|
|
11-14-2012, 09:50 AM
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
|
Learning
An interesting article that argues the premise of prolonged participation in an activity may not automatically equate to an increased level of expertise in that activity.
"Ericsson is also on record as emphasising that not just any old practice counts towards the 10,000-hour average. It has to be deliberate, dedicated time spent focusing on improvement. Not all the examples in Gladwell’s book qualify as such deliberate practice: writing computer programs and playing ice-hockey matches, for instance, may not count. It’s not a matter of simply taking part in an activity, Ericsson argues."
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2012...ur-rule-myth/2
As one young lady at Arizona State University expressed it so eloquently in an MBA class, "Getting older does not necessarily make you smarter or more capable--it just makes you older."
That may be the reason why so many horse racing fans seem to have such difficulty in making the transition from recreational handicapping to serious handicapping. They are still "playing the ponies" while the serious bettors are engaged in warfare.
|
|
|
11-14-2012, 11:06 AM
|
#2
|
Racing Form Detective
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lincoln, Ne but my heart is at Santa Anita
Posts: 16,316
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by traynor
An interesting article that argues the premise of prolonged participation in an activity may not automatically equate to an increased level of expertise in that activity.
"Ericsson is also on record as emphasising that not just any old practice counts towards the 10,000-hour average. It has to be deliberate, dedicated time spent focusing on improvement. Not all the examples in Gladwell’s book qualify as such deliberate practice: writing computer programs and playing ice-hockey matches, for instance, may not count. It’s not a matter of simply taking part in an activity, Ericsson argues."
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2012...ur-rule-myth/2
As one young lady at Arizona State University expressed it so eloquently in an MBA class, "Getting older does not necessarily make you smarter or more capable--it just makes you older."
That may be the reason why so many horse racing fans seem to have such difficulty in making the transition from recreational handicapping to serious handicapping. They are still "playing the ponies" while the serious bettors are engaged in warfare.
|
More self deception drivel by a losing bettor who thinks he can becoming a winning horse player without going through the school of hard knocks by reading enough books or doing enough computer searches.There is no substitute for tearing up tickets.
There are types of two big winners (or least win enough to live on) in horse racing. The whales who a bunch of experts working for them . You can not do what they do a smaller scale doing all the work yourself. The other is the guy who has the brains and/or talent combined with years of experience to know the difference between a good bet and a bad one. There seems to be bunch of posters here who fall into the first group. I take anything they post with a grain of salt. Generally after making a big splash here, they come to the conclusion that horse racing can't be beat as it is structured today and start talking about taking up another form of gambling. They need to make a call to Gamblers Anonymous. They really do and they know they are.
__________________
Some day in the not too distant future, horse players will betting on computer generated races over the net. Race tracks will become casinos and shopping centers. And some crooner will be belting out "there used to be a race track here".
Last edited by Robert Goren; 11-14-2012 at 11:10 AM.
|
|
|
11-14-2012, 04:30 PM
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: MI
Posts: 6,330
|
__________________
"The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France
|
|
|
11-14-2012, 05:39 PM
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goren
More self deception drivel by a losing bettor who thinks he can becoming a winning horse player without going through the school of hard knocks by reading enough books or doing enough computer searches.There is no substitute for tearing up tickets.
There are types of two big winners (or least win enough to live on) in horse racing. The whales who a bunch of experts working for them . You can not do what they do a smaller scale doing all the work yourself. The other is the guy who has the brains and/or talent combined with years of experience to know the difference between a good bet and a bad one. There seems to be bunch of posters here who fall into the first group. I take anything they post with a grain of salt. Generally after making a big splash here, they come to the conclusion that horse racing can't be beat as it is structured today and start talking about taking up another form of gambling. They need to make a call to Gamblers Anonymous. They really do and they know they are.
|
The self-deceptive drivel is by Malcolm Gladwell, a follow up to the equivalent drivel of Blink. I don't think it takes 20 years of losing to learn how to pick a few winners. Quite the contrary. I think it takes focused, determined effort to succeed--not just "playing the ponies for fun" or as a substitute for doing crossword puzzles. That is the point of the article.
Specifically, engaging in some activity for an extended period of time does not necessarily equate to expertise in that activity. It takes work, and thought, and effort--and those seem to be requirements that most recreational bettors like to avoid. For those willing to do the work necessary, it isn't that difficult, and it doesn't take three days less than forever to do. Unless one really enjoys the angst of losing for an extended period of time.
|
|
|
11-14-2012, 06:11 PM
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
|
I think one of the big problems with horse racing is that many (most?) of the current crop of handicappers have spent years betting using essentially outdated, obsolete approachs that may have worked 20-30 years ago, but are now so well known that they are not profitable. It is not that horse racing cannot be profitable--it is that using the same approach everyone else is using cannot be profitable.
And because they have so much time and money "invested" in those outdated, obsolete approachs they seem to think that anyone who does anything different "doesn't deserve to win because they have not paid their dues." Apparently that means being a consistent loser for many years. The only thing that losing does is give one a lot of practice and experience at losing. Most rational people would say, "If you can't win, don't bet. If you want to bet, learn how to win. Unless you have really deep pockets and like to lose." Pretty simple stuff.
|
|
|
11-14-2012, 06:23 PM
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by traynor
If you want to bet, learn how to win.
|
"Having one hour to chop wood, spend forty five minutes sharpening the axe." Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
11-14-2012, 07:19 PM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magister Ludi
"Having one hour to chop wood, spend forty five minutes sharpening the axe." Abraham Lincoln
|
That is some seriously great advice. Thank you for posting it.
|
|
|
11-14-2012, 10:03 PM
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,570
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by traynor
Most rational people would say, "If you can't win, don't bet. If you want to bet, learn how to win. Unless you have really deep pockets and like to lose." Pretty simple stuff.
|
This too is outdated advice...IMO. It doesn't work out in practice, and I doubt it ever did.
More than a few serious players (or "bettors", as you seem to prefer to call them) convince themselves that they "can win"...usually by betting their picks "on paper", on their kitchen table.
They convince themselves that, since they can win on paper, they should easily be able to win when betting for real...or, if they have been able to win by making $2 bets, they should be able to perform equally well when they move up to betting "real" money.
Of course...they get a rude awakening when they move from theory to practice.
I am afraid that simplistic advice, like the one you are offering in the post highlighted above, does not fare so well when applied to complicated games...even when you regard these games as "warfare".
This is strictly my opinion of course...
__________________
"Theory is knowledge that doesn't work. Practice is when everything works and you don't know why."
-- Hermann Hesse
Last edited by thaskalos; 11-14-2012 at 10:06 PM.
|
|
|
11-14-2012, 10:57 PM
|
#9
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,570
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by traynor
An interesting article that argues the premise of prolonged participation in an activity may not automatically equate to an increased level of expertise in that activity.
"Ericsson is also on record as emphasising that not just any old practice counts towards the 10,000-hour average. It has to be deliberate, dedicated time spent focusing on improvement. Not all the examples in Gladwell’s book qualify as such deliberate practice: writing computer programs and playing ice-hockey matches, for instance, may not count. It’s not a matter of simply taking part in an activity, Ericsson argues."
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2012...ur-rule-myth/2
As one young lady at Arizona State University expressed it so eloquently in an MBA class, "Getting older does not necessarily make you smarter or more capable--it just makes you older."
That may be the reason why so many horse racing fans seem to have such difficulty in making the transition from recreational handicapping to serious handicapping. They are still "playing the ponies" while the serious bettors are engaged in warfare.
|
I might be mistaken...but I didn't see anything in the above article which confirms your assertion that it only takes about 3 weeks for a dedicated bettor to acquire the winning habit in our game. If anything...the article suggests that 10,000 hours may be too LITTLE...
You have compared this game to "warfare"...and I agree. But you lose me when you suggest that the "serious" player prove to himself that he can win, BEFORE he starts betting in this game.
A "warrior" can only prove his worth when he steps on the battlefield; it's easy to be brave in the comfort of our own homes.
__________________
"Theory is knowledge that doesn't work. Practice is when everything works and you don't know why."
-- Hermann Hesse
|
|
|
11-14-2012, 11:14 PM
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
This too is outdated advice...IMO. It doesn't work out in practice, and I doubt it ever did.
More than a few serious players (or "bettors", as you seem to prefer to call them) convince themselves that they "can win"...usually by betting their picks "on paper", on their kitchen table.
They convince themselves that, since they can win on paper, they should easily be able to win when betting for real...or, if they have been able to win by making $2 bets, they should be able to perform equally well when they move up to betting "real" money.
Of course...they get a rude awakening when they move from theory to practice.
I am afraid that simplistic advice, like the one you are offering in the post highlighted above, does not fare so well when applied to complicated games...even when you regard these games as "warfare".
This is strictly my opinion of course...
|
I think the rude awakening is that the trivial results in a (very) small sample do not extrapolate well to a larger sequence of events. It has nothing to do with wins on paper or wins for modest wagers--it has to do with the underlying conceptual flaws of believing a small sample is representative of the distribution in a larger sample. Again, pretty simple stuff.
That accounts for the frequent sequence of picking a few winners in a small sample of races, then betting on the basis of that sample as if it is representative. It is not.
|
|
|
11-14-2012, 11:17 PM
|
#11
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
I might be mistaken...but I didn't see anything in the above article which confirms your assertion that it only takes about 3 weeks for a dedicated bettor to acquire the winning habit in our game. If anything...the article suggests that 10,000 hours may be too LITTLE...
You have compared this game to "warfare"...and I agree. But you lose me when you suggest that the "serious" player prove to himself that he can win, BEFORE he starts betting in this game.
A "warrior" can only prove his worth when he steps on the battlefield; it's easy to be brave in the comfort of our own homes.
|
By that logic, one should study martial arts by being soundly thrashed at every opportunity?
|
|
|
11-14-2012, 11:18 PM
|
#12
|
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 25,607
|
Being able to handicap many hours using paper and video, and being able to properly invest money to take advantage of your opinions is another huge factor. When you have all that stuff together and you have your 10,000 'chunks' you're ready for the final piece of the puzzle which is probably the hardest part....that is determining which races to bet and which races to skip.
Being able to skip a race after saying to yourself "i think i have a small edge here, i feel i know enough about this race that my play would be a long run winning bet, but only by a little bit, this is not one of my primo plays, its just a play that i THINK is slightly above the Mendoza line".
Personally, i've found that i'm better off skipping the 'small edge' races and just concenrating larger bets on the races i really like.
|
|
|
11-14-2012, 11:18 PM
|
#13
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,570
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by traynor
By that logic, one should study martial arts by being soundly thrashed at every opportunity?
|
No...but he cannot study martial arts "on paper"...
You are welcomed to disagree, of course.
__________________
"Theory is knowledge that doesn't work. Practice is when everything works and you don't know why."
-- Hermann Hesse
|
|
|
11-14-2012, 11:21 PM
|
#14
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
|
The point of the article is not that it takes 10,000 hours of doing something to attain expert status, but rather that one can practice 10,000 hours of doing something poorly and imperfectly and be no better off than if one had much less experience.
|
|
|
11-14-2012, 11:22 PM
|
#15
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
No...but he cannot study martial arts "on paper"...
You are welcomed to disagree, of course.
|
I take it you have never participated with (or watched) a gaggle of dojo ballerinas punching the air while shouting vigorously with stern expressions indicating fierceness.
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|