Nebulous Algorithms

[bigmack]

How trusting are you of figures that are presented within your decision making process all the while lacking a comprehensive understanding of their configuration due to proprietary considerations?

Tested with time - Word o' mouth - Know enough to trust?

[Overlay]

Unless you develop the algorithm yourself, I guess it all comes down to trust based on reputation or word-of-mouth at first, and then on your own experience. Quite an initial leap of faith, possibly, if you don't know the decision logic of the program -- not to mention the typical purchase cost, plus any betting outlays while you're determining whether the program is effective or not.

[Red Knave]

For meTested with timeis enough.

Also Nebulous Algorithms would be a great name for a rock band. ;) :rolleyes:

[Tom]

I don't know how magnets work, but none of the stuff on my refridgerator ever fall off. Not sure how the combustable engine works, but I drive all over the place.

I know the figures work, because I track them.

[garyoz]

How trusting are you of figures that are presented within your decision making process all the while lacking a comprehensive understanding of their configuration due to proprietary considerations?

Tested with time - Word o' mouth - Know enough to trust?

Reliability and validity interpretations depend on how the individual decides to use them. The same data often lead to different decisions by different people--the same things happens in financial markets, Opinions and interpretation of the "facts" (in a postmodern sense) are what make markets.

[classhandicapper]

IMO, you are better off if you understand what goes into the figures you are using.

[Tom]

IMO, you are better off if you understand what goes into the figures you are using.

So if I knew what was in the K factor, it would hit more than 30% of the time?

[classhandicapper]

So if I knew what was in the K factor, it would hit more than 30% of the time?

I don't know what the K factor is (HTR ?), but if I did and also knew what was in it, I'm pretty sure I could weed out occasions where it was either inaccurate or not properly reflecting the ability of the horses. If I didn't, I would have to blindly accept it as is all the time.

[bigmack]

I know the figures work, because I track them.
How close I'm able to dial into the "potion" of the equations that hold the most weight gives me better confidence of the numbers rather than blindly accepting them. In the end, you either believe or don't based on tracking. Good answer Mr.T

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/onion_news3197.article.jpg

[thoroughbred]

How trusting are you of figures that are presented within your decision making process all the while lacking a comprehensive understanding of their configuration due to proprietary considerations?

Tested with time - Word o' mouth - Know enough to trust?

The documentation provided with CompuTrak shows how, (mathematics, reasoning, etc.) the program was derived.

You can read this documentation at web site:

www.revelationprofits.com

[Overlay]

I don't know how magnets work, but none of the stuff on my refridgerator ever fall off. Not sure how the combustable engine works, but I drive all over the place.

I know the figures work, because I track them.

I understand what you're saying, Tom -- a lot of living depends on faith in things we may not understand or be able to explain the technical workings of. But to use your analogy, that also means you have to pay big bucks to someone who does understand how the things work when they go wrong or don't perform as expected. Whereas if you have insight into the basic workings of the model, you can make your own judgments as to its effectiveness in the first place (meaning you may save yourself the money and time involved in purchasing and testing it to begin with), or you can detect what components of it require adjustment if it begins to perform poorly, and can fix or tweak it yourself accordingly, rather than being dependent on (and paying for) someone else's expertise.

[Tom]

Overlay, you have just described........WORK!
WhileI can, and have, done the work before - made the nubmers, tested them, used them, it takes time. At my age, time is far too expensive. Beside, I could never cover all tracks, all tools, like CJ and Ken Masa are so kind to do for me. I'll settle for the little day to day puzzles when I want to play.

WORK! :eek:

[classhandicapper]

Overlay, you have just described........WORK!
WhileI can, and have, done the work before - made the nubmers, tested them, used them, it takes time. At my age, time is far too expensive. Beside, I could never cover all tracks, all tools, like CJ and Ken Masa are so kind to do for me. I'll settle for the little day to day puzzles when I want to play.

WORK! :eek:

I'm in the same position. I used to spend a lot of time compiling pace and speed figures (in addition to lots of other info). I don't anymore becaue I want the time for myself. However, I do make it my business to at least understand what's going into the figures I use now. I want them to be very similar to what I used to do for myself. That way I know they are valid. Also, if I see one that doesn't seem to make sense I want to be able to figure out whether the figure is off or whether the horse in question just didn't run the way I would have expected.