Putting an end to Beyer type speed ratings

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Sometimes it's not the content of posts that can cause backlash, it's the attitude that comes through.

Aren’t you referring to “perception” as oppose to “reality”; given that “we” are supposedly communicating in anonymity?

I realize that sometimes some posters reply with derogatory personal remarks, but that is where the administrator/moderators intervene with the Forum’s TOS guidelines.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by Cratos

You are correct, but sometimes to back up a claim it requires mathematical/statistical calculations that are not easily simplified; if they can be simplified any further at all.

Another way to provide evidence would be to just post the outcome of your calculations for a specific period without revealing them. By doing so, you can provide a de factor prove of your claims, while keeping your intellectual property protected.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Cratos

Aren’t you referring to “perception” as oppose to “reality”; given that “we” are supposedly communicating in anonymity?

I realize that sometimes some posters reply with derogatory personal remarks, but that is where the administrator/moderators intervene with the Forum’s TOS guidelines.

Experience has taught me that emotion, attitude etc... is sometimes very difficult to communicate with the written word. It's ten time worse if two people have a history of confrontation. They tend to assume the worst.

Other times it comes through fairly clearly.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Cratos the majority of scientific findings are a result of Trial and Error.
Believing the scientists start out with a hypothesis and a procedure to test it is a myth.
Most go up a number of blind alleys until they find something new.
That it is reported in Scientific journals neatly as an problem, procedure, and results, contributes to masking over the fact that much trial and error was involved.

I don’t disagree with what you have said, especially since I spent a significant part of my professional career solving problems in the manner you stated, but by definition the difference between the two methods are real and distinctive.

I not attempting to be pompous, but I see the difference between the two methods as the following:

The trial and error method, is when human nature inclines the mind more toward exploration and experimentation rather than systematic analysis. The trial and error method reflects the tangents that human logic takes when curiosity beckons.

The scientific method, on the other hand, provides an orderly path for the mind to follow in its passage from bewilderment to enlightenment. Without following the scientific method, an analysis will remain consistently complex and any theories formed will be too general to explain the phenomena accurately.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by Cratos

You are correct, but sometimes to back up a claim it requires mathematical/statistical calculations that are not easily simplified; if they can be simplified any further at all.

I see your argument as a clash between the “trial and error” methodologists versus the “scientific methodologists” two different worlds and two different approaches to get to the same result.

Or revealing your methods. I have seen posters here goated into revealing more about their methods than they want to. I am sure it cost them money. In these days of reverse engineering even posts your picks is risky if you have something valuable.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Cratos

I don’t disagree with what you have said, especially since I spent a significant part of my professional career solving problems in the manner you stated, but by definition the difference between the two methods are real and distinctive.

I not attempting to be pompous, but I see the difference between the two methods as the following:

The trial and error method, is when human nature inclines the mind more toward exploration and experimentation rather than systematic analysis. The trial and error method reflects the tangents that human logic takes when curiosity beckons.

The scientific method, on the other hand, provides an orderly path for the mind to follow in its passage from bewilderment to enlightenment. Without following the scientific method, an analysis will remain consistently complex and any theories formed will be too general to explain the phenomena accurately.

Agreed.
But what I'm saying is there is NO CLASH between the Scientific method and the Trial and Error method.
They both go hand and hand, almost of necessity.
Scientists report their findings via the Scientific Method for sure, but a lot of trial and error activity that is not reported is involved in the spade work for those findings.

[Tom]

You think people are out there are reverse engineering picks posted here?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Tom

It's been a 5 month thread....have the Beyers been ended yet?

Ooops!
Not 5 months, July was in 2012, not 2014!!

OK, looking back over the whole thread, two posts stand out.


#4 and #100.

From #4, TFUS has grown and taken its place in the industry.
#100 is just common sense.

[PhantomOnTour]

Originally Posted by Tom

Ooops!
Not 5 months, July was in 2012, not 2014!!

OK, looking back over the whole thread, two posts stand out.


#4 and #100.

From #4, TFUS has grown and taken its place in the industry.
#100 is just common sense.

Dammit man, now I gotta thread through this thread and find those two posts

[TrifectaMike]

Originally Posted by TexasDolly

Hi TM,
I have found your posts and exchanges to be quite useful.
Thank you,
TD

Thanks.

As of now, based on prior beliefs and the evidence, the posterior probability suggests, I will not be posting.

Mike

[Jeff P]

Number 3

Mike, Please consider this an invitation to keep posting.

To those who seem to be saying an idea (any idea) is without merit unless the original poster sees fit to do the heaving lifting for you:

Speaking strictly for myself, I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the threads here since about 1999. One of the reasons I keep coming back is because every once in a while I'll see something (an idea) in one of the threads here that gets me to THINK.

I don't need the person posting an idea to prove (or disprove) the usefulness of an idea.

I have the ability to take an idea (any idea) and test it for usefulness myself.

I'm not too proud to admit it.

When I first started reading here my game sucked (compared to what it has become some 15 years later.)

Looking back, a big part of my own journey as a player (my own improvement process) stems from reading between the lines and gleaning ideas from what I've read here.

I think the Paceadvantage community as a whole would be weakened if a poster like TrifectaMike were to stop posting.


-jp

.

[DeltaLover]

There is no doubt that we have learned a lot from TM... I hope he continues to post...

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Agreed.
But what I'm saying is there is NO CLASH between the Scientific method and the Trial and Error method.
They both go hand and hand, almost of necessity.
Scientists report their findings via the Scientific Method for sure, but a lot of trial and error activity that is not reported is involved in the spade work for those findings.

I am not attempting to be circumventive or argumentative, but I see your rebuttal as process initiation and not process completion.

What I am saying is that most if not all methodologies start out as “trial and error” because of the unknowns, but it is the completion of the methodology that gives evidence of repeatability and authenticity to the scientific method whereas the trial and error method will typically be too general for these attributes.

However and moving forward I believe that thoroughbred handicapping is in dire need of new methodologies to meet today’s technologies and whether that need is met by the trial and error method or the scientific method it doesn’t matter.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Cratos

I am not attempting to be circumventive or argumentative, but I see your rebuttal as process initiation and not process completion.

What I am saying is that most if not all methodologies start out as “trial and error” because of the unknowns, but it is the completion of the methodology that gives evidence of repeatability and authenticity to the scientific method whereas the trial and error method will typically be too general for these attributes.

However and moving forward I believe that thoroughbred handicapping is in dire need of new methodologies to meet today’s technologies and whether that need is met by the trial and error method or the scientific method it doesn’t matter.

I can't disagree with any of that.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by TrifectaMike

Thanks.

As of now, based on prior beliefs and the evidence, the posterior probability suggests, I will not be posting.

Mike

Mike, your posts to me has been challenging and thought provoking, but never dull and uninteresting.

Therefore I hope you reconsider your decision to stop posting on the forum because I believe that the forum's thoroughbred handicapping discussion needs input from a variety of sources (i.e., the GED to the PhD).