Who would Simon and Garfunkel like?

[mountainman]

A developing trend I find interesting is the effort to relate human decision making to the handicapping process. What really resonates with me is the pitfall of being guided by one colorful fact, even using it as an "anchor" to which other facts are first contorted and then tethered. As an intuitive handicapper-with no set creed or method-who reads past performances from the bottom up to trace a horse's history, I tend to gravitate (subconsciously) to one sexy form trait, or the most colorful storyline. My profession (tv analyst) makes me extra prone to this, since the show is livlier and the commentary feels more compelling when distinct, easily communicated opinions are dispensed.

Sometimes, the form trait or prospective scenario I focus on is simply a matter of personal taste. I firmly believe that a single line from a 60's (70's? ) pop hit, "The Boxer" best encapsulates how handicappers think: "All lies in jest ' til a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

But I'm coming to believe that's a trap that shuts the mind off to less sexy, but equally viable possibilities. Tons of winners, after all, sport bland, nondescript forms that don't particularly attract the eye, or stand out in any regard or category.

On a related tangent, a similar trap I sometimes fall prey to is imagining that some horse in EVERY race-longshot, fringe player or favorite- is clearly superior to the competition-if I can only unearth the titillating reason. I think I'll dub this counterproductive mindset "the 10-length syndrome." It's self-descriptive and entails an over-obsession with predicting vast improvement, breakout performance or total dominance from some entrant.

Would love some feedback from players who can relate. Is the next frontier of handicapping a quest to conquer our own minds?

[Milkshaker]

Hey MountainMan:

I've posted this before under a separate heading, but it didn't get much discussion. I think it touches on a few key points you made.

I would strongly recommend reading "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman.

It's a wide-ranging book, but one of the basic premises is how the human mind falls prey to the trap of believing the most vivid "story" or "explanation" for something, even at the expense of ignoring other relevant (but seemingly "boring") facts. We are simply wired to latch onto "narratives" that captivate us, and self-reinforce them by playing the stories over and over again in our minds.

Another interesting point the book makes pertains to the traps we fall into when analyzing sets of data. For example: Do you always look at the horses top down, from post 1 to 12? If so, you may be tainting your evaluations of the outside horses, because by the time you get to them, as a seasoned handicapper, you probably "think" you have a solid understanding of how the race will play out. (I would be willing to bet horseplayers in general spend far less time evaluating horses deep down on the past performance page).

To counter this, the author would recommend picking five or six key factors you think are important (he stresses only a few are necessary because an overabundance of info also distorts), and independently evaluating each horse (in random order) for one factor at a time, scoring each attribute on a 1 to 5 basis. You do this for each key attribute, then go back and tally up the scores.

It sounds overly simplistic at first, but Kahneman makes a very valid case for "less is more" approaches to decision making.

[Overlay]

To counter this, the author would recommend picking five or six key factors you think are important (he stresses only a few are necessary because an overabundance of info also distorts), and independently evaluating each horse (in random order) for one factor at a time, scoring each attribute on a 1 to 5 basis. You do this for each key attribute, then go back and tally up the scores.

As long as you make sure that you evaluate each horse, and do so objectively, I'm not sure that using random order for the analysis matters so much. And why use a subjective scale when impact values (for example) can serve the same ranking purpose, and do so in a quantitative, verifiable manner?

[DJofSD]

One of the two Dave's (I think it was a Dave) posted a thread about this (http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/mean-markets-and-lizard-brains-terry-burnham/1102643869?ean=9780471602453) book sometime ago. When it comes to handicapping I believe it's an important part of the discussion to include the subconscious/primative underpinnings of the brain. This was highlighted in a recent PBS program either Frontline or Nova.

[menifee]

A developing trend I find interesting is the effort to relate human decision making to the handicapping process. What really resonates with me is the pitfall of being guided by one colorful fact, even using it as an "anchor" to which other facts are first contorted and then tethered. As an intuitive handicapper-with no set creed or method-who reads past performances from the bottom up to trace a horse's history, I tend to gravitate (subconsciously) to one sexy form trait, or the most colorful storyline. My profession (tv analyst) makes me extra prone to this, since the show is livlier and the commentary feels more compelling when distinct, easily communicated opinions are dispensed.

Sometimes, the form trait or prospective scenario I focus on is simply a matter of personal taste. I firmly believe that a single line from a 60's (70's? ) pop hit, "The Boxer" best encapsulates how handicappers think: "All lies in jest ' til a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

But I'm coming to believe that's a trap that shuts the mind off to less sexy, but equally viable possibilities. Tons of winners, after all, sport bland, nondescript forms that don't particularly attract the eye, or stand out in any regard or category.

On a related tangent, a similar trap I sometimes fall prey to is imagining that some horse in EVERY race-longshot, fringe player or favorite- is clearly superior to the competition-if I can only unearth the titillating reason. I think I'll dub this counterproductive mindset "the 10-length syndrome." It's self-descriptive and entails an over-obsession with predicting vast improvement, breakout performance or total dominance from some entrant.

Would love some feedback from players who can relate. Is the next frontier of handicapping a quest to conquer our own minds?

No. The next frontier of handicapping is to pick winners. That was the old frontier as well. The instinct you describe above is an instinct formed by watching thousands of races for years which should be embraced not be discarded. Last night that instinct gave out Higher Peace. Absolutely brilliant insight and it was much appreciated.

[thaskalos]

A developing trend I find interesting is the effort to relate human decision making to the handicapping process. What really resonates with me is the pitfall of being guided by one colorful fact, even using it as an "anchor" to which other facts are first contorted and then tethered. As an intuitive handicapper-with no set creed or method-who reads past performances from the bottom up to trace a horse's history, I tend to gravitate (subconsciously) to one sexy form trait, or the most colorful storyline. My profession (tv analyst) makes me extra prone to this, since the show is livlier and the commentary feels more compelling when distinct, easily communicated opinions are dispensed.

Sometimes, the form trait or prospective scenario I focus on is simply a matter of personal taste. I firmly believe that a single line from a 60's (70's? ) pop hit, "The Boxer" best encapsulates how handicappers think: "All lies in jest ' til a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

But I'm coming to believe that's a trap that shuts the mind off to less sexy, but equally viable possibilities. Tons of winners, after all, sport bland, nondescript forms that don't particularly attract the eye, or stand out in any regard or category.

On a related tangent, a similar trap I sometimes fall prey to is imagining that some horse in EVERY race-longshot, fringe player or favorite- is clearly superior to the competition-if I can only unearth the titillating reason. I think I'll dub this counterproductive mindset "the 10-length syndrome." It's self-descriptive and entails an over-obsession with predicting vast improvement, breakout performance or total dominance from some entrant.

Would love some feedback from players who can relate. Is the next frontier of handicapping a quest to conquer our own minds?

No doubt about it, mountainman...the next frontier in handicapping is a Zen Buddhist-type training for the mind.

In the heat of battle, our mind and emotions turn against us...and need to be controlled.

[mountainman]

Last night that instinct gave out Higher Peace. Absolutely brilliant insight and it was much appreciated.

My pleasure, sir. Glad to be of assistance.

[Tom]

http://www.silvalifesystem.com/articles/brand/alpha-sound/

Scroll down and there is a link to a free alpha sound mp3. I find it very effective to clear the mind, erase tension and the pain of a loser, and allow me to fully absorb the PPs in what Michael Pizzola wrote about as the soft focus stage. Just go from horse to horse looking at the information, not processing it by becoming aware of it. No judging if it is good or bad, just that is is there. Amazing how you are able to call up random handicapping ideas and "file" into your profile of a horse.

Sounds crazy, but I find it helps me to somehow put what I see in one line into perspective with what I have just seen in other lines. Being able to manually go into alpha is easy after a while. I don't know that the mind actually enters the alpha state, but I can feel the clarity and I can block out everything but the PPs.

I don't know if this is conquering the mind or freeing it, but it works for me.

[Actor]

"All lies in jest ' til a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
The correct lyrics are

"...such are promises
"All lies and jests
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear
"And disregards the rest."

Kind of changes the meaning.

[mountainman]

The correct lyrics are

"...such are promises
"All lies and jests
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear
"And disregards the rest."

Kind of changes the meaning.

Not that much, really.

[mountainman]

The correct lyrics are

"...such are promises
"All lies and jests
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear
"And disregards the rest."

Kind of changes the meaning.

But you SURE stopped me from EVER trying to sing "Louie Louie" on the show. Not happening now. Not if I can't even get "The Boxer" right. NO , sir.

[toetoe]

Mark, I was thinkin' of a handicappin' triumvirate:

You 'n' me 'n' Leslie.

[Kevroc]

"When's the first post at Scarborough Fair...."

[johnhannibalsmith]

And from here it surely looks to me the number three draws out to be... Homeward bound.

Oh this is fun. Next up, Me and Julio Down By The Testbarn.

[Overlay]

"When's the first post at Scarborough Fair...."
To quote Andy Beyer, "Parsley, sage, rosemary, and crime."

[Kevroc]

"Like a Bridgejumper over troubled water... I'll lay 1 to 9"

[mountainman]

"What's that ya say, Mrs Robinson, Seattle Slew has left and gone away..hey hey hey."

[strapper]

Well, I like the line from "The Boxer". Working as a handicapper at a racetrack for more than 30 years I do believe people do like their opinions to be confirmed. I have noticed another group of handicappers who don't want to do any handicapping - the lazy bunch who would prefer to have a scapegoat to blame for playing another person's selection should it not win. The best advice is to stick to your guns, have faith in your convictions, because in the long run, you really go it alone.