New book; HBR, The Success Equation: Untangling Skill and Luck in Business, Sports, a

[HUSKER55]

LUCK IS WHERE PREPARATION AND OPPORTUNITY MEET.

Being a true Boy Scout and I am always properly and correctly prepared then that means that when my horse does not win...THE RACE WAS FIXED

[lansdale]

Hi raybo,

I take your point on the differences between BJ and horseracing. But as DL correctly said in his reply to you, math can be used in evaluation in many kinds of performance, either of a specific game (such as BJ) or of a person (such as a handicapper). A much better analogy with handicapping is Wall St.. Both database players and Wall St. fund managers use historical data to make investment decisions. Both can be evaluated on the quality of their performance.

The 'long run' is, of course, in theory, infinite. But for the purpose of successful gambling, many players use the 3 SD figure I referenced, as an acceptable substitute. As I said, anecdotally, some successful players have mentioned the 2,500-3000 figure, as the range within which their results stabilized. This may be useful as a 'long-run' benchmark for handicapping, but clearly, as with BJ, higher ROI implies a lower acceptable long run, and lower ROI, a higher long run.

If you substitute 'handicapping skill' for database, in the case of non-database players, I would conjecture that the same race total would substitute as an acceptable measurement. You mention, frequency, race type, and other factors as preventing accurate measurement, but surely, all of these factors fall under the range of 'variance'. And as you say yourself, to the extent that the non-database (or more properly non-blackbox) player is able to handle them is part of the measure of 'skill'. As Maboussin says the lower the range of variance, the higher the level of skill, and vice versa.

Cheers,

lansdale

Originally Posted by raybo

Are you seriously trying to compare black jack gambling to horse race gambling? IMO, they cannot be compared directly, only very generally, because there are so many more variables involved in horse racing.

"Long term" is dependent on the frequency a player plays, the type of bet he is making, the tracks he plays, etc.. Once a player becomes consistently profitable, meet after meet, or year after year, the type of wagers he is making, and his capacity to continue to evolve with the game and remain consistent in all aspects of his play, usually will determine how long he must remain profitable, in order for future success to to be logically expected.

Changes in the conditions of racing is a given, and the successful player overcomes those changes. When he ceases to be able to overcome those changes, and/or the other changes in his life, he is no longer successful, and his skill as a player has diminished. In other words, he has ceased to continue evolving with the game and in his play, and/or, can no longer perform at previous levels, in all aspects of his play.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by lansdale

Hi raybo,

I take your point on the differences between BJ and horseracing. But as DL correctly said in his reply to you, math can be used in evaluation in many kinds of performance, either of a specific game (such as BJ) or of a person (such as a handicapper). A much better analogy with handicapping is Wall St.. Both database players and Wall St. fund managers use historical data to make investment decisions. Both can be evaluated on the quality of their performance.

The 'long run' is, of course, in theory, infinite. But for the purpose of successful gambling, many players use the 3 SD figure I referenced, as an acceptable substitute. As I said, anecdotally, some successful players have mentioned the 2,500-3000 figure, as the range within which their results stabilized. This may be useful as a 'long-run' benchmark for handicapping, but clearly, as with BJ, higher ROI implies a lower acceptable long run, and lower ROI, a higher long run.

If you substitute 'handicapping skill' for database, in the case of non-database players, I would conjecture that the same race total would substitute as an acceptable measurement. You mention, frequency, race type, and other factors as preventing accurate measurement, but surely, all of these factors fall under the range of 'variance'. And as you say yourself, to the extent that the non-database (or more properly non-blackbox) player is able to handle them is part of the measure of 'skill'. As Maboussin says the lower the range of variance, the higher the level of skill, and vice versa.

Cheers,

lansdale

Then we disagree. That's nothing unusual.

[dkithore]

This book Success Equation triggered me to put some thoughts together in a worksheet. This questions and answers is giving me more confidence in focusing on live contenders. It is work in progress and I have begun testing it. You may add your own questions.

Caveat: This is for paper and pencil guys. Not aimed at savvy high tech handicappers who are more advanced than me. Use this only after you have done the selection using your own method. For me it is calibrated new pace, speed figures (from a private vendor) and want to focus on live contenders. Perhaps this is more qualitative aspect than numbers. Here they are:

1 Is horse competitive at this class level?
2 Has it won at the distance?
3 Has the horse performed well at the course?
4 Has it won at this surface and track condition?
5 Is this barrier (post) position helpful?
6 Is this his preferred jockey?
7 Does the track favor his running style
8 Is it getting bet?
9 Is he getting bet below his previous odds?
10 Does he show good form in last few races?
11 Was there trouble in the last race?
12 Is there any equipment change today?
13 Has he reached his best numbers in recent races?