of money in the pool should have no influence on the decision. Consider the "lottery fever" that overcomes tens of thousands when the jackpot goes up; it is still a hopelessly risky "investment," in which losses are framed as trivial in view of the (extremely remote) possibility of big reward.

Your last line is especially insightful; "deep rooted" is what psychologists and decision theorists call "heuristics"--people tend to make the same type of decisions based on the same processes they have used before, regardless of whether those decisions were successful or not. Lack of experience can be fairly easily overcome, if the handicapper or bettor realizes that what they are doing is either not working, or not working as well as it could (or should) be working.
Good Luck


while there is no doubt that lotterys are far and away risky business.

i will always look at the "amount to be won" and consider " the higher the pay-off the more i can afford to wager.

for good reasons, limits are considered, such as not playing the lottery.

but i would much rather play a "super" at S.Cal. than at N.Cal, mainly due to the higher expected pay-off.

i consider the amount in a pool to be very valuable, the high the better.

[twindouble]

while there is no doubt that lotterys are far and away risky business.

i will always look at the "amount to be won" and consider " the higher the pay-off the more i can afford to wager.

for good reasons, limits are considered, such as not playing the lottery.

but i would much rather play a "super" at S.Cal. than at N.Cal, mainly due to the higher expected pay-off.

i consider the amount in a pool to be very valuable, the high the better.


Basically what your saying makes sense but we are talking about the decision making process you use to determine if the risk factor is in your favor. We refer to that as "having an edge", not just thinking there's more money to be made so bet more.

T.D.

[the_fat_man]

Most overused expression at the track:

"I'm a great handicapper but a lousy bettor".

I actually think the betting aspect of the game is easier to learn. I consider handicapping the entire information gathering process, which doesn't start the minute one opens their DRF (or prints it out). Making figs, watching replays, going thru charts are an essential part of the handicapping process; a part that many don't want to put the time into.

There's thousands of ways to view a race but one is relatively limited in their betting choices. Once the bettor/handicapper learns the basic dos and don'ts of betting, they should never blame losing on their betting habits.

Alot of truth here. I've used the phrase 'having an opinion' quite a few times in other threads and what you deem "handicapping" should lead to a warranted opinion (not all the time but certainly often enough). Interesting how many are not willing to devote requisite time/effort to this process YET
spend countless hours trying to hone betting skill/strategy.

It's a double edged sword, however:

1) we wouldn't want everyone seriously pursuing the handicapping process (as spelled out above) as that would remove any advantage gained by those actually putting in the time; and we welcome all the time spent writing about all the possible ways to bet exotics in races where one is basically clueless as to the contenders ---yeah, pick up the forum and make the decision that the favorite is beatable based on what?

2) the handicapping process is incredibly time/labor intensive and if you happen to be LAZY (like MOI) you might not ever get to experience it at its most robust level HOWEVER

you're at least intelligent enough to know that when you actually HAVE an OPINION it's actually quite perspicuous and there's no need to plumb psychology (or other) texts or even to INTROSPECT to realize that

yes

I have an OPINION about this race

which is saying alot more than any of the decision/betting strategists can

[karlskorner]

All of this leads to the reason why the "sweepers and "stoopers" are kept busy all day.

[1st time lasix]

I totally disagree that structuring exotic tickets, trying to determine which para-mutual pools to use and figuring out your best bet based on your bankroll and opinion at the window is rather trivial and meaningless. Most recreational players don't do it very well and do not get the most out from their correct opinions. I suggest that is a very important variable to your overall success for an entire meet or for a year. I do agree with y'all {I am from South of the Mason-Dixon} that a player should ALWAYS strive to become better at contender selection. It takes real work, time, recognition skills, note taking and careful study....not a superfical glance at the form ....or at pace/speed figs.

[twindouble]

All of this leads to the reason why the "sweepers and "stoopers" are kept busy all day.

What are talking about? If you can't evaluate a race or races to determine if the "Risk factor" is in your favor or not and make that decision, your in trouble when you gamble. The right decision will just live spit and mashed up hot dogs for the sweepers and stoopers. No one is right all the time in this game in what ever decision one makes. So, semantics don't apply to this topic in my opinion.

T.D.

[Indulto]

I totally disagree that structuring exotic tickets, trying to determine which para-mutual pools to use and figuring out your best bet based on your bankroll and opinion at the window is rather trivial and meaningless.

... It takes real work, time, recognition skills, note taking and careful study....not a superfical glance at the form ....or at pace/speed figs.Not for everyone. It isn't my way, 1TL, but I know people who spend very little time on either the Form or Sheets that do quite well focusing mainly on the tote board.

At my age, I've seen the game and the tools change, but not the characteristics of profitable players. They seem to have a gift for either handicapping or gambling or both -- almost as an art form -- that can't readily be transferred to others. It seems to manifest itself early on along with a certain financial acumen and an innate capacity for organization and self-discipline.

I think that many who spend a lot of time handicapping regardless of their tools do so because they enjoy it. Profit, while not secondary, is still a bonus to them because it justifies (to them) the time they spend on the process.

Dave Schwartz has posted that he can teach people how to win. I have no reason to doubt him, but my limited exposure to information he's shared on-board suggests that success is dependent upon a serious work ethic such as your own.

[traynor]

Most overused expression at the track:

"I'm a great handicapper but a lousy bettor".

I actually think the betting aspect of the game is easier to learn. I consider handicapping the entire information gathering process, which doesn't start the minute one opens their DRF (or prints it out). Making figs, watching replays, going thru charts are an essential part of the handicapping process; a part that many don't want to put the time into.

There's thousands of ways to view a race but one is relatively limited in their betting choices. Once the bettor/handicapper learns the basic dos and don'ts of betting, they should never blame losing on their betting habits.

Yes and no. Take the example of a confirmed win bettor; he or she might pass a great exacta opportunity simply because the race is "framed" as an opportunity to make a win bet. That's a tough habit to break. If each race is regarded separately, the bettor tends to adjust the wagers to the realities of the particular race, rather than a preconceived notion of preferred bet.

One of the most costly errors is narrowing a race down to three or four "contenders" and boxing them all in exactas and trifectas. There are cases when boxing is appropriate; most of the time it is an indication of confusion or uncertainty. It also misses a lot of steep payoffs when a spoiler finishes second or third.

Betting preferences necessarily influence how you handicap. From the start, the bettor is looking for a "known scenario" or "known schema."
Good Luck

[traynor]

while there is no doubt that lotterys are far and away risky business.

i will always look at the "amount to be won" and consider " the higher the pay-off the more i can afford to wager.

for good reasons, limits are considered, such as not playing the lottery.

but i would much rather play a "super" at S.Cal. than at N.Cal, mainly due to the higher expected pay-off.

i consider the amount in a pool to be very valuable, the high the better.

Whether or not a bet is worthwhile depends entirely on how many of the SoCal biggies are actually won. Losing $1000 chasing $100,000 is not much different than losing $1000 chasing $500,000--only the wins really matter.
Good Luck

[traynor]

Alot of truth here. I've used the phrase 'having an opinion' quite a few times in other threads and what you deem "handicapping" should lead to a warranted opinion (not all the time but certainly often enough). Interesting how many are not willing to devote requisite time/effort to this process YET
spend countless hours trying to hone betting skill/strategy.

It's a double edged sword, however:

1) we wouldn't want everyone seriously pursuing the handicapping process (as spelled out above) as that would remove any advantage gained by those actually putting in the time; and we welcome all the time spent writing about all the possible ways to bet exotics in races where one is basically clueless as to the contenders ---yeah, pick up the forum and make the decision that the favorite is beatable based on what?

2) the handicapping process is incredibly time/labor intensive and if you happen to be LAZY (like MOI) you might not ever get to experience it at its most robust level HOWEVER

you're at least intelligent enough to know that when you actually HAVE an OPINION it's actually quite perspicuous and there's no need to plumb psychology (or other) texts or even to INTROSPECT to realize that

yes

I have an OPINION about this race

which is saying alot more than any of the decision/betting strategists can


Having an opinion is different than picking a winner. In many cases it is an error to have a strong opinion about the outcome of a race; you might ignore disconfirming evidence that would put you off a loser.
Good Luck

[traynor]

I totally disagree that structuring exotic tickets, trying to determine which para-mutual pools to use and figuring out your best bet based on your bankroll and opinion at the window is rather trivial and meaningless. Most recreational players don't do it very well and do not get the most out from their correct opinions. I suggest that is a very important variable to your overall success for an entire meet or for a year. I do agree with y'all {I am from South of the Mason-Dixon} that a player should ALWAYS strive to become better at contender selection. It takes real work, time, recognition skills, note taking and careful study....not a superfical glance at the form ....or at pace/speed figs.

I agree, with an addition; a player who strives to improve his or her basic decision-making skills is almost guaranteed to pick more winners and fewer losers, with no other changes in handicapping skill.
Good Luck

[traynor]

Not for everyone. It isn't my way, 1TL, but I know people who spend very little time on either the Form or Sheets that do quite well focusing mainly on the tote board.

At my age, I've seen the game and the tools change, but not the characteristics of profitable players. They seem to have a gift for either handicapping or gambling or both -- almost as an art form -- that can't readily be transferred to others. It seems to manifest itself early on along with a certain financial acumen and an innate capacity for organization and self-discipline.

I think that many who spend a lot of time handicapping regardless of their tools do so because they enjoy it. Profit, while not secondary, is still a bonus to them because it justifies (to them) the time they spend on the process.

Dave Schwartz has posted that he can teach people how to win. I have no reason to doubt him, but my limited exposure to information he's shared on-board suggests that success is dependent upon a serious work ethic such as your own.

Dave Schwartz may have discovered that there is a streak of Calvinism in many who lose because they think they "don't deserve to win (or gain) unless it involves a lot of hard work." Back to square one; that is a problem of framing, not of learning how to win.

[twindouble]

Dave Schwartz may have discovered that there is a streak of Calvinism in many who lose because they think they "don't deserve to win (or gain) unless it involves a lot of hard work." Back to square one; that is a problem of framing, not of learning how to win.

I thought using the term "framing" covered what I've been calling it right along, that was "evaluating" the race or races. It isn't like I'm using a set of rules to make my decisions. I guess it's a matter of comprehending the prevailing conditions as I see them or an overview. I don't know how else to expain it.


T.D.

[the_fat_man]

Not for everyone. It isn't my way, 1TL, but I know people who spend very little time on either the Form or Sheets that do quite well focusing mainly on the tote board.

I think that many who spend a lot of time handicapping regardless of their tools do so because they enjoy it. Profit, while not secondary, is still a bonus to them because it justifies (to them) the time they spend on the process.

Dave Schwartz has posted that he can teach people how to win. I have no reason to doubt him, but my limited exposure to information he's shared on-board suggests that success is dependent upon a serious work ethic such as your own.

Bottom up:

DS has posted that he can teach people how to win MORE. He makes it very clear that if you're not presently able to show a positive ROI then no betting system will make you a winner. In other words, you have to be able to pick winners.

Hard to believe that anyone really enjoys non-recreational handicapping, Indulto. There are so many other worthier intellectual exercises. NOthing worse than watching film over and over (or whatever your method of choice). It's just about the worst kind of work one can do. Maybe that's why some of the more knowledgable forum members choose to work 9-5 rather than handicap fulltime.

Why aren't YOU focusing on the tote board?

There's no elusive/mysterious path to being a winner. No special qualities required. Just the desire to put in the effort required to attain a level of competency that results in profit. It's like any other field: the more time/effort you put into it, the better you get at it.

[traynor]

Dave Schwartz may have discovered that there is a streak of Calvinism in many who lose because they think they "don't deserve to win (or gain) unless it involves a lot of hard work." Back to square one; that is a problem of framing, not of learning how to win.

I thought using the term "framing" covered what I've been calling it right along, that was "evaluating" the race or races. It isn't like I'm using a set of rules to make my decisions. I guess it's a matter of comprehending the prevailing conditions as I see them or an overview. I don't know how else to expain it.


T.D.

Framing is only indirectly related to evaluating races. It is not a set of rules that you apply to making decisions; it is rather the "frame of reference" you use when making a particular decision.

Easiest example of framing is the "sunk cost fallacy." If you are involved in a project that is drowning in red ink, the amount you have already invested is irrelevant in the decision whether or not to invest more. In a poker game, the amount you have already put in the pot is irrelevant; the important thing is whether putting the next amount in is a reasonable strategy. That "frame" is based on a choice between losses--one way you are out $300, the other way you are out $350, but you have a chance to make $600.

Framing it as a choice between two losses makes it seem reasonable. It is only reasonable if the additional $50 actually gives you more than a wild shot at winning; the additional bet (or investment) should be based on whether you have an improved chance, not on whether you already have $300 in the pot.

Consider how many people are sucked into the sunk cost fallacy in the last race of the day. If they are down a bunch, they tend to bet wildly on exotics, hoping to "get even." That "frame" is particularly costly. Obviously a decision to bet in a given race should be based on the probabilities of that race, not on whether or not the bettor has lost (or won) the last half dozen races.

Evaluating a race is essential. Framing is the "blueprint" for how that evaluation is applied.
Good Luck

[traynor]

Bottom up:

DS has posted that he can teach people how to win MORE. He makes it very clear that if you're not presently able to show a positive ROI then no betting system will make you a winner. In other words, you have to be able to pick winners.

Hard to believe that anyone really enjoys non-recreational handicapping, Indulto. There are so many other worthier intellectual exercises. NOthing worse than watching film over and over (or whatever your method of choice). It's just about the worst kind of work one can do. Maybe that's why some of the more knowledgable forum members choose to work 9-5 rather than handicap fulltime.

Why aren't YOU focusing on the tote board?

There's no elusive/mysterious path to being a winner. No special qualities required. Just the desire to put in the effort required to attain a level of competency that results in profit. It's like any other field: the more time/effort you put into it, the better you get at it.

Unfortunately, handicapping IS like any other field, time and effort is no guarantee of success, or even of basic competence. There are any number of motivated, dedicated, hard-working individuals who are marginally competent (on a good day) in their chosen fields, despite years of experience. The simplistic observation that "20 years experience" is often 1 year of experience repeated 20 times is accurate. Time and effort expended does not necessarily lead to superior knowledge or skills.

It is interesting, because you gave a perfect example of "framing." In your frame, simply flailing away at something, if done persistently enough, will ultimately result in improved skills and knowledge (an alternative description to being "better at it"). Nothing could be further from the truth.
Good Luck

[robert99]

Unfortunately, handicapping IS like any other field, time and effort is no guarantee of success, or even of basic competence. There are any number of motivated, dedicated, hard-working individuals who are marginally competent (on a good day) in their chosen fields, despite years of experience. The simplistic observation that "20 years experience" is often 1 year of experience repeated 20 times is accurate. Time and effort expended does not necessarily lead to superior knowledge or skills.

It is interesting, because you gave a perfect example of "framing." In your frame, simply flailing away at something, if done persistently enough, will ultimately result in improved skills and knowledge (an alternative description to being "better at it"). Nothing could be further from the truth.
Good Luck

Spot on.

I would go as far as saying that handicapping for a living needs far more skill and knowledge than any top company CEO has. I know that is not saying much.

A good modern handicapper has:

to be a leader and entrepreneur - no one else is going to do things for him or get him out of bed in the morning

to be able to make firm decisions within a mass of conflicting data

to constantly adapt and learn - go into all sorts of areas from veterinary to to probability biomechanics - and actually apply them successfully

to have an in depth knowledge of how to apply statistics accurately without being misled

financial management disciplines and planning
to have a sound money mangement and risk management process in hand

computer literate etc etc

[twindouble]

Spot on.

I would go as far as saying that handicapping for a living needs far more skill and knowledge than any top company CEO has. I know that is not saying much.

A good modern handicapper has:

to be a leader and entrepreneur - no one else is going to do things for him or get him out of bed in the morning

to be able to make firm decisions within a mass of conflicting data

to constantly adapt and learn - go into all sorts of areas from veterinary to to probability biomechanics - and actually apply them successfully

to have an in depth knowledge of how to apply statistics accurately without being misled

financial management disciplines and planning
to have a sound money mangement and risk management process in hand

computer literate etc etc

Then I don't qualify.:lol: Were talking horses here not running multi billion dollar corporation.

Let me clue you in on something, horse racing isn't like making a car complex so the average back yard mechanic won't have the diagnostic tools or knowledge to repair them, then ultimately have to pay higher prices to keep it running. That's exactly what you so-called "modern handicappers" are attempting to do. Your quest to change the language of the game and turn it into something it's not and never will be, is laughable in many respects. It's like genetically altering tomato's that aren't edible regardless of what recipe you use. That's right the flavor of this game is intrenched in deep roots and is nurtured by things a computer will never master because of all the natural
changing conditions that inherent to it.

What you have and will come up with is systems that produce average or mediocre result only to be discarded along the way with the new and improved versions about to be released.
To suggest the I have to become proficient in veterinary skills and biomechanics to play the horses successfully is laughable.


T.D

[the_fat_man]

Unfortunately, handicapping IS like any other field, time and effort is no guarantee of success, or even of basic competence. There are any number of motivated, dedicated, hard-working individuals who are marginally competent (on a good day) in their chosen fields, despite years of experience. The simplistic observation that "20 years experience" is often 1 year of experience repeated 20 times is accurate. Time and effort expended does not necessarily lead to superior knowledge or skills.

It is interesting, because you gave a perfect example of "framing." In your frame, simply flailing away at something, if done persistently enough, will ultimately result in improved skills and knowledge (an alternative description to being "better at it"). Nothing could be further from the truth.

I realize that the world is full of incompetants YET I think that putting in the effort seems to suffice quite well for most.

Simple example: I don't know the programming language PERL.

I'm presently accessing some online resources and learning PERL.

Last week, I couldn't write even the most basic program in PERL.

Now, I've written an automated downloader; a parser that pulls data from a results file; a program that sorts this data to my specification; and a program that graphs the data. I'm working on creating a database and inserting this data into it.

Now, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that if I were to use PERL every day for the next 5 years, that I'd be able to do successively more and more complex things with it. I'd reach a point, of course, where I'd probably top out BUT at some point I would be proficient with the language. I could reach GURU status, if I chose to. Same way I could learn French, if I were to apply myself.

Same way I could learn to pick out the horses that don't change leads in the stretch. Same way I could learn to pick out the horses making premature moves on the turn. Same way I could learn to make better and better figures. Same way I could apply trainer and breeding data.

If I'm not a clinical idiot and I apply myself, I can get proficient at just about anything. So can you or anyone else.

You're in graduate school. You should know this. Typically, in graduate school you have 2 types:

1) the truly gifted/intelligent

2) those doing grunt work

the first category contributes cutting edge research ---leaders in the field

the latter are competent in their field, do lesser quality research (and make better educators generally)

winning handicappers can only come from the first category, if I read you correctly

might i suggest LESS meta-handicapping and more HANDS ON handicapping for you

try it

there's actually the thing itself

divorced from the data

[skate]

Yes, I had that problem when I was in my teens and 20's, but it wasn't about playing the horses. I think I let some real good ones get away. :D


A good handicapper may or may not be a good bettor; a good bettor is not necessarily a good handicapper. "Framing" is a very important part of decision-making; how you choose to view a situation determines--to a large degree--what you perceive the options to be. Quote traynor;

I agree with the above paragraph, that's been a theme of mine right along but the way I put it was. "a good handicapper can be a lousy gambler".

To call it "Framing" I think is a good way to put it, take the BC pick 6 for example. I think the decision I made was part of that process, there was no way I would risks serious money playing it, the overall conditions were to risky and not a good "GAMBLE". The fact there would be a lot of money in the pool should have no influence on that decision. The temptation can be to great for some.

Now the problem with all this is every player is different when it comes to making decisions, in most cases it deep rooted or they lack the experience.


T.D.

TD; ok sure enough, but to your reply, now being reconsidered, let me say.

what i replied to was your comment "the fact that a lot of money in the pool should have """NO"""influence". this, to my thinking ( i do not try to influence others by my thoughts) i just give my strong feelings when they conflict. which i recognize, this does not make them correct.

but , to me alone (hopefully, as a mater of fact) i do consider "the amount to be won" as in odds. and i'm sure you agree. perhaps the odds (as i said meany times) are my strongest insentive to play "the" race.

because,, my strong play would not include any one piece of capping info alone, but with enough "Odds" on my horse, i may still consider a play, as long as i see "one" or more of my strong capping points to go with High Odds.

[skate]

Yes and no. Take the example of a confirmed win bettor; he or she might pass a great exacta opportunity simply because the race is "framed" as an opportunity to make a win bet. That's a tough habit to break. If each race is regarded separately, the bettor tends to adjust the wagers to the realities of the particular race, rather than a preconceived notion of preferred bet.

One of the most costly errors is narrowing a race down to three or four "contenders" and boxing them all in exactas and trifectas. There are cases when boxing is appropriate; most of the time it is an indication of confusion or uncertainty. It also misses a lot of steep payoffs when a spoiler finishes second or third.

Betting preferences necessarily influence how you handicap. From the start, the bettor is looking for a "known scenario" or "known schema."
Good Luck

oh, you hit on one of my points that i ineffectually try to make.
"Habit", you should develope the habit you seek. to some, this is overlooked.

one reason, constant change, in time and odds. so to develpope a good habit (which is up to yourself) is Not coincidental with winning.

[robert99]

Then I don't qualify.:lol: Were talking horses here not running multi billion dollar corporation.

Let me clue you in on something, horse racing isn't like making a car complex so the average back yard mechanic won't have the diagnostic tools or knowledge to repair them, then ultimately have to pay higher prices to keep it running. That's exactly what you so-called "modern handicappers" are attempting to do. Your quest to change the language of the game and turn it into something it's not and never will be, is laughable in many respects. It's like genetically altering tomato's that aren't edible regardless of what recipe you use. That's right the flavor of this game is intrenched in deep roots and is nurtured by things a computer will never master because of all the natural
changing conditions that inherent to it.

What you have and will come up with is systems that produce average or mediocre result only to be discarded along the way with the new and improved versions about to be released.
To suggest the I have to become proficient in veterinary skills and biomechanics to play the horses successfully is laughable.


T.D

Twin,

Pittsburgh Phil rides again. At least it sounds like you have found someone to switch on the difference engine for you. ;)

[Indulto]

... Hard to believe that anyone really enjoys non-recreational handicapping, Indulto. There are so many other worthier intellectual exercises. NOthing worse than watching film over and over (or whatever your method of choice). It's just about the worst kind of work one can do. Maybe that's why some of the more knowledgable forum members choose to work 9-5 rather than handicap fulltime.

Why aren't YOU focusing on the tote board?

There's no elusive/mysterious path to being a winner. No special qualities required. Just the desire to put in the effort required to attain a level of competency that results in profit. It's like any other field: the more time/effort you put into it, the better you get at it.tfm,
I'm probably repeating myself, now, but my primary foucus is on horizontal exotics and thus concentrating on multiple contenders for the win slot. The tote board doesn't enter into legs beyond the first one of such wagers. In those races, the tote can be helpful in playing the verticals, but not for the usual small fields.

I agree with the caveat that 20-years might = 1-year x 20. So tell us, has your race-viewing developed beyond concentrating on lead changes and pre-mature e-jock-u-la-shun moves in however long you've been engaging in what you make sound like self-abuse? ;)

[twindouble]

Twin,

Pittsburgh Phil rides again. At least it sounds like you have found someone to switch on the difference engine for you. ;)

I just checked out one of Pittsburgh Phil's famous sayings when it comes to losing streaks and backing off, I have a sightly different take on it that I posted a while back.

I don't mean to sound like I'm attacking anyone, it's just that I feel a little to passionate about horse racing and what I think. I don't know, isn't like I mean any harm or insult anyone, it's just me. Truth be known, I resent the changes that are coming about because I would hate to see handicapping turn into something I can no longer recognize. I would like to think triditional handicapping is the essence of the game and more rewarding to the players.

Good luck,

T.D.

[Indulto]

Twin,
Pittsburgh Phil rides again. At least it sounds like you have found someone to switch on the difference engine for you. That's who I was trying to remember, Twin Ps!

Actually, R9, I suspect that TD is another one of those talented horseplayers I was talking about. More importantly, he appears to actually have a life as well.

I’m not against hard work as long as compensation is commensurate with the effort. Profitability and primary income source are two different things, but any professional competitor would have an advantage if he enjoyed what he was doing.

TD,
I don't know about veterinary skills, but don't horsemen have an advantage over other bettors beyond inside information? Wouldn't the ability to detect non-obvious physical problems and to diagnose observed changes in pre-race behavior be invaluable?

[twindouble]

TD,
I don't know about veterinary skills, but don't horsemen have an advantage over other bettors beyond inside information? Wouldn't the ability to detect non-obvious physical problems and to diagnose observed changes in pre-race behavior be invaluable? Quote Indulto.

It's really a mixed bag when it comes to unsound horses. Let's face it any horse that's limping or showing obvious stress is something to watch for but in most cases if it gets by the track Vet it also got by us. The class levels that I normally play the important thing is to get to know the trainers and the quality of the horses in his stable. You can smell out those trainers that are operating on a shoe string, they rarely are a part of the claiming game including owners they contract with. Speaking of owners the worst thing anyone can do is listen to them, never fail there's something wrong with the horse, bitch about the Vet bills and the horse wins next out. Good trainers will lay the horse off to correct problems, not patch them up and have them pulled up, vaned off or destroyed. Sorry to say it happens more than we like to see. Experience jocks have a feel for horses that aren't sound, that's another thing that helps us along. At the track I always paid attention to the post parade but online the shots we get suck to no end.

So to involve yourself to any great degree as suggested on things like that don't payoff when your attention should be elsewhere in my opinion.

T.D.

[traynor]

Spot on.

I would go as far as saying that handicapping for a living needs far more skill and knowledge than any top company CEO has. I know that is not saying much.

A good modern handicapper has:

to be a leader and entrepreneur - no one else is going to do things for him or get him out of bed in the morning

to be able to make firm decisions within a mass of conflicting data

to constantly adapt and learn - go into all sorts of areas from veterinary to to probability biomechanics - and actually apply them successfully

to have an in depth knowledge of how to apply statistics accurately without being misled

financial management disciplines and planning
to have a sound money mangement and risk management process in hand

computer literate etc etc

I very strongly agree, except that there are a number of current and recent past CEOs that were very good decision makers. Even when that decision was to plunder the treasure chests, then leave for "more diverse challenges."
Good Luck

[traynor]

Then I don't qualify.:lol: Were talking horses here not running multi billion dollar corporation.

Let me clue you in on something, horse racing isn't like making a car complex so the average back yard mechanic won't have the diagnostic tools or knowledge to repair them, then ultimately have to pay higher prices to keep it running. That's exactly what you so-called "modern handicappers" are attempting to do. Your quest to change the language of the game and turn it into something it's not and never will be, is laughable in many respects. It's like genetically altering tomato's that aren't edible regardless of what recipe you use. That's right the flavor of this game is intrenched in deep roots and is nurtured by things a computer will never master because of all the natural
changing conditions that inherent to it.

What you have and will come up with is systems that produce average or mediocre result only to be discarded along the way with the new and improved versions about to be released.
To suggest the I have to become proficient in veterinary skills and biomechanics to play the horses successfully is laughable.


T.D

Nope. If you can look at a horse warming up and realize that it is sore, quivering on the verge of being lame, or simply that it has a "funny action," you are applying biomechanics. If your experience enables you to detect when a horse "looks like it is full of run," or when it looks like "it wishes it were back in the barn," you are applying--in the real world--topics usually interpreted by veterinarians. Because a nine-dollar label is attached to something, it doesn't mean that you are not already using it, without the fancy label. Give yourself the credit you deserve, TD.
Good Luck

[traynor]

I realize that the world is full of incompetants YET I think that putting in the effort seems to suffice quite well for most.

Simple example: I don't know the programming language PERL.

I'm presently accessing some online resources and learning PERL.

Last week, I couldn't write even the most basic program in PERL.

Now, I've written an automated downloader; a parser that pulls data from a results file; a program that sorts this data to my specification; and a program that graphs the data. I'm working on creating a database and inserting this data into it.

Now, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that if I were to use PERL every day for the next 5 years, that I'd be able to do successively more and more complex things with it. I'd reach a point, of course, where I'd probably top out BUT at some point I would be proficient with the language. I could reach GURU status, if I chose to. Same way I could learn French, if I were to apply myself.

Same way I could learn to pick out the horses that don't change leads in the stretch. Same way I could learn to pick out the horses making premature moves on the turn. Same way I could learn to make better and better figures. Same way I could apply trainer and breeding data.

If I'm not a clinical idiot and I apply myself, I can get proficient at just about anything. So can you or anyone else.

You're in graduate school. You should know this. Typically, in graduate school you have 2 types:

1) the truly gifted/intelligent

2) those doing grunt work

the first category contributes cutting edge research ---leaders in the field

the latter are competent in their field, do lesser quality research (and make better educators generally)

winning handicappers can only come from the first category, if I read you correctly

might i suggest LESS meta-handicapping and more HANDS ON handicapping for you

try it

there's actually the thing itself

divorced from the data

Lots of people love PERL, and there is probably more stuff out there that you can cut and paste than in any other language. As for hands-on handicapping, I spent several (very profitable) years without a DRF and without a computer. My main focus has been trips and body language, carryovers from harness racing. Computers are nice, but they only analyze past history, not current reality. Much more is needed to be competent.

As for "anyone can do it," I disagree. It is not so much a problem of intellectual capacity as it is of unreality; the average person is so filled with self-serving biases, heuristic thought processes, and indolence that it is a miracle this world actually stumbles along as well as it does.
Good Luck

[Sinner369]

Traynor:

Good topic and very informative but I still don't know what is the right process
in making an informed decision?

[twindouble]

Traynor:

Good topic and very informative but I still don't know what is the right process
in making an informed decision?

Sinner, it all boils down to you, where your at with your handicapping, overall perception and knowledge of the game. That's an unknown to all of us.

We can throw advice out there and be confident we know what we are taking about but it's not that it's easy to explain. It's like a pilot telling someone how to pull out of a stall, when the guy never flew a plane. Evaluating a race for potential value, opportunity to make money or determining if it's playable is basically what we are talking about when it comes to making those decisions. ESP when to wager serious money in any pool at your disposal.

What your asking for is what to look for, correct? I think that's the direction this thread should go but keep in mind players here use different tools and methods to get there so the opinions will differ. Even considering that, I'm sure some light will shine through.

We'll see what happens from here.


T.D.

[skate]

[QUOTE=twindouble]Sinner, it all boils down to you, where your at with your handicapping, overall perception and knowledge of the game. That's an unknown to all of us.

We can throw advice out there and be confident we know what we are taking about but it's not that it's easy to explain. It's like a pilot telling someone how to pull out of a stall, when the guy never flew a plane. Evaluating a race for potential value, opportunity to make money or determining if it's playable is basically what we are talking about when it comes to making those decisions. ESP when to wager serious money in any pool at your disposal.

What your asking for is what to look for, correct? I think that's the direction this thread should go but keep in mind players here use different tools and methods to get there so the opinions will differ. Even considering that, I'm sure some light will shine through.

We'll see what happens from here.

ok TD;
this is gonna hurt.

hey, i agree with what you say above.
it is that nagging point that separates your symbol, using the airplane and what is really given out as pertinent, concerning horse racing.
Too Much info , is just as misleading as the wrong information.

i do not believe that you really think "giving info on Capping a race and flying a plane are in any way connected", when using An Open site.
in private, fine, but not openly. big difference.

that is in no way what-so-ever to say that pieces of the puzzle can not be found "HERE".

i've seen many pieces of A puzzle here, but never a solution. and that is the Only way to go .

comes down to Odds


/QUOTE]

[twindouble]

[QUOTE=twindouble]Sinner, it all boils down to you, where your at with your handicapping, overall perception and knowledge of the game. That's an unknown to all of us.

We can throw advice out there and be confident we know what we are taking about but it's not that it's easy to explain. It's like a pilot telling someone how to pull out of a stall, when the guy never flew a plane. Evaluating a race for potential value, opportunity to make money or determining if it's playable is basically what we are talking about when it comes to making those decisions. ESP when to wager serious money in any pool at your disposal.

What your asking for is what to look for, correct? I think that's the direction this thread should go but keep in mind players here use different tools and methods to get there so the opinions will differ. Even considering that, I'm sure some light will shine through.

We'll see what happens from here.

ok TD;
this is gonna hurt.

hey, i agree with what you say above.
it is that nagging point that separates your symbol, using the airplane and what is really given out as pertinent, concerning horse racing.
Too Much info , is just as misleading as the wrong information.

i do not believe that you really think "giving info on Capping a race and flying a plane are in any way connected", when using An Open site.
in private, fine, but not openly. big difference.

that is in no way what-so-ever to say that pieces of the puzzle can not be found "HERE".

i've seen many pieces of A puzzle here, but never a solution. and that is the Only way to go .

comes down to Odds


/QUOTE] Skate:

Skate; Giving your opinion shouldn't hurt, agreeing or disagreeing. Not as far as I'm concerned anyway.

I agree to much information only confuses things, as I said before keep it a simple as possable.

My anology with the pilot and plane was supose to point out our lack of knowlege about the player, where he's at when it comes hadicapping but that's Ok, sometimes it takes me more than one post to get out what I'm saying.

I can understand having to many pieces of the puzzle and not knowing what to do with them. That's why I advocate sticking with the basics and build from there and never lose sight of them.

I wouldn't go as far as to say, no one can find answers here or anywhere else. That depends on the player how they are absorbing the information. Anyone here that's giving advise has no clue how others are recieving it or if they are using it correctly or not. That's way my wife says, "why do you bother." Well, I do because I love the game and believe it or not it's been good to me in many ways. Plus I'm retired and have the time to shoot my mouth off. :D Even get cranky now and then.


Good luck,

T.D.

[Tom]

Actually, you don't really have to pick winners at all.
All you need do is pick legitimate contenders, and then know how to find value in betting them.

[twindouble]

Actually, you don't really have to pick winners at all.
All you need do is pick legitimate contenders, and then know how to find value in betting them.

Yes that's right, the only thing is, what you may come up with as contenders will vary from handicapper to handicapper. Obviously there's more to your or cj's methods then just picking the highest Beyer figure and so on. Let alone the work you put into it. I can understand why any newbee coming here would get confused and not get the "meat" of what's being said. Just think about all the different subjects that are discussed here, that alone could cause anyone to short out and crash.


Good luck,

T.D.

[traynor]

Traynor:

Good topic and very informative but I still don't know what is the right process
in making an informed decision?

Define what you are trying to do. If it is "have fun," that is fundamentally different than "make next month's house payment."

Go over Kahnemann and Tversky and, especially, Russo and Schoemaker's "Decision Traps." The articles are online, and shouldn't take long to read. If you are still confused, set it up just like any other problem; define what you want to accomplish, what you need to accomplish it, what prevents you from accomplishing it, and what the result will be when you accomplish it.

I think some may confuse "decision-making" with the content on which the decisions are based. Decision-making is an overall schema for making decisions that can be usefully applied to handicapping, rather than a particular set of handicapping skills and techniques.

One of the most interesting training methods was (is) used by British Petroleum to train their engineers to recognize areas likely to be productive drilling sites. They gave the engineers maps and data on specific sites, let them study it, then gave them immediate feedback to enable them to "calibrate" their selection techniques. The relevant issue is that when calibrated properly, the selection technique extends beyond the conscious "this is how I picked it" stage.

No New Age mumbo-jumbo or things that go bump in the night are involved at all. The BP engineers trained, through immediate feedback and calibration, a process of decision-making that uses a "gestaltic overview." That is just a fancy way of saying they learned how to look at the whole picture, rather than isolated parts, in making their decisions.
Good Luck

[PriceAnProbability]

At the track I always paid attention to the post parade but online the shots we get suck to no end.

You're saying that you don't like the resolution of the direct video feed to your personal computer, which you use to place bets online for any race in the country you want.

Would have been fun to see this guy in the era when different bet types had different tellers.

[twindouble]

You're saying that you don't like the resolution of the direct video feed to your personal computer, which you use to place bets online for any race in the country you want.

Would have been fun to see this guy in the era when different bet types had different tellers.

Price, what does placing bets have to do with watching the post parade on "video"? I do go back to the 50's and I took in all the fairs I could.

The quality of the video has improved over the last few years and maybe an upgrade would help but I don't think taking a veterinary course to watch post parades will improve your bottom line that much if at all.

T.D.

[twindouble]

No New Age mumbo-jumbo or things that go bump in the night are involved at all. The BP engineers trained, through immediate feedback and calibration, a process of decision-making that uses a "gestaltic overview." That is just a fancy way of saying they learned how to look at the whole picture, rather than isolated parts, in making their decisions.
Good Luck Quote Traynor;

I used the word "overview" to describe what's involved in making decisions. That overview won't come about unless you handicap the race or races. The whole picture can't be compared to a geological map that isn't moving and has unique properties that won't change and is far from being fluid like a race.

A good handicapper will visualize how the race or races will be run to obtain that overview, not just single our one or two factors as you say. Some here say their speed figures, software and data banks, (stats) will do that for them.

This don't happen every race or every day, a buddy of mine asked me who I like to win a race, I said any one of 5 horse could win it, I called them off and added, it will be a blanket finish. Sure enough there wasn't a half length separating all five when they hit the wire. I would say I had a good "overview" of that race. Maybe the "modern handicappers' can do that as well but how am I to know?

When a handicapper is right on calling a race it builds confidence along with a trust that the races are being run honest, so your less apt to go off the deep end chacing things that just aren't there. That don't mean crap don't happen, be it a troubled race, poor ride or down right cheating. Like I said before it's the percieved degree of cheating that turns players off and that can derail them even if they are good handicappers.

Good luck,

T.D.

[skate]

[QUOTE=skate] Skate:

Skate; Giving your opinion shouldn't hurt, agreeing or disagreeing. Not as far as I'm concerned anyway.

I agree to much information only confuses things, as I said before keep it a simple as possable.

My anology with the pilot and plane was supose to point out our lack of knowlege about the player, where he's at when it comes hadicapping but that's Ok, sometimes it takes me more than one post to get out what I'm saying.

I can understand having to many pieces of the puzzle and not knowing what to do with them. That's why I advocate sticking with the basics and build from there and never lose sight of them.

I wouldn't go as far as to say, no one can find answers here or anywhere else. That depends on the player how they are absorbing the information. Anyone here that's giving advise has no clue how others are recieving it or if they are using it correctly or not. That's way my wife says, "why do you bother." Well, I do because I love the game and believe it or not it's been good to me in many ways. Plus I'm retired and have the time to shoot my mouth off. :D Even get cranky now and then.


Good luck,

T.D.


TD;

yes, basically, i bring out some of your post, because i can agree with where you are coming from. in other words, if i do not agree entirerly, then i may as well leave things alone, rather than just piss -off somebody, who really aint interested in the first place.

i find myself wondering off in a direction, just to explore, and then i realize "im out from under my game". my game being "KISS", and capping is a handy game to lose yourself to "over reasearch". that is why i said "this is gonna hurt".
i most likely interfear with the work of others, not intentional, but...


after reading your post on the pilot, i do understand now, good point.

[skate]

No New Age mumbo-jumbo or things that go bump in the night are involved at all. The BP engineers trained, through immediate feedback and calibration, a process of decision-making that uses a "gestaltic overview." That is just a fancy way of saying they learned how to look at the whole picture, rather than isolated parts, in making their decisions.
Good Luck Quote Traynor;

I used the word "overview" to describe what's involved in making decisions. That overview won't come about unless you handicap the race or races. The whole picture can't be compared to a geological map that isn't moving and has unique properties that won't change and is far from being fluid like a race.

A good handicapper will visualize how the race or races will be run to obtain that overview, not just single our one or two factors as you say. Some here say their speed figures, software and data banks, (stats) will do that for them.

This don't happen every race or every day, a buddy of mine asked me who I like to win a race, I said any one of 5 horse could win it, I called them off and added, it will be a blanket finish. Sure enough there wasn't a half length separating all five when they hit the wire. I would say I had a good "overview" of that race. Maybe the "modern handicappers' can do that as well but how am I to know?

When a handicapper is right on calling a race it builds confidence along with a trust that the races are being run honest, so your less apt to go off the deep end chacing things that just aren't there. That don't mean crap don't happen, be it a troubled race, poor ride or down right cheating. Like I said before it's the percieved degree of cheating that turns players off and that can derail them even if they are good handicappers.

Good luck,

T.D.


and that last part is very good, right on the mullah.

meany times i ask myself, hey self, that guy complaining, what does he/she really know about that race?
seems as thou, just because a horse is chalk, its supposed to win, and when it dont, all hell breaks lose.
which does not mean that i meself, do not get Pee- OED

[traynor]

No New Age mumbo-jumbo or things that go bump in the night are involved at all. The BP engineers trained, through immediate feedback and calibration, a process of decision-making that uses a "gestaltic overview." That is just a fancy way of saying they learned how to look at the whole picture, rather than isolated parts, in making their decisions.
Good Luck Quote Traynor;

I used the word "overview" to describe what's involved in making decisions. That overview won't come about unless you handicap the race or races. The whole picture can't be compared to a geological map that isn't moving and has unique properties that won't change and is far from being fluid like a race.

A good handicapper will visualize how the race or races will be run to obtain that overview, not just single our one or two factors as you say. Some here say their speed figures, software and data banks, (stats) will do that for them.

This don't happen every race or every day, a buddy of mine asked me who I like to win a race, I said any one of 5 horse could win it, I called them off and added, it will be a blanket finish. Sure enough there wasn't a half length separating all five when they hit the wire. I would say I had a good "overview" of that race. Maybe the "modern handicappers' can do that as well but how am I to know?

When a handicapper is right on calling a race it builds confidence along with a trust that the races are being run honest, so your less apt to go off the deep end chacing things that just aren't there. That don't mean crap don't happen, be it a troubled race, poor ride or down right cheating. Like I said before it's the percieved degree of cheating that turns players off and that can derail them even if they are good handicappers.

Good luck,

T.D.

We are talking about the same thing from different views. I suggest there is more to decision-making than the old-time procedure that steps through defining the problem, considering alternative outcomes, etc. Most decision theorists who study real-world decisions have concluded that the "classical" process only works in textbooks and self-help manuals. In the real-world, most decisions are made (as described in Blink) using "heuristics"--mental shortcuts that have worked reasonably well in the past, but may or may not be appropriate for the present decision. Example: the various "partners" chosen by men and women tend to be very, very similar; the new one looks, acts, walks, and talks a lot like the previous ones.

Much of that decision process is outside conscious analysis; the factors people focus on in making decisions may lead to the "right" (correct) decision, but that decision may be correct ONLY because the process ignored other relevant (but conflicting) information. Example: I bet a horse in a daily double some years ago, only to discover (due to the rather loud cursing of some fans standing nearby) that I had overlooked the year when looking at the date. The horse had run two weeks and a year ago, not two weeks ago. It paid a large price, the double was hefty, and I was deliriously happy. I don't recommend making that error as a general practice, but it has happened often enough to be interesting.

The point is that a $200+ DD was the result of what could be called an "error." It was not. I apparently saw something in the PP that I fixated on to the exclusion of "not noticing" the poor works and long layoff that turned out well. Without going off into "anticipatory cognitive processing" and "selective attention" (both fascinating topics), the bottom line is that there is more to good decision making than conscious analysis. What the BP engineers were trained to do was repeat their successes and learn from their failures in an accelerated process of "calibration." Essentially what a good handicapper does every time he or she studies the PPs both before and after a race. That process activates and tunes more processes than just reading numbers and symbols.
Good Luck

[twindouble]

We are talking about the same thing from different views. I suggest there is more to decision-making than the old-time procedure that steps through defining the problem, considering alternative outcomes, etc. Most decision theorists who study real-world decisions have concluded that the "classical" process only works in textbooks and self-help manuals. In the real-world, most decisions are made (as described in Blink) using "heuristics"--mental shortcuts that have worked reasonably well in the past, but may or may not be appropriate for the present decision. Example: the various "partners" chosen by men and women tend to be very, very similar; the new one looks, acts, walks, and talks a lot like the previous ones. Quote; Traynor.



Yes, from the start of the thread we were dancing around the same thing, your just doing a different dance. I stress looking at every race with an open mind. They are all different, there's no set rules one can apply when attempting get that overview to make decisions. In other words don't bring any baggage into them. Your problem solving ability will kick in.

T.D.

[traynor]

We are talking about the same thing from different views. I suggest there is more to decision-making than the old-time procedure that steps through defining the problem, considering alternative outcomes, etc. Most decision theorists who study real-world decisions have concluded that the "classical" process only works in textbooks and self-help manuals. In the real-world, most decisions are made (as described in Blink) using "heuristics"--mental shortcuts that have worked reasonably well in the past, but may or may not be appropriate for the present decision. Example: the various "partners" chosen by men and women tend to be very, very similar; the new one looks, acts, walks, and talks a lot like the previous ones. Quote; Traynor.



Yes, from the start of the thread we were dancing around the same thing, your just doing a different dance. I stress looking at every race with an open mind. They are all different, there's no set rules one can apply when attempting get that overview to make decisions. In other words don't bring any baggage into them. Your problem solving ability will kick in.

T.D.

You got me there, TD! That pretty much sums up, using a lot fewer words, what I have been trying to say. HEAVY emphasis on the words "open mind," "overview," and "don't bring any baggage into them." I think if handicappers followed that approach, they could cash a lot more tickets with very little change otherwise. That is, "re-framing" their perspective might add a decent chunk of profit to their existing skills.
Good Luck

[PlanB]

Skate, you're so refreshing: the guy who bets chalk & gets mad after cause he just expects it to win. Well I suppose he bet it because he wanted it to win,
and being the Fav, well, don't you think a Fav is more likely to win? I dunno,
you keep it simple & isn't that the game itself?

[twindouble]

You got me there, TD! That pretty much sums up, using a lot fewer words, what I have been trying to say. HEAVY emphasis on the words "open mind," "overview," and "don't bring any baggage into them." I think if handicappers followed that approach, they could cash a lot more tickets with very little change otherwise. That is, "re-framing" their perspective might add a decent chunk of profit to their existing skills.
Good Luck

Thank you for the topic and I agree on the above. Also thanks for being patient, giving me time to gather my thoughts.

Looking forward to more topics from you.


T.D.

[skate]

Skate, you're so refreshing: the guy who bets chalk & gets mad after cause he just expects it to win. Well I suppose he bet it because he wanted it to win,
and being the Fav, well, don't you think a Fav is more likely to win? I dunno,
you keep it simple & isn't that the game itself?

planb;

it is all a mater of proportion, to me.
so if i take what you say and try to define, i can't, without lots more info.

my opinion, simple enough, is that a lot of players would incorrectly read into what i say (or anyone else) , that being "i do not think the fav . is more likely to win win",i do not think the fav. will win, because the fav. has a 70% chance to lose. that is without any capping.

comes down to, you can't ( i mean you can if you wanna) talk about any race or any 10 races while trying to make a single point an issue.
such as , trainer, jock, pace ,speed, weather, meds, etc. but one and only ONE point of interest can be applicable to A race, every time, all the time, and that point would be the Odds.

that being "the case", chuck da chalk "always", or forgetabout it.

[skate]

PlanB; ya ok;


keep it simple, fine.
keep in mind that does not mean the game is simple, its not simple.

so to simplify, the odds will be the determinate fact as to "making money".

if you find good odds, 20/1, you can play "OFF" those big odds to cover yourself and you could show a nice profit while winning 10% to 15%.
that's what i call simple.

you limit, very much, the amount of races that you play, of coarse.
but then you are able to wager more on each race.

it is a method that will upset many. but...

[twindouble]

planb;

it is all a mater of proportion, to me.
so if i take what you say and try to define, i can't, without lots more info.

my opinion, simple enough, is that a lot of players would incorrectly read into what i say (or anyone else) , that being "i do not think the fav . is more likely to win win",i do not think the fav. will win, because the fav. has a 70% chance to lose. that is without any capping.

comes down to, you can't ( i mean you can if you wanna) talk about any race or any 10 races while trying to make a single point an issue.
such as , trainer, jock, pace ,speed, weather, meds, etc. but one and only ONE point of interest can be applicable to A race, every time, all the time, and that point would be the Odds.

that being "the case", chuck da chalk "always", or forgetabout it.

PlanB, Lets not get off track here, we are talking about a decision making process that encompassed your handicapping, an overview of the race or races to putting together a play or no play that includes all the pools. The decisions we make are, what pools do you go after when you have an edge with value built in. May very well include the chalk or not. Bringing in negitive thoughts into your handicapping tossing horses because of any stat before you even make dicisions is not good.

Look, on any given card, the chalks for that day could win 90% of the time, not at all, or some other percentage. The decisions you make aren't based on the chalks winning 33% for the day. So just tossing them is a mistake in my opinion. I don't know how else to explain it.


T.D.

[traynor]

PlanB, Lets not get off track here, we are talking about a decision making process that encompassed your handicapping, an overview of the race or races to putting together a play or no play that includes all the pools. The decisions we make are, what pools do you go after when you have an edge with value built in. May very well include the chalk or not. Bringing in negitive thoughts into your handicapping tossing horses because of any stat before you even make dicisions is not good.

Look, on any given card, the chalks for that day could win 90% of the time, not at all, or some other percentage. The decisions you make aren't based on the chalks winning 33% for the day. So just tossing them is a mistake in my opinion. I don't know how else to explain it.


T.D.

Try citing Tversky and Kahnemann and the Law of Small Numbers. It is the generally accepted myth that small samples are always (or even most of the time) evenly distributed.

If favorites have lost the first six races of nine, does that mean that the favorites are "due" to win the last three? Nope. All it means is that the favorite did not win each of the first six races. It doesn't mean anything else.
Good Luck

[traynor]

This is a "protected" PDF, so it may need to be read online. It is in the format of a PowerPoint presentation. Click <enter> or use the arrows to advance slides.

http://www.darden.edu/varoom/documents/DecisionTrapsTalk-NOVA-v1-200304-Handout-3.pdf

Good Luck :)