Interesting Article

[karlskorner]

Interesting article by Joe Takach
"Yellow Brick Road"

www.handicapping.com/hc/articles/view/429

I like the 3rd paragraph

Karl

[Whitehos]

Don't let PA see this.....or maybe he should, and Que and John????
The first one that gets one to work owns the world.
Whitehos

[Larry Hamilton]

Before i become critical, let me say that Takach's "Beat The Beam" helps me to visually identify the pretenders in a post parade like nothing else I have heard of, for that I am thankful.

Now, it is time to be critical. Any one, even a pro who asserts that "this or that" is true or not true without proofs or calculations or evaluations or measurement is blowing hot air and doing himself a great disservice. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

The facts are that I can provide the proof for most of the things on his list to support him but not all. He has taken a great leap by saying "many of these are empirically true/not true, therefore the whole is true/false" There is a name for this type of false logic but i have forgotten it. It is an assumption that if one of the subsets are true then the whole set is true---wrong!

As an example, isn't it patently obvious that the following statement and conclusion are wrong:

This pork is bacon, therefore all meat from hogs is bacon.

[GR1@HTR]

Interesting article....
My take, this is the difference between the new age handicapper (information age/computer capper/intense records keeper) and old age handicapper. Not to say one is better than the other...

[so.cal.fan]

I agree with Joe Takach.
Of course, I am biased. Like, Joe Takach, I rely on physicallity of the horses before I bet on them.
It is the closest thing to "insider trading" we can get.
One of my neighbors is a real rocket scientist, he works at JPL and helps keep our space crafts in the air. He is also a former handicapper, he told me, "Don't worry about any mathematicians or computer programmers, they are no competition for you at the track!"
I wouldn't go as far as to say that, but until I see a huge jump in the percentage of favorites......................best of luck to you guys, I hope it goes well for you, you may have to make a few adjustments here and there, but I hope it goes well..........

[Larry Hamilton]

I would like to point out one more thing to the defenders of Takach's article. To defeat the substance of his argument, I have only to present one program/programmer who uses a computer to beat the races. Do you honestly believe that I cant find one such person.

Logically, if ONE can do it, MANY can. If he restates his hypothesis as, "Many cant do it", I have nothing to say.

[Whitehos]

Yes, I believe you can't find one computer program that can win over time picking horses.
Whitehos

[Larry Hamilton]

Many of you know I am dyslectic and am subject to getting your posts twisted around, if i am i apologize. My interpretation of what is being said is that drf/pencil good, computer bad, so to speak.

Let's examane what we used to do as part of handicapping before computers.

Even though each of us had a different style, it went something like this for all of us. find out who the major contenders were by looking at the CONCENSUS. Look at the trainer and jockey records. Look at our notes for a "key race". Compare past performances. (Identify (?) what is the most representative running line for todays race. check who has beaten whom. Identify who is moving up or down in class. Each of these things were done in any order that struck us and each was valued as we saw fit at the moment...and a million other things.

All of these things are doable with a computer. If you are supporting the DRF crowd, you are in effect saying that the manual, tiring, time-consuming,mistake-prone way is superior to the fast, flawless, tireless, mistake-free way. In my opinion, this reply defies support based on the following assumption: IF YOU ASSUME YOU CAN GET IN YOUR PROGRAM EVERYTHING THAT YOU THE INDIVIDUAL WAS GOING TO DO ANYWAYS. For instance, before computers, how many of you had the ability to identify a "key race".

Note that I didn't say that using a computer guarantees profit, I mere implied you can do what do better.

Anyways, off my soap box and back to work

[Larry Hamilton]

I didnt ask you if you believed it, I asked you if you can PROVE it! Note, that puts you in the impossible position of proving a negative--sorry.
whoops, I guess I did say "believe" correct my post to do you "know"

[Dave Schwartz]

Trry this one on for size...

Takach says (essentially) that you can't use the past to predict the future...

What, exactly, is our own personal experience if it isn't "past?"

[ceejay]

Originally posted by Larry Hamilton
My interpretation of what is being said is that drf/pencil good, computer bad, so to speak.

My interpretation of what is being said here differs from Larry's. I believe that Takach is saying that RIGID systems (computer-based or otherwise) and rules are bad.

[Larry Hamilton]

I have spoken to cj via phone many times and know that his occupation involves the care and feeding of computer data bases. I point this out because, I admit, I don't understand how any system (either manual or mechanical) CANNOT be rigid. Further, if we are betting without using a system, even if that system is "bet on the green shirt", what do we bet on? Please explain.

[Druther]

Perhaps it’s a case of semantics but I see a big difference between a system and a systematic approach. I loathe the former and embrace the latter.

I believe that a program’s function is to “crunch the numbers” and provide me with organized data. I don’t believe a program can out-think me.

I believe that a database can provide valuable information. I don’t believe that a database is a panacea to the happy hunting grounds.

I believe you must incorporate whatever talents you possess into your handicapping. If you’re good at evaluating a horse’s body language, use it. If the best you can do is ensure that he has 4 legs (like me) then forget about it.

Reading books can provide useful ideas to incorporate. None will lead you to the Holy Grail.

Learning from others can be a positive experience. But “you” cannot become “them.”

Use everything possible to become a better handicapper. But the end result will always be the same: You’re on your own.

[ceejay]

Larry:

Actually, I was not passing judgment as to whether Takach is correct or not. I do not know if a computer-based (or manual) system is out there that is profitable. If there were, I don't think that it would be for sale, though.

Yes, by definition, I guess I would consider a system rigid by definition. Maybe I should not have made the point so boldly.

BTW, we know that "ALL" silks have green anyway (as you've pointed out to me before)!!!

[so.cal.fan]

Back in the 1960's some friends of mine who had a book store in Inglewood went to an estate sale. They had heard of a man who left a very large estate, presumably acquired from horse race betting.
They bought his trunks of chart books to study them.
I had them in my possession for quite sometime.
He apparently had a system of locating early speed in races run in So. Cal.
Now this doesn't sound too interesting, except for the fact that back in the 1940's when he was doing this, not too many other people were. He was hitting 7 and 8/1 shots that would nowadays be favorites.
Even in the 1960's they weren't using pace as a serious factor.
Well, I incorporated some of his ideas, from his charts and used them to locate a lone front runner. I made a lot of money doing this up until around 1980, when everyone else caught on.
The cat was out of the bag. It still pretty much is.
I now concentrate my efforts on class and condition, not that I pic k any more winners than anyone else, I don't. I do get better prices, at least here in So. Calif. However, I am always open to learning new ideas. Always. That is why I read this board.

[karlskorner]

Larry Hamilton;

I don't think Joe T. is making positive ironclad statements, these are his opinions.

I worked with Joe T. Jim Quinn, Bill Quirin and others back in the winter of 87/88 for SNN (under capitalized and over managed) Those were 'hard times" for Joe T., believe me he has paid his "dues". For years before I knew him and up to the present handicapping horses has been his only "bowl of rice". Andy Beyer, Prof. Bill Quirin and other have " day jobs", so the rent gets paid, win or lose.

Go to www.icapper.com/articles_main.html

read some 20 or so articles by Joe T. (and Charles Carroll)

Gp to www.handicapping.com (Joe Takach's web site)
(under archives go to articles)

and read articles by Charles Carrol, Dick Mitchell, George Kaywood, Mark Cramer and others, all their opinions.

Belive me, I have much respect for someone who can survive for 30 years (Thats 30 years) handicapping horses, something that 95% of this board memebers cannot, will not, have not done.

Karl

[NNMan]

I wrote Joe T. a short email about his article. Basically told him not to be so presumptious about what IT (information technology) can and cannot do with thoroughbred horse race handicapping. I do appreciate articles like this one, though. They help to keep those average mutuels up there where they belong.

Cheers,

[Larry Hamilton]

I assumed the article was brought in here to discuss. Even if accept with out argument that he is right in his visual remarks; he may even be correct in the numerous other articles he authored; and he is to be respected for playing for daily bread for 30 years. All of these things may be so but none of these things are relevent with respect to the merit of this essay. The logic of his argument is flawed and borders on misinformation.

[baravot]

Joe's article certainly stirred things up! I agree with much of what he said, yet his assertion that "System" or "non-process" players have created their own version of THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD even though it has NEVER produced a flat bet profit for a single racing meet"
seems dubious. If it's not true- and I doubt that it is-
would someone please name or point the way to a system that has produced a flat bet profit for a single racing meet?

[PaceAdvantage]

I just finished reading the article for the first time. It seems to me that JT comes across in this article about as close-minded as the people he is purportedly "putting down" for using a completely systematic approach to handicapping and wagering. He is obviously not open to any other way of handicapping except for his way.

In the article, I don't think he ever states that he has ever attempted to play the game with a system either he developed, or one someone else developed. Yet he somehow knows without a doubt that no rigid, rule-based system has ever existed or COULD ever exist that will beat this game. Whenever someone starts talking like that, I usually reach for the remote....

In any event, the article didn't do all that much for me, and didn't change my mind one bit about how I currently approach the game, which according to JT, is foolhardy at best.


==PA

[Druther]

Hmmm. I just went over and read it. My first impression was that he’s one lousy writer. People who feel they must capitalize and/or emphasize virtually every other word demonstrate a disdain for their audience. Quite frankly, he comes across as one of those know-it-alls Yahoo clones. Don’t think I’ll be revisiting JT’s board again either.

But I must have missed something here. I guess I’d have to say that I basically agree with him on systems, but he sure sounds dogmatic about it. What the hell does he care who does what and why?

Mostly, however, I was left feeling utterly confused. Could someone please enlighten me as to what his purpose is?

[JimG]

I remember Takach's name from Quinn's book New Export Handicappers. In that book Quinn was profiling people taking advantage of the information age in the late 80's. How ironic since Takach seems to have a strong bias against computer-based players.

Anyhow, I do not believe that one way is necessarily better than the other (how's that for being Switzerland<g>). What matters for serious horseplayers is the bottom line +-. If over a long period of time, you are in the red then your doing something wrong and need to make a change. Otherwise, if your making money over a long period of time..it doesn't matter how...with or without a computer...class..speed..trainers..pace..etc.

I enjoy the banter between the computer and non-computer faction and what makes it really enjoyable is I do not feel there is a definitive correct answer.

Just weighing in with my 2 cents.

Jim

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm not sure JT's article was a bash on computer based handicapping. More against those who like to play by a rules-based system, computer or otherwise...the more rigid, the less he likes it.


==PA

[Tom]

I think the stupidist thing anyone can say is that some one else can't win using __________!
Just because I can't win with trainer patterns doesn't mean that people can't. Just because someone can't win with a computer doesb't mean others can't.
I have won using a computer plus my own brain for many years. I have a friend who wouldn't know a computer from a toaster-he plays by figuring out trainer
intent and he wins. Some times we have the same horse but mostly we don't-hey, there are 9 winners a day-no one gets them all-so who gets the one I don't?
The guy with the numerology chart, the guy with the hat pin, the guy that knows a guy who talked to a guy who has a friend that heard something in a cab?
If you are winnning with your method, great-keep it up. If you are losing, you don't have time to bitch about other people's methods.
Tom

[baravot]

Tom,

Very well said!

Boy I sure hope those guys up in N. Dakota, (ya know the ones with the direct link into the wager pools), don't read this article.

They are going to be real disappointed to find out that what they are doing will NEVER work!!

[Dave Schwartz]

mrdezo,

Good hit!

My personal observations about life have led me to the following conclusion:

Anyone that says they have the only answer to anything is usually ignorant and needs to be ignored. That applies to everything from horse racing, to politics and religion.

[NNMan]

Well said, David.

And after several emails back and forth with Joe, the thing that gets me the most is that he is so convinced that no one can profit consistently over the long run with a computer-based system. Personally, I know there are many ways to profit in horse racing. I just think using a computer-based system is the most consistent way to do it.
And that includes the money management side of things as well, in fact that part is more than 50% of the equation.

Cheers,

[baravot]

Joe's article is especially interesting in light of his posted results for the meet so far:

Thru 4/11

Win selections: 207
Winners: 71
Win%: 34.30%
Profit/Loss from 207-two dollar win bets: -$7.60
ROI: $1.96(for every $2 wagered to win)

[Que]

I don't think a computer will ever beat a grand master in chess either....

[Larry Hamilton]

I dont remember the details, but I am fairly certain a computer has already beaten the number 1 grand master from russia within the last 5 years...

Got the details: champion Kasparov was beaten by a computer named Big Blue 3.5 games to 2.5 games from 5/3/97 thru 5/11/97

As an aside, i remember the computer I had in May of 97. The computer I have now is easily 8 times faster. If Big Blue has improved 8 fold as my desk top has, do you think Kasparov wins even one game now?

[Tom]

Curious how most of those that assure us that they know better than we are also willing to sell us the secrets!
If you can't say a lot of great things about your own product, then by all means run down everyone else's.
Tom

[Dave Schwartz]

Tom,

LOL - I forgot that part. You mean that Joe might have an axe to grind by getting us to believe that we are wasting our time? That we could do it much better if we just asked him?

[Lefty]

I don't believe the computer beat Kasporof I think the
rusky psyched himself out of the win. Besides, it's the
prog. not the computer that's in dispute only I don't think there really is one. I juist read the article to mean
there's no black box and you must bring your brains to
the fray. Isn't that what most of us have been saying
anyhow?

[Tom]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
Tom,

LOL - I forgot that part. You mean that Joe might have an axe to grind by getting us to believe that we are wasting our time? That we could do it much better if we just asked him?



Exacta-mondo!
I mean, he is a good writer and I like his books and all,
but I never got the feeling that I had the Holy Grail in my possesion when I bought them.

Beyer Beware, or something like that?
Tom

(PS-Your Pars are quite good-I may have some kind of Grail here)
Tom

[PaceAdvantage]

Yeah, thanks for reminding me...I have to update my pars...I used to always think that Dave's pars were excellent when he was doing them for his Thorobrain software. Now that he's doing them again, I can't wait to get my hands on them. It will be interesting to see if things improve at all with this new set of pars, as compared to the Pine pars....


==PA

[Que]

That's exactly my point Larry--although many people said it could never be done, a computer has beaten a grand master at chess... and parimutual betting can't be much more difficult than beating a grand master.

[Dave Schwartz]

PA,

Well, since you brought it up... (please forgive the blatant advertising)

We will be making our version of the pars available next week.

Our pars are simpler than the Cynthia pars... We are only interested in answering one question: "How fast is the track?"

Thus, our pars are only 13 pages long and contain just the (sometimes theoretical) $10k pars for distance at each track (along with avg daily variants and track class levels). There is also a supplemental track class table.

Price: $105 (includes 3 quarterly updates)

Or, bundled with a 9-issue subscription to our newsletter (The HorseStreet Player), $149. (Note that the newsletter itself is $112.50 for 9 issues.)

By the way, the pars are also available in a comma-delimited format for you programmer types. Same price if we can deliver it electronically, otherwise add $8 for a diskette and mailing.

[Larry Hamilton]

Sorry Que, subtleties often go right over my head