Creative Engagement

[Capper Al]

There once was a study on pilot psychology/social work programs as a whole. What was found was that pilot programs had a higher rate of success than rote programs once they were adopted for wider use. This begs the question why. How can it succeed in test and fail in application? Similarly someone in racing once quipped that the average system last 2.5 times in practice. Yet, I can't think of anyone publishing in racing who hasn't gone through several developments. Systems work for a while and seem to evaporate with their premise as soon as they are applied. Pittsburgh Philly and many others were keen on seeing them (the horses in the field) right as if this sight was a fleeting vision that comes and goes as the ebb and flow of the sea. Could this insight be our creative engagement as we search for the Holy Grail of racing? Do we hit upon something more because of our heighten awareness from our searching than instead of having found a true understanding of racing?

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Systems work for a while and seem to evaporate with their premise as soon as they are applied.

That's because (aside from any differences in the workings of the system itself that might arise between theory and application) the majority of handicapping methods are predicated solely on finding and betting the one most likely winner in a race, as if that horse had a 100% guaranteed assurance of finishing first, with no consideration of the actual winning probability of that horse or of other horses in the race, or of how those probabilities compare to each horse's odds. As soon as enough people start using such methods, odds on selections are driven below the probability of winning by being overbet, and any profits dry up.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Overlay

Because the majority of handicapping methods are predicated solely on finding and betting the one most likely winner in a race as if that horse had a 100% guaranteed assurance of finishing first, with no consideration of the actual winning probability of that horse or of other horses in the race, or of how that probability compares to each horse's odds. As soon as enough people start using such methods, odds on selections are driven below the probability of winning by being overbet, and any profits dry up.

What you suggest is another system, a system of wagering. Another formula based on application not creative in the moment insight. Don't get me wrong. I agree with watching the odds and determining value. My focus here is on the spark of insight verse a system. Do we need to trust the force within us verse being compelled to playing by rote?

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

What you suggest is another system, a system of wagering. Another formula based on application not creative in the moment insight. Don't get me wrong. I agree with watching the odds and determining value. My focus here is on the spark of insight verse a system. Do we need to trust the force within us verse being compelled to playing by rote?

I don't deny the possibilities of a sudden flash of insight or intuition when handicapping, but how can you trust it to be consistent from one race to the next, and how can you develop a means of gauging its strength so that you know how much you can safely risk on it? And do you achieve it solely through experience, or do you also have to possess some inner predisposition that can't be taught or acquired to go along with your tangible experience?

[Elliott Sidewater]

To borrow one of my all time favorite quotes from Dick Schmidt:

"In theory, practice is the same as theory. In practice, it isn't".

To wit, I saw a system that looked interesting in an ancient book called "The Treasury of American Turf". Results for one month in the JFK era showed about 26% winners and profit of roughly infinity. Tested it out on some back forms and lo and behold, it still won. The first 130 plays showed 23% winners and a 29.7% flat bet profit on win betting. I was still suspicious that the sample was tiny and the results might be fluky, so I ran a second trial and that one showed 19% winners and a 9.6% flat bet profit after 125 races. That second trial is still running, as I'm not convinced yet that it will hold up in the long run. A 16 race consecutive losing streak at my home track left me with the same amount of confidence that I have in weather prediction via groundhog. I am nearly convinced that if you look at any angle or system long enough, it will lose. Might as well face it, it's not easy, it's not automatic, for me there's still no substitute for full dress handicapping, and there probably never will be.

[Tom]

Many "systems" are seasonal.
HTR offers the ability to see your spot play results by week.
I have on Aqueduct spot pay that is long term profitable on Saturdays but a long time loser on Sundays! Talking over a year.
No clue why.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

There once was a study on pilot psychology/social work programs as a whole. What was found was that pilot programs had a higher rate of success than rote programs once they were adopted for wider use. This begs the question why. How can it succeed in test and fail in application? Similarly someone in racing once quipped that the average system last 2.5 times in practice. Yet, I can't think of anyone publishing in racing who hasn't gone through several developments. Systems work for a while and seem to evaporate with their premise as soon as they are applied. Pittsburgh Philly and many others were keen on seeing them (the horses in the field) right as if this sight was a fleeting vision that comes and goes as the ebb and flow of the sea. Could this insight be our creative engagement as we search for the Holy Grail of racing? Do we hit upon something more because of our heighten awareness from our searching than instead of having found a true understanding of racing?

Basic human nature. It is called the Hawthorne Effect.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Overlay

I don't deny the possibilities of a sudden flash of insight or intuition when handicapping, but how can you trust it to be consistent from one race to the next, and how can you develop a means of gauging its strength so that you know how much you can safely risk on it? And do you achieve it solely through experience, or do you also have to possess some inner predisposition that can't be taught or acquired to go along with your tangible experience?

Here's the hook. Most players want repeatable in a method and believes in the scientific approach and has a need to predispose and correlate a known independent variable to a result. The player is taken out of the equation with this approach. I'm not suggesting anything against the scientific method. The art is in making the final decision. We are surrounded by a wealth of information and figures, but as an interpreter, we must put the weight in what we believe is relevant to today's race which may be similar to hundreds and thousands of other races but is unique in its own way today.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Elliott Sidewater

To borrow one of my all time favorite quotes from Dick Schmidt:

"In theory, practice is the same as theory. In practice, it isn't".

To wit, I saw a system that looked interesting in an ancient book called "The Treasury of American Turf". Results for one month in the JFK era showed about 26% winners and profit of roughly infinity. Tested it out on some back forms and lo and behold, it still won. The first 130 plays showed 23% winners and a 29.7% flat bet profit on win betting. I was still suspicious that the sample was tiny and the results might be fluky, so I ran a second trial and that one showed 19% winners and a 9.6% flat bet profit after 125 races. That second trial is still running, as I'm not convinced yet that it will hold up in the long run. A 16 race consecutive losing streak at my home track left me with the same amount of confidence that I have in weather prediction via groundhog. I am nearly convinced that if you look at any angle or system long enough, it will lose. Might as well face it, it's not easy, it's not automatic, for me there's still no substitute for full dress handicapping, and there probably never will be.

This might be the Achilles heal of many software players in that they escape the full dress handicapping and let the numbers do the thinking. I know for myself, a software player, that I don't step back from the numbers and take a second look enough. And this is the plus for the Paper and Pencil handicapper, for they are engaged with their process.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Tom

Many "systems" are seasonal.
HTR offers the ability to see your spot play results by week.
I have on Aqueduct spot pay that is long term profitable on Saturdays but a long time loser on Sundays! Talking over a year.
No clue why.

Sounds like reason to speculate and get creativity engaged. You might find something.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by traynor

Basic human nature. It is called the Hawthorne Effect.

And I can testify that it works at Hawthorne. I think Hawthorne has more of my money then I have theirs.

[Capper Al]

Others might call what this discussion is about as Gut Feeling. Gut Feeling can be derive from computer displays as well as Paper and Pencil or as well as physical inspection. A computer player might say to himself that their automatic selects for this sprint dirt race weigh pace the most, but in this current race these connections have been prepping this one horse for a win today and overturn what they normally do.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Here's the hook. Most players want repeatable in a method and believes in the scientific approach and has a need to predispose and correlate a known independent variable to a result. The player is taken out of the equation with this approach. I'm not suggesting anything against the scientific method. The art is in making the final decision. We are surrounded by a wealth of information and figures, but as an interpreter, we must put the weight in what we believe is relevant to today's race which may be similar to hundreds and thousands of other races but is unique in its own way today.

I understand what you're saying and I'm not denying that each race represents a unique, never-to-be-repeated mix of circumstances. But, for me personally, any gain achieved by the "art" of using subjective or intuitive criteria to make the final decision about if and/or how to bet that race is outweighed by the additional time consumed, the uncertainty injected into the decision process, and the inability to reliably replicate performance from one race to the next. I prefer a systematic, bulk, objective approach where (at least in my experience) "breaks" occurring as a result of nuances that have been omitted from the analytic process tend to even out over time.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

And I can testify that it works at Hawthorne. I think Hawthorne has more of my money then I have theirs.

The Hawthorne in question was located in Cicero, Illinois (like the racetrack), but, in this case, it was an electronics manufacturing facility affiliated with Western Electric.

Here's an article about those studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_Effect

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Here's the hook. Most players want repeatable in a method and believes in the scientific approach and has a need to predispose and correlate a known independent variable to a result. The player is taken out of the equation with this approach. I'm not suggesting anything against the scientific method. The art is in making the final decision. We are surrounded by a wealth of information and figures, but as an interpreter, we must put the weight in what we believe is relevant to today's race which may be similar to hundreds and thousands of other races but is unique in its own way today.

This is why understanding basic abilities about horses,male and female,a track,yourself,still will be profitable.Half the population doesn't even look at these things half the time.The Breeders Cup last year was a great example.Speed,pace,pars,horses that ran against biases,class,it was there in black and white and paid prices.Overall handicapping has at some point been deemed unprofitable.Applying basic ability in a individual race is not as prevalent as applying an angle to a thousand races.It's the handicapping equivalent of needing to prove God's existence before a wager.A single race,or a short run of truth like a bias or a conditioning extreme(route to sprinters having stamina in the winter for example).There is a lack of control in people's minds for these realities until there can be 1000 or 10,000 races to bite into.It's an attempt to strangle and suffocate reality and dictate the absolute truths.The concept is as old as the world itself.Control.Wether by war or by reason.Scientific method is as essential as intuition and imagination.One should serve the other.It is a whole.But in our game it is separated and conflicting.We deal with individual races and short runs of reality.The adaptability of thinking is the only thing that can solve it.There is so much handicapping information out there we all can only make educated guesses as the what is relevant for this race.We can all use completely different interpretations and not knock each other's profit out.Proof of is the 60%+ loss of favorites staying intact through the Renaissance of Handicaping Information.I think we can systematically wager in an intelligent manner but deciding dominant handicapping factors for outcomes will escape pure methodology.This is a fluid game and the truth if constantly changing race to race,day to day.There has to be a balance of reason and intuition.