Pattern Recognition

[DJofSD]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

It can be done, but not without building a conceptional framework as a reference first. Many programmers and statistions confuse research done before and research done after a proposition is made. Using research before the proposition is what I was referring.to as putting the cart before the horse. It's mindless from the start. Research after the propositon validates the proposition, but doesn't determine its existance as those who so quickly fly through computer first research tote.

In part, you are referring to a priori assumptions and inductive reasoning.

[Gamblor]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

It can be done, but not without building a conceptional framework as a reference first. Many programmers and statistions confuse research done before and research done after a proposition is made. Using research before the proposition is what I was referring.to as putting the cart before the horse. It's mindless from the start. Research after the propositon validates the proposition, but doesn't determine its existance as those who so quickly fly through computer first research tote.

Can I correctly translate that as meaning that a researcher shouldn't test on the data from which he's formed his opinions?

Edit: on 2nd read... you're talking more hypothesis first type arguments. I'm not sure racing is quite like science... there's far more "suck it and see"* in racing than there is in science.


*hoping you guys have that term because on face value it sounds awful

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

In part, you are referring to a priori assumptions and inductive reasoning.

Yes. Too many findings today are announced by people just flying through a database. This happens all over not just horse racing.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Gamblor

Can I correctly translate that as meaning that a researcher shouldn't test on the data from which he's formed his opinions?

Edit: on 2nd read... you're talking more hypothesis first type arguments. I'm not sure racing is quite like science... there's far more "suck it and see"* in racing than there is in science.


*hoping you guys have that term because on face value it sounds awful

I agree with the second set of data, but the point is proposition first.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by traynor

This seems a case of believing what one wants to believe, and dismissing any evidence to the contrary as irrelevant (and inconvenient). "Pattern recognition" does not mean an individual can imagine they see things they do not, and that the things they see form a "pattern" that they recognize. That is (in most cases) wishful thinking, not "pattern recognition."

Pattern recognition is a trainable skill. That does not mean that the average person can simply look at a mass of data and "detect patterns" that can be applied usefully to other masses of data.

Also, false dichotomies--especially those in the schema you stated above--are something I routinely ignore. (For those who may not know what a false dichotomy is, it is easiest to recognize by the format, "Either ... or" As in, "Either you agree with me or you are wrong.")

Being able to query a database isn't the be all of handicapping development. One has to experiment with the game and the nature of horses, not the numbers. The numbers will come once the ideas are right. The numbers by themselve won't advance one's handficapping. The wishful thinking is that all there is to handicapping can be accomplished from the database that I know how to use. The trainable skill that is needed is to understand that there are patterns everywhere in our data, and most of them are false positives. And the few that are not false postives need to be understood and place within their proper context to use.

[bob60566]

Here are some questions related to the fifty posts on pattern recognition in horse racing.

How does a pattern evolve.

Who makes the pattern.

Where can the pattern, if any be spotted and found

Can someone show us a false pattern.

Are all the true patterns are in % and in the database

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by traynor

Sounds more like CYA from Ainslie than sage handicapping advice. I don't think anyone disputes that a "few pounds on or off" will make "the difference between victory and defeat" or that anyone believed such before or after Quirin's study. The key component in the statement you quote above is, "Some are so much better than others on a given day that a weight disadvantage means nothing." That implies that for any but the select few (and then only on a good day), weight means "something," with the degree of "something" being dependent on other factors. That is a long, long way from stating--as Quirin did--that weight changes of the type that were routinely advocated (by Ainslie and most other "experts" of the time) as significant prior to his study--were in fact insignificant.

You have gone from initially saying that, pre-Quirin, all handicapping authors thought that weight was IMPORTANT...to now stating that Ainslie did, in fact, think that weight meant something. That's quite a jump...IMO. You started off by saying that Ainslie considered weight to be IMPORTANT. That simply wasn't the case. Now you say that Ainslie implied that weight "meant something". When we say that weight means "something"...is that making it IMPORTANT? By Quirin stating that weight was "insignificant"...doesn't that mean that Quirin too implied that weight "meant SOMETHING"? Insignificant means something of little value...not something of NO value.

Weight does in fact mean SOMETHING...and even Beyer himself has suggested a weight adjustment to his figures in his latest work.

I know that this is not a major point, and I don't know why I am pursuing it with you; perhaps it's my low opinion of Quirin and his "study" that is to blame.

I know that you are a blackjack expert, but even a blackjack expert like you probably doesn't know how William Quirin got involved in the thoroughbred handicapping "business". It's not a pretty story...and it doesn't put Mr. Quirin in a very good light.

[Tom]

How did he get involved?

[InControlX]

Originally Posted by traynor

The intuition and reasoning of paper and pencil handicappers generally come up with little more than aberrant information specific to the (very small) set of data points on which the conclusions are based.

Wow. I would think that if one wishes to exploit handicapping using pattern recognition it might not be wise to dismiss the work of those who are successful in handicapping. Also, realize that some handicapping is forced to be based upon small samplings, and wide-search attempts completely miss infrequent but repeatable outcomes. For example, an annual throroughbred race count in the US and Canada is around 85,000. I know of quite a few successful handicappers who have recognized patterns involving combinations of certain age horses at certain tracks on certain months against certain differing entries. This narrows your annual race count down to about 50. Statisticians will scoff at such a small sample, but these guys have been profiting from this pattern for years!

As for data base pattern mining on multi-year collections, the common outcome is that the better win percentage and ROI patterns themselves are small sample counts, and unless you have some very good proving tests, not very repeatable. For large sample patterns (in the 2000+ annual range) the outcomes approach the morning lines.

Probably the biggest fallacy of pattern recognition in horse racing is the lack of competitive evaluation. In simple terms, your pick has the background pattern you're looking for, but what about the unknown patterns of the other entries?

ICX

[TrifectaMike]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I know that you are a blackjack expert, but even a blackjack expert like you probably doesn't know how William Quirin got involved in the thoroughbred handicapping "business". It's not a pretty story...and it doesn't put Mr. Quirin in a very good light.

I know EXACTLY how and why he was "contracted" and who he f'ked".

Mike (Dr Beav)

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by TrifectaMike

I know EXACTLY how and why he was "contracted" and who he f'ked".

Mike (Dr Beav)

There you go!

[Capper Al]

Ok, I want to know how Quirin got involved with racimg. Would someone post it or PM me if you rather not give out the negative info?

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

It can be done, but not without building a conceptional framework as a reference first. Many programmers and statistions confuse research done before and research done after a proposition is made. Using research before the proposition is what I was referring.to as putting the cart before the horse. It's mindless from the start. Research after the propositon validates the proposition, but doesn't determine its existance as those who so quickly fly through computer first research tote.

Not exactly. There is a field of research called data mining that essentially looks for correlations between factors. However--as you say--unless there is an existing idea of what factors to look for (because they are significant) it is generally a fishing expedition. Intelligence agencies do a LOT of data mining, and have developed the processes considerably in the past 10 years or so. Much more sophisticated than Google parsing your emails for key phrases to indicate what ads to display for you.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Being able to query a database isn't the be all of handicapping development. One has to experiment with the game and the nature of horses, not the numbers. The numbers will come once the ideas are right. The numbers by themselve won't advance one's handficapping. The wishful thinking is that all there is to handicapping can be accomplished from the database that I know how to use. The trainable skill that is needed is to understand that there are patterns everywhere in our data, and most of them are false positives. And the few that are not false postives need to be understood and place within their proper context to use.

Actually, it is way easier than that. Give the problem to a grad student in MIS or Statistics, and the first thing they will ask is, "Where is the target?" The "target" is the winning of the race. Once the target is known, the next step is to ask, "What indications were available before the event that point to this outcome?" Absolutely no knowledge of horse racing is needed, nor are any preconceived ideas of what should be--only a critical analysis of what is.

The trainable skill is to ask the right questions. Ask the wrong questions, and regardless of how accurately they may represent the available data, they will be less useful that if the right questions are asked.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You have gone from initially saying that, pre-Quirin, all handicapping authors thought that weight was IMPORTANT...to now stating that Ainslie did, in fact, think that weight meant something. That's quite a jump...IMO. You started off by saying that Ainslie considered weight to be IMPORTANT. That simply wasn't the case. Now you say that Ainslie implied that weight "meant something". When we say that weight means "something"...is that making it IMPORTANT? By Quirin stating that weight was "insignificant"...doesn't that mean that Quirin too implied that weight "meant SOMETHING"? Insignificant means something of little value...not something of NO value.

Weight does in fact mean SOMETHING...and even Beyer himself has suggested a weight adjustment to his figures in his latest work.

I know that this is not a major point, and I don't know why I am pursuing it with you; perhaps it's my low opinion of Quirin and his "study" that is to blame.

I know that you are a blackjack expert, but even a blackjack expert like you probably doesn't know how William Quirin got involved in the thoroughbred handicapping "business". It's not a pretty story...and it doesn't put Mr. Quirin in a very good light.

As I said, I did (and used) a pre-Quirin synopsis of Ainslie's work. A component of that work was the effect of weight. That effect was presented as being (perhaps) more significant that it actually was (is), a fact that required a more specific and more detailed analysis of the factor than was available to Ainslie at the time of writing the works mentioned.

Pre-Quirin, weight was considered important/significant/meaningful (a collection of rather imprecise terms that all generally mean the same thing) by most, if not all, of those who presumed to declare themselves "experts" in the field of thoroughbred race analysis. The term "handicapping" is derived from the theory that adding or subtracting relatively trivial "weights" from a horse will "even the playing field." It is that theory--that adding or subtracting relatively trivial weights from a horse will even the playing field--that Quirin argued against.

Put five pounds extra on a Secretariat, and it will still run like a Secretariat. Put 1000 pounds on a Secretariat and it will run like a pack mule. Or rather--if it has good sense and a competent handler--it will walk like a pack mule because thoroughbred configuration is not meant to haul heavy weight and its legs would not likely be able to withstand the stresses of running with such a load.