Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Robert Goren
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.
