The Logical of the Illogical - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Capper Al · 07-03-2011, 11:03 AM

In the thread "Can One Really Figure Value", http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...2&page=1&pp=15,
the discussion surprisingly turned into Math vs Intuition. The purpose of the thread was to demonstrate the difficulty of determining value in any particular race. The bottom line is that value might be able to be determined for a series of races, but for today's race at hand it can't. The problem is that we have to wager on today's race, not a series. For those who bet on the long run value, the question becomes does today's race fit the model? Those siding with Math only seem to say no problem that it can be identified to fit the model or not. Others, based on their experience, say it is a problem to determine if today's race fits the model claiming that races are more random than similar in composition. There was a middle ground proposed in the discussion suggesting one's need to know math and use of intuition when placing a wager. I am of the math and intuition school. Hopefully in the next post, the example will prove the limitation of math and the need for common sense or intuition as we've been calling it.

DJofSD · 07-03-2011, 11:11 AM

Intuition has always been a part of my approach to the races.

An insight to how intuition can be learned, see the works of Laura Day.

It is a central part of the discussion by Gladwell in many of his writings especially Blink.

Capper Al · 07-03-2011, 11:22 AM

Taking a card deck with 52 cards, if I want to draw the king of clubs my chances are 1 out of 52 at first. If I draw the two of diamonds, and don't put it back in the deck, my chances are now 1 out of 51. Many figure races this way. If I pick them at 25% to win and my top pick doesn't win, the chances that my second pick will win (without regard to field size here) are as follows:

3/4 that top pick doesn't win times 1/4 that the second pick wins.
3/4 x 1/4 or 3/16

This is logical based on a deterministic model like the deck of cards first mentioned. This supports the modelers thinking. But the problem might be that the model didn't fit (the premise) for the particular race. Therefore, any of the calculations on the top or second won't apply (don't figure). We know all with the cards, but not the races.

therussmeister · 07-03-2011, 11:23 AM

If I didn't use intuition I wouldn't be playing the horses, because it would be not very fun and not very profitable. Indeed it would probably be no fun at all and no profit at all. Same thing with poker.

Capper Al · 07-03-2011, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJofSD

Intuition has always been a part of my approach to the races.

An insight to how intuition can be learned, see the works of Laura Day.

It is a central part of the discussion by Gladwell in many of his writings especially Blink.

Would you share a link with us on which Laura Day that you are talking about? Thanks.

DJofSD · 07-03-2011, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapperAl

Would you share a link with us on which Laura Day that you are talking about? Thanks.

Here's one: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/prac...ri=laura%2bday

Capper Al · 07-03-2011, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by therussmeister

If I didn't use intuition I wouldn't be playing the horses, because it would be not very fun and not very profitable. Indeed it would probably be no fun at all and no profit at all. Same thing with poker.

I agree, but this is the modeler's hope that others will play the races for them to take our money.

Capper Al · 07-03-2011, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJofSD

Here's one: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/prac...ri=laura%2bday

I ordered it. Thanks.

Greyfox · 07-03-2011, 11:57 AM

The human brain is a computer.
Math applied rigidly as a mechanical computer would will give result A.
The human brain is not rigid, it is fishing into subconscious pathways and bringing up incubated material that is not necessarily readily put into mathematical concepts. Sometimes the material that it brings up is preverbal and you can't even put into words the sense that it is directing you.
Personally, I believe in having:
1. a good set of numbers
2. paying attention to inner "gut level" intuitions
As pick 3 player, I use several horses per leg and while "the numbers" plays score frequently enough, that extra sense has brought me the big scores.
(Every wise guy in town has numbers. You have to go beyond them to hit big.)

Those seemingly "illogical" intuitions aren't "illogical" at all, when the brain is viewed as a very powerful information processor.

thaskalos · 07-03-2011, 01:04 PM

In a game as complicated as horse racing, it helps the player enormously if he possesses BOTH, a keen intuition AND a mathematical mind.

"Intuition" is hard to define though...for ME at least.

I hear a voice in my head while handicapping a race...but is it the voice of reason and experience, helping me to correctly interpret the numbers and the circumstances of the race...or is it the voice of folly and greed, dreaming up the most profitable scenarios to quickly get me out of my latest losing streak?

The poker player hears this voice too...when he is asked to pay a heavy price for that last card -- which might win him a "monster" pot, and make him a winner for the night.

If we are a little more observant, we may discover that this voice of "intuition" is - in most cases - just an impulse in disguise...

Capper Al · 07-03-2011, 03:16 PM

Someone post this in the other thread about a professional gambler. It's good read for this thread too:

http://www.tonywilson.com.au/writing/alanwoods.php

therussmeister · 07-03-2011, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thaskalos

In a game as complicated as horse racing, it helps the player enormously if he possesses BOTH, a keen intuition AND a mathematical mind.

"Intuition" is hard to define though...for ME at least.

I hear a voice in my head while handicapping a race...but is it the voice of reason and experience, helping me to correctly interpret the numbers and the circumstances of the race...or is it the voice of folly and greed, dreaming up the most profitable scenarios to quickly get me out of my latest losing streak?

The poker player hears this voice too...when he is asked to pay a heavy price for that last card -- which might win him a "monster" pot, and make him a winner for the night.

If we are a little more observant, we may discover that this voice of "intuition" is - in most cases - just an impulse in disguise...

I have almost no trouble, mainly, I think, because my basic nature when I am running bad is to get very conservative - so there is no voice of folly and greed. The only trouble I have identifying intuition is it is not there for me every race of every day, so after a long time of no voice, I usually don't catch it when it first returns. It is too quiet.

Capper Al · 07-04-2011, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by therussmeister

I have almost no trouble, mainly, I think, because my basic nature when I am running bad is to get very conservative - so there is no voice of folly and greed. The only trouble I have identifying intuition is it is not there for me every race of every day, so after a long time of no voice, I usually don't catch it when it first returns. It is too quiet.

That's the problem with intuition, when to listen or not. When in doubt, I reference the numbers(math) again. It's a check and balance.

Capper Al · 07-04-2011, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapperAl

Taking a card deck with 52 cards, if I want to draw the king of clubs my chances are 1 out of 52 at first. If I draw the two of diamonds, and don't put it back in the deck, my chances are now 1 out of 51. Many figure races this way. If I pick them at 25% to win and my top pick doesn't win, the chances that my second pick will win (without regard to field size here) are as follows:

3/4 that top pick doesn't win times 1/4 that the second pick wins.
3/4 x 1/4 or 3/16

This is logical based on a deterministic model like the deck of cards first mentioned. This supports the modelers thinking. But the problem might be that the model didn't fit (the premise) for the particular race. Therefore, any of the calculations on the top or second won't apply (don't figure). We know all with the cards, but not the races.

The focus here was that if this was a solely logical system then definitely the chances of the second horse winning should be 3/16, but if I missed the race because the model was incorrectly applied then I would have missed the race because my model was wrong and the chances to me would be unknown.

therussmeister · 07-04-2011, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapperAl

[/b]

That's the problem with intuition, when to listen or not. When in doubt, I reference the numbers(math) again. It's a check and balance.

I don't consider there to be a problem of when to listen or not, just a problem of not always listening for the voice of intuition if it has been absent for a while. I think I always know what is legitimate intuition verses any other thoughts rambling through my head, but then, I have been working on improving my intuition at the races for about 23 years.

I think the only thing that holds any real interest for me about playing the horses right now is improving my mental performance; striving to operate at the highest level for the longest period of time. I was never a real fan of horse racing itself, but was devoted fan of the challenge of improving my handicapping. After 26 years, I'm not sure how much more improvement is possible for me. I'm not saying I know everything there is to know, rather I don't know if I'm going to get any better.