Genetic algorithms

[markgoldie]

Wondering if any of the forum members have any information on the state of the art in genetic algorithms as they apply to race handicapping.

For those unfamiliar with the term, a genetic algorithm is essentially one that has the capacity to learn on its own and to apply new strategies to solving difficult problems. For example, the genetic algorithm will keep trying to find the relationships between data that cause a certain outcome. Many of these relationships are dead ends, but some are not. To guard against simply identifying shorter-term trends, you would want a long-term data base. With enough examples, a "trend" can turn into a "law".

At any rate, wondering if anyone is up to date on their use in racing.

Thanks. Mark

[Bruddah]

I am not, but wish I were smart enough to find and understand these avenues of information. They have always peaked my curiousity and interest. I came along to late in the Technology revolution to be able to fully understand computers and software. Sometimes I wished I had been born 40-50 years later.

[fmolf]

Originally Posted by markgoldie

Wondering if any of the forum members have any information on the state of the art in genetic algorithms as they apply to race handicapping.

For those unfamiliar with the term, a genetic algorithm is essentially one that has the capacity to learn on its own and to apply new strategies to solving difficult problems. For example, the genetic algorithm will keep trying to find the relationships between data that cause a certain outcome. Many of these relationships are dead ends, but some are not. To guard against simply identifying shorter-term trends, you would want a long-term data base. With enough examples, a "trend" can turn into a "law".

At any rate, wondering if anyone is up to date on their use in racing.

Thanks. Mark

Mark may i ask you a question?...Do you believe that the outcome of a horserace can be predicted strictly by a computer and numbers? Without regard to what a race appears to be on paper to the naked eye.By this i mean certain races I just seem to have a feel for what is going to unfold and I am sure all handicappers have this feeling about certain races too.this to me is the "art of handicapping" and i believe that if i reduced it to sheer numbers and computer programs it would cease to be enjoyable.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by fmolf

Mark may i ask you a question?...Do you believe that the outcome of a horserace can be predicted strictly by a computer and numbers? Without regard to what a race appears to be on paper to the naked eye.By this i mean certain races I just seem to have a feel for what is going to unfold and I am sure all handicappers have this feeling about certain races too.this to me is the "art of handicapping" and i believe that if i reduced it to sheer numbers and computer programs it would cease to be enjoyable.

I know that you directed your question to Mark, but I hope that I can chime in. I understand your perspective completely, and have great respect for the intuitive side of the game. But I personally find it just as enjoyable to try to outsmart the public by being able to detect instances where they have misjudged the chances of an individual horse or exotic-wager combination. I've found that, based on my own personal preferences and tastes, the use of a quantitative orientation allows me to achieve a level of orderliness, accuracy, and replicability from race to race that I don't think that I personally could match with a strictly intuitive approach, especially with regard to having enough confidence in my estimate of a horse's fair odds to base wagering decisions on it. William Quirin (among others) demonstrated the feasibility of this type of handicapping to my satisfaction through the selection and odds-prediction formulas that he presented in Winning at the Races.

[markgoldie]

Originally Posted by fmolf

Mark may i ask you a question?...Do you believe that the outcome of a horserace can be predicted strictly by a computer and numbers? Without regard to what a race appears to be on paper to the naked eye.By this i mean certain races I just seem to have a feel for what is going to unfold and I am sure all handicappers have this feeling about certain races too.this to me is the "art of handicapping" and i believe that if i reduced it to sheer numbers and computer programs it would cease to be enjoyable.

This is a good, serious question and it deserves a like answer. I remember clearly when the world chess champion Garry Kasparov played the IBM computer "Deep Blue" the second time for the world championship of "Man vs. Machine." Being a life-long chess player and enthuiast, I followed with baited breath. Kasparov, the strongest player who ever lived had said on numerous occasions that chess playing is more art than science and that he believed that no computer program would beat the world's best player, because the game simply could not be boiled down to computer language. Machines do not understand the grace, elegance, and beauty of some positions and possibilities. Furthermore, a human relies on his intuition, getting (as you put it) a "feeling" for a certain position or situation. This is the "art" part in chess playing.

As it turns out, Kasparov was wrong, and while I value my intuition and feeling in approaching a problem, the fact is that such feelings are subconscious vestiges of past games (or races), long forgotten to the conscious brain, but nonetheless, floating around in the dark shadows forever.

I once had a rather spirited conversation with my brother, who took exception to my trying to put numbers on too many shadings of angles and principles. For example, can you put a number on a rider switch from the sixth-leading rider to the top jock on the grounds? Well, it's hard. But my argument was that your brain is trying to calculate these shades of circumstance that horses undergo anyway. Is it better to just try and digest all the information and come up with a "feel" for a race?

I don't think so, primarily because our minds are programmed to work with numbers. As a species we were doing a whole lot of counting tens of thousands of years before computers were invented. We understand the world through counting and a computer is just a fancy counting machine.

So my answer is yes. I believe sophisticated counting is as good a way to beat the races as there is. I also think some of the handicapping "artists" might do even better if they broke their art into the component numbers. If nothing else, at least they would be guaranteed of consistency.

Mark

[dutchboy]

If you google "horse racing genetic algorithm" you will find numerous articles on the subject of neural networks.

The Neurax software from Bris has an explanation on how neural networks work and how a computer can create an odds line based on the trained neural network. The software is free to download but the data files are expensive.

[fmolf]

Originally Posted by markgoldie

This is a good, serious question and it deserves a like answer. I remember clearly when the world chess champion Garry Kasparov played the IBM computer "Deep Blue" the second time for the world championship of "Man vs. Machine." Being a life-long chess player and enthuiast, I followed with baited breath. Kasparov, the strongest player who ever lived had said on numerous occasions that chess playing is more art than science and that he believed that no computer program would beat the world's best player, because the game simply could not be boiled down to computer language. Machines do not understand the grace, elegance, and beauty of some positions and possibilities. Furthermore, a human relies on his intuition, getting (as you put it) a "feeling" for a certain position or situation. This is the "art" part in chess playing.

As it turns out, Kasparov was wrong, and while I value my intuition and feeling in approaching a problem, the fact is that such feelings are subconscious vestiges of past games (or races), long forgotten to the conscious brain, but nonetheless, floating around in the dark shadows forever.

I once had a rather spirited conversation with my brother, who took exception to my trying to put numbers on too many shadings of angles and principles. For example, can you put a number on a rider switch from the sixth-leading rider to the top jock on the grounds? Well, it's hard. But my argument was that your brain is trying to calculate these shades of circumstance that horses undergo anyway. Is it better to just try and digest all the information and come up with a "feel" for a race?

I don't think so, primarily because our minds are programmed to work with numbers. As a species we were doing a whole lot of counting tens of thousands of years before computers were invented. We understand the world through counting and a computer is just a fancy counting machine.

So my answer is yes. I believe sophisticated counting is as good a way to beat the races as there is. I also think some of the handicapping "artists" might do even better if they broke their art into the component numbers. If nothing else, at least they would be guaranteed of consistency.

Mark

i understand totally that computers have their place in modern day handicapping....the esoteric approach still has its place as well.Paddock inspection will never be performed by a computer....first off the claim equiptment changes is another area where detailed notetaking is still a fruitful endeavor...shoe type changes...tongue ties added....I think i should investigate computers in my handicapping. I am just a bit nervous about what it will do to my bottomline.this may be off topic being i am a neophyte computer user(just started downloading bris 3 mos ago)does anyone have a good program for me to start with?something easy to use and not to difficult to understand the premise behind why the program selects the horses it does.Any suggestations will be greatly appreciated as i try to bring my handicapping into the 21st century!

[off'nclear]

Numbers drive me nuts...however, I do believe that a Spook takes care of me.

There are times when I am driving, and for some unknown reason, i take my foot off the pedal...and the car that would have crashed into me as it changes lanes doesn't.

When I was diligently eliminating horses on my old printout, I've written the WRONG information on the horse. I didn't know that till later, but the Spook had given me the CORRECT horse and eliminated the one that I would have chosen.

Until the black box does as well as gut feeling or spook, ...just lost my train of thought. :>)

[proximity]

Originally Posted by fmolf

Do you believe that the outcome of a horserace can be predicted strictly by a computer .......

a follow up question i'd ask is are the best speed figures produced strictly by a computer?

well the answer to that question is no.

a simple two step process (speed ratings and a track variant) and yet the best numbers remain those with at least some degree of human intervention involved in their creation.

in the end, knowing your game and the program you're using..... what it can and can't do for you.... is paramount.

[Dave Schwartz]

What do you want to know about GAs? I have written 38 of them.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[CBedo]

I've played a little with some GAs to look at factor weighting.

For anyone interested in this, I'd highly recommend reading Dave's article about ants.

[markgoldie]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

What do you want to know about GAs? I have written 38 of them.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Dave;

My understanding of GA's is very limited. Just to what I have read. My understanding is that they can be used as a sophisticated data mining tool. As such, if you have a large data base and want to solve a particular problem involving that data base, the GA will look for ways to solve the problem by exploring relationships among the data. In many cases, they are said to be helpful when the user doesn't even have a clue as how to begin approaching a solution to the problem.

Certainly, in horse racing we have more than enough ideas as to how to solve the problem (that of producing consistently positive ROI's). The difficulty, of course, is that the overwhelming majority of ideas do not achieve the goal.

I would have thought (and I am probably wrong) that a GA could explore the relationships inherent in the data in new and creative ways that may not be intuitive to human analysts. And if it were able to do so, it might come up with hidden relationships among data factors that solve the problem.

Were this the case, feeding the GA the best possible PP's, along with full race charts including payoffs over a long period of time, might produce some interesting results. But since you say you have written 38 different GA's, although you did not say they were all devoted to race handicapping, it would seem to indicate that GA's must be specialized in some way since a single GA would not achieve the goal. Am I wrong about that?

Thanks. Mark

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by markgoldie

Wondering if any of the forum members have any information on the state of the art in genetic algorithms as they apply to race handicapping.

For those unfamiliar with the term, a genetic algorithm is essentially one that has the capacity to learn on its own and to apply new strategies to solving difficult problems. For example, the genetic algorithm will keep trying to find the relationships between data that cause a certain outcome. Many of these relationships are dead ends, but some are not. To guard against simply identifying shorter-term trends, you would want a long-term data base. With enough examples, a "trend" can turn into a "law".

At any rate, wondering if anyone is up to date on their use in racing.

Thanks. Mark

I don’t believe genetic algorithms are applicable to race horse handicapping because I think it is very difficult or nearly impossible to find inherited or mutated characteristics of either a horse or a race that will consistently optimize a winning solution. Why not try a derivative algorithm?

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by markgoldie

Wondering if any of the forum members have any information on the state of the art in genetic algorithms as they apply to race handicapping.

For those unfamiliar with the term, a genetic algorithm is essentially one that has the capacity to learn on its own and to apply new strategies to solving difficult problems. For example, the genetic algorithm will keep trying to find the relationships between data that cause a certain outcome. Many of these relationships are dead ends, but some are not. To guard against simply identifying shorter-term trends, you would want a long-term data base. With enough examples, a "trend" can turn into a "law".

At any rate, wondering if anyone is up to date on their use in racing.

Thanks. Mark

I am a genetic algorithm!!

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=58822

[Dave Schwartz]

Mark,

First, understand what a generic algorithm really is.

It is a tool for discovering a very good solution to a problem from a large search space.

Image that you have a large set of factors and you want to give them a weight - much like a regression analysis system where the result is a formula like:

ProbForHorse= BaseNum + (Factor1 * Weight1) + (Factor2 * Weight2) ... + (Factor? * Weight?)

This is a perfect use for a GA because it will learn very quickly, zeroing in on the best wieghts. It will do so much faster than an iterative process such as some form of multiple linear regression.


If you really work at it, you can codify any kind of analysis into a GA - even a rule-based one. Example:

I have written GAs that use if-then statements to make rules. Imagine a rule that looks like this:

(In sentence form)
If Factor #17 is [b]less than 4 then multiply by 2.35.

Consider that what we really have is:

if (Factor#) is (sign) (value) then take this (action) with a (actionVal)

So, suppose you have a list with 200 factors
(Factor# is 000 to 200)

Signs are <,<=,=,>=,>
(signs are codified as 1 to 5)

Suppose values are all scaled 0-100
(values are codified from 000 to 100)

You have a list of actions.
Actions can be:
1. Eliminate horse
2. Make horse contender
3. Add some points (i.e. ActionVal)
4. Subtract some points (i.e. ActionVal)
5. Multiply by ActionVal
6. Divide by ActionVal

(Actions are 1 to 6)


Finally, you have an ActionValue
(ActionVals are from 000.00 to 999.99)


So here is a string:
If Factor #17 is [b]less than 4 then multiply by 2.35.

017|1|004|5|00235

Of course, we remove the "|" and we have:
0171004500235


So, with the proper programming you can do quite a bit.

I actually give classes on this stuff. I have helped set up several of Asian/Australian "teams." It is, of course, fee-based and the fee is not cheap (but affordable for anyone desring to set up such an operation).


Dave Schwartz