Pattern Recognition

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by traynor

What if Brad Frees was wrong, or was only expounding his personal beliefs, rather than external reality? How did Brad Frees arrive at his beliefs? I am quite sure he didn't just wake up one morning and say to himself, "Eureka! I have The Answer!"

The starting point should be an extensive statistical analysis of "relevant factors" to determine if they are--in fact--relevant. Up to the time Quirin wrote his first book, weight was considered "important" and included in just about every "expert analysis" of probable race outcomes.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that "the basics"--if they are valid--have been arrived at empirically based on results in the real world. That is statistics. Not theory. If those basics are flawed, the weakness of pencil and paper handicapping is that it lacks sufficient data to do more than (relatively blindly) follow the theories of others. To gain the data necessary to do otherwise takes statistics, and statistical analysis.

Here is where we part ways. The paper and pencil handicapper had to go through a process of trial and error to come up with "the Basics". They didn't have the computation power at their disposal. It had to be intuition and reasoning as they came up with "the basics". It is the paper and pencil handcapper with the pattern recognition approach. It's them who will find the star in your article. Trust the force Luke.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Here is where we part ways. The paper and pencil handicapper had to go through a process of trial and error to come up with "the Basics". They didn't have the computation power at their disposal. It had to be intuition and reasoning as they came up with "the basics". It is the paper and pencil handcapper with the pattern recognition approach. It's them who will find the star in your article. Trust the force Luke.

An intersting example of the fact that the average bettor--including the full-time serious bettor--does not access enough information in any reasoanble period of time to generate useful generic information. Only a collection of anomalies specific to the activities of that person. I defer to the opinion of the expert cited in Anderson's book (who is generally considered the most knowledgeable person in the field). 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.

Originally Posted by traynor

The most basic question in data analysis should be, "Does this stuff really mean what (I/we/they/everyone else) thinks it means?" Quite often, it does not. There are a lot of reasons with fine-sounding names and arcane descriptions to place labels on the phenomena. None are really useful.

For every instance of specific analysis of a small dataset that seems to indicate thus and so, there are at least a dozen (or more) instances that "prove" the complete opposite. Many of the underlying premises on which pace handicapping is built are apocryphal--simple correlations are interpreted as cause-and-effect relationships, and small (and often aberrant) samples are interpreted as being representative of the general population (from which the small samples are drawn).

A great example is in Ian Anderson's Burning the Tables in Las Vegas. Anderson explains his odd method of playing blackjack to an expert, and asserts that he has been winning substantial profit using that method in full-time play for more than three years. The expert dismisses the "small sample" as statistically insignificant. That is, the results of thousands upon thousands of hours of casino play were considered irrelevant. Only when the principles were coded into an application that simulated millions of random hands of play could conclusions be reached about how the method would perform in the real world over time.

A lot can be learned about analyzing horse race data from the approach used by blackjack experts.

[traynor]

I do not defer lightly to "experts." In this case, I do:
http://www.amazon.com/Blackjack-Atta.../dp/0910575045

If Schlesinger says that three full years of full-time play is statistically insignificant, I believe him. The same thing applies to the results of a few thousand races--no significant conclusions can be drawn as to the applicability of the patterns discovered to the general population of all races.

From the review of Schlesinger's book:
"The most important book available to blackjack aficionados since Beat the Dealer by Ed Thorp, Blackjack Attack has been praised by every prominent blackjack expert. In it, Schlesinger answers virtually all of the thorny mathematical questions that have puzzled serious players for years: optimal betting, camouflage, risk analysis, team play, systems comparison, and much more. With twice as much material as its predecessor, this third edition contains new studies bound to intrigue even the most knowledgeable pro, including a complete reexamination of the late Peter Griffin's work, and the publication of the most accurate basic strategy and effects of removal charts ever devised."

[bisket]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Like I mentioned earlier, patterns are what the old paper and pencil handicappers excelled in. For a starting point, go over the basics as mentioned in Brad Frees book and handicap from there on. We start with the fundamentals and then move on to verify our results with stats. Not stats as a method of finding a way to handicap.

some of my most successful wagers are the result of knowing trainers. i liked right to vote in this year's peter pan strictly from knowing eion harty's methods of training. right to vote had a nice race, and then two months of nice morning activity. the exact same pattern harty frequently used with colonal john. the two horses have the same owner. vote did a decent job in the champagne. at 45-1 n the peter pan; he was the horse to build trifecta's and exacta's around. didn't collect though...

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by traynor

The starting point should be an extensive statistical analysis of "relevant factors" to determine if they are--in fact--relevant. Up to the time Quirin wrote his first book, weight was considered "important" and included in just about every "expert analysis" of probable race outcomes.

To be fair, Quirin wasn't the first author to downgrade the value of weight as a major handicapping factor.

Tom Ainslie said as much, more than a decade prior...

[traynor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

To be fair, Quirin wasn't the first author to downgrade the value of weight as a major handicapping factor.

Tom Ainslie said as much, more than a decade prior...

I think if you dig deep enough, you may find that Ainslie's disavowal of weight as a significant factor happened after Quirin's work was published.

I did a synopsis of Ainslie on Jockeys and The Handicapper's Handbook (for my own use), and I think both stressed the significance of weight as a factor. Both were published before Quirin's first work.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by traynor

I think if you dig deep enough, you may find that Ainslie's disavowal of weight as a significant factor happened after Quirin's work was published.

I did a synopsis of Ainslie on Jockeys and The Handicapper's Handbook (for my own use), and I think both stressed the significance of weight as a factor. Both were published before Quirin's first work.

Tom Ainslie's: THE COMPLEAT HORSEPLAYER (1966)...page 50.

"Is it true, as many sage horsemen insist, that 'weight brings them all together' and that a few pounds on or off can be the difference between victory and defeat? No. It is not true, except in special circumstances. If horses were robots of identical and unvarying ability, the horse who carried the least weight would win every race. But horses are biological organisms. Some are better runners than others. Some are so much better than others on a given day that a weight disadvantage means nothing."

[Gamblor]

Weight doesn't mean nothing. It has a mass, and gravity doesn't cease to exist once the starting gates open. Weight matters. It is ludicrous of every author who suggests it does not.

HOW MUCH it matters, is the important question, not whether it matters. Traditionally, here in Aus as well as elsewhere, it's effect has been over-emphasised. Certainly these days, as horses are doubtless stronger than they once were, weight matters less than it once did. Horses are able to withstand extra weight better than they could, by being stronger than they once were.

So, the impact of weight has lessened. 1kg extra weight on a horse's back has less impact now than it did 100 years ago.

My own research leads me to believe 1kg of extra weight = roughly 0.35 lengths slowing over the course of a race, or about 90 cm, or 3 feet in the outdated system.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by traynor

An intersting example of the fact that the average bettor--including the full-time serious bettor--does not access enough information in any reasoanble period of time to generate useful generic information. Only a collection of anomalies specific to the activities of that person. I defer to the opinion of the expert cited in Anderson's book (who is generally considered the most knowledgeable person in the field). 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.

You can't have it both ways. Either you believe in the intuition of the paper and pencil handicapper (your star finder), or you don't and succumb to the mechanical approach of the statistical dogger chasing its own tail. It sounds to me that you started this thread praising the individual on their own merits, but quicky jumped back on the bandwagon of the mechancial search method and the anti-intellectual folks.

[HUSKER55]

doesn't a punter reach a spot where it becomes a race? suppose your system analysis all 1300 items to the 10th degree. don't you reach a spot where it is a race.

that spot where all of the intangibles take over. I use 3 lengths. that is slightly over 1/2 second, (one thous ) ie( one-thousand one).

if your system is doing better than that and you are not going to the bank, then perhaps you are dealing with the wrong problem.

that is just my opinion and I am probably wrong but I would like to hear your opinion.

Thanks!

H55

[Gamblor]

Why can't a computer analyse like a "pen and paper" man?

The biggest professionals in the world are all computer guys. You think Zjelko does the form with his grey lead?

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

You can't have it both ways. Either you believe in the intuition of the paper and pencil handicapper (your star finder), or you don't and succumb to the mechanical approach of the statistical dogger chasing its own tail. It sounds to me that you started this thread praising the individual on their own merits, but quicky jumped back on the bandwagon of the mechancial search method and the anti-intellectual folks.

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.")

[traynor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Tom Ainslie's: THE COMPLEAT HORSEPLAYER (1966)...page 50.

"Is it true, as many sage horsemen insist, that 'weight brings them all together' and that a few pounds on or off can be the difference between victory and defeat? No. It is not true, except in special circumstances. If horses were robots of identical and unvarying ability, the horse who carried the least weight would win every race. But horses are biological organisms. Some are better runners than others. Some are so much better than others on a given day that a weight disadvantage means nothing."

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.

[Gamblor]

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.

Agree with this. By suggesting that weight "for some horses" means nothing, means if you graph the effect of weight, for a period of time it will flatline along the X, before spiking once it reaches those unfortunate horses for whom the rules of physics still exist.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Gamblor

Why can't a computer analyse like a "pen and paper" man?

The biggest professionals in the world are all computer guys. You think Zjelko does the form with his grey lead?

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.