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/2012...ur-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.
