Quote:
|
Originally Posted by traynor
I think the most important consideration is being overlooked. In essence, does anyone have any worthwhile (conceptual) knowledge of the factors in pace analysis that can be used (productively) to forecast (and establish the probabilities of) the various data points generally considered relevant to "pace" in upcoming races? And has that information been objectively verified over a sufficient number of instances to determine its validity?
If yes ==> design an algorithm to train the ability to recognize that particular pattern in whatever source data is used. That is the easy part.
If no ==> keep looking.
The point is that it can be relatively easily determined that a great deal of the "conventional wisdom" about pace analysis is mostly wrong or misleading, by quantifying the particulars and applying them to a large sample of races. As long as people tend to remember when something "worked" (for them, in a few non-representative samplings that gave them a warm fuzzy) and to forget all the instances in which it didn't work (because it threatens their highly polished self-perception of being "expert handicappers") subjective experience is not especially useful in such an endeavor.
The training module I developed (with others) essentially modified the software I/we had developed to train blackjack players. The "software development" part is not that complex, nor is it that difficult. The training methodologies used are much more so. It is the content--the stuff that needs to be learned--that is complex. Especially given the caveats above in regard to "conventional wisdom" and "subjective experience."
My intent (and interest) is in enabling the skill of the individual handicapper to both recognize and effectively utilize "pace analysis" in his or her selection methods--whether those methods are by computer, by hand, or by tea leaves--rather than further disabling them by encouraging their reliance on the (in most cases pathetically inadequate) output of yet another piece of software.
|
Traynor,
Your response is “spot on,” but many posters (including myself) will probably be skeptical about publicly revealing proprietary information.
Also without someone coordinating this effort (which I thought would be you) there will be little or no progress of your proposed collaborative development effort due to dissent posters submitting innocuous non-related posts to this thread.
I don’t mind the difference of opinions and the challenging of intellectual thought, but the submission of mindless nonsensical posts should be avoided.
Therefore, is the intent by you to continue this effort?
I ask this question because I would like to submit a real life example of what I have advocated and it can be compared against the status quo.
