Learning

[thaskalos]

http://www.amazon.com/Practicing-Min...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!

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

...

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by traynor

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.