The Logical of the Illogical

[DJofSD]

Laura Day workshop tonight, NYC: http://myemail.constantcontact.com/A...id=bY2irei4K6o

[Khanjar]

CapperAl, thank you for a great topic.

It's about two different ways of perceiving the same reality, and both ways are valid. This is the case in human life in general, not just horse race handicapping.

I looked at the Laura Day website someone provided a link to, and read some of it. There, "intuitive" seems to have more of the meaning of "psychic" than I think most here are interested in. In this context, I prefer the meaning of "intuitive" as used in the Meyers-Briggs paradigm.

An "Intuitive" person sees patterns where a "Sensing" person sees only details. There are degrees of both abilities in everyone, but some have a much greater preference for one than the other way of perceiving. It's sort of like being left-handed or right-handed. (And some people are ambidextrous.) These preferences can be tested.

I was in class on this subject once when the instructor asked two of the students, Mike and Pam, to please go out to the hallway and wait there until called in. After they left the room, he drew on a large blank sheet of paper on an easel an upper half circle, a long horizontal line immediately beneath the half circle, and a lot of randomly placed small, irregularly shaped dots.

Having already evaluated our Meyers-Briggs "tests", the instructor told us that when he calls Mike in and asks him to look at the drawing and state what he sees, Mike will say that he sees a half circle with a line under it and beneath that a bunch of dots. Mike then came back in and when asked, shrugged and said that he sees a half circle with a line under it and beneath that a bunch of dots. Of course, Mike did not understand why we all chuckled.

Then the instructor said that when he calls Pam in and asks her the same question, she will probably say that she sees a theater with some people in the seats. Pam stated that she sees a theater with some people in the seats.

Mike was a Sensor and Pam an Intuitive. Both accurately reported what they saw, and neither was wrong. (As an Intuitive myself, I immediately saw a desert sunrise. What exactly I saw isn't important, only that I saw something.)

I think that, like Mike and Pam, we handicappers have very different preferred ways of perceiving things, and that there is not one "correct" way of doing that. One can say that ROI is a test of that, but we know that much more than mere handicapping directly affects ROI.

I'll close by emphasizing that people can learn to use the non-preferred ability. Like a right-handed person learning to do things with his left hand instead. It may not come "naturally", but he can learn it if he wants to.

[DJofSD]

Originally Posted by Khanjar

I looked at the Laura Day website someone provided a link to, and read some of it. There, "intuitive" seems to have more of the meaning of "psychic" than I think most here are interested in. In this context, I prefer the meaning of "intuitive" as used in the Meyers-Briggs paradigm.

Laura Day does have a specific definition as to what she means when she uses the term intuitive and intuition. I don't recall the exact framework she defines but I believe it is in her book I cite in the link earlier in this thread.

[Khanjar]

Thanks, DJ. I'm sure Ms. Day does have a specific definition, but I don't want to get hung up on that too much. I think that "intuitive" in the sense of "psychic" and "intuitive" in the sense of perceiving may be related because to a Sensing person, the vision that an Intuitive sees may indeed seem like some kind of psychic phenomenon. But it's not.

Now, if we find that 67% of winners at a track are in the top four of Factor X, and 72% are in the top four of Factor Y, is it "intuitive" to readily think that identifying horses that are in the top four for both factors could help us to establish a list of serious contenders? It certainly isn't psychic. More like "common sense". But I think the mental image of two overlapping circles representing the two factors, and identifying the horses that converge in the overlapping portion representing the 67% and 72% as contenders, is a simple example of intuitive perception. In this example, the math yielded a picture that is more than merely the math for two separate handicapping factors.

That example may be too simple to be of much use here, and extrapolated to many factors, even weighted factors, and all you really have is a kind of database handicapping in a simple sense. And we do not consider database handicapping to be intuitive. Or is it? After all, intuitive is about pattern recognition, and numbers are vey condicive to pattern recognition. But as Nassim Taleb points out in his book, Fooled by Randomness, humans can find patterns even in random series, albeit meaningless patterns.

[Capper Al]

Agree. The factors (Speed, class, jockey, etc.) are the seeds that paint the picture for us. Our intuition (common sense) can get better with the more experience we gain. Computer programs will more than likely follow the betting favorite a lot because the Public likes to pick by formula also.

[Capper Al]

Read post #6 and #7 at the following link.

http://www.e-ponies.com/forum/showth...Meet+the+Jimmy

This was posted before the race.

" I have a gut reaction here saying this horse might be out for a workout so I'm dropping it to my second choice. "

Paid $19.00.

[jasperson]

The problem with math only solutions to handicapping is that everyone has one. I have one bris has 3 trackmaster has one e-ponies has one and other memembers of this list will have one. To be successful you need to find something that the math programs don't find.

[horsarchy]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

The human brain is a computer.
Math applied rigidly as a mechanical computer would will give result A.
The human brain is not rigid, it is fishing into subconscious pathways and bringing up incubated material that is not necessarily readily put into mathematical concepts. Sometimes the material that it brings up is preverbal and you can't even put into words the sense that it is directing you.
Personally, I believe in having:
1. a good set of numbers
2. paying attention to inner "gut level" intuitions
As pick 3 player, I use several horses per leg and while "the numbers" plays score frequently enough, that extra sense has brought me the big scores.
(Every wise guy in town has numbers. You have to go beyond them to hit big.)

Those seemingly "illogical" intuitions aren't "illogical" at all, when the brain is viewed as a very powerful information processor.

Gut level intuitions may be both primal based and learned.

Beliefs are relearned and automated by lower layers in the cortex.
Jeff Hawkins- Book On Intelligence-
Neocortex based HTM algorithm numenta.com.

The automatic background processing in lower layers of the neocortex may be much the input to our thoughts.

Using #1 a good set of numbers and realistic beliefs may build a better foundation for this #2 background processing of emotional conclusions which could possibly be intuition.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I have heard this said more than once on this board and in the other thread you had Al,Jeff P said he had great results and never looked at any past performances and wouldn't like to.

That blew me away.There are successful players in a parallel universe that I can't grasp at this time.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by therussmeister

I think it is exactly the opposite. I think I am a better handicapper because I have no passion for horse racing. I think it was Carl Sagan who said, "Where we have strong emotions we are liable to fool ourselves." I have no strong emotions regarding horse racing - never have. I am, however, very passionate about trying to improve my performance, my decision making skills. Horse racing is merely the arena I use to test my theories about improving my mental performance.

I bet against girls I'm with and on horses I love and have been successful at both.Where does my passion lie based on those results?

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by Khanjar

CapperAl, thank you for a great topic.

It's about two different ways of perceiving the same reality, and both ways are valid. This is the case in human life in general, not just horse race handicapping.

I looked at the Laura Day website someone provided a link to, and read some of it. There, "intuitive" seems to have more of the meaning of "psychic" than I think most here are interested in. In this context, I prefer the meaning of "intuitive" as used in the Meyers-Briggs paradigm.

An "Intuitive" person sees patterns where a "Sensing" person sees only details. There are degrees of both abilities in everyone, but some have a much greater preference for one than the other way of perceiving. It's sort of like being left-handed or right-handed. (And some people are ambidextrous.) These preferences can be tested.

I was in class on this subject once when the instructor asked two of the students, Mike and Pam, to please go out to the hallway and wait there until called in. After they left the room, he drew on a large blank sheet of paper on an easel an upper half circle, a long horizontal line immediately beneath the half circle, and a lot of randomly placed small, irregularly shaped dots.

Having already evaluated our Meyers-Briggs "tests", the instructor told us that when he calls Mike in and asks him to look at the drawing and state what he sees, Mike will say that he sees a half circle with a line under it and beneath that a bunch of dots. Mike then came back in and when asked, shrugged and said that he sees a half circle with a line under it and beneath that a bunch of dots. Of course, Mike did not understand why we all chuckled.

Then the instructor said that when he calls Pam in and asks her the same question, she will probably say that she sees a theater with some people in the seats. Pam stated that she sees a theater with some people in the seats.

Mike was a Sensor and Pam an Intuitive. Both accurately reported what they saw, and neither was wrong. (As an Intuitive myself, I immediately saw a desert sunrise. What exactly I saw isn't important, only that I saw something.)

I think that, like Mike and Pam, we handicappers have very different preferred ways of perceiving things, and that there is not one "correct" way of doing that. One can say that ROI is a test of that, but we know that much more than mere handicapping directly affects ROI.

I'll close by emphasizing that people can learn to use the non-preferred ability. Like a right-handed person learning to do things with his left hand instead. It may not come "naturally", but he can learn it if he wants to.

Great post.Thanks.There is no monotheism in picking winners.Very good illustration.