Learning

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by traynor

The self-deceptive drivel is by Malcolm Gladwell, a follow up to the equivalent drivel of Blink. I don't think it takes 20 years of losing to learn how to pick a few winners. Quite the contrary. I think it takes focused, determined effort to succeed--not just "playing the ponies for fun" or as a substitute for doing crossword puzzles. That is the point of the article.

Specifically, engaging in some activity for an extended period of time does not necessarily equate to expertise in that activity. It takes work, and thought, and effort--and those seem to be requirements that most recreational bettors like to avoid. For those willing to do the work necessary, it isn't that difficult, and it doesn't take three days less than forever to do. Unless one really enjoys the angst of losing for an extended period of time.

What Gladwell wrote is not drivel. What you wrote is the drivel. The most recreational bettors who have betting for 20 years do better than the people who have developed a few ideas after reading a couple of books and trying to apply some fancy math to picking a winner and bet very few races. Do pilots need training? yes. But the good pilots are the ones who have been flying for years. When ever you see a plane make one of the miracle landings, its pilot is always one who has been flying for years, not fresh out pilot schools.
The problem with trying learn handicapping from a book is that all books on handicapping out there are either badly out dated or just plain trash written by people who could not make a dime betting on the ponies. All lot of it advocates using faulty data to make decisions. If you use lengths back at the fractional calls, you are using faulty data. Watch a few races and compare it to the data in the charts and you find out how really bad the data is.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

I believe that this always was the case. When today's outdated stuff was new, the old timers back then probably were saying that one had to inspect the horse in the paddock that the numbers in the racing form wouldn't do it.

Those old timers could have been right.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I do not remember ever seeing anybody claim that the mere fact that we have vast experience in a gambling game would, in and of itself, transform us into winning players. OF COURSE it takes a concentrated effort to LEARN.

But, in "serious" gambling...knowledge about the games we play is not enough! There has to be a large degree of SELF-KNOWLEDGE as well. In fact, one could say that self-knowledge dwarfs all other types of knowledge in the world of gambling. Are we naive enough to believe that all these losing players really lose because they don't know how to play this game properly? Because they all use outdated and obsolete handicapping methods?

And this applies to all forms of gambling out there!

How many proficient blackjack counters are out there...and how many of them can actually win serious money at the tables?

How many poker players are out there, who know EXACTLY how to play every hand under every circumstance...but who behave like raving lunatics when the "heat" is on?

How many horseplayers carefully craft their gameplan at home, but then lose all control when they actually start betting at the track...and come home having lost MUCH more than they should have.

It isn't the knowledge of the GAME that's time consuming...it's the knowledge of the SELF!

It isn't teaching ourselves the GAME that's difficult; it's teaching ourselves to play the game the best way we know how.

If all of us stood in front of the mirror and asked ourselves the question..."Am I playing this game as well as I know how to play it?"...how many of us would answer in the affirmative?

That's what takes years...and most don't ever make it...no matter how many years they try.

Successful gambling goes against human nature...and you don't overcome human nature in a "matter of weeks".

Bring me a three week neophyte, and I'll book his action all day long, for as long as he wants. It's the only sure thing in gambling...IMO.

I agree completely that critical, thoughtful calibration of one's own behavior is a key component of successful wagering. Unfortunately, many lack the objectivity that enables them to perform that calibration, and to benefit from it. That is one of the things that keeps the psychologists busy.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

What Gladwell wrote is not drivel. What you wrote is the drivel. The most recreational bettors who have betting for 20 years do better than the people who have developed a few ideas after reading a couple of books and trying to apply some fancy math to picking a winner and bet very few races. Do pilots need training? yes. But the good pilots are the ones who have been flying for years. When ever you see a plane make one of the miracle landings, its pilot is always one who has been flying for years, not fresh out pilot schools.
The problem with trying learn handicapping from a book is that all books on handicapping out there are either badly out dated or just plain trash written by people who could not make a dime betting on the ponies. All lot of it advocates using faulty data to make decisions. If you use lengths back at the fractional calls, you are using faulty data. Watch a few races and compare it to the data in the charts and you find out how really bad the data is.

The idea that simply engaging in an activity for an extended period of time automatically increases proficiency in that activity is a myth.

[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.

[Robert Goren]

Since I made a crack about faulty data at the fractional calls, I feel I should say something about pace handicapping. It is truely amazing how well a good pace handicapper can do with faulty data. Just think how well they could do if they had accurate information. Now back to topic of the tread.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by traynor

The idea that simply engaging in an activity for an extended period of time automatically increases proficiency in that activity is a myth.

You are just plain wrong. People progress at their own speed, but the longer you do something the better you get at it. A losing horse player who has betting the horses for twenty years is losing less today than he was when he started. This true in every field of endeavor I ever ran across. If you ever had been charge of a group of employees you would know that. I have never seen an employee who didn't improve over time. The longer longer they did the job, the better they became at it.

[eurocapper]

I think traynor has a point in that if the wager is a larger share of the disposable income then the effort to handicap it right will probably also correspondingly increase. And there isn't necessarily improvement if the handicapping model changes after each race and there is no record keeping.

[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.

[Dave Schwartz]

What Gladwell wrote is not drivel. What you wrote is the drivel. The most recreational bettors who have betting for 20 years do better than the people who have developed a few ideas after reading a couple of books and trying to apply some fancy math to picking a winner and bet very few races.

Goren,

In all fairness, that is not even close to what Traynor has said here.

I believe - and I think I understand what he is getting at - would be like this example:

Imagine 3 guys who want to become golfers.

1) He gets a set of clubs. He goes to a driving range a couple of times per week. He plays a couple of rounds per week. He mostly self-teaches himself. He also watches and learns from the guys he plays with. However, they are pretty much the same caliber as he is. Over the years he watches as his average scores drop to a level of about a 10 handicap.

2) This guy gets a set of clubs. He goes to a driving range a couple of times per week. He plays a couple of rounds per week. He mostly self-teaches himself. He also watches and learns from the guys he plays with. However, they are pretty much the same caliber as he is. But he also reads books and watches videos. Over the years he watches as his average scores drop to a level of about a 5 handicap.

3) This guy sets out with a goal to take a shot at the PGA tour someday. He starts with lessons from a club pro. He follows the pro's guidance for a year or so and then decides to get a golf coach. The coach lays out a curriculum of instruction and practice, with the goal of improving his game. Within 4 years he is playing at a scratch level.

Now, maybe #3 never makes it to the PGA, but I think it is safe to say that he is the only one of the three who have a real chance.

Consider this: SOMEONE COACHED MICHAEL JORDAN.

[SmarterSig]

Exactly my point Dave

[RaceBookJoe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

You are just plain wrong. People progress at their own speed, but the longer you do something the better you get at it. A losing horse player who has betting the horses for twenty years is losing less today than he was when he started. This true in every field of endeavor I ever ran across. If you ever had been charge of a group of employees you would know that. I have never seen an employee who didn't improve over time. The longer longer they did the job, the better they became at it.

Thats only true if you are doing things correctly. If you constantly repeat the same mistakes for 20 yrs..you wont be getting better except at being a better unsuccess.

[SmarterSig]

You can improve your golf technique to some degree by repeatedly doing what you have always done, whilst improvement at betting requires embracing that fundamental evil know as 'change'. To some change is an uncomfortable feeling for others its a lack of knowledge regarding what to change from and to.

[Dave Schwartz]

To some change is an uncomfortable feeling for others its a lack of knowledge regarding what to change from and to.

I would say that is the biggest problem: what to change and how to change it.

[SmarterSig]

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.