Learning

[traynor]

An interesting article that argues the premise of prolonged participation in an activity may not automatically equate to an increased level of expertise in that activity.

"Ericsson is also on record as emphasising that not just any old practice counts towards the 10,000-hour average. It has to be deliberate, dedicated time spent focusing on improvement. Not all the examples in Gladwell’s book qualify as such deliberate practice: writing computer programs and playing ice-hockey matches, for instance, may not count. It’s not a matter of simply taking part in an activity, Ericsson argues."
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121114-gladwells-10000-hour-rule-myth/2

As one young lady at Arizona State University expressed it so eloquently in an MBA class, "Getting older does not necessarily make you smarter or more capable--it just makes you older."

That may be the reason why so many horse racing fans seem to have such difficulty in making the transition from recreational handicapping to serious handicapping. They are still "playing the ponies" while the serious bettors are engaged in warfare.

[Robert Goren]

An interesting article that argues the premise of prolonged participation in an activity may not automatically equate to an increased level of expertise in that activity.

"Ericsson is also on record as emphasising that not just any old practice counts towards the 10,000-hour average. It has to be deliberate, dedicated time spent focusing on improvement. Not all the examples in Gladwell’s book qualify as such deliberate practice: writing computer programs and playing ice-hockey matches, for instance, may not count. It’s not a matter of simply taking part in an activity, Ericsson argues."
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121114-gladwells-10000-hour-rule-myth/2

As one young lady at Arizona State University expressed it so eloquently in an MBA class, "Getting older does not necessarily make you smarter or more capable--it just makes you older."

That may be the reason why so many horse racing fans seem to have such difficulty in making the transition from recreational handicapping to serious handicapping. They are still "playing the ponies" while the serious bettors are engaged in warfare.More self deception drivel by a losing bettor who thinks he can becoming a winning horse player without going through the school of hard knocks by reading enough books or doing enough computer searches.There is no substitute for tearing up tickets.
There are types of two big winners (or least win enough to live on) in horse racing. The whales who a bunch of experts working for them . You can not do what they do a smaller scale doing all the work yourself. The other is the guy who has the brains and/or talent combined with years of experience to know the difference between a good bet and a bad one. There seems to be bunch of posters here who fall into the first group. I take anything they post with a grain of salt. Generally after making a big splash here, they come to the conclusion that horse racing can't be beat as it is structured today and start talking about taking up another form of gambling. They need to make a call to Gamblers Anonymous. They really do and they know they are.

[Capper Al]

Whale hunting is my new hobby.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=9967&stc=1

[traynor]

More self deception drivel by a losing bettor who thinks he can becoming a winning horse player without going through the school of hard knocks by reading enough books or doing enough computer searches.There is no substitute for tearing up tickets.
There are types of two big winners (or least win enough to live on) in horse racing. The whales who a bunch of experts working for them . You can not do what they do a smaller scale doing all the work yourself. The other is the guy who has the brains and/or talent combined with years of experience to know the difference between a good bet and a bad one. There seems to be bunch of posters here who fall into the first group. I take anything they post with a grain of salt. Generally after making a big splash here, they come to the conclusion that horse racing can't be beat as it is structured today and start talking about taking up another form of gambling. They need to make a call to Gamblers Anonymous. They really do and they know they are.

The self-deceptive drivel is by Malcolm Gladwell, a follow up to the equivalent drivel of Blink. I don't think it takes 20 years of losing to learn how to pick a few winners. Quite the contrary. I think it takes focused, determined effort to succeed--not just "playing the ponies for fun" or as a substitute for doing crossword puzzles. That is the point of the article.

Specifically, engaging in some activity for an extended period of time does not necessarily equate to expertise in that activity. It takes work, and thought, and effort--and those seem to be requirements that most recreational bettors like to avoid. For those willing to do the work necessary, it isn't that difficult, and it doesn't take three days less than forever to do. Unless one really enjoys the angst of losing for an extended period of time.

[traynor]

I think one of the big problems with horse racing is that many (most?) of the current crop of handicappers have spent years betting using essentially outdated, obsolete approachs that may have worked 20-30 years ago, but are now so well known that they are not profitable. It is not that horse racing cannot be profitable--it is that using the same approach everyone else is using cannot be profitable.

And because they have so much time and money "invested" in those outdated, obsolete approachs they seem to think that anyone who does anything different "doesn't deserve to win because they have not paid their dues." Apparently that means being a consistent loser for many years. The only thing that losing does is give one a lot of practice and experience at losing. Most rational people would say, "If you can't win, don't bet. If you want to bet, learn how to win. Unless you have really deep pockets and like to lose." Pretty simple stuff.

[Magister Ludi]

If you want to bet, learn how to win.
"Having one hour to chop wood, spend forty five minutes sharpening the axe." Abraham Lincoln

[traynor]

"Having one hour to chop wood, spend forty five minutes sharpening the axe." Abraham Lincoln

That is some seriously great advice. Thank you for posting it.

[thaskalos]

Most rational people would say, "If you can't win, don't bet. If you want to bet, learn how to win. Unless you have really deep pockets and like to lose." Pretty simple stuff.

This too is outdated advice...IMO. It doesn't work out in practice, and I doubt it ever did.

More than a few serious players (or "bettors", as you seem to prefer to call them) convince themselves that they "can win"...usually by betting their picks "on paper", on their kitchen table.

They convince themselves that, since they can win on paper, they should easily be able to win when betting for real...or, if they have been able to win by making $2 bets, they should be able to perform equally well when they move up to betting "real" money.

Of course...they get a rude awakening when they move from theory to practice.

I am afraid that simplistic advice, like the one you are offering in the post highlighted above, does not fare so well when applied to complicated games...even when you regard these games as "warfare".

This is strictly my opinion of course...

[thaskalos]

An interesting article that argues the premise of prolonged participation in an activity may not automatically equate to an increased level of expertise in that activity.

"Ericsson is also on record as emphasising that not just any old practice counts towards the 10,000-hour average. It has to be deliberate, dedicated time spent focusing on improvement. Not all the examples in Gladwell’s book qualify as such deliberate practice: writing computer programs and playing ice-hockey matches, for instance, may not count. It’s not a matter of simply taking part in an activity, Ericsson argues."
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121114-gladwells-10000-hour-rule-myth/2

As one young lady at Arizona State University expressed it so eloquently in an MBA class, "Getting older does not necessarily make you smarter or more capable--it just makes you older."

That may be the reason why so many horse racing fans seem to have such difficulty in making the transition from recreational handicapping to serious handicapping. They are still "playing the ponies" while the serious bettors are engaged in warfare.

I might be mistaken...but I didn't see anything in the above article which confirms your assertion that it only takes about 3 weeks for a dedicated bettor to acquire the winning habit in our game. If anything...the article suggests that 10,000 hours may be too LITTLE...

You have compared this game to "warfare"...and I agree. But you lose me when you suggest that the "serious" player prove to himself that he can win, BEFORE he starts betting in this game.

A "warrior" can only prove his worth when he steps on the battlefield; it's easy to be brave in the comfort of our own homes.

[traynor]

This too is outdated advice...IMO. It doesn't work out in practice, and I doubt it ever did.

More than a few serious players (or "bettors", as you seem to prefer to call them) convince themselves that they "can win"...usually by betting their picks "on paper", on their kitchen table.

They convince themselves that, since they can win on paper, they should easily be able to win when betting for real...or, if they have been able to win by making $2 bets, they should be able to perform equally well when they move up to betting "real" money.

Of course...they get a rude awakening when they move from theory to practice.

I am afraid that simplistic advice, like the one you are offering in the post highlighted above, does not fare so well when applied to complicated games...even when you regard these games as "warfare".

This is strictly my opinion of course...

I think the rude awakening is that the trivial results in a (very) small sample do not extrapolate well to a larger sequence of events. It has nothing to do with wins on paper or wins for modest wagers--it has to do with the underlying conceptual flaws of believing a small sample is representative of the distribution in a larger sample. Again, pretty simple stuff.

That accounts for the frequent sequence of picking a few winners in a small sample of races, then betting on the basis of that sample as if it is representative. It is not.

[traynor]

I might be mistaken...but I didn't see anything in the above article which confirms your assertion that it only takes about 3 weeks for a dedicated bettor to acquire the winning habit in our game. If anything...the article suggests that 10,000 hours may be too LITTLE...

You have compared this game to "warfare"...and I agree. But you lose me when you suggest that the "serious" player prove to himself that he can win, BEFORE he starts betting in this game.

A "warrior" can only prove his worth when he steps on the battlefield; it's easy to be brave in the comfort of our own homes.

By that logic, one should study martial arts by being soundly thrashed at every opportunity?

[Stillriledup]

Being able to handicap many hours using paper and video, and being able to properly invest money to take advantage of your opinions is another huge factor. When you have all that stuff together and you have your 10,000 'chunks' you're ready for the final piece of the puzzle which is probably the hardest part....that is determining which races to bet and which races to skip.

Being able to skip a race after saying to yourself "i think i have a small edge here, i feel i know enough about this race that my play would be a long run winning bet, but only by a little bit, this is not one of my primo plays, its just a play that i THINK is slightly above the Mendoza line".

Personally, i've found that i'm better off skipping the 'small edge' races and just concenrating larger bets on the races i really like.

[thaskalos]

By that logic, one should study martial arts by being soundly thrashed at every opportunity?

No...but he cannot study martial arts "on paper"...

You are welcomed to disagree, of course.

[traynor]

The point of the article is not that it takes 10,000 hours of doing something to attain expert status, but rather that one can practice 10,000 hours of doing something poorly and imperfectly and be no better off than if one had much less experience.

[traynor]

No...but he cannot study martial arts "on paper"...

You are welcomed to disagree, of course.

I take it you have never participated with (or watched) a gaggle of dojo ballerinas punching the air while shouting vigorously with stern expressions indicating fierceness.

[traynor]

Being able to handicap many hours using paper and video, and being able to properly invest money to take advantage of your opinions is another huge factor. When you have all that stuff together and you have your 10,000 'chunks' you're ready for the final piece of the puzzle which is probably the hardest part....that is determining which races to bet and which races to skip.

Being able to skip a race after saying to yourself "i think i have a small edge here, i feel i know enough about this race that my play would be a long run winning bet, but only by a little bit, this is not one of my primo plays, its just a play that i THINK is slightly above the Mendoza line".

Personally, i've found that i'm better off skipping the 'small edge' races and just concenrating larger bets on the races i really like.

I really like that idea, but possibly not for the reason most would think. I like it because you emphasize self-reliance in your decision making. That is, what you think is (as it should be) more important than any other factor. The downside is that you have no one to blame if you lose. The upside is that when you win, you get the money AND all the glory.

[traynor]

I might be mistaken...but I didn't see anything in the above article which confirms your assertion that it only takes about 3 weeks for a dedicated bettor to acquire the winning habit in our game. If anything...the article suggests that 10,000 hours may be too LITTLE...

You have compared this game to "warfare"...and I agree. But you lose me when you suggest that the "serious" player prove to himself that he can win, BEFORE he starts betting in this game.

A "warrior" can only prove his worth when he steps on the battlefield; it's easy to be brave in the comfort of our own homes.

No disrespect is intended, but I think we have had this discussion before, concerning "losing one's bankroll." While a string of losses--regardless of how serious the bettor is--is always disappointing, for most it is not really critical. The betting funds are simply replenished from other resources. Regardless of the size of the wagers, that is not fundamentally different than wagering on paper--nothing is really "lost" that cannot be readily replaced.

When you have a finite amount of money with no hope of replenishing it other than through successful wagering--that is when the rubber meets the road.

[Overlay]

When you have all that stuff together and you have your 10,000 'chunks' you're ready for the final piece of the puzzle which is probably the hardest part....that is determining which races to bet and which races to skip.

Being able to skip a race after saying to yourself "i think i have a small edge here, i feel i know enough about this race that my play would be a long run winning bet, but only by a little bit, this is not one of my primo plays, its just a play that i THINK is slightly above the Mendoza line".
What I personally find particularly helpful in handicapping is quantitative data that gives me something more substantive, precise, consistent, and reliable on which to base assessments of horses' winning chances and play/pass decisions, as compared with the use of subjective opinion or qualitative analysis.

[LottaKash]

When you have a finite amount of money with no hope of replenishing it other than through successful wagering--that is when the rubber meets the road.

When I retired, that is what I had become....A "rubber road guy"...It's working tho...Not getting rich, but black ink mostly all the time now...

It's funny what can happen to a player when he has to poop or get off the pot...haha!...Reality-Check, ya gotta love it...

[thaskalos]

No disrespect is intended, but I think we have had this discussion before, concerning "losing one's bankroll." While a string of losses--regardless of how serious the bettor is--is always disappointing, for most it is not really critical. The betting funds are simply replenished from other resources. Regardless of the size of the wagers, that is not fundamentally different than wagering on paper--nothing is really "lost" that cannot be readily replaced.


No, I don't remember ever participating in a discussion about losing one's bankroll. But, since you brought it up...I would like to say that I am not as "cavalier" about losing my bankroll as you seem to be. If bankrolls could be readily replaced, as you say...then there would be no need for proper money management in gambling.

And your comment that..."Regardless of the size of the wagers, that is not fundamentaly different than wagering on paper--nothing is really lost that cannot be readily replaced"...might be the most ludicrous comment I have ever read on the handicapping pages of this site.

[traynor]

When I retired, that is what I had become....A "rubber road guy"...It's working tho...Not getting rich, but black ink mostly all the time now...

It's funny what can happen to a player when he has to poop or get off the pot...haha!...Reality-Check, ya gotta love it...

The spice of life, when wagering HAS to be right. I think that most bettors would agree that an amount equal to a week's income--whatever that might be--is a serious wager. An amount equal to a month's income, and one had best be really certain what one is doing. (That is individual wagers, not spread shotgun over 20-30 bets.) It is the proportion in relation to income or assets that determines whether it is a "serious" bet or not, rather than the amount.

It might seem tough, but until someone has actually done it, he or she has no idea what kind of motivation it provides. It goes way beyond the playing stage.

[thaskalos]

A day's income seems like a pretty serious wager to me....

[traynor]

No, I don't remember ever participating in a discussion about losing one's bankroll. But, since you brought it up...I would like to say that I am not as "cavalier" about losing my bankroll as you seem to be. If bankrolls could be readily replaced, as you say...then there would be no need for proper money management in gambling.

And your comment that..."Regardless of the size of the wagers, that is not fundamentaly different than wagering on paper--nothing is really lost that cannot be readily replaced"...might be the most ludicrous comment I have ever read on the handicapping pages of this site.

Only in your view. As I said the last time we had this discussion, unless wagering "matters" it is all pretty much playing. Specifically, when "losing your bankroll" means standing alongside the road, cold and hungry, with a sign that says, "Will handicap races for food," it is a bit more than mildly annoying. Losing a bankroll that can be replaced with a simple transfer of funds from other sources doesn't mean much.

Dabbling with amounts of money that represent no more than mild annoyance if lost, and provide no consequences beyond that same annoyance, is not really "risking" much at all. The amounts are irrelevant. It is the significance of those amounts in the overall assets of the individual that matters.

[Dave Schwartz]

Traynor,

PMFJI, but if I understand what you are saying in this thread, it would be that people do not become successful players because of playing a long time.

They become successful because of a concerted effort to LEARN HOW TO WIN.

While there may be a time component to this process (i.e. you can't learn something worthwhile from scratch in two weeks), often the saying, "It took me 20 years to become an overnight success" is accurate.

How am I doing so far?


Dave

[thaskalos]

Only in your view. As I said the last time we had this discussion, unless wagering "matters" it is all pretty much playing. Specifically, when "losing your bankroll" means standing alongside the road, cold and hungry, with a sign that says, "Will handicap races for food," it is a bit more than mildly annoying. Losing a bankroll that can be replaced with a simple transfer of funds from other sources doesn't mean much.

Dabbling with amounts of money that represent no more than mild annoyance if lost, and provide no consequences beyond that same annoyance, is not really "risking" much at all. The amounts are irrelevant. It is the significance of those amounts in the overall assets of the individual that matters.
Does a wager only matter if it represents a week's or a month's salary of the bettor? Where did you ever get such a definition for the term "serious wager"?

If I am not mistaken...you are primarily a harness bettor who specializes in betting at the minor harness tracks. How many of these "serious" types of wagers do you usually make in the "warfare" that you engage in?

You said that any wager -- regardless of size -- was fundamentaly the same as a mind bet...if this wager could be replaced when lost. Is this comment meant to be taken seriously?

Why do we even bother with money management, if losing our bankroll is just a "minor annoyance"?

[thaskalos]

Traynor,

PMFJI, but if I understand what you are saying in this thread, it would be that people do not become successful players because of playing a long time.

They become successful because of a concerted effort to LEARN HOW TO WIN.

While there may be a time component to this process (i.e. you can't learn something worthwhile from scratch in two weeks), often the saying, "It took me 20 years to become an overnight success" is accurate.

How am I doing so far?


Dave

I do not remember ever seeing anybody claim that the mere fact that we have vast experience in a gambling game would, in and of itself, transform us into winning players. OF COURSE it takes a concentrated effort to LEARN.

But, in "serious" gambling...knowledge about the games we play is not enough! There has to be a large degree of SELF-KNOWLEDGE as well. In fact, one could say that self-knowledge dwarfs all other types of knowledge in the world of gambling. Are we naive enough to believe that all these losing players really lose because they don't know how to play this game properly? Because they all use outdated and obsolete handicapping methods?

And this applies to all forms of gambling out there!

How many proficient blackjack counters are out there...and how many of them can actually win serious money at the tables?

How many poker players are out there, who know EXACTLY how to play every hand under every circumstance...but who behave like raving lunatics when the "heat" is on?

How many horseplayers carefully craft their gameplan at home, but then lose all control when they actually start betting at the track...and come home having lost MUCH more than they should have.

It isn't the knowledge of the GAME that's time consuming...it's the knowledge of the SELF!

It isn't teaching ourselves the GAME that's difficult; it's teaching ourselves to play the game the best way we know how.

If all of us stood in front of the mirror and asked ourselves the question..."Am I playing this game as well as I know how to play it?"...how many of us would answer in the affirmative?

That's what takes years...and most don't ever make it...no matter how many years they try.

Successful gambling goes against human nature...and you don't overcome human nature in a "matter of weeks".

Bring me a three week neophyte, and I'll book his action all day long, for as long as he wants. It's the only sure thing in gambling...IMO.

[SmarterSig]

The most important ingredient to your learning curve is the company you keep. If you mix with serious thinking successful punters your game will improve. Its a question of how long during your early betting life you spend with the guy/s who have not got a clue but introduced you to the game. You should also totally avoid the popular media. These channels are infested with journalists as opposed to successful punters and yet once again most newbies spend years hanging on their every word.

Its all about the price !

[Capper Al]

I think one of the big problems with horse racing is that many (most?) of the current crop of handicappers have spent years betting using essentially outdated, obsolete approachs that may have worked 20-30 years ago, but are now so well known that they are not profitable. It is not that horse racing cannot be profitable--it is that using the same approach everyone else is using cannot be profitable.

And because they have so much time and money "invested" in those outdated, obsolete approachs they seem to think that anyone who does anything different "doesn't deserve to win because they have not paid their dues." Apparently that means being a consistent loser for many years. The only thing that losing does is give one a lot of practice and experience at losing. Most rational people would say, "If you can't win, don't bet. If you want to bet, learn how to win. Unless you have really deep pockets and like to lose." Pretty simple stuff.

I believe that this always was the case. When today's outdated stuff was new, the old timers back then probably were saying that one had to inspect the horse in the paddock that the numbers in the racing form wouldn't do it.

[traynor]

Traynor,

PMFJI, but if I understand what you are saying in this thread, it would be that people do not become successful players because of playing a long time.

They become successful because of a concerted effort to LEARN HOW TO WIN.

While there may be a time component to this process (i.e. you can't learn something worthwhile from scratch in two weeks), often the saying, "It took me 20 years to become an overnight success" is accurate.

How am I doing so far?


Dave

As usual, right on the money. With the emphasis on the "concerted effort." It is that component that is essential to both initial and continued success. My basic premise is that successful "serious" wagering (and the serious handicapping from which it is derived) is more easily achieved by viewing wagering as a business endeavor, rather than as entertainment. That does not mean it should not be entertaining or enjoyable--it means that successful wagering is easier to accomplish when the "entertainment" aspect is minimized, and the profit motive maximized.

[traynor]

Does a wager only matter if it represents a week's or a month's salary of the bettor? Where did you ever get such a definition for the term "serious wager"?

If I am not mistaken...you are primarily a harness bettor who specializes in betting at the minor harness tracks. How many of these "serious" types of wagers do you usually make in the "warfare" that you engage in?

You said that any wager -- regardless of size -- was fundamentaly the same as a mind bet...if this wager could be replaced when lost. Is this comment meant to be taken seriously?

Why do we even bother with money management, if losing our bankroll is just a "minor annoyance"?

You are seriously mistaken in your assumption of what I do, and how I do it.

My comment was that the significance of a wager is directly related to its relationship to the overall income or assets of the bettor, rather than to the amount. It is that relationship that determines whether a wager is significant or frivolous--not the amount of the wager. Of course, that is only my personal, subjective opinion.

For many, "money management" is a process that enables them to continue indulging in wagering for recreation or amusement. Or "excitement."

[Robert Goren]

The self-deceptive drivel is by Malcolm Gladwell, a follow up to the equivalent drivel of Blink. I don't think it takes 20 years of losing to learn how to pick a few winners. Quite the contrary. I think it takes focused, determined effort to succeed--not just "playing the ponies for fun" or as a substitute for doing crossword puzzles. That is the point of the article.

Specifically, engaging in some activity for an extended period of time does not necessarily equate to expertise in that activity. It takes work, and thought, and effort--and those seem to be requirements that most recreational bettors like to avoid. For those willing to do the work necessary, it isn't that difficult, and it doesn't take three days less than forever to do. Unless one really enjoys the angst of losing for an extended period of time. What Gladwell wrote is not drivel. What you wrote is the drivel. The most recreational bettors who have betting for 20 years do better than the people who have developed a few ideas after reading a couple of books and trying to apply some fancy math to picking a winner and bet very few races. Do pilots need training? yes. But the good pilots are the ones who have been flying for years. When ever you see a plane make one of the miracle landings, its pilot is always one who has been flying for years, not fresh out pilot schools.
The problem with trying learn handicapping from a book is that all books on handicapping out there are either badly out dated or just plain trash written by people who could not make a dime betting on the ponies. All lot of it advocates using faulty data to make decisions. If you use lengths back at the fractional calls, you are using faulty data. Watch a few races and compare it to the data in the charts and you find out how really bad the data is.

[traynor]

I believe that this always was the case. When today's outdated stuff was new, the old timers back then probably were saying that one had to inspect the horse in the paddock that the numbers in the racing form wouldn't do it.

Those old timers could have been right.

[traynor]

I do not remember ever seeing anybody claim that the mere fact that we have vast experience in a gambling game would, in and of itself, transform us into winning players. OF COURSE it takes a concentrated effort to LEARN.

But, in "serious" gambling...knowledge about the games we play is not enough! There has to be a large degree of SELF-KNOWLEDGE as well. In fact, one could say that self-knowledge dwarfs all other types of knowledge in the world of gambling. Are we naive enough to believe that all these losing players really lose because they don't know how to play this game properly? Because they all use outdated and obsolete handicapping methods?

And this applies to all forms of gambling out there!

How many proficient blackjack counters are out there...and how many of them can actually win serious money at the tables?

How many poker players are out there, who know EXACTLY how to play every hand under every circumstance...but who behave like raving lunatics when the "heat" is on?

How many horseplayers carefully craft their gameplan at home, but then lose all control when they actually start betting at the track...and come home having lost MUCH more than they should have.

It isn't the knowledge of the GAME that's time consuming...it's the knowledge of the SELF!

It isn't teaching ourselves the GAME that's difficult; it's teaching ourselves to play the game the best way we know how.

If all of us stood in front of the mirror and asked ourselves the question..."Am I playing this game as well as I know how to play it?"...how many of us would answer in the affirmative?

That's what takes years...and most don't ever make it...no matter how many years they try.

Successful gambling goes against human nature...and you don't overcome human nature in a "matter of weeks".

Bring me a three week neophyte, and I'll book his action all day long, for as long as he wants. It's the only sure thing in gambling...IMO.

I agree completely that critical, thoughtful calibration of one's own behavior is a key component of successful wagering. Unfortunately, many lack the objectivity that enables them to perform that calibration, and to benefit from it. That is one of the things that keeps the psychologists busy.

[traynor]

What Gladwell wrote is not drivel. What you wrote is the drivel. The most recreational bettors who have betting for 20 years do better than the people who have developed a few ideas after reading a couple of books and trying to apply some fancy math to picking a winner and bet very few races. Do pilots need training? yes. But the good pilots are the ones who have been flying for years. When ever you see a plane make one of the miracle landings, its pilot is always one who has been flying for years, not fresh out pilot schools.
The problem with trying learn handicapping from a book is that all books on handicapping out there are either badly out dated or just plain trash written by people who could not make a dime betting on the ponies. All lot of it advocates using faulty data to make decisions. If you use lengths back at the fractional calls, you are using faulty data. Watch a few races and compare it to the data in the charts and you find out how really bad the data is.

The idea that simply engaging in an activity for an extended period of time automatically increases proficiency in that activity is a myth.

[castaway01]

Traynor, I don't want to be accused of trying to stifle yet another thread of yours, but you do have a gift for getting a ton of posts about very simple ideas that you make incredibly complicated. :)

In horse race handicapping and wagering, as in most other fields, it's best to work both HARD and SMART. You won't develop the ability to win money wagering if you spend 20 years doing the wrong thing, but if you can learn from experience you will outperform a newbie. If you're there for other reasons, like boredom or a gambling addiction, no, your 20 years of experience won't help. But isn't that true in every single field? I guess I don't see the debate.

As far as bankroll and the semantic argument of what "bankroll" means, if you lose your "bankroll" and it's easily replaced, then it wasn't your whole bankroll, just part of it.

[Robert Goren]

Since I made a crack about faulty data at the fractional calls, I feel I should say something about pace handicapping. It is truely amazing how well a good pace handicapper can do with faulty data. Just think how well they could do if they had accurate information. Now back to topic of the tread.

[Robert Goren]

The idea that simply engaging in an activity for an extended period of time automatically increases proficiency in that activity is a myth.You are just plain wrong. People progress at their own speed, but the longer you do something the better you get at it. A losing horse player who has betting the horses for twenty years is losing less today than he was when he started. This true in every field of endeavor I ever ran across. If you ever had been charge of a group of employees you would know that. I have never seen an employee who didn't improve over time. The longer longer they did the job, the better they became at it.

[eurocapper]

I think traynor has a point in that if the wager is a larger share of the disposable income then the effort to handicap it right will probably also correspondingly increase. And there isn't necessarily improvement if the handicapping model changes after each race and there is no record keeping.

[DeltaLover]

A dice player who eventually became an 'expert' after twentry years is still loosing exactly at the same rate he was at the first night he ever shoot them.

[Dave Schwartz]

What Gladwell wrote is not drivel. What you wrote is the drivel. The most recreational bettors who have betting for 20 years do better than the people who have developed a few ideas after reading a couple of books and trying to apply some fancy math to picking a winner and bet very few races.

Goren,

In all fairness, that is not even close to what Traynor has said here.

I believe - and I think I understand what he is getting at - would be like this example:

Imagine 3 guys who want to become golfers.

1) He gets a set of clubs. He goes to a driving range a couple of times per week. He plays a couple of rounds per week. He mostly self-teaches himself. He also watches and learns from the guys he plays with. However, they are pretty much the same caliber as he is. Over the years he watches as his average scores drop to a level of about a 10 handicap.

2) This guy gets a set of clubs. He goes to a driving range a couple of times per week. He plays a couple of rounds per week. He mostly self-teaches himself. He also watches and learns from the guys he plays with. However, they are pretty much the same caliber as he is. But he also reads books and watches videos. Over the years he watches as his average scores drop to a level of about a 5 handicap.

3) This guy sets out with a goal to take a shot at the PGA tour someday. He starts with lessons from a club pro. He follows the pro's guidance for a year or so and then decides to get a golf coach. The coach lays out a curriculum of instruction and practice, with the goal of improving his game. Within 4 years he is playing at a scratch level.

Now, maybe #3 never makes it to the PGA, but I think it is safe to say that he is the only one of the three who have a real chance.

Consider this: SOMEONE COACHED MICHAEL JORDAN.

[SmarterSig]

Exactly my point Dave

[RaceBookJoe]

You are just plain wrong. People progress at their own speed, but the longer you do something the better you get at it. A losing horse player who has betting the horses for twenty years is losing less today than he was when he started. This true in every field of endeavor I ever ran across. If you ever had been charge of a group of employees you would know that. I have never seen an employee who didn't improve over time. The longer longer they did the job, the better they became at it.

Thats only true if you are doing things correctly. If you constantly repeat the same mistakes for 20 yrs..you wont be getting better except at being a better unsuccess.

[SmarterSig]

You can improve your golf technique to some degree by repeatedly doing what you have always done, whilst improvement at betting requires embracing that fundamental evil know as 'change'. To some change is an uncomfortable feeling for others its a lack of knowledge regarding what to change from and to.

[Dave Schwartz]

To some change is an uncomfortable feeling for others its a lack of knowledge regarding what to change from and to.

I would say that is the biggest problem: what to change and how to change it.

[SmarterSig]

I don't think I would label it as the biggest problem. The biggest problem is temperament. You could sit most losing punters down next to a winning punter for say a 6 month period and they would bail out at some point before the end of the period, even if the 6 month yielded a profit. All punters want to be profitable but most of them need it to be painless. Thankfully the two don't go together.

[thaskalos]

http://www.amazon.com/Practicing-Mind-Developing-Discipline-Challenge/dp/1608680908/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1352998391&sr=1-1&keywords=the+practicing+mind+bringing+discipline+a nd+focus+into+your+life

[SmarterSig]

Thanks Thaskolos I will check this out

[MartyZee]

I totally disagree that if somebody has had a job he will get better at it over time;If you put in an effort I agree that you can improve but there are some people that will perform at their same inefficient level;If you don't believe this come to my job where there is an individual that I have worked with for several years and he is as bad today as he was the day he was hired;I for the life of me can't figure out why he is stilll around.While most people do get better at things there are many many exceptions

[Dave Schwartz]

I don't think I would label it as the biggest problem. The biggest problem is temperament. You could sit most losing punters down next to a winning punter for say a 6 month period and they would bail out at some point before the end of the period, even if the 6 month yielded a profit. All punters want to be profitable but most of them need it to be painless. Thankfully the two don't go together.

Sig,

Cannot disagree with your opinion, but I must say that "sitting next to" a winning player is not the same as being taught or mentored. While SOMETHING is gained, the real possibilities are not being exploited.

Also, rather than 6 months, I'd say one day a week for 3-6 months should accomplish just as much.

I really think the idea of having a "coach" who monitors your progress has great value. Of course, from a practical standpoint, most people can't/won't pay for such a coach.

I wonder... with the proliferation of tennis coaches, what percentage of professional tennis players made it without formal coaching. I think that would be a good model to look at.

Of course, all the examples I have mentioned thus far have stressed physical skill. Mental games would probably be more difficult to master without proper teaching.

Improvement in physical skills are adjusted for almost automatically. "I hit the ball this way and it goes off to the right. Guess I won't hit it that way."


I totally disagree that if somebody has had a job he will get better at it over time;If you put in an effort I agree that you can improve but there are some people that will perform at their same inefficient level;If you don't believe this come to my job where there is an individual that I have worked with for several years and he is as bad today as he was the day he was hired;I for the life of me can't figure out why he is stilll around.While most people do get better at things there are many many exceptions

Marty, that might be a great example of a person who did not reach his potential despite the coaching process. You KNOW he has been coached. He has probably either chosen not to try hard to improve or is simply to stupid or poorly matched to the tasks.

I think he WILL get better, but "better" might not be good enough. This is very common in wagering where being good enough means to be VERY GOOD.



Dave

[SmarterSig]

And before employing that betting coach there is the need to admit that you are doing things wrong. Not an easy task for most people, better to hide behind the "I break even" retort

[Dave Schwartz]

Right on, Sig! :ThmbUp:

We humans do have a tendency to be our own worst stumbling block.

[SmarterSig]

By the way you probably all noticed that I am new on here so perhaps I should introduce myself. My name is Mark and I am based in the UK, punting for a living and running the betting magazine and community SmarterSig.com. Thought it would be interesting to tap into the USA way of thinking on betting especially as I am an admirer of the quality of books that come out of your country. On this score you are way ahead of us.

[traynor]

A dice player who eventually became an 'expert' after twentry years is still loosing exactly at the same rate he was at the first night he ever shoot them.

Exactly so. Add to that the fact that regardless of how many races an individual handicaps, on a grand scale it is no more than an infinitesimal part of a much larger population. Extrapolating from a severely limited group in a sub-sample that one has uncovered Deep and Meaningful Truths about the nature of reality in horse racing is a manifestation of ego and hubris rather than acquired wisdom. I refer anyone who believes otherwise to the comments by Schlesinger on the "statistically meaningless" sample represented by Anderson's blackjack play.

[traynor]

...

I really think the idea of having a "coach" who monitors your progress has great value. Of course, from a practical standpoint, most people can't/won't pay for such a coach.

I wonder... with the proliferation of tennis coaches, what percentage of professional tennis players made it without formal coaching. I think that would be a good model to look at.

Of course, all the examples I have mentioned thus far have stressed physical skill. Mental games would probably be more difficult to master without proper teaching.

Improvement in physical skills are adjusted for almost automatically. "I hit the ball this way and it goes off to the right. Guess I won't hit it that way."

Serious question. Have you ever considered that physical skill and mental skill might be opposite sides of the same coin? When I asked about your previous comment about feeling in control, I was curious if you were alluding to the same concept. Musashi's comment that his painting improved his swordsmanship, and his swordsmanship improved his painting should not be dismissed as trivial. The Book of Five Rings is considered mandatory reading for many business people outside of Japan.

Business lunches in Japan often involve more kendo than sushi. For good reason.

[traynor]

Traynor, I don't want to be accused of trying to stifle yet another thread of yours, but you do have a gift for getting a ton of posts about very simple ideas that you make incredibly complicated. :)

In horse race handicapping and wagering, as in most other fields, it's best to work both HARD and SMART. You won't develop the ability to win money wagering if you spend 20 years doing the wrong thing, but if you can learn from experience you will outperform a newbie. If you're there for other reasons, like boredom or a gambling addiction, no, your 20 years of experience won't help. But isn't that true in every single field? I guess I don't see the debate.

As far as bankroll and the semantic argument of what "bankroll" means, if you lose your "bankroll" and it's easily replaced, then it wasn't your whole bankroll, just part of it.

Some people find solace and comfort in repetition. Even if what is being repeated is self-destructive, harmful, or costly. It depends on the basic motivation. I think that if someone decides right from the start that horse racing should be viewed as an opportunity to make money, they will both work hard and work smart more or less automatically.

I cannot imagine anyone foolish enough to start a business with the idea that after some many years of hard work, doing good deeds, and listening to the advice of the old folks they can attain the lofty ideal of breaking even. Most would have the good sense to realize they can accomplish the same thing by doing nothing, and thus avoid all the hard work and interim losses. Or they would find a better way.

[traynor]

And before employing that betting coach there is the need to admit that you are doing things wrong. Not an easy task for most people, better to hide behind the "I break even" retort

Or--if one is attempting to dazzle with their expertise--"I break even" is followed by the Monty Python "(wink), (wink), (nudge), (nudge)" routine.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Here's where I'm at.I agree with Quinn's assessment that horses are archetypal,while their form is always individual,what wins,the "Type" of horse that win certain types of races is always a constant.The patterns are there.Once known they are forever etched in your mind.And I agree with Mitchell that the funamental priniciples of wagering are absolute and concrete.Other handicapping means and patterns are constantly evolving in accordance with the external reality,track and horsemen,and what we see or seek out,and that's so idiosyncratic there are no universal rights and wrongs.And that's where I am in total agreement with Thaskalos here.Self knowledge dominates and is the road to success once you have reached a certain point.The % of wins for my 1-2-3-4-5th choices is the only thing that matters.And how they finish in exotics in relation to each other.My comfort zone of betting,ie how much I protect from bust vs how much I maximize profit cannot be the same as the next guy.If I'm a 50% Kelly,constant percentage bettor,but do bet to place on certain odds ranges and eliminate it from others,while reducing the overall take from say a 43% ROI to a 35% ROI,but get's me through a 50 race run of a ton of 2nd places without pure angst,that works for me.Once a level of personal discipline is instilled into specific situations,derived from successful experience,and based stricly off personal %,it's all that matters.While I am always influenceable and my ideas are always evolving in some form or fashion(especially with all the brilliant minds on here),my personal,idiosyncratic betting world,my knowledge of self,is the only reality.

[traynor]

Here's where I'm at.I agree with Quinn's assessment that horses are archetypal,while their form is always individual,what wins,the "Type" of horse that win certain types of races is always a constant.The patterns are there.Once known they are forever etched in your mind.And I agree with Mitchell that the funamental priniciples of wagering are absolute and concrete.Other handicapping means and patterns are constantly evolving in accordance with the external reality,track and horsemen,and what we see or seek out,and that's so idiosyncratic there are no universal rights and wrongs.And that's where I am in total agreement with Thaskalos here.Self knowledge dominates and is the road to success once you have reached a certain point.The % of wins for my 1-2-3-4-5th choices is the only thing that matters.And how they finish in exotics in relation to each other.My comfort zone of betting,ie how much I protect from bust vs how much I maximize profit cannot be the same as the next guy.If I'm a 50% Kelly,constant percentage bettor,but do bet to place on certain odds ranges and eliminate it from others,while reducing the overall take from say a 43% ROI to a 35% ROI,but get's me through a 50 race run of a ton of 2nd places without pure angst,that works for me.Once a level of personal discipline is instilled into specific situations,derived from successful experience,and based stricly off personal %,it's all that matters.While I am always influenceable and my ideas are always evolving in some form or fashion(especially with all the brilliant minds on here),my personal,idiosyncratic betting world,my knowledge of self,is the only reality.

If that is what works for you, proceed with vigor and continue the good work. A 35% ROI is more than many will ever attain. Congratulations! (And don't let anyone tamper with your reality. It is, after all, yours.)

[CincyHorseplayer]

If that is what works for you, proceed with vigor and continue the good work. A 35% ROI is more than many will ever attain. Congratulations! (And don't let anyone tamper with your reality. It is, after all, yours.)

I'm only slightly below 10% on the year actually.I'm having a tough year in exotics.I have a 3 unit win,win/place method that is the 35% ROI.

My whole point was that the self knowledge,in every aspect,is where success or failure lies.Handicapping cannot be sloppy for sure,that has to be nearly mechanical.But keeping your emotions in check and taking notes on mindset and bet observations is key.Ups and downs,as we all know are only a normal distribution of events,arriving at x amount of wins and x amount of ROI is never a straight line.Every temperament is different.Hesitation,greed,fear,I've had all over the last few weeks!Knowing all the self nuances keeps me even keel.Value orientation is different for everybody.Betting a 4th or 5th choice is fine if it offers above line value but if my 4-5's hit at 12% and 8%(which they do) the value would have to be real steep for it to be worth it.Not betting is one of my greatest value concepts.If you are in a run where your top 4 picks are completing an exacta only 20% of the time,it's hard to be aggressive when it's normally 40%.How about location?After the BC I looked at my records and saw the only thing that was ruining a solid run of play was synthetic tracks,which is historically accurate for me,I stopped betting it and won't chase it to say Hollywood.Etc etc.Staying within our own nuances and realities is where it's at.

I like your ideas about things Traynor,mainly because you use your influences from elsewhere as a contrast.I do too.

[Robert Goren]

I know someone who has never read a book on handicapping. Never watch a video. He went to drafting school not college. He works in maintenance for UNL He is as blue collar as you can get. He nevers keeps records or studies his mistakes. When he is sober he is the best Racing Form handicapper I have ever seen. . His ROI sober must exceed $4.00. The problem is keeping sober at the race track. He started handicapping when he was in high school at his dad's side. About 10 years ago everything fell into place for him. He is now about 35. He is amazing to watch. He can't explain what he does although he can tell you why he doesn't like a horse sort of. At the simulcast center, he find a horse in about every 20 minutes at some track some place. He likes Fridays for some reason. I do know this much, every horse he bet is a long shot and they all are dropping in class. He bets to win. Now if he would just give up Budweiser. But that not likely to happen any time soon.

[Dave Schwartz]

Goren,

How is that germane to the discussion? I guess I have missed your point.


Dave

[Robert Fischer]

http://www.mindfake.com/images/illusions/illusion_35.gif

A lot of progress in learning is just insight and seeing things. The above illusion could represent how one could have a paradigm shift from seeing the same reality a different way. It could also represent multiple realities.

[dkithore]

You are just plain wrong. People progress at their own speed, but the longer you do something the better you get at it. A losing horse player who has betting the horses for twenty years is losing less today than he was when he started. This true in every field of endeavor I ever ran across. If you ever had been charge of a group of employees you would know that. I have never seen an employee who didn't improve over time. The longer longer they did the job, the better they became at it.
Robert, that is my experience too.

[traynor]

I'm only slightly below 10% on the year actually.I'm having a tough year in exotics.I have a 3 unit win,win/place method that is the 35% ROI.

My whole point was that the self knowledge,in every aspect,is where success or failure lies.Handicapping cannot be sloppy for sure,that has to be nearly mechanical.But keeping your emotions in check and taking notes on mindset and bet observations is key.Ups and downs,as we all know are only a normal distribution of events,arriving at x amount of wins and x amount of ROI is never a straight line.Every temperament is different.Hesitation,greed,fear,I've had all over the last few weeks!Knowing all the self nuances keeps me even keel.Value orientation is different for everybody.Betting a 4th or 5th choice is fine if it offers above line value but if my 4-5's hit at 12% and 8%(which they do) the value would have to be real steep for it to be worth it.Not betting is one of my greatest value concepts.If you are in a run where your top 4 picks are completing an exacta only 20% of the time,it's hard to be aggressive when it's normally 40%.How about location?After the BC I looked at my records and saw the only thing that was ruining a solid run of play was synthetic tracks,which is historically accurate for me,I stopped betting it and won't chase it to say Hollywood.Etc etc.Staying within our own nuances and realities is where it's at.

I like your ideas about things Traynor,mainly because you use your influences from elsewhere as a contrast.I do too.

You might be interested in Lyle Stuart's books on baccarat. He spent a period of time calibrating himself before, during, and after playing sessions of baccarat (and occasionally blackjack)--moods, emotional states, etc., and recorded everything. He was successful enough in learning which states were associated with winning, and which were associated with losing to win a quarter of a million in a relatively short period of time. Interesting insights. I understand that emotional states do not alter the odds at baccarat--but they can have a dramatic imfluence on the amount of wagers, and how those wagers are made. Same applies to horse races.

[traynor]

http://www.mindfake.com/images/illusions/illusion_35.gif

A lot of progress in learning is just insight and seeing things. The above illusion could represent how one could have a paradigm shift from seeing the same reality a different way. It could also represent multiple realities.

Reality is a fascinating subject. Sometimes people go off the deep end though. What most perceive to be reality is (more or less) only a perception. When the perception changes, they believe the reality has changed. It has not--only the perception is different, and that perception is, in turn, only a subjective interpretation of that which is perceived.

The NLPers call it "re-framing."

[LottaKash]

Reality is a fascinating subject. Sometimes people go off the deep end though. What most perceive to be reality is (more or less) only a perception. When the perception changes, they believe the reality has changed. It has not--only the perception is different, and that perception is, in turn, only a subjective interpretation of that which is perceived.

The NLPers call it "re-framing."

Noted author scii-fi author Phillip K. Dick once had this to say on the subject of reality........".One day a girl college student in Canada asked me to define reality for her, for a paper she was writing for her philosophy class. She wanted a one-sentence answer. I thought about it and finally said, “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” That’s all I could come up with"


. "That was back in 1972. Since then I haven’t been able to define reality any more lucidly. "The old, the ossified, must always give way to new life and the birth of new things. Before the new things can be born the old must perish. This is a dangerous realization, because it tells us that we must eventually part with much of what is familiar to us. And that hurts. But that is part of the script of life."

This is the link from where I got these quotes....I always enjoy reading this over again from time to time....http://downlode.org/Etext/how_to_build.html

[Robert Goren]

Goren,

How is that germane to the discussion? I guess I have missed your point.


DaveMy point is that there is at least one person out there that learned how to beat the ponies by just betting them over time. It was experience that made him a winner, not by spending a lot time studying them. He does it without computer programs or spreadsheets. He just looks over the Racing Form and picks winners. He picks winner based solely on what he learn from betting the horses over time. This one guy who got better not through any organized study, but just by what he stubbled on by making bets over time. Something that some posters don't seem to think possible.

[baconswitchfarm]

I know I will be attacked but, I don't use a computer program . None of the other four or five guys I know who bet for a living use one either. No one has been coached , and most didn't read any books. That doesn't mean that is the right or wrong way. Just the way things worked out . Any way your road to success happens is the right way for you.

[Dave Schwartz]

Goren,

Take your post and the next one together and you have an explanation.

Bacon says it right.

Just like there will always be a guy who never played (say) basketball until he tried out for his college team and he was just a gifted athlete who learned quickly.

When someone discusses a path to success, we are describing the usual path. That does not mean there won't be exceptional people who do it their way from scratch.

I do question the "never read a book" stuff. I mean, really? Horse racing is your business and you what? avoid reading about it? That aside, I have no reason to doubt you, so instead I will just congratulate you. In fact, I'd really like to interview YOU like I did the poker player. (Seriously.)


Personally, I never had a mentor. I learned everything by trial and error. LOTS of trials, and lots of errors. Oh, and 34 years of applying CONCERTED EFFORT to improve.


Dave

[PaceAdvantage]

I know I will be attacked but,You might be attacked, but not for the reason you're thinking. I would attack you for the stupid notion of thinking you're going to be attacked!!! :lol:

So let me attack you based on that. Why the hell would you think you would be attacked? Because you're saying you don't use a computer program? Why would anyone attack you based on that?

Beyond silly.

"Attack" now over.

[baconswitchfarm]

I guess I was right. :D

[PaceAdvantage]

I guess I was right. :DNot really. In fact, I would counter that your statement was, in a way, an attack on me and this website. How's that for a spin? :lol:

[eurocapper]

I would add that experience of other forms of horse racing is probably more helpful than say card games as a handicapping 'baseline'. For example recency is more important in quarterhorses than tbreds, and arguably less important for standardbreds.

[baconswitchfarm]

Definitely not an attack on you or the site. I enjoy reading peoples posts and ideas. Guys like Dave seem to be truly interested in sharing and hearing other players take on handicapping.
That said ,you have to admit some people get fully entrenched that their way is the only proper way. That is not your fault, it is just gamblers in general. I sometimes see people preached to for not agreeing with someones views. Just in the last few days I have seen one guy certify it is in no way possible to make a living betting horses. Another guy says anyone with a pocket protector and a calculator wristwatch should be able to learn to master horse betting in three weeks. I don't agree wholeheartedly with either , but I respect their right to their opinion.
Once again, love the site.

[SmarterSig]

I would not doubt that the odd individual can evolve into a winning bettor purely by their own doing with limited outside intervention. This may be down to their unusual or perhaps gifted mindset. It could also be down to the monkeys and typewriters effect, in other words if you have enough punters looking at different approaches to betting purely through their own eyes then a few are bound to drop on some profitable approaches and have the mindset to stick with them. I suspect this is the real explanation.

[Stillriledup]

Here's where I'm at.I agree with Quinn's assessment that horses are archetypal,while their form is always individual,what wins,the "Type" of horse that win certain types of races is always a constant.The patterns are there.Once known they are forever etched in your mind.And I agree with Mitchell that the funamental priniciples of wagering are absolute and concrete.Other handicapping means and patterns are constantly evolving in accordance with the external reality,track and horsemen,and what we see or seek out,and that's so idiosyncratic there are no universal rights and wrongs.And that's where I am in total agreement with Thaskalos here.Self knowledge dominates and is the road to success once you have reached a certain point.The % of wins for my 1-2-3-4-5th choices is the only thing that matters.And how they finish in exotics in relation to each other.My comfort zone of betting,ie how much I protect from bust vs how much I maximize profit cannot be the same as the next guy.If I'm a 50% Kelly,constant percentage bettor,but do bet to place on certain odds ranges and eliminate it from others,while reducing the overall take from say a 43% ROI to a 35% ROI,but get's me through a 50 race run of a ton of 2nd places without pure angst,that works for me.Once a level of personal discipline is instilled into specific situations,derived from successful experience,and based stricly off personal %,it's all that matters.While I am always influenceable and my ideas are always evolving in some form or fashion(especially with all the brilliant minds on here),my personal,idiosyncratic betting world,my knowledge of self,is the only reality.

Good stuff CH, i agree with the general jist of what you are saying.

I think that one of the most important and underrated things a player must have in his arsenal is to not wager more money than he is comfortable losing. Even if you have a set percentage of your bankroll that you wager on each race, you need to make sure that you could mentally handle that amount of loss should it come to that.

If you are a person who has handicapped thousands and thousands of horse races in your career as well as watched tens of thousands of replays and gone over the trial and error part of handicapping for decades, i almost believe that someone like that might have a '6th sense' for things.

[foul]

REALITY


"Reality is an hallucination brought on by a lack of alcohol"

foul

[PaceAdvantage]

Definitely not an attack on you or the site.I know...this whole recent exchange with you has basically been tongue-in-cheek on my part...I didn't really think you were attacking me or the site, and I wasn't really attacking you.

Although I will admit, I get a little sensitive when people write that they expect to be attacked...

[mlbelang]

A lifetime of Excel and Coaching will never replace passion and instinct.

[Robert Goren]

Goren,

Take your post and the next one together and you have an explanation.

Bacon says it right.

Just like there will always be a guy who never played (say) basketball until he tried out for his college team and he was just a gifted athlete who learned quickly.

When someone discusses a path to success, we are describing the usual path. That does not mean there won't be exceptional people who do it their way from scratch.

I do question the "never read a book" stuff. I mean, really? Horse racing is your business and you what? avoid reading about it? That aside, I have no reason to doubt you, so instead I will just congratulate you. In fact, I'd really like to interview YOU like I did the poker player. (Seriously.)


Personally, I never had a mentor. I learned everything by trial and error. LOTS of trials, and lots of errors. Oh, and 34 years of applying CONCERTED EFFORT to improve.


DaveHorse racing is not his business. He plays a couple times a month and he is not always sober when he plays. He as I stated before has a blue collar job. He has a major problem with beer. I want to make one thing clear, I am not this guy. I am pretty sure he hasn't read a book on handicapping, but I on the other hand have read a lot.
I knew a guy whose primary source of income when I was younger. He died in the 1970s sometime. He was a major reason, I kept gambling as hobby. I did not like the way he had to live in order to be a pro gambler.
I will be moving out of rehab( I have dizziness from a virus in the tubes in my left ear. They have finally found some meds that help. I have been here 17 weeks) on monday to a new apt. If you really want to interveiw me (although I can't imagine why since I am a barely profitable part time horse player who spends more time here than I do one horse racing.). PM in a couple weeks when I am settled in and have my internet up there. I do have method that I been working on off and on since I was in college that some body find interesting. I think It could be a real winner if somebody really wanted to put in the work to make it work really well. I just dabble in it from time to because I don't want to do the work. Sorting through data bores me to no end most of the time.

[traynor]

My point is that there is at least one person out there that learned how to beat the ponies by just betting them over time. It was experience that made him a winner, not by spending a lot time studying them. He does it without computer programs or spreadsheets. He just looks over the Racing Form and picks winners. He picks winner based solely on what he learn from betting the horses over time. This one guy who got better not through any organized study, but just by what he stubbled on by making bets over time. Something that some posters don't seem to think possible.

I apologize for not explaining more clearly what I intended to say. It was not that "people are too stupid to learn from experience." It was that--in most cases, and most definitely in something as complex as horse racing--the experience of one person only represents a very, very small part of the overall picture. That is a stumbling block that very few ever manage to overcome, regardless of how well-intentioned or studious they may be.

However, when one has some long period of experience in a given field, the usual assumption is that one is "more expert" in that field than someone with a lesser period of experience. That is not true in complex fields like horse racing. Again, it is because in both cases, the experience only represents a small portion of the overall picture. It is the belief that a small sample accurately represents a much, much larger sample that is the source of the problem, rather than some individual's ability to learn from experience more or less than some other individual.

On a reality scale, 20 years experience handicapping horse races--much like Schlesinger's observations on Anderson's blackjack experience--is statistically insignificant. Some may have learned more, some may have learned less, but none has discovered the Ultimate Truths of Horse Racing (whatever they might be, if they exist).

[mlbelang]

They do not exist. Horse racing is a game of chance and can only be...well, "figured" out to a certain extent.

Speaking broadly, horses are not humans and we have no way of telling how they actually may feel the morning of a race.

Perhaps there is a horse in the race that others may look to as a superior (these are pack animals after all, follow the leader anyone?) Its these variables, the equestrian element, that we can not give numbers to...make programs about...all we can do is guess.


But I agree with the notion that "Its not the years of your life, but rather the life in those years" Trail and error for 40 years may produce results laughable compared to a guy who really wanted to figure it out, and did so in 5 years.

[Dave Schwartz]

Goren,

Sorry for the confusion.

I was interested in interviewing "the bacon guy," who says that he is a guy who bets for a living. That ties in with the poker player who says the same thing.

Dave

[DeltaLover]

The truth is the empirical bettor who handicaps with the DRF in his left hand and a glass of beer in the other is far behind today's game.

An player who got his education betting thousand of races following no concrete methodology, keeping absolutely no records always has a very limited understanding of the game as a stochastic event.

Maybe some time in the past this type of player might had some chance, this is not the case anymore.

Same exact concept applies to poker, where players who use to make a living in the pre poker boom era relying mostly in their talent experience and intuition, rapidly got wiped out from the newer generation of poker players who elevated their understanding of the game to a scientific level.

For the game of horse betting maybe the learning curve is steeper that it is for poker but this does not mean that someone needs 20 years to become proficient to it..... With the proper appoach and if possible with the proper mentor it may take several years at the maximun.....

[raybo]

The truth is the empirical bettor who handicaps with the DRF in his left hand and a glass of beer in the other is far behind today's game.

An player who got his education betting thousand of races following no concrete methodology, keeping absolutely no records always has a very limited understanding of the game as a stochastic event.

Maybe some time in the past this type of player might had some chance, this is not the case anymore.

Same exact concept applies to poker, where players who use to make a living in the pre poker boom era relying mostly in their talent experience and intuition, rapidly got wiped out from the newer generation of poker players who elevated their understanding of the game to a scientific level.

For the game of horse betting maybe the learning curve is steeper that it is for poker but this does not mean that someone needs 20 years to become proficient to it..... With the proper appoach and if possible with the proper mentor it may take several years at the maximun.....

I agree with almost everything you said. However, it does not, necessarily, have to take several years to become proficient, or profitable.

With the right approach/method/software, discipline, consistency, and patience, a new player, if he has those things and follows some basic rules consistently, can become a proficient and profitable player, in a relatively short period of time, not years but months.

Laugh at that statement, if you wish, but that doesn't mean it's a truly laughable statement.

[DeltaLover]

With the right approach/method/software, discipline, consistency, and patience, a new player, if he has those things and follows some basic rules consistently, can become a proficient and profitable player, in a relatively short period of time, not years but months.

Laugh at that statement, if you wish, but that doesn't mean it's a truly laughable statement.

I certainly do not laugh with that statement as I think it is 100% accurate and truth.
The only think is that it assumes a master - apprentice relationship so the accumulated knowledge can be passed fast and accurate

[Robert Goren]

In poker literature, they refer to something called the FPS or the Fancy Play syndrome . It is when you get so involve with trying trick your opponent you end up losing. You get that disease by reading many poker books. Contrary to what Delta says there quite few old time poker players still making a money playing poker. You see the young guns on TV, but old timers avoid the spotlight. Are the games tougher than they were a few years ago? Yes, but the good poker player still makes money the old fashion way, cleaning fish. And some of the young guns you see on tv all the time are their fish.
There is tendency by young gamblers to over think what they are doing. In horse racing the goal is pretty simple. Picking winners at rate and price to show a profit. A lot of what is post here is Interesting Math Questions and just that. Most do not have much to do with picking winners. I think there is a lot of FPS being applied to horse racing these days. That why there is so few young people going into horse racing these days. Throwing a bunch of PPs in a computer program and hoping it will make you winner doesn't very work well. Why do you think there is so many computer progams for sale. Most people figure that out pretty quickly and move on. Then there are others believe that that winning is just matter of throwing some more data into the program or getting bettor program. That is never endig process. A lot of those guys end up here. I have seen bunch come and go. I am not sure many if any ever become winners. That does not mean that there is not winners who post here. There are a few, more than you might think. But I don't think they are the guys trying to be a one man whale operation with a limited bankroll trying to build it into a living.

[Robert Goren]

One more quick note. Most of guys who sell computer programs and post here do not claim their programs are "black boxes" and say so openly and often. I will them credit for that. That doesn't mean that their customers don't believe with a little tinkering, they could turn them into black boxes. I think most of the time that isn't the case.

[DeltaLover]

A poker player can belong in one of the following three layers:

- A player who plays the strength of his hand
- A player who plays the strength of his hand against what he thinks his opponent is holding
- A player who plays his range against his opponents range thinking what his opponent is thinking he is holding!

To become a winner player you need to be on layer above your opponent. Going more than one relies to fancy play as you say which is a sign of a fish! The ability to classify an opponent is the real skill in higher limits of poker.

It is truth that an old timer might still show some profitability if his best skill is game selection: Meaning to be able to handicap his skillet and carefully place himself against very soft competition which in today's poker reality translates to very low limits usually going on weekends. If this 'expert' who is just equipped with his practical understanding of the game tries to step up against better competition he will be wiped out very fast, as his conservative - tight style will transform him to an easy prey to opponents who are aware of table image, game theory, range selection using Bayesian thinking, more accurate pot odds calculation any many other details that the older guy has never even hear about. His style is effective only against the bottom of the pyramid of today's players!

Another unfortunate factor to consider in this example is the impact of aging! Either we want to accept or not it is truth that as we are aging both our memory and the ability to think quickly are getting weaker and weaker something that makes us easy opponents against our younger competitors. It is not only this though... Our game as we grow tends to become more and more conservative, most of the cases transforms us to tight passive players which is the worst style we can have except (again!) in very easy games against rookies who cannot think beyond level 1....

As far as handicapping programs for sale, I have to admit that I have never used one since I rely in my custom development which is using raw data as they are provided by bris so I cannot have an opinion. Naturally though, someone who has a successful 'program' will not trade it for a few dollars, that is understandable but does not prove that such a program cannot be constructed...

I also have to notice that the whole concept about handicapping software is misleading. The program itself is just an implementation of a model which can be implemented in several different ways all of them resulting in the same result.

My impression is that most of this type of software is just a front end to simple ideas which are lacking their composition to a final and concrete decision per race. This is why we have so widely used the idea that different handicappers can use the same program (method - model), conclude to different selections and still all of them to be successful... This is something I don't buy... In my opinion any program should conclude to very concrete picks so it can be rated as winner or looser. If it is only transforming the data to higher level of composites leaving the heavy lifting to the player is not a complete model and still needs further development until it evolves to a real decision making engine..

[thaskalos]

I have never used a computer to handicap a field of horses -- nor do I base my opinions on databases comprised of hundreds of thousands of races -- so I honestly don't know what I have been missing by not becoming more hi-tech...nor can I gauge how far "behind" these hi-tech handicappers I have positioned myself.

But I do know that full-card simulcasting has changed the game to an extent where the serious player can win in a variety of ways. Some sophisticated, hi-tech players believe in playing this game as if they were running a retail store...where they bet on as many races as they can, and make their money on "volume". And it's true -- the "pencil and paper" handicapper cannot compete in that sort of game.

But the pencil-and-paper handicapper has an ace or two up his sleave as well. The current full-card simulcasting landscape has allowed him to become a "specialist"...who isolates on particular races and circumstances which he feels his handicapping talents are ideally suited for.

He can't find 40-70 "good" bets a day like the hi-tech, "volume" player can...but he can find 8-12 GREAT bets a day -- assuming he is hard-working enough. And he wagers with more gusto...because he has special insights into these races, and that leads to more confidence when betting them.

Because the pencil-and-paper handicapper finds himself at an "information disadvantage" when pitted against the hi-tech player...he is forced to engage in a certain type of "guerrilla warfare" for his survival. And whoever said that guerrilla tactics were not effective at times of war? :)

[raybo]

A poker player can belong in one of the following three layers:

- A player who plays the strength of his hand
- A player who plays the strength of his hand against what he thinks his opponent is holding
- A player who plays his range against his opponents range thinking what his opponent is thinking he is holding!

To become a winner player you need to be on layer above your opponent. Going more than one relies to fancy play as you say which is a sign of a fish! The ability to classify an opponent is the real skill in higher limits of poker.

It is truth that an old timer might still show some profitability if his best skill is game selection: Meaning to be able to handicap his skillet and carefully place himself against very soft competition which in today's poker reality translates to very low limits usually going on weekends. If this 'expert' who is just equipped with his practical understanding of the game tries to step up against better competition he will be wiped out very fast, as his conservative - tight style will transform him to an easy prey to opponents who are aware of table image, game theory, range selection using Bayesian thinking, more accurate pot odds calculation any many other details that the older guy has never even hear about. His style is effective only against the bottom of the pyramid of today's players!

Another unfortunate factor to consider in this example is the impact of aging! Either we want to accept or not it is truth that as we are aging both our memory and the ability to think quickly are getting weaker and weaker something that makes us easy opponents against our younger competitors. It is not only this though... Our game as we grow tends to become more and more conservative, most of the cases transforms us to tight passive players which is the worst style we can have except (again!) in very easy games against rookies who cannot think beyond level 1....

As far as handicapping programs for sale, I have to admit that I have never used one since I rely in my custom development which is using raw data as they are provided by bris so I cannot have an opinion. Naturally though, someone who has a successful 'program' will not trade it for a few dollars, that is understandable but does not prove that such a program cannot be constructed...

I also have to notice that the whole concept about handicapping software is misleading. The program itself is just an implementation of a model which can be implemented in several different ways all of them resulting in the same result.

My impression is that most of this type of software is just a front end to simple ideas which are lacking their composition to a final and concrete decision per race. This is why we have so widely used the idea that different handicappers can use the same program (method - model), conclude to different selections and still all of them to be successful... This is something I don't buy... In my opinion any program should conclude to very concrete picks so it can be rated as winner or looser. If it is only transforming the data to higher level of composites leaving the heavy lifting to the player is not a complete model and still needs further development until it evolves to a real decision making engine..

Why would you think that only programs that conclude with exactly the same selections, is the only valid one? How often does such a program hit, and at what average odds? 35%, for a good one, at 2/1 or lower odds? That leaves 65% of the winners, and probably a much better average odds, available.

It helps some when you think outside your own box of experience occasionally.

[Dave Schwartz]

My impression is that most of this type of software is just a front end to simple ideas which are lacking their composition to a final and concrete decision per race. This is why we have so widely used the idea that different handicappers can use the same program (method - model), conclude to different selections and still all of them to be successful... This is something I don't buy... In my opinion any program should conclude to very concrete picks so it can be rated as winner or looser. If it is only transforming the data to higher level of composites leaving the heavy lifting to the player is not a complete model and still needs further development until it evolves to a real decision making engine..

Delta,

"Your impression" may well be accurate of many software products.

Personally, my opinion is that a program that does not definitely tell me who and how to wager in a particular race is of little value to me. That is why the GOAL of ANY software I write is to produce exactly that.

However, to produce such a piece of software and have every user of the software be on the same horses would automatically negate whatever advantage was derived from the handicapping.

Therefore, any software I produce must:
1) Allow the user extreme customization.
2) Ultimately produce a "bet these horses in these amounts" output.

In other words, our software allows and encourages the individual user to produce his own, personalized, black box.

IMHO, that is (or should be) the goal of every true computer handicapper.

Our software was not really designed to be "just a tool" that makes the workload easier by crunching numbers. It was designed to be EVERYTHING the handicapper needs to play.

Consider:
1. It allows you to filter on which types of races you are interested in playing. One mouse click will do that.
2. It scrapes the toteboard for odds and payoffs.
3. It manages the handicapper's upcoming races, allowing the user to open each race into a window.
4. It tracks each players wagers (as well as the horses NOT bet) for later study.
5. It tells you at the click of a button how you stand including (or excluding) your rebates.
6. It allows you to create a systematic betting approach that "fires" with the click of a button, then creates an upload file that goes to the ADW.

There is a lot more.

Ever see someone handicap and bet 10 races per hour?

If you want to select pacelines (not sure why anyone would want to do that today), it lets you build SYSTEMS for selection. Click a single button and select all the pacelines for every horse in the race!


So, while your assessment of SOME or even MOST software products may be accurate, I assure you that it does not describe The HorseStreet Handicapper.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[DeltaLover]

Ray I understand exactly what you are saying here but I have to disagree.

Let's assume we have a group of handicappers and all of them are using exactly the same data. This data can be either in a simple format as the row data of pp or in more processed representation let's say expresing sartin numbers. Now each of these handicapppers is making a selection analyzing these data. Most of the cases they will pick different horses each of them forming its own method (either concious or not it does not matter) which after a long array of thousand of races will show a final ROI and PNL. Unless two or more of them end up with exactly the same performance the winner will be the one with the higher return.

His picks across the whole universe of races will become the correct ones beating every one else.

We can also see it more theoretically. The correct selection in every race is the one that presents the higher overlay. With this I do not imply that indeed we can ever be sure about which this starter is. I think this is impossible. But this does not mean that this starter does not exist. What will reveal it is the behavior of the strategy after a long run.

[DeltaLover]

Dave,


"Your impression" may well be accurate of many software products.



why the quotes aroudn impression? what does this imply?


Personally, my opinion is that a program that does not definitely tell me who and how to wager in a particular race is of little value to me.


This is exactly what I am saying.. I am happy we are in agreement



Therefore, any software I produce must:
1) Allow the user extreme customization.


I agree, although this is not the case with commercial software that is based in closed code. Extreme customization is viewed by me only if I am able to change the source code. Other type of customization is more changing parameters / views rather than actually customizing the software.


Ever see someone handicap and bet 10 races per hour?


Yes, I know him very well!

The rest of your post is referring explicitly to your software that I have never used, I've heard excellent comments about it.

I have no intention to criticise it. I think you are one of the most knowledgeable handicappers and I have no doubt that your software is doing all these and more with ultimate success...

At no point I was referring specifically to it or any other specific software.

[Robert Fischer]

http://product-boy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants.jpg
A lot of progress in learning is just having a whole team of experts to teach you.
The above painting represents the concept of "standing on the shoulders of giants".

[raybo]

Ray I understand exactly what you are saying here but I have to disagree.

Let's assume we have a group of handicappers and all of them are using exactly the same data. This data can be either in a simple format as the row data of pp or in more processed representation let's say expresing sartin numbers. Now each of these handicapppers is making a selection analyzing these data. Most of the cases they will pick different horses each of them forming its own method (either concious or not it does not matter) which after a long array of thousand of races will show a final ROI and PNL. Unless two or more of them end up with exactly the same performance the winner will be the one with the higher return.

His picks across the whole universe of races will become the correct ones beating every one else.

We can also see it more theoretically. The correct selection in every race is the one that presents the higher overlay. With this I do not imply that indeed we can ever be sure about which this starter is. I think this is impossible. But this does not mean that this starter does not exist. What will reveal it is the behavior of the strategy after a long run.

You're assuming that every user of a piece of software uses exactly the same data, aren't you? That isn't always the case. But, each user can use the data they use, in exactly the same way, end up on selections that are not exactly the same, and also end up being long term successful.

As Dave said, if each user ends up on exactly the same selections in every race, then the software's creator has defeated his own purpose, to create software that is long term profitable.

Dave's post, about HTR, shows many of the "differences" that can be obtained within the same profitable software. While my software does not "scrape the tote" yet, and the ability to automatically place the bets, it may do that in the future, but otherwise our software accomplishes similar things, in slightly different ways, like customization by the user (in my software, according to what is important to the user, while still being long term profitable - some players want lots of action, some want higher hit rates/lower ROI, some want larger long term profits/lower hit rate/lower ROI, some want larger profits/lower hit rates/larger ROI, some want to play a certain set of tracks while others want to play a totally different set of tracks (and I assume you know that tracks don't play the same thus different methods are required for different tracks, within the same piece of software)etc., etc..)

The only thing that is exactly the same from user to user, is the new data that is the input for today's live card(s), in RS, but then that is available to every user of Brisnet data files, or JCapper data files, etc., it's what is done with that data, what individual pieces of data do within the software, according the each user's preferred method and ultimate goal.

Gone are the days where the best software is just opened up, a data file is imported and processed and the same selections are spit out for every user of the software. This change is necessary for the continued value of the profitable software, otherwise it would eventually become overbet and unprofitable, or at least, less profitable.

[traynor]

The truth is the empirical bettor who handicaps with the DRF in his left hand and a glass of beer in the other is far behind today's game.

An player who got his education betting thousand of races following no concrete methodology, keeping absolutely no records always has a very limited understanding of the game as a stochastic event.

Maybe some time in the past this type of player might had some chance, this is not the case anymore.

Same exact concept applies to poker, where players who use to make a living in the pre poker boom era relying mostly in their talent experience and intuition, rapidly got wiped out from the newer generation of poker players who elevated their understanding of the game to a scientific level.

For the game of horse betting maybe the learning curve is steeper that it is for poker but this does not mean that someone needs 20 years to become proficient to it..... With the proper appoach and if possible with the proper mentor it may take several years at the maximun.....

Totalmente de acuerdo. (I agree completely.)

[traynor]

I agree with almost everything you said. However, it does not, necessarily, have to take several years to become proficient, or profitable.

With the right approach/method/software, discipline, consistency, and patience, a new player, if he has those things and follows some basic rules consistently, can become a proficient and profitable player, in a relatively short period of time, not years but months.

Laugh at that statement, if you wish, but that doesn't mean it's a truly laughable statement.

Consider how long it would take if the prospective bettor--rather than stumbling along in the dark year after year--had a specific set of instructions of what to look for, how to look for it, and what to do with it after he or she found it. In other words, a set of basic instructions that would be considered absolutely mandatory in almost any other endeavor. It is that "basic set of instructions" that--for one reason or another--most current bettors seem to avoid like the plague.

It may be that after so many years of scrambling and trial and error, they need that basic set of instructions as much as the newbies. Specifically, the inability to articulate a body of knowledge is more an indication of a lack of knowledge on the topic, rather than "it is just so complex that you could not possibly understand it."

My undergraduate major was technical writing. The job description of a technical writer is an ability to quickly analyze and understand complex topics, then chunk them down to a level that can be easily assimilated by others. Does the technical writer need 20 years to "master" a topic before being able to distill its essence for dissemination to others? I dunno. Ask some technical writer who is sent home with a new piece of technology on Friday and expected to do a presentation on that technology dumbed-down enough that even MBAs and senior managers can understand it on Monday.

[traynor]

...

My impression is that most of this type of software is just a front end to simple ideas which are lacking their composition to a final and concrete decision per race. This is why we have so widely used the idea that different handicappers can use the same program (method - model), conclude to different selections and still all of them to be successful... This is something I don't buy... In my opinion any program should conclude to very concrete picks so it can be rated as winner or looser. If it is only transforming the data to higher level of composites leaving the heavy lifting to the player is not a complete model and still needs further development until it evolves to a real decision making engine..

Absolutely! Well said.

[traynor]

...

I agree, although this is not the case with commercial software that is based in closed code. Extreme customization is viewed by me only if I am able to change the source code. Other type of customization is more changing parameters / views rather than actually customizing the software.

The reasoning may be difficult for some to grasp immediately. I think much the same thing, because I create my own algorithms. For example, consider something as simple as comparing a six furlong race at Track A to a six-and-a-half furlong race at Track B. How--exactly--does the software do this comparison? If it is my money going through the window, I want to know. That means (at least to me) that I have to know exactly what calculations the software is making, and why.

[raybo]

Consider how long it would take if the prospective bettor--rather than stumbling along in the dark year after year--had a specific set of instructions of what to look for, how to look for it, and what to do with it after he or she found it. In other words, a set of basic instructions that would be considered absolutely mandatory in almost any other endeavor. It is that "basic set of instructions" that--for one reason or another--most current bettors seem to avoid like the plague.

It may be that after so many years of scrambling and trial and error, they need that basic set of instructions as much as the newbies. Specifically, the inability to articulate a body of knowledge is more an indication of a lack of knowledge on the topic, rather than "it is just so complex that you could not possibly understand it."

My undergraduate major was technical writing. The job description of a technical writer is an ability to quickly analyze and understand complex topics, then chunk them down to a level that can be easily assimilated by others. Does the technical writer need 20 years to "master" a topic before being able to distill its essence for dissemination to others? I dunno. Ask some technical writer who is sent home with a new piece of technology on Friday and expected to do a presentation on that technology dumbed-down enough that even MBAs and senior managers can understand it on Monday.

Specific, understandable directions/instructions and/or mentoring is exactly what I meant. With those things and a players ability to develop discipline, consistency, and patience, there is no need to spend years of study and trial and error to become proficient and profitable. Others have already done that for you. Just use it correctly, all the time.

[traynor]

You're assuming that every user of a piece of software uses exactly the same data, aren't you? That isn't always the case. But, each user can use the data they use, in exactly the same way, end up on selections that are not exactly the same, and also end up being long term successful.

As Dave said, if each user ends up on exactly the same selections in every race, then the software's creator has defeated his own purpose, to create software that is long term profitable.

Dave's post, about HTR, shows many of the "differences" that can be obtained within the same profitable software. While my software does not "scrape the tote" yet, and the ability to automatically place the bets, it may do that in the future, but otherwise our software accomplishes similar things, in slightly different ways, like customization by the user (in my software, according to what is important to the user, while still being long term profitable - some players want lots of action, some want higher hit rates/lower ROI, some want larger long term profits/lower hit rate/lower ROI, some want larger profits/lower hit rates/larger ROI, some want to play a certain set of tracks while others want to play a totally different set of tracks (and I assume you know that tracks don't play the same thus different methods are required for different tracks, within the same piece of software)etc., etc..)

The only thing that is exactly the same from user to user, is the new data that is the input for today's live card(s), in RS, but then that is available to every user of Brisnet data files, or JCapper data files, etc., it's what is done with that data, what individual pieces of data do within the software, according the each user's preferred method and ultimate goal.

Gone are the days where the best software is just opened up, a data file is imported and processed and the same selections are spit out for every user of the software. This change is necessary for the continued value of the profitable software, otherwise it would eventually become overbet and unprofitable, or at least, less profitable.

Or the software needs to dynamically respond to changes in the external environment, processing in real-time. Specifically, the software adapts to reality, rather than simply analyzing past events in the hope they will be repeated.

[traynor]

Specific, understandable directions/instructions and/or mentoring is exactly what I meant. With those things and a players ability to develop discipline, consistency, and patience, there is no need to spend years of study and trial and error to become proficient and profitable. Others have already done that for you. Just use it correctly, all the time.

Neatly put. That is pretty much what I have been trying (with astounding lack of success) to say for quite awhile. Thank you expressing it with such clarity.

[DeltaLover]

The reasoning may be difficult for some to grasp immediately. I think much the same thing, because I create my own algorithms. For example, consider something as simple as comparing a six furlong race at Track A to a six-and-a-half furlong race at Track B. How--exactly--does the software do this comparison? If it is my money going through the window, I want to know. That means (at least to me) that I have to know exactly what calculations the software is making, and why.

I think this example with time projection to different distance is right on the spot... Some one can use Least Squares for it or a custom ad hoc coververtion or want to try several length adjustment formulas or whatever...

Going futher one may need to drive the application not by its GUI but from the command line piping data to quick and dirty short living processes something that I am doing all the time for research and even some times in 'real time' while I am betting at the track and encountering a situation that I have not faced before...

More than this I might need to hook some how my ultra fast drf reader that is written in C to the higher level of the program which now should provide either a way to import plain C functions or even to query an out of process server using sockets, named pipes or any other custom protocol... I also need to feed data from my mongo db directly to the higher level... The list can grow very - very long...

Without any intention to start a holly war these are some (only) among the reasons that I am never considering commercial closed code...

[Capper Al]

Trayon's threads seen to be head stuff about head stuff. Those looking for the easy answer gravity to these discussion.

[raybo]

The reasoning may be difficult for some to grasp immediately. I think much the same thing, because I create my own algorithms. For example, consider something as simple as comparing a six furlong race at Track A to a six-and-a-half furlong race at Track B. How--exactly--does the software do this comparison? If it is my money going through the window, I want to know. That means (at least to me) that I have to know exactly what calculations the software is making, and why.

So, are you saying that if you were the creator of the software/algorithms and you allowed others to use them, then you would readily tell them exactly how each and every part of the method works and how each and every calculation is done? Does not your record keeping, regarding the method, tell you what you want to know: is it profitable long term or not?

Back when I used pace and speed figures, I didn't have access to those algorithms, nor did I need them in order to decide that they produced long term losses. My records told me that, so I abandoned them and went a different direction. And, I didn't need to wager real money to find that out, so all I lost was some time and effort.

[raybo]

Trayon's threads seen to be head stuff about head stuff. Those looking for the easy answer gravity to these discussion.

I don't get that from Traynor's, or Delta's, posts, at all. If someone is looking for the easy answer then I doubt they "gravitate" to these threads, because there's nothing easy about the answer, unless you're using the methods they have created, and as far as I know neither is offering their method(s) to anybody.

[raybo]

Or the software needs to dynamically respond to changes in the external environment, processing in real-time. Specifically, the software adapts to reality, rather than simply analyzing past events in the hope they will be repeated.

"Dynamically respond to changes in the environment" is the key, at least in my software, anyway. The data in the program changes every time a race is recorded in it, thus changing the way the program reacts to the current input. It's never the same, exactly, but rather it evolves constantly, as long as the user does his maintenance consistently. I never said there wasn't any work involved, by the user. Now, if my program was online, I would need to do all the maintenance, for every track every day, and that ain't gonna happen! There are lots of tracks running every day and I wouldn't want to update every one of those, every day, just so the users wouldn't have to do it for the tracks they play, I still play myself and could never find the time to do that, if I undertook all that maintenance myself. There is only so much time available.

[Robert Fischer]

http://ronmcnutt.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Rear-View-Mirror-Sky.jpg
A lot of progress in learning is just learning from your mistakes.
"...the rear-view mirror is always clearer than the windshield"
-Warren Buffett

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
"Your impression" may well be accurate of many software products.

why the quotes aroudn impression? what does this imply?

Imply? Nothing really, other than I was addressing those two words directly.

I am amazed at how many people criticize software without having ever used it.

I appreciate your very respectful comments about my software. You are obviously a programmer type, which means that (like me) there isn't much chance of you ever using someone else's software for two reasons:

1. There will always be something you'd like to do differently which demands access to the code itself.
2. The "NIH" factor.

As for never using anyone's software without source code, most people would not know what to do with source code if it was given to them.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Capper Al]

I don't get that from Traynor's, or Delta's, posts, at all. If someone is looking for the easy answer then I doubt they "gravitate" to these threads, because there's nothing easy about the answer, unless you're using the methods they have created, and as far as I know neither is offering their method(s) to anybody.

I have learned a lot from the posts in Traynor's threads. But it's more about the meta game than the game.

[raybo]

I have learned a lot from the posts in Traynor's threads. But it's more about the meta game than the game.

I understand, but, as long as you get "something" from the posts, then it is worthwhile. However, most of the people looking for the "easy answer" won't stick around long enough to get "something" from those posts, thus we are left with, presumably, mostly people who "get it" to one extent or another, and hopefully contribute something, of value, along the way. Just making a statement like the one you did, is not contributing much to the discussion. No offense meant, but that's the way I see things.

[traynor]

So, are you saying that if you were the creator of the software/algorithms and you allowed others to use them, then you would readily tell them exactly how each and every part of the method works and how each and every calculation is done? Does not your record keeping, regarding the method, tell you what you want to know: is it profitable long term or not?

Back when I used pace and speed figures, I didn't have access to those algorithms, nor did I need them in order to decide that they produced long term losses. My records told me that, so I abandoned them and went a different direction. And, I didn't need to wager real money to find that out, so all I lost was some time and effort.

I was referring more to my own use of my own software, and why I use my own software rather than someone else's software. In many cases, I don't really need to do the calculations because I know (exactly) what the calculations do. I am not suggesting that anyone else's code should be made visible to users--only that I prefer knowing exactly what the computer is doing before I risk my money on the output. That is why I code my own applications rather than relying on someone else's expertise and understanding. When push comes to shove, it is my money being wagered, not that of the software developer.

One of the interesting things I have learned from doing a great deal of research in racing is that records of races on which I had no money riding are interesting, but not profitable. It does me little good to have a record of results that indicate a modest profit over a (relatively) small sample of races unless that same pattern is replicated on the current and future races on which I wager. Bigger samples are more interesting, but still not conclusive--it is still only historical descriptions of events in which I did not participate as a bettor. Specifically, there is no guarantee whatsoever that models derived from (relatively) small samples will be replicated in future events. It could be argued that the opposite could be true--a regression to the mean may be indicated by an aberration in one direction or another that seems to be a pattern when viewed in isolation from a larger number of races.

[traynor]

"Dynamically respond to changes in the environment" is the key, at least in my software, anyway. The data in the program changes every time a race is recorded in it, thus changing the way the program reacts to the current input. It's never the same, exactly, but rather it evolves constantly, as long as the user does his maintenance consistently. I never said there wasn't any work involved, by the user. Now, if my program was online, I would need to do all the maintenance, for every track every day, and that ain't gonna happen! There are lots of tracks running every day and I wouldn't want to update every one of those, every day, just so the users wouldn't have to do it for the tracks they play, I still play myself and could never find the time to do that, if I undertook all that maintenance myself. There is only so much time available.

Exactly. That is the reason a static application has difficulties--because racing is not static, the application (and the user of that application) needs to continually adjust to a continually changing environment. What may have worked really well last month no longer works because the results of last month's races are descriptions of events in which the information on the outcome of the races was not known at the time those wagers were made. Even trivial wobbles to one side or another of a baseline do not go unnoticed. Bettors are quick to pounce on change, especially anything that even remotely resembles a "bias" of any kind.

As for the updating part, you might consider coding it. That is, isolate exactly what information you need to extract, code your app to extract that information and save it to a file. Then regularly parse and model that file. It takes a bit of work upfront, but the two-stage process "reduces complexity to manageable proportions." Always a good thing.

[Robert Goren]

Exactly. That is the reason a static application has difficulties--because racing is not static, the application (and the user of that application) needs to continually adjust to a continually changing environment. What may have worked really well last month no longer works because the results of last month's races are descriptions of events in which the information on the outcome of the races was not known at the time those wagers were made. Even trivial wobbles to one side or another of a baseline do not go unnoticed. Bettors are quick to pounce on change, especially anything that even remotely resembles a "bias" of any kind.

As for the updating part, you might consider coding it. That is, isolate exactly what information you need to extract, code your app to extract that information and save it to a file. Then regularly parse and model that file. It takes a bit of work upfront, but the two-stage process "reduces complexity to manageable proportions." Always a good thing. That is true for ONLY certain bias. Early speed are jumped on very quickly. A come-from-behind bias seldom gets any action. Inside post bias gets bets after few races. Outside post bias never get touched. There bias for or against certain bias.

[raybo]

Exactly. That is the reason a static application has difficulties--because racing is not static, the application (and the user of that application) needs to continually adjust to a continually changing environment. What may have worked really well last month no longer works because the results of last month's races are descriptions of events in which the information on the outcome of the races was not known at the time those wagers were made. Even trivial wobbles to one side or another of a baseline do not go unnoticed. Bettors are quick to pounce on change, especially anything that even remotely resembles a "bias" of any kind.

As for the updating part, you might consider coding it. That is, isolate exactly what information you need to extract, code your app to extract that information and save it to a file. Then regularly parse and model that file. It takes a bit of work upfront, but the two-stage process "reduces complexity to manageable proportions." Always a good thing.

The updating I'm referring to, for our program, occurs within each track's Excel workbook, when the user records the previous day's plays. I would have to have a workbook for every track in the country and add each track's data files (cards and results) to that track's workbook, each day of the year. That is not possible for me to do, and I can't even imagine ever being able to do that.

The user downloads his/her own cards and results files, imports them and either plays each race manually, recording each, removing the oldest card from the database and then adding the new one, or they can simply "auto-record", with the click of a button, each card after the results are imported the next day, which updates the database and keeps the "environment" current. Not much work, but it has to be done or the database will become "static", and unreliable for the elimination of possible contenders.

[traynor]

That is true for ONLY certain bias. Early speed are jumped on very quickly. A come-from-behind bias seldom gets any action. Inside post bias gets bets after few races. Outside post bias never get touched. There bias for or against certain bias.

I think it may be more appropriate to append a qualifier to that statement that in your experience--or in your understanding of your experience (which may not be the same thing) "(t)hat is true for ONLY certain bias." Subjective experience of a limited number of events does not equate to a universal truth that can be applied to a general population. That is the root fallacy that causes many bettors to go seriously astray while believing they are acting on reliable, objective information.

[traynor]

The updating I'm referring to, for our program, occurs within each track's Excel workbook, when the user records the previous day's plays. I would have to have a workbook for every track in the country and add each track's data files (cards and results) to that track's workbook, each day of the year. That is not possible for me to do, and I can't even imagine ever being able to do that.

The user downloads his/her own cards and results files, imports them and either plays each race manually, recording each, removing the oldest card from the database and then adding the new one, or they can simply "auto-record", with the click of a button, each card after the results are imported the next day, which updates the database and keeps the "environment" current. Not much work, but it has to be done or the database will become "static", and unreliable for the elimination of possible contenders.

That is pretty much the same type of process I use in some of my applications. Excel "plays nicely" with other Microsoft technologies (especially C#, VB, and the older VBA). Coding facilities to open, update or modify, and close Excel worksheets "automatically" is fairly common in business apps. It might be worth looking into. What you are describing is what most business apps call "modeling." It is a process that can be (fairly) easily automated.

I use Excel for several purposes, but never actually see the Excel worksheet open (unless I open it explicitly). When running on a single thread (as opposed to multi-threaded applications), the opening, updating, and closing of Excel is seamless and unobtrusive, and is done in the background, rather than displayed onscreen.

[DeltaLover]

That is pretty much the same type of process I use in some of my applications. Excel "plays nicely" with other Microsoft technologies (especially C#, VB, and the older VBA). Coding facilities to open, update or modify, and close Excel worksheets "automatically" is fairly common in business apps. It might be worth looking into. What you are describing is what most business apps call "modeling." It is a process that can be (fairly) easily automated.

I use Excel for several purposes, but never actually see the Excel worksheet open (unless I open it explicitly). When running on a single thread (as opposed to multi-threaded applications), the opening, updating, and closing of Excel is seamless and unobtrusive, and is done in the background, rather than displayed onscreen.

I find .NET development to be very heavy and unsuitable for research applications.

I am a very early adaptor of it since version 1.1 and have followed its evolution pretty close since I had no choice: The enterprise development is polarized between the two major players J2EE and .NET which both present pretty similar programming paradigms. The static nature of both makes them easier to scale in a horizontal fashion while serves as an additional level of protection against simple bugs. Besides this I am a huge fan of dynamic environments that present a much lighter approach which accelerates development significantly.

This is the reason that modern C# adds dynamic features, starting from the introduction of linq, lambdas, nullable types and going to the extend to add the dynamic keyword which indeed greatly extends its capabilities... Still the heaviness of the platform keeps it much less expressible than python, ruby or haskell while features like compile on the fly or expression trees are trying to solve problems with a very awkward approach in comparison with the elegance that are solved in dynamic environments.

The verbosity of C# makes the use of Visual Studio with resharper it an absolute necessity something that in conjunction to the need to compile every time you make a change, significantly slows down the whole cycle...

As Microsoft becomes more windows 8, we will see that the classical C# model of development will change gradually since from what we can see they are focusing more and more towards HTML5 and CCS3 which eventually will completely replace WPF or Silverlight exactly like it happened in the past with MFC, OLE, ActiveX COM and DCOM

I have to strongly suggest to any C# - Java developer to at least try to learn a dynamic language.. Chances are that he will never go back...

[raybo]

That is pretty much the same type of process I use in some of my applications. Excel "plays nicely" with other Microsoft technologies (especially C#, VB, and the older VBA). Coding facilities to open, update or modify, and close Excel worksheets "automatically" is fairly common in business apps. It might be worth looking into. What you are describing is what most business apps call "modeling." It is a process that can be (fairly) easily automated.

I use Excel for several purposes, but never actually see the Excel worksheet open (unless I open it explicitly). When running on a single thread (as opposed to multi-threaded applications), the opening, updating, and closing of Excel is seamless and unobtrusive, and is done in the background, rather than displayed onscreen.

Oh, I figured it was possible, but that is way above my level of expertise with VBA, which is the only coding language I use. Also, a deal would have to be worked out with Brisnet in order to use their files in such a manner, and that will probably never happen. My program occupies an extremely small membership in the horse racing software segment, and trying to negotiate any such data deal would probably be an exercise in futility.

I contacted Brisnet several times in the recent past, trying to negotiate some kind of unlimited downloads plan for users of the free AllData Project workbooks, and have yet to receive any reply from them yet. Instead, our users have access to Jeff's JCapper/HDW unlimited plans, which has been mapped by Jeff to meet a standard 1435 field data file format. So, Brisnet knows what they can do with their greed and stubbornness!

[traynor]

I find .NET development to be very heavy and unsuitable for research applications.

I am a very early adaptor of it since version 1.1 and have followed its evolution pretty close since I had no choice: The enterprise development is polarized between the two major players J2EE and .NET which both present pretty similar programming paradigms. The static nature of both makes them easier to scale in a horizontal fashion while serves as an additional level of protection against simple bugs. Besides this I am a huge fan of dynamic environments that present a much lighter approach which accelerates development significantly.

This is the reason that modern C# adds dynamic features, starting from the introduction of linq, lambdas, nullable types and going to the extend to add the dynamic keyword which indeed greatly extends its capabilities... Still the heaviness of the platform keeps it much less expressible than python, ruby or haskell while features like compile on the fly or expression trees are trying to solve problems with a very awkward approach in comparison with the elegance that are solved in dynamic environments.

The verbosity of C# makes the use of Visual Studio with resharper it an absolute necessity something that in conjunction to the need to compile every time you make a change, significantly slows down the whole cycle...

As Microsoft becomes more windows 8, we will see that the classical C# model of development will change gradually since from what we can see they are focusing more and more towards HTML5 and CCS3 which eventually will completely replace WPF or Silverlight exactly like it happened in the past with MFC, OLE, ActiveX COM and DCOM

I have to strongly suggest to any C# - Java developer to at least try to learn a dynamic language.. Chances are that he will never go back...

For one-off, proof-of-concept, or prototyping, Python or Ruby work nicely. They also work nicely if one doesn't really have a finished plan--meaning continual tinkering with an application to modify or alter it, or building utility apps for a limited purpose. I have little interest in web development, so the J2EE shortcomings are not much of a concern. I personally prefer Java and Clojure, but that is strictly a personal preference. I have tried Python for extended periods, mainly because it is utilitarian and an easy first language for non-programmers (because I often work with non-programmers in technical fields, and many use Python or Ruby). That is how there got to be so much spaghetti code in Visual Basic--it was (and is) an easy first language for non-programmers.

I don't think the specific language matters all that much. The design is far more important. However, if one has already invested a lot of time and effort in an Excel application, there doesn't seem to be much value to switching to Python or Ruby.

Again, probably because I spend most of my development time in the design stage, I don't find the advantages of Python that others may find (who spend more hours writing lines of code rather than determining what lines of code need to be written).

[traynor]

Is there some real, tangible advantage to using Python? I would like to think so, but all the reasoning of those stating a preference for it seem more like "don't worry your pretty little head about all that complex stuff, just go off and play with this little toy--it is all you will ever need." That may just be the lack of skill of the Python community in promoting their product, but samples of "it takes all these many lines of Java code to do yada yada, and only so many lines of Python code to do the same yada yada" are not very persuasive to someone who spends more time planning code than writing code.

It seems the type of arguments used to describe the advantages of Python (and Ruby) are much the same as those used for Groovy. "Faster and easier" are highly subjective, and depend to a great extent on what the coding is supposed to do.

[Robert Fischer]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Apple_logo_Think_Different.png
Learn to think differently than the masses.
Competitively unique activities are the essence of strategy.
It's a parimutuel game.

[DeltaLover]

Python is more expressive as a language presenting an very declarative paradigm which abstracts a lot of details needed for lower level more imperative languages.

The way it handles object orientation is superior to object oriented languages carrying the heritage of C++, like java and C# for example.

Writing in python I always find myself implementing patterns and idioms that I simply cannot do with C# or Java. For example to create a genetic program it is relatively easy to create the decision tree on the fly, compile it using a simple command and allow it to evolve. Similar problems to be solved in a more imperative environment require a lot of additional complexity, most likely you need to create a Lisp like interpreter by hand or use Expression Trees (a relatively recent addition to .NET) which can present a additional programming challenge and laborious effort.

Same thing applies if you want to add functionality in an object in run time. For example lets say that we need to implement an ORM that will receive a select statement and we want our container to bind the fields by name. How can you do this in C#? You cant! You will have to rely to a map instead.

Example:

This is the call to execute the statement:

a = orm.execute('select name, age from xyz')

and this is how it will be used:

txtbox1.text = a.name
txtbox2.text = a.age

in Python you can easily do that... In C# you will have to do something like this:


txtbox1.text = a ["name"].value
txtbox2.text = a ["age"].value.ToString()






Another interesting feature is what is called duck typing. In imperative environments having an object that might support some interface, you need to have access to it from your client code and this object somehow needs to derive from it of provide another querying mechanism:

You need something like this:

interface IHorse
{
string trainer {get; set}
}

interface IAthlete
{
string trainer {get; set}
}


Now you need to do the following:

void print_trainer(object obj)
{
if(obj is IHorse)
{
IHorse h = (IHorse) obj
print (h.trainer())
}
else if(obj is IAthlete)
{
IAthlete a = (IAthlete) obj
print (a.trainer())
}
}



in python it is much easier:

def print_trainer(obj):
try:
print obj.trainer
except:
pass


The obj does not to comply to a specific contract! It can be anything that implements trainer.

The rigid nature of C#/ java etc is that made huge and complex IOC frameworks like Spring and NSpring a necessity to manage large scale projects and reflexion was added to this environments exactly to cover this needs... This is something that can be implemented much easier in python.

One thing that can be considered a disadvantage in python is the fact that since it is a dynamic language we need to be very careful when writing the code since it will not be compiled at once but only as it is executed and this can create many nasty bugs mainly caused by type incompatibilities. This is why unit testing is a second nature for this type of development where we try each class to have very extensive tests that will prevent surprises at run time.

Performance is another thing that python is not optimized for. Although for most of the cases is fast enough, if we have a chunk of code that is really performance critical we can always and easily implement it in plain C and bind and use it as regular python code...

[SmarterSig]

The skilled pencil and paper bettor will no doubt outperform the computerised hands off player in terms of ROI% but the computer based player does not mind this because he can play far more races and although his ROI may be lower his net overall gain is likely to be higher. There are two other big advantages as well, firstly the pen and paper player will need a bomb proof temperament compared to the computer based handicapper and also he will probably have to put more time in. The tech based guy should (does your software do this Dave ?) have his bets not only produced by his software but also fired off, in my case into Betfair, I guess in your case into your PM pools. By the way are any of you chaps using Betfair and their 1% takeouts ?

[SmarterSig]

My own advice regarding software development is take a course in database programming. I program in Perl and use it for all my betting app's. If you can move beyond using commercially available software packages and actually write and test your own betting scenario's you will find yourself digging much deeper than you previously were able. There is no need to become a full blown software engineer by the way.

[DeltaLover]

By the way are any of you chaps using Betfair and their 1% takeouts ?


This is not option to USA for the moment. BF will be available in California next year but it might take years until it reaches New York.


There is no need to become a full blown software engineer by the way.


No, but is does not hurt if you already are one! ;)

[traynor]

The skilled pencil and paper bettor will no doubt outperform the computerised hands off player in terms of ROI% but the computer based player does not mind this because he can play far more races and although his ROI may be lower his net overall gain is likely to be higher. There are two other big advantages as well, firstly the pen and paper player will need a bomb proof temperament compared to the computer based handicapper and also he will probably have to put more time in. The tech based guy should (does your software do this Dave ?) have his bets not only produced by his software but also fired off, in my case into Betfair, I guess in your case into your PM pools. By the way are any of you chaps using Betfair and their 1% takeouts ?

One of the major advantages of computer handicapping is consistency. While the pen-and-paper handicappers may believe they are consistent, that is rarely the case. When each race is approached as a separate, distinct event that requires a separate, distinct process of analysis and evaluation (in particular in regard to the weighting (relative importance) of different factors in that particular race) the records maintained of the results of that analysis and evaluation are far less reliable than those produced using computer-based evaluations.

[raybo]

SmarterSig,

I suggest you check the archives here. This board is full of programmers and database guys. It's also full of pen and paper guys, and commercial software guys.

And then there are all the guys who use Excel to do all 4 of those things.

Taking a database course at 50-60-70-80, or more, years of age might be a little tough. That age range probably describes the vast majority of the active members here.

But, otherwise, your posts have some good things to say.

[DeltaLover]

I suggest you check the archives here

The truth is that this site is by far the most comprehensive collection of any possible knowledge regarding horse racing. Going through the archives I am always amazed by the quality and spread of the postings here. Even going back to early 2000 you will see how far ahead of the curve some of the posters here used to be...

PA == the pinacle in horseracing expertise

[traynor]

Python is more expressive as a language presenting an very declarative paradigm which abstracts a lot of details needed for lower level more imperative languages.

The way it handles object orientation is superior to object oriented languages carrying the heritage of C++, like java and C# for example.

Writing in python I always find myself implementing patterns and idioms that I simply cannot do with C# or Java. For example to create a genetic program it is relatively easy to create the decision tree on the fly, compile it using a simple command and allow it to evolve. Similar problems to be solved in a more imperative environment require a lot of additional complexity, most likely you need to create a Lisp like interpreter by hand or use Expression Trees (a relatively recent addition to .NET) which can present a additional programming challenge and laborious effort.

Same thing applies if you want to add functionality in an object in run time. For example lets say that we need to implement an ORM that will receive a select statement and we want our container to bind the fields by name. How can you do this in C#? You cant! You will have to rely to a map instead.

Example:

This is the call to execute the statement:

a = orm.execute('select name, age from xyz')

and this is how it will be used:

txtbox1.text = a.name
txtbox2.text = a.age

in Python you can easily do that... In C# you will have to do something like this:


txtbox1.text = a ["name"].value
txtbox2.text = a ["age"].value.ToString()






Another interesting feature is what is called duck typing. In imperative environments having an object that might support some interface, you need to have access to it from your client code and this object somehow needs to derive from it of provide another querying mechanism:

You need something like this:

interface IHorse
{
string trainer {get; set}
}

interface IAthlete
{
string trainer {get; set}
}


Now you need to do the following:

void print_trainer(object obj)
{
if(obj is IHorse)
{
IHorse h = (IHorse) obj
print (h.trainer())
}
else if(obj is IAthlete)
{
IAthlete a = (IAthlete) obj
print (a.trainer())
}
}



in python it is much easier:

def print_trainer(obj):
try:
print obj.trainer
except:
pass


The obj does not to comply to a specific contract! It can be anything that implements trainer.

The rigid nature of C#/ java etc is that made huge and complex IOC frameworks like Spring and NSpring a necessity to manage large scale projects and reflexion was added to this environments exactly to cover this needs... This is something that can be implemented much easier in python.

One thing that can be considered a disadvantage in python is the fact that since it is a dynamic language we need to be very careful when writing the code since it will not be compiled at once but only as it is executed and this can create many nasty bugs mainly caused by type incompatibilities. This is why unit testing is a second nature for this type of development where we try each class to have very extensive tests that will prevent surprises at run time.

Performance is another thing that python is not optimized for. Although for most of the cases is fast enough, if we have a chunk of code that is really performance critical we can always and easily implement it in plain C and bind and use it as regular python code...

I really appreciate the information, and I value your opinion. Python seems good to try things--programming on the fly, so to speak. What I have found (and that you alluded to) is that Python code tends to "grow like Topsy." Meaning what starts out as a simple set of functions quickly grows to more complex code as bits and pieces are added. Easy to do in Python. If that is what it is used for--exploratory code, utility code to do some specific thing, etc. it is quite likely less verbose than a strongly-typed language.

However, it is a balance. Unit testing is great, test-driven development (TDD) is very popular, and so is agile development. However, there is a downside. Python--and other scripting languages--do very well at prototyping, at trying things out to see if they are feasible, or to create functions to manipulate data, and general prototyping. The code equivalent of a Swiss Army knife, a Crescent wrench, of a pair of Vise-Grips--not quite right for the job, but quick and easy for some uses.

When an application is developed, as you well know, the basic algorithms are only a part of the coding. Unit testing and exception handlers--if designed well--require as much or more coding time as the basic algorithms and classes.

I think Python has a place as a utility language for prototyping. I think that in more complex designs, the advantages vs disadvantages largely disappear. Additionally, in more complex designs, the performance issues of an interpreted language (in contrast to a compiled language) become much more important.

I have no real prejudice for or against one language over another. I think there is a place for Python, and a place for strongly-typed languages. I am actually leaning more and more toward possibly prototyping in Python or Ruby, then using Java and Clojure for production. If anything, one of the strongest deterrents to more widespread adaption of Python (for many people) is the lack of a decent IDE. One can argue the vices and virtues of Microsoft vs open-source endlessly, but at the end of the day, Visual Studio is the major reason for the popularity of VB and C# rather than the languages. When designing and prototyping relatively trivial (most business-based applications) projects, the popularity of VB and C# is well-deserved. For more complex projects, the performance issues with interpreted languages become a serious deterrent.

I have used (and I am currently using) Eclipse for some applications. It is nice, but has some serious issues, especially in regard to the SWT. I prefer Visual Studio. I also develop Java apps in NetBeans. It is not an issue of anything beyond using the tool that gets done what I want to get done as quickly and efficiently as possible.

[DeltaLover]

I think that in more complex designs, the advantages vs disadvantages largely disappear


Probably right. Although to be more accurate I would substitute complex with complicated! When we are dealing with a large scale enterprise application which will be developed and maintained by an army of developers it is safer to choose a static language as the platform of choice since it makes testing, debugging and horizontal expansion safer and more manageable.


I am actually leaning more and more toward possibly prototyping in Python or Ruby, then using Java and Clojure for production


Although I am not exactly a java fun (quite the opposite) I have to say thay Clojure presents a great programing paradigm greatly extending the capabilities of JVM. It's LISP roots make it a really interesting platform and if (if) I ever touch java again it will be because of it!



the lack of a decent IDE


hmm.. I am not quite sure..
Although I cannot even imagine developing for .NET without VS + resharper the same is not python..
The reason VS is so necessary is mainly due to the extreme(!) verbosity of the platform that makes things like intelisence, autocompletion, auto refactoring, etc a second nature. The same is not the case with python.. I find vim to be far more preferable than Eclipse, NetBeans of even VS when used with the IRONPYTHON extention. As editor none of these IDEs go close to vim (or emacs).. Currently I am using Eclipse sparingly mainly as a debugger but its weight makes it always awkward and slow so I try to minimize its use as much as possible... Of course when developing for a client who's platform is .NET I have no choice...


I want to get done as quickly and efficiently as possible


I think that the quicker and most efficient way to make thinks done is using the command line chain of tools under linux or if (God forbid) using windows under cygwin

[traynor]

Probably right. Although to be more accurate I would substitute complex with complicated! When we are dealing with a large scale enterprise application which will be developed and maintained by an army of developers it is safer to choose a static language as the platform of choice since it makes testing, debugging and horizontal expansion safer and more manageable.



Although I am not exactly a java fun (quite the opposite) I have to say thay Clojure presents a great programing paradigm greatly extending the capabilities of JVM. It's LISP roots make it a really interesting platform and if (if) I ever touch java again it will be because of it!




hmm.. I am not quite sure..
Although I cannot even imagine developing for .NET without VS + resharper the same is not python..
The reason VS is so necessary is mainly due to the extreme(!) verbosity of the platform that makes things like intelisence, autocompletion, auto refactoring, etc a second nature. The same is not the case with python.. I find vim to be far more preferable than Eclipse, NetBeans of even VS when used with the IRONPYTHON extention. As editor none of these IDEs go close to vim (or emacs).. Currently I am using Eclipse sparingly mainly as a debugger but its weight makes it always awkward and slow so I try to minimize its use as much as possible... Of course when developing for a client who's platform is .NET I have no choice...



I think that the quicker and most efficient way to make thinks done is using the command line chain of tools under linux or if (God forbid) using windows under cygwin

I have no difficulty with command line programming. However, clients seem to want little or nothing to do with what goes on internally in an application. They seem to believe that pointing-and-clicking on a GUI is "using a computer."

Because I do both the front-end and back-end coding, the advantages of VS in creating GUIs is really hard to beat. It makes up for a lot of shortcomings and deficiencies in the languages. When one is developing as a contractor, it is difficult to justify command line development as a primary work process. It depends greatly on what one is accustomed to using. Emacs has a lot of advocates, but most have been programming for many, many years. It is considered archaic and obsolete by most developers under 40, and considered hopelessly clunky and time-consuming by most developers under 30.

It is difficult to justify the cost (both to the client and as a developer) of developing something "by hand" using emacs or command line development compared to developing the same project using VS or even Eclipse.

[traynor]

SmarterSig,

I suggest you check the archives here. This board is full of programmers and database guys. It's also full of pen and paper guys, and commercial software guys.

And then there are all the guys who use Excel to do all 4 of those things.

Taking a database course at 50-60-70-80, or more, years of age might be a little tough. That age range probably describes the vast majority of the active members here.

But, otherwise, your posts have some good things to say.

I think "a little tough" may be more an excuse to avoid new ideas than an explanation for why older people avoid college classes in fields that would add appreciably to both their knowledge and competence. The hows-and-whys of database design and development, as well as such related issues as data cleaning and data mining, can be of tremendous benefit to a race analyst in introducing him or her to the realities of information processing.

There are few things that will do more to improve one's handicapping than a clear understanding of what statistics mean and do not mean, and what statistics can do and can not do. Every old-time handicapper should have the opportunity to stand up in front of a class of 150-200 students and try to explain why they think their (relatively trivial) "Brohamer models" are worth bettin on.

[DeltaLover]

No doubt traynor..
When it comes to desktop development nothing can beat .NET... As a natural evolution of the COM / Active X approach .NET presents the top approach for developing fat GUI applications... Technologies like WinForms and most recently WPF especially when combined with the extremely rich component market allow for easy and rapid creation of pretty sophisticated front ends. Sure... Noone can really make an argument against!

It is also correct that targeting a relatively horizontal market or even a niche market that consists of no computer experts requires these types of rich interfaces as they are a major marketing tool!

But (there is always a but!) for research and development purposes I find than command line, simpler chains of tools are far more superior than closed GUIs relying in sluggish point and click interfaces...

Take for example the field of bioinformatics... Almost all the R&D is done using Perl and to a lesser extend #!/usr/bin/python. Same apply pretty much to all scientific programming where the user albeit not an expert still has enough exposure to programming to tailor solutions fitting his domain...

To a lesser extend the same applier to back end programming where the agility of delivery and the ability to delve in to the guts of the application are the most critical aspects of the effort.

As far as considering emacs archaic and obsolete, I can only raise eyebrows! Emacs along with vim are by far (very far) the most modern, capable and current editors with no competition in their class... VS editor looks like a kindergarten toy compared with these two editors and the same apply to eclipse, netbeans, notepad+ or whatever else!

[raybo]

I think "a little tough" may be more an excuse to avoid new ideas than an explanation for why older people avoid college classes in fields that would add appreciably to both their knowledge and competence. The hows-and-whys of database design and development, as well as such related issues as data cleaning and data mining, can be of tremendous benefit to a race analyst in introducing him or her to the realities of information processing.

There are few things that will do more to improve one's handicapping than a clear understanding of what statistics mean and do not mean, and what statistics can do and can not do. Every old-time handicapper should have the opportunity to stand up in front of a class of 150-200 students and try to explain why they think their (relatively trivial) "Brohamer models" are worth bettin on.

So, I should just go down to my local community college and take a class on programming or database creation, and I'm set right? Not hardly, it's a long tough journey to go from no programming or database knowledge, to knowing enough to even start doing what you are already doing, much less going past that.

First of all, you can't start with programming classes, or database creation, without having done quite a bit of prerequisite work first. Secondly, programming/query language usage, cannot be learned by some, they don't get it and will probably never get it. It's like learning a new spoken language, some/many just do not have the innate ability, at an older age, to become proficient in a 2nd language. The only reason some ever learned the language they now speak, in the first place was because they started learning it at birth and were constantly exposed to it.

I'm not saying that it can't be done, but I am saying that, for the vast majority of older citizens, it is highly unlikely they will ever become even moderately proficient at either programming or database creation/development/implementation.

I'm a pretty smart, tech savvy guy, and I have yet to be able to get past the absolute basics of either. And, I worked on, and with computers, for 8 years back in the 70's. Heck, my spreadsheets are crammed full of VBA code, and I still can't sit down and hand-write the code for basic tasks without asking for help.

It has nothing to do with "an excuse to avoid new ideas". It has to do with, "should I spend the next x number of years trying to learn to use a different platform, in order to do something that I'm already doing using what I use now?" It's much easier to think outside the box, and explore new ideas, when you're already familiar with the environment you're working in. Having to learn and then occupy and work in a brand new environment, is most probably counterproductive, at an advanced age, regarding the ultimate goal, being successful in horse racing.

I think both you, and Delta, trivialize what learning such things, at advanced ages, involves. I don't mean to be defeatist or negative, rather objective and rational. If you've ever tried to talk to an engineer, about almost anything relating to real life, without also being an engineer, then you might see what I'm talking about. It's sort of like most politicians, they have no idea what it's like in the "real world" that most of us live in, nor are they willing to live it for a while and find out. They've banished, if they ever had it in the first place, the ability to understand it.

[DeltaLover]

Ray,
if I have to comment your work using the small understanding I have mainly from the documentation you send me and some screenshots I've seen I have to say that you have done at least a GREAT JOB. This job reflects not only your talent but your love for what you are trying to do and your intention to work very hard to satisfy your customers....

Maybe (I do not say it is necessary needed, but maybe) you can futher improve your excellent product by making it a bit more platform neutral removing the tight coupling it currently has with excel... If indeed you thing you need to do something like this we can certainly discuss it as we might have some good ideas towards this direction...

[raybo]

Ray,
if I have to comment your work using the small understanding I have mainly from the documentation you send me and some screenshots I've seen I have to say that you have done at least a GREAT JOB. This job reflects not only your talent but your love for what you are trying to do and your intention to work very hard to satisfy your customers....

Maybe (I do not say it is necessary needed, but maybe) you can futher improve your excellent product by making it a bit more platform neutral removing the tight coupling it currently has with excel... If indeed you thing you need to do something like this we can certainly discuss it as we might have some good ideas towards this direction...

Thanks for your kind words, but believe me when I say, if it hadn't been for a tremendous amount of help from more than a few very talented Excel/VBA geeks (HCap being of special importance in his role as co-creator of the AllData Free Project, as well as a close personal friend and confidant), the applications I/we have offered would never have happened.

I realize that my programs are platform fixed, and require potential users to have Excel and at least a rudimentary ability to operate Excel (however, that can be taught, by me, in a very short period of time). Believe me, I have wished many, many times during the last 20+ years of Excel development, that I knew how to program for Windows. I tried very hard to accomplish that but failed miserably. I also failed miserably trying to create a handicapping database in Access, even posting about that idea here. I just don't get it.

That being said, Excel is a widely used platform and has been for years, in business and personal life, and compared to most other programs, AllData and Excel itself, are very simple to operate, even customizable by the user after they have spent a little time working with Excel.

Maybe someday I will take you up on your offer, but I'm more likely to create a "form"/user interface for operating my programs before I ever seriously consider switching to another platform. I'm 63 now and have no idea how much more time I have left on this Earth, and I would hate to stop improving what our users have now, in order to start something of such magnitude. At my age, I have to be realistic, regarding what I can further accomplish with the time I have left, after all, I do have a "real" life, and I still play the horses, when I can find the time.

[traynor]

No doubt traynor..
When it comes to desktop development nothing can beat .NET... As a natural evolution of the COM / Active X approach .NET presents the top approach for developing fat GUI applications... Technologies like WinForms and most recently WPF especially when combined with the extremely rich component market allow for easy and rapid creation of pretty sophisticated front ends. Sure... Noone can really make an argument against!

It is also correct that targeting a relatively horizontal market or even a niche market that consists of no computer experts requires these types of rich interfaces as they are a major marketing tool!

But (there is always a but!) for research and development purposes I find than command line, simpler chains of tools are far more superior than closed GUIs relying in sluggish point and click interfaces...

Take for example the field of bioinformatics... Almost all the R&D is done using Perl and to a lesser extend #!/usr/bin/python. Same apply pretty much to all scientific programming where the user albeit not an expert still has enough exposure to programming to tailor solutions fitting his domain...

To a lesser extend the same applier to back end programming where the agility of delivery and the ability to delve in to the guts of the application are the most critical aspects of the effort.

As far as considering emacs archaic and obsolete, I can only raise eyebrows! Emacs along with vim are by far (very far) the most modern, capable and current editors with no competition in their class... VS editor looks like a kindergarten toy compared with these two editors and the same apply to eclipse, netbeans, notepad+ or whatever else!

I agree with just about everything except the capabilities of emacs, and that may be due to sheer ignorance on my part. I used it for a couple of classes in college, but I am a long way from expert in its use.

Bioinformatics projects are the reason I started with Python initially, especially in DNA sequencing. However, the reality is that developers need people to give them money, and there are more people willing to give developers money for (relatively) simple business applications with snazzy GUIs than for more complex applications that are not as visually appealing.

The use of mobile apps is making a major change in what programmers do. The majority of mobile apps seem to be mostly an interface over some trivial code that does something extremely simple. I am sure this will even out at some point and apps that perform more useful functions will be more in demand, but for the moment it does not seem so.

[traynor]

So, I should just go down to my local community college and take a class on programming or database creation, and I'm set right? Not hardly, it's a long tough journey to go from no programming or database knowledge, to knowing enough to even start doing what you are already doing, much less going past that.

First of all, you can't start with programming classes, or database creation, without having done quite a bit of prerequisite work first. Secondly, programming/query language usage, cannot be learned by some, they don't get it and will probably never get it. It's like learning a new spoken language, some/many just do not have the innate ability, at an older age, to become proficient in a 2nd language. The only reason some ever learned the language they now speak, in the first place was because they started learning it at birth and were constantly exposed to it.

I'm not saying that it can't be done, but I am saying that, for the vast majority of older citizens, it is highly unlikely they will ever become even moderately proficient at either programming or database creation/development/implementation.

I'm a pretty smart, tech savvy guy, and I have yet to be able to get past the absolute basics of either. And, I worked on, and with computers, for 8 years back in the 70's. Heck, my spreadsheets are crammed full of VBA code, and I still can't sit down and hand-write the code for basic tasks without asking for help.

It has nothing to do with "an excuse to avoid new ideas". It has to do with, "should I spend the next x number of years trying to learn to use a different platform, in order to do something that I'm already doing using what I use now?" It's much easier to think outside the box, and explore new ideas, when you're already familiar with the environment you're working in. Having to learn and then occupy and work in a brand new environment, is most probably counterproductive, at an advanced age, regarding the ultimate goal, being successful in horse racing.

I think both you, and Delta, trivialize what learning such things, at advanced ages, involves. I don't mean to be defeatist or negative, rather objective and rational. If you've ever tried to talk to an engineer, about almost anything relating to real life, without also being an engineer, then you might see what I'm talking about. It's sort of like most politicians, they have no idea what it's like in the "real world" that most of us live in, nor are they willing to live it for a while and find out. They've banished, if they ever had it in the first place, the ability to understand it.

I could not disagree more. Head down to your local community college and sign up for a three-credit, one-semester course in Visual Basic 101. There are unlikely to be ANY prerequisites (unless you sign up for a class restricted to accounting majors, or some such, that they won't let anyone except accounting majors register for those classes anyway).

Most of the students will be adults who want to use VB to do something specific, mainly for their own use. None will be programmers, unless they are deprecated COBOL "lifer" programmers trying to learn enough to get another cushy job somewhere.

Business majors use VB like a pocket calculator--quick and easy solutions to problems. You are already way ahead of them in skill because of your experience with VBA. So you will get much more out of the class than most, because you already understand a lot of the processes involved. Most VB classes are set up with an intro level (one semester) and an advanced level (one semester) that is usually business/database programming with VB.

Java 101 might be best avoided. It is a whole different thing. In VB classes you will get such valuable information as, "Think of an array as a bunch of buckets with numbers on them. Just tell the computer which bucket you want to put the stuff in." Or that world-famous first VB class advice, "Put a form on the screen. Put a button on the form that says, 'GO.' Then figure out what you want the program to do when you click the GO button."

[traynor]

@raybo:

There is another, darker side to that "I am too old" notion. You may end up like my hero--the Japanese genetleman who got bored and started running at the age of 90, and completed his first marathon at 94. I certainly intend to exceed his accomplishments, impressive as they may be.

Then you would have to look back with regret that you were too young and foolish to begin doing such things as learning Visual Basic programming when you were only 63.

[traynor]

Good intro to VB programming:

http://www.sedh.gr/tutorials/web_dev/VBNET/default.htm

[DeltaLover]

I consider this book the absolute best introduction to programming:

http://deptinfo.unice.fr/~roy/sicp.pdf

The whole course can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAHA0nJv8EA

If you master it you will be ahead of most 'pro' progammers...

[traynor]

I consider this book the absolute best introduction to programming:

http://deptinfo.unice.fr/~roy/sicp.pdf

The whole course can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAHA0nJv8EA

If you master it you will be ahead of most 'pro' progammers...

It looks like great material, with the caveat that many CompSci majors with BS and even MS degrees had (and continue to have) difficulties finding employers willing to pay for what they knew (know). While CompSci is impressive in academic and research circles, the bottom line is that employment opportunities in those areas are severely limited in comparison to business fields. So "being ahead of most pro programmers" may not be quite that simple.

[raybo]

I could not disagree more. Head down to your local community college and sign up for a three-credit, one-semester course in Visual Basic 101. There are unlikely to be ANY prerequisites (unless you sign up for a class restricted to accounting majors, or some such, that they won't let anyone except accounting majors register for those classes anyway).

Most of the students will be adults who want to use VB to do something specific, mainly for their own use. None will be programmers, unless they are deprecated COBOL "lifer" programmers trying to learn enough to get another cushy job somewhere.

Business majors use VB like a pocket calculator--quick and easy solutions to problems. You are already way ahead of them in skill because of your experience with VBA. So you will get much more out of the class than most, because you already understand a lot of the processes involved. Most VB classes are set up with an intro level (one semester) and an advanced level (one semester) that is usually business/database programming with VB.

Java 101 might be best avoided. It is a whole different thing. In VB classes you will get such valuable information as, "Think of an array as a bunch of buckets with numbers on them. Just tell the computer which bucket you want to put the stuff in." Or that world-famous first VB class advice, "Put a form on the screen. Put a button on the form that says, 'GO.' Then figure out what you want the program to do when you click the GO button."

My local CC requires that you take and pass the keyboarding class, for one thing, before taking any of the programming courses. I have tried several online keyboarding classes in the last few years and still have to "hunt and peck", my fingers just don't want to cooperate (too many sports and manual labor in my past, causing the fingers to not function well enough for a keyboarding class, and have any hopes of passing it).

I didn't say I was ready to quit improving or learning new things, I just can't see investing, right now anyway, the time we're talking about, when I already have invested so much time and energy in the work I've already done, and am currently doing.

[traynor]

My local CC requires that you take and pass the keyboarding class, for one thing, before taking any of the programming courses. I have tried several online keyboarding classes in the last few years and still have to "hunt and peck", my fingers just don't want to cooperate (too many sports and manual labor in my past, causing the fingers to not function well enough for a keyboarding class, and have any hopes of passing it).

I didn't say I was ready to quit improving or learning new things, I just can't see investing, right now anyway, the time we're talking about, when I already have invested so much time and energy in the work I've already done, and am currently doing.

That is really strange. I cannot imagine what relationship there would be between keyboarding and programming, other than in a seriously roundabout way. Bummer.

[Magister Ludi]

My local CC requires that you take and pass the keyboarding class, for one thing, before taking any of the programming courses. I have tried several online keyboarding classes in the last few years and still have to "hunt and peck", my fingers just don't want to cooperate (too many sports and manual labor in my past, causing the fingers to not function well enough for a keyboarding class, and have any hopes of passing it).

I didn't say I was ready to quit improving or learning new things, I just can't see investing, right now anyway, the time we're talking about, when I already have invested so much time and energy in the work I've already done, and am currently doing.

You may want to look into vWorker.com (formerly RentACoder.com) or oDesk.com. You can find qualified script kiddies to systems analysts on an as-needed basis.

[raybo]

You may want to look into vWorker.com (formerly RentACoder.com) or oDesk.com. You can find qualified script kiddies to systems analysts on an as-needed basis.

There are many VBA help sites on the net. My favorite is MrExcel.com. Those guys have saved me oodles of time with VBA code, and it's free.

[traynor]

You may want to look into vWorker.com (formerly RentACoder.com) or oDesk.com. You can find qualified script kiddies to systems analysts on an as-needed basis.

Cheap, too. The only caveat is that you should have a clear idea of what you want before asking for bids on completing it. If you can provide clear instructions for what you want (in the way of a completed project), getting it done is a straightforward (and fairly economical) process.

It is not necessary to specify that the developer/programmer be an "expert in horse racing" (whatever that means). It is sufficient to clearly state "this is the data I have to work with going in, and this is what I want I want to come out with on the other end." The more clearly you can define the requirements, the less cost (and the easier for the developer/programmer to complete the work).

I think most people would be seriously shocked to discover how much skilled coding work they can get done for a few hundred dollars--providing they can give the developer/programmer detailed instructions about what they want. Hint: Don't try to hire someone to "write a black box application that picks winners for a minimum 1.2 ROI." That is a daydream, not an instruction.

[thaskalos]

This thread should not have been titled "Learning".

It should have been titled..."HIGHER learning"... :)

[Maximillion]

Cheap, too. The only caveat is that you should have a clear idea of what you want before asking for bids on completing it. If you can provide clear instructions for what you want (in the way of a completed project), getting it done is a straightforward (and fairly economical) process.

It is not necessary to specify that the developer/programmer be an "expert in horse racing" (whatever that means). It is sufficient to clearly state "this is the data I have to work with going in, and this is what I want I want to come out with on the other end." The more clearly you can define the requirements, the less cost (and the easier for the developer/programmer to complete the work).

I think most people would be seriously shocked to discover how much skilled coding work they can get done for a few hundred dollars--providing they can give the developer/programmer detailed instructions about what they want. Hint: Don't try to hire someone to "write a black box application that picks winners for a minimum 1.2 ROI." That is a daydream, not an instruction.

Hi Traynor,
Can something be developed for the online version of the drf or formulator?
(what im most comfortable with)
There are a few things I wouldnt mind having "done" for me..nothing really very complicated.
This is something I was looking into some time ago...but I was told that the "finished" product would only be viewable on a separate screen..in other words not "on" the actual past performances,so I didnt pursue it any further.

[traynor]

Hi Traynor,
Can something be developed for the online version of the drf or formulator?
(what im most comfortable with)
There are a few things I wouldnt mind having "done" for me..nothing really very complicated.
This is something I was looking into some time ago...but I was told that the "finished" product would only be viewable on a separate screen..in other words not "on" the actual past performances,so I didnt pursue it any further.

I don't know what exactly you mean by "on the actual past performances." In order to do something, the data has to be loaded into an application in electronic format. It depends what you need. If it is something that can be cut-and-pasted (like earnings data, or trainer and jockey records, for example), you can mark it, copy it, then paste it into a text box in an application and do stuff to it.

If you want something like pace figures, or other calculations, the electronic data would need to be accessed (rather than what you see displayed oncreen).

I sometimes use a split-screen (on a wide monitor) so that I can have an application up and running onscreen at the same time I am looking at the data files. It is not for horse racing, but the principle is the same. Dual monitors are fairly easy to set up--one monitor shows an application, the other shows the data. Both split screens and dual monitors will eliminate most of the switching back and forth from one screen to another.