Programming intuition, creativity and speculation

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

When JustRalph told you that "any handicapping idea could be programmed"...I doubt that he was talking about the handicapping ideas which are "constantly changing their value, or even applicability, from race to race".

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...ighlight=ralph

Post # 40.

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave, thanks for your input.

You've helped me realize that it is me trying to emulate the software. I am in the early stages of scoring every piece of information I deem significant in terms of a "confidence value". And I'm very interested in the "2-ish" area, remembering that Benter effectively asked if the distance factor is solved by yes/no, 0 or 1?

Yes, it is effort and more selective action. But I hope to emphasize the units I wagered in the past.

Take a look at "Fuzzy Logic."

It is a really simple concept but most books over-complicate it. A really good book is by Thomas Sowell. I bought it back when it was $5. LOL

http://www.amazon.com/Fuzzy-Logic-Ju.../dp/0966397509

Also an excellent Wiki article here if you take the time to study it a little.


The deep thought version of Fuzzy Logic will always have Lotfi Zadeh as the driving force. Note that Bart Kosko wrote such a book but IMHO you'd be better off with the Thomas Sowell book if you can find it.

Really great examples.

This stuff is really power and a huge key to doing/thinking the way you have in mind.

Example:
Think of the standard positions of basketball:
1. Passing guard
2. Shooting guard
3. Center
4. Power Forward
5. Weak Forward

Which was Michael Jordan? He was a lot of 2, with a little 4 and some occasional 1.

Now decide to what degree he belongs to each group, in terms of 0.00 (not at all) to 1.00 (completely).

Aristotelian Truth was based upon 0=false 1=true, but many questions have answers somewhere in between. That is what Fuzzy Logic is.

[dnlgfnk]

Thanks again, Dave, for the leads.

I am deeply invested in an Aristotelian-Thomistic worldview, but when it comes to the running horse, maybe I can incorporate some Fuzzy Logic.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Thanks again, Dave, for the leads.

I am deeply invested in an Aristotelian-Thomistic worldview, but when it comes to the running horse, maybe I can incorporate some Fuzzy Logic.

Interesting POV.

Had to look it up - although I have a smattering of Aristotelian knowledge and I certainly know who St Thomas was.

Enough that a watch phrase of mine is (probably wrongly) attributed to him: The Serenity Pray.

The phrase I am enamored with is "The wisdom to know the difference," and applies mostly to people but also to situations.

My classic use lies in the fact that there are two kinds of people:
1) Those that you can actually help
and
2) those that you can only ease their pain.

Thus far, in dealing with people who ask for help, I've never met a number 2.

Never.

In all things, it is helpful to have the wisdom to know the difference.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Interesting POV.

Had to look it up - although I have a smattering of Aristotelian knowledge and I certainly know who St Thomas was.

Enough that a watch phrase of mine is (probably wrongly) attributed to him: The Serenity Pray.

The phrase I am enamored with is "The wisdom to know the difference," and applies mostly to people but also to situations.

My classic use lies in the fact that there are two kinds of people:
1) Those that you can actually help
and
2) those that you can only ease their pain.

Thus far, in dealing with people who ask for help, I've never met a number 2.

Never.

In all things, it is helpful to have the wisdom to know the difference.

I had to look up the reason for my response. You had mentioned Aristotelian logic as "1" or "0", in getting at "Fuzzy Logic".

I think elsewhere recently regarding handicapping, I mentioned something about metaphysics. Science as analytics, data and measurement provides the physical structure of reality, metaphysics asks the meaningful questions. The best horse analytically, especially from a minimum of data (1 or 2 recent races), has only taken advantage of the more optimal circumstances. The overarching questions are "How"? and most importantly, "What's different today"?

The prayer sounds more like Francis of Assisi. Modern religious circles have found Thomas dry and legalistic (not true, IMO), but I champion the resurgence of Neo-Thomism.

I have learned two things since my engagement with this forum. One of them is the efficiency of the public (even before the emergence of CAW's). I still have a printout you posted of the corresponding odds to win pct. for most incremental odds at every N.A. track from 2004. I only have to make minor adjustments these days when attempting to sum to 100.

My only resistance to the technological revolution is when A.I., etc. is described in anthropomorphic language, such that I sense some individuals actually begin to extend beyond analogy. The opposing view, which I hold, is that the mind is not a computer (vs. "computationalism"). Carry on, Dave.

[Dave Schwartz]

The prayer sounds more like Francis of Assisi. Modern religious circles have found Thomas dry and legalistic (not true, IMO), but I champion the resurgence of Neo-Thomism.

You're right!

I got my religious guys mixed up!

It's all too deep for me.

But I do believe it was wrongly attributed to St. Francis.

Doesn't matter.

My application of that quote changed a lot for me.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

You're right!

I got my religious guys mixed up!

It's all too deep for me.

But I do believe it was wrongly attributed to St. Francis.

Doesn't matter.

My application of that quote changed a lot for me.

I attended my grandchild's school observance of Francis of Assisi last October, experiencing the prayer and its attribution to Francis, and also the blessing of the children's animals.
I cited the error of attribution to family and friends, while also asking God to bless a certain entrant the next day at a certain racetrack. Sometimes the answer is "No".

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I attended my grandchild's school observance of Francis of Assisi last October, experiencing the prayer and its attribution to Francis, and also the blessing of the children's animals.
I cited the error of attribution to family and friends, while also asking God to bless a certain entrant the next day at a certain racetrack. Sometimes the answer is "No".

Ah, the political pork version of prayer.
LOL

[ARAZI91]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

remembering that Benter effectively asked if the distance factor is solved by yes/no, 0 or 1?

I know this is an old resurrected thread but have you a source for Benter's comments on the distance factor?
Reason i'm asking is that in 1996 Benter himself published quite a rare academic paper entitled "Modelling Distance Preference in Thoroughbred Racehorses" where the process described is a bit more detailed than a binary solution of "yes/no, 0 or 1" - For it's time mathematically it is quite an elegant solution to the "distance preference" of thoroughbreds involving "curve fitting" the use of "tack points" and parabolic equations. The paper (PDF) is too large to upload as it exceeds the forum limit by a good margin but i've managed to attach a link through my BT Cloud for anyone that is interested in reading it - i've also added David Edelman's (author of "The Complete Horseplayer") 2 paper's on some very similar subject matter.

Benter - https://btcloud.bt.com/web/app/share/invite/uICnbOzI1G

Edelman 1 -
https://btcloud.bt.com/web/app/share/invite/6aGIGBEjdy

Edelman 2 -
https://btcloud.bt.com/web/app/share/invite/mK1Hb1VaU4

They may add something to the discussion.

For me the Benter paper shows how he constantly worked on and advanced his variables/factors - he gives an example of a "distance" based variable in his more commonly known 1993 paper "Computer Based Horse Race Handicapping and Wagering Systems: A Report" and compares it to the Bolton/Chapman paper of 1986 and also Stephen L. Brecher's book "Beating the Races With A Computer" (1980) both of whom were inspirational to Benter.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

In other words Dave, in our lifetimes, the deeper that one (not necessarily me) possesses the capacity for the type of insightful thought I described, the less his sense of the race can be represented technologically?

I wouldn't be content knowing that a significant factor was in play for this single-race event, that I couldn't convey to a programmer due to the limits of speech vis a vis our deepest sense of experiential/intuitive knowledge.

Computers are going to process and weight data better than we can. However, in situations where subjective interpretation is required, you are getting closer to finding a hole in the game of the CAWs because you are either competing against another human or it’s not even coded in their model.

When I’m playing around with regression analysis of my data, the goal is to build a model that is optimized for that kind of race (stakes sprint dirt, stakes turf route, etc…) but I’m still going to subjectively put the final touches on the analysis based on intuition and experience. That’s the goal at least.

Where I struggle is not so much in ranking the horses in terms of probability of winning, but converting that into an exact odds line. Most of my bets are on horses I think are misranked because I think I know something about a horse that most other people don’t.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by ARAZI91

I know this is an old resurrected thread but have you a source for Benter's comments on the distance factor?
Reason i'm asking is that in 1996 Benter himself published quite a rare academic paper entitled "Modelling Distance Preference in Thoroughbred Racehorses" where the process described is a bit more detailed than a binary solution of "yes/no, 0 or 1" - For it's time mathematically it is quite an elegant solution to the "distance preference" of thoroughbreds involving "curve fitting" the use of "tack points" and parabolic equations. The paper (PDF) is too large to upload as it exceeds the forum limit by a good margin but i've managed to attach a link through my BT Cloud for anyone that is interested in reading it - i've also added David Edelman's (author of "The Complete Horseplayer") 2 paper's on some very similar subject matter.

Benter - https://btcloud.bt.com/web/app/share/invite/uICnbOzI1G

Edelman 1 -
https://btcloud.bt.com/web/app/share/invite/6aGIGBEjdy

Edelman 2 -
https://btcloud.bt.com/web/app/share/invite/mK1Hb1VaU4

They may add something to the discussion.

For me the Benter paper shows how he constantly worked on and advanced his variables/factors - he gives an example of a "distance" based variable in his more commonly known 1993 paper "Computer Based Horse Race Handicapping and Wagering Systems: A Report" and compares it to the Bolton/Chapman paper of 1986 and also Stephen L. Brecher's book "Beating the Races With A Computer" (1980) both of whom were inspirational to Benter.

Yes, this has all been mostly discussed here in the past.
If Benter's observation about "0", "1" regarding the distance factor is not in your links, than I probably obtained it from a May, 2009 article in the actuary mag, Contingencies, and even the archived edition is no longer online.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Computers are going to process and weight data better than we can. However, in situations where subjective interpretation is required, you are getting closer to finding a hole in the game of the CAWs because you are either competing against another human or it’s not even coded in their model.

When I’m playing around with regression analysis of my data, the goal is to build a model that is optimized for that kind of race (stakes sprint dirt, stakes turf route, etc…) but I’m still going to subjectively put the final touches on the analysis based on intuition and experience. That’s the goal at least.

Where I struggle is not so much in ranking the horses in terms of probability of winning, but converting that into an exact odds line. Most of my bets are on horses I think are misranked because I think I know something about a horse that most other people don’t.

I have that same struggle, class, but not without some success.
I know I have significant outcome factors that CAW's don't seem to be aware of. It's been a fun, but elusive pursuit to assign a number to them, either universally or more to my preference, in this particular one time event- today's race.

I don't share the doom and gloom over technological dominance because 1) the preoccupation with the finish of races & sexy numbers 2) because for them only measure and quantities provide objective answers, even much of modern science asserts that subjective experience (qualia)- the smell of flowers, the sight of Secretariat's blue and white silks, the sensation of pain, etc.- isn't actually a property in nature but a projection of the mind. Thus many aspects of subjective experience (e.g., the interpretation of a race) cannot be programmed.

[Dave Schwartz]

ARAZI91,

Nice papers.
I look forward to reading them, though most are over my head.

Thank you.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I have that same struggle, class, but not without some success.
I know I have significant outcome factors that CAW's don't seem to be aware of. It's been a fun, but elusive pursuit to assign a number to them, either universally or more to my preference, in this particular one time event- today's race.

I don't share the doom and gloom over technological dominance because 1) the preoccupation with the finish of races & sexy numbers 2) because for them only measure and quantities provide objective answers, even much of modern science asserts that subjective experience (qualia)- the smell of flowers, the sight of Secretariat's blue and white silks, the sensation of pain, etc.- isn't actually a property in nature but a projection of the mind. Thus many aspects of subjective experience (e.g., the interpretation of a race) cannot be programmed.

I'm not sure what "some success" means, especially when the term is used to describe gambling/investment performance. And, when we use this term in the current horse-betting world...does it mean that we are holding our own against the ever-improving, mega-betting computer groups?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I'm not sure what "some success" means, especially when the term is used to describe gambling/investment performance. And, when we use this term in the current horse-betting world...does it mean that we are holding our own against the ever-improving, mega-betting computer groups?

In 2021, I emphasized 5 exactas at a three figure payout each, producing an end of year 30% ROI since my preference was for a fair amount of plays at smallish investment per play, with enjoyment being a heavily weighted criteria.

I suffered a moderate heart attack in the midst of that year, and have been doing a lot of refinement and mental play, working my way back, with a poor man's Monte Carlo simulation at the forefront. "If this favorite loses the race 65% of the time, what are the intra-race dynamics that will contribute to his losing"? Proceeding down the line by odds rank and potential race development, and attempting to score those factors for a confidence rating. If I can downgrade the favorite to half his public pct., per that Benter article I mentioned to someone above, I recalibrate the percentages.

If envisioning a horizontal play, I would project my own line well in advance to have a working grasp before scratches, but I lazily have been considering exactas from an Ernie Dahlmann, least-risk-for-exotic reward standpoint.

I didn't make note of the odds while loading, but in the recent 7th at Colonial it seems there was a significant late play to the #6, based upon the will pay DD payoffs. I had already downgraded him to a 7% chance, as a very likely speed duel candidate including the #'s 4 and/or 7.

IMO, there is opportunity everyday.