why record keeping is a farce

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Time to go back to the soup analogy. (Please don't forget that I have kept records and always refer to my Twinspires for actual wagering information.)

Here's why those of us who keep records aren't rich. The process is similar to making soup from your old grandmother's recipe. You can make the soup but you can't taste is an analogy to making a formula or handicapping method and really not knowing why or why not it's working.

You are given a hot corner in New York city to sell your soup. Sometimes sales are up and sometimes sales are down. You wonder if something is wrong on the off weeks. Maybe my meat is off or maybe the salt varies and is not an exact science but really needs tasting, but like handicapping you'll never really know why you won or lost, so it is you can't taste your soup to know. When sales are off you wonder maybe it's the salt? Do I need more salt or less salt? You really don't know because you can't taste your soup. You can experiment with an endless amount of ingredients and adjustments but you really don't know. That's the farce that one really doesn't know.

We are GAMBLING, Al...we are not standing in a corner selling soup. When you gamble...you win some and you lose some. That's why they call it GAMBLING. If you won all the time...then they'd call it something else.

All games...whether athletic or speculative in nature, require a certain set of skill. To excel in baseball or basketball...you need great hand/eye coordination. In soccer...you need great quickness of foot. And in gambling...you need the ability to persevere through adversity. In horse racing, you will lose more often than you will win...and you'll have to find a way to deal with that.

Constant tinkering after every string of losses is a sign either of immaturity, or of complete disconnection with the game...IMO. You can't turn this game into something it's not. You can only change yourself...

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

We are GAMBLING, Al...we are not standing in a corner selling soup. When you gamble...you win some and you lose some. That's why they call it GAMBLING. If you won all the time...then they'd call it something else.

All games...whether athletic or speculative in nature, require a certain set of skill. To excel in baseball or basketball...you need great hand/eye coordination. In soccer...you need great quickness of foot. And in gambling...you need the ability to persevere through adversity. In horse racing, you will lose more often than you will win...and you'll have to find a way to deal with that.

Constant tinkering after every string of losses is a sign either of immaturity, or of complete disconnection with the game...IMO. You can't turn this game into something it's not. You can only change yourself...

I agree with most of what you say, but the soup analog only proves that we are blind to our results. We can quantify speed or earnings per start, etc. because this data is upfront in the process and can be seen for what it is. After we grind the sausage and make our soup, all identity is lost for a cause and effect analysis. After the fact, we can only say that we are winning on place bets or winning at AP for now. But why, we don't know.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

I agree with most of what you say, but the soup analog only proves that we are blind to our results. We can quantify speed or earnings per start, etc. because this data is upfront in the process and can be seen for what it is. After we grind the sausage and make our soup, all identity is lost for a cause and effect analysis. After the fact, we can only say that we are winning on place bets or winning at AP for now. But why, we don't know.

That's why gambling is an endeavor where hard and fast rules don't apply. In gambling, the feedback that we get from our actions does not properly align with logic...the way it does in other games of skill.

In tennis or golf...you hit a shot the right way and you expect the right result. In gambling...you take a shot the right way, and you miss wildly. Or you take a shot the WRONG way...and you score spectacularly. In gambling, the short-term results do not logically coincide with the player's level of proficiency in the game...and the player can get confused. Winning players can get the impression that they are losers...while losing players can convince themselves that they are a lot better than they really are.

That's why record-keeping is important. It dispassionately shows you where you REALLY stand in the game.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Capper Al
Time to go back to the soup analogy. (Please don't forget that I have kept records and always refer to my Twinspires for actual wagering information.)

Maybe your records are telling you the truth and you don't like it so you are blaming them?

[FocusWiz]

but if we are forced to use it, we need to think of it differently than how we are discussing it. Dave Schwartz gave some excellent perspectives (as always) and these may or may not apply to your situation, but I would think they should apply to most of the rest of us.

If we are making soup, then the rest of the world is judging it for us even if we never taste it, as if we are serving it in a restaurant. The restaurant down the street uses more salt. We add a double dose of salt, the sales go down, we triple the salt, it goes down further. We do not need to taste it to know that adding salt to our soup is not the solution, even if it works down the street. We may not have used any salt before so it was not even in our records, but it was a factor we decided to consider.

Especially since we are not ever tasting this soup, we cannot know what will and won't work best before we serve it (i.e. wager). It is only after the soup has been made and served that we derive any value from the decision process that went into making it. Either it is good or it isn't and the response will not be black and white, but more of a trend that is positive or negative. Despite the arguments to the contrary, I do not know how we would know if the soup is good or how to make it better without recordkeeping. Like soup, more isn't always better. A pinch of garlic makes sales improve. Two pinches makes people rave about it. Two thousand diced cloves makes it inedible. Seeing in the records the ratios used and the ultimate response is the only thing that we have to judge our decisions.

The only place I would agree that recordkeeping is a farce and you can simply rely on the Twinspires results is if you never change how you use the factors you use and are satisfied with both the selection and wagering decision process. Once you have achieved this nirvana, what do you need with records? They are useless. Your money just keeps piling up and there is nothing missing or unnecessary in the selection and wagering process.

I believe that is what most of us are missing in this thread.

For me, I am trying to improve these processes and identify what works and what doesn't. If you have achieved that, then the rest of us are blowing smoke. To use a dumber analogy, we are in Art Class 101 but corresponding with Michelangelo Buonorotti on how to select colors.

[Robert Fischer]

You could build your whole game around record keeping if you wanted to.

I basically use record keeping for red flags, green flags and account balance.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

I agree with most of what you say, but the soup analog only proves that we are blind to our results. We can quantify speed or earnings per start, etc. because this data is upfront in the process and can be seen for what it is. After we grind the sausage and make our soup, all identity is lost for a cause and effect analysis. After the fact, we can only say that we are winning on place bets or winning at AP for now. But why, we don't know.

You should know what type of sausage to grind. Different types of races have different major ingredients. Sometimes you don't have to grind sausage, at all. Depending on the race conditions and the population of the race the importance of the ingredients changes, as well as, the need to use or not use an ingredient.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

We are GAMBLING, Al...we are not standing in a corner selling soup. When you gamble...you win some and you lose some. That's why they call it GAMBLING. If you won all the time...then they'd call it something else.

All games...whether athletic or speculative in nature, require a certain set of skill. To excel in baseball or basketball...you need great hand/eye coordination. In soccer...you need great quickness of foot. And in gambling...you need the ability to persevere through adversity. In horse racing, you will lose more often than you will win...and you'll have to find a way to deal with that.

Constant tinkering after every string of losses is a sign either of immaturity, or of complete disconnection with the game...IMO. You can't turn this game into something it's not. You can only change yourself...

I think the use of the term "gambling" in reference to engagement in an activity at which one perceives--correctly or incorrectly--that one has an "advantage" is not really "gambling." Baccarat and craps are "gambling games." Blackjack, poker, and horse race betting--when engaged in by those who believe they have some "advantage" based on skill, experience, or inside information--is not in the same category as real "gambling."

Consider your dismissal of "foreign races." If one is gambling, one can gamble every bit as easily on races without the comfort (real or imagined) of known, familiar Equibase data files. I have no real opinion about a more appropriate term. Perhaps "engagement in an activity perceived by the masses as gambling, but only engaged in due to a subjective belief that one's skill, experience, or inside information creates an advantage that reduces the risk to a minimum, and reduces the associated excitement level to the equivalent of doing jigsaw puzzles." Not as romantic or poetic, but possibly more accurate.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by traynor

I think the use of the term "gambling" in reference to engagement in an activity at which one perceives--correctly or incorrectly--that one has an "advantage" is not really "gambling." Baccarat and craps are "gambling games." Blackjack, poker, and horse race betting--when engaged in by those who believe they have some "advantage" based on skill, experience, or inside information--is not in the same category as real "gambling."

Consider your dismissal of "foreign races." If one is gambling, one can gamble every bit as easily on races without the comfort (real or imagined) of known, familiar Equibase data files. I have no real opinion about a more appropriate term. Perhaps "engagement in an activity perceived by the masses as gambling, but only engaged in due to a subjective belief that one's skill, experience, or inside information creates an advantage that reduces the risk to a minimum, and reduces the associated excitement level to the equivalent of doing jigsaw puzzles." Not as romantic or poetic, but possibly more accurate.

The "gambling" connotation thing has been argued forever here, and other sites. I have always believed that if you are a long term winning player then you aren't gambling, you're investing with a "vetted" positive expectation. But, that is not the subject of this thread, which is about whether or not record keeping is important.

Many find "ranges" of odds that are profitable at some tracks, and not at others, which means that record keeping does serve a very important function regarding our play. Over time, it tells us where we should be concentrating our efforts and where we should be more conservative or abstain completely.

If all you look at is your ADW report, you're only looking at the basics of your play, not the specifics of it. If, for example, you don't know that maiden turf routes at Saratoga is where 75% your profit is coming from, then you are throwing away a lot of money on some of the other bets you are making. if you know that you lose money long term on "gd" and "my" surfaces, then you're throwing away money betting those surfaces. The list goes on and on.

[Maximillion]

Originally Posted by raybo

If all you look at is your ADW report, you're only looking at the basics of your play, not the specifics of it.

100% agree......anyone here can make(or learn how to make) a spreadsheet.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Maximillion

100% agree......anyone here can make(or learn how to make) a spreadsheet.

I think that records comprised of small samples of races--no matter how "accurately" those records are kept--are pretty much worthless. Attempting to define reality by the results of the last 100, 200, or 300 races is an exercise in futilty. So Capper Al is right on that point--"record keeping" as ordinarily defined by the average bettor is a farce. Lots of pretty numbers and colorful screenshots, but essentially worthless as predictors.

The "trends" supposedly "discovered" are little more than a sprinkling of data points in a random distribution that "seem" to form a pattern. Sprinkle in a few more races (as in "try to apply the trend in the real world by betting on it") and the trend disappears, while a "new trend" seems to appear. Not worth much.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by traynor

I think the use of the term "gambling" in reference to engagement in an activity at which one perceives--correctly or incorrectly--that one has an "advantage" is not really "gambling." Baccarat and craps are "gambling games." Blackjack, poker, and horse race betting--when engaged in by those who believe they have some "advantage" based on skill, experience, or inside information--is not in the same category as real "gambling."

Consider your dismissal of "foreign races." If one is gambling, one can gamble every bit as easily on races without the comfort (real or imagined) of known, familiar Equibase data files. I have no real opinion about a more appropriate term. Perhaps "engagement in an activity perceived by the masses as gambling, but only engaged in due to a subjective belief that one's skill, experience, or inside information creates an advantage that reduces the risk to a minimum, and reduces the associated excitement level to the equivalent of doing jigsaw puzzles." Not as romantic or poetic, but possibly more accurate.

I have a close friend who has elevated himself to the level of being one of the best poker players in the world. He started in the game by making a modest deposit in an online poker site...and has parlayed that to the kind of bankroll that allows him to now sit in some of the biggest cash games to be spread in a casino...where he wins with amazing regularity. I asked him if he considers himself to be a gambler or an investor...and he answered without hesitation that he is a gambler.

This poker player is also responsible for introducing me to the best cash-game poker player that the poker world has ever known -- an experience for which I will be forever grateful. Wherever poker players congregate and talk about the game's best players...the name of the late David "Chip" Reese is at the top of everybody's list. I met Chip Reese at a Bellagio restaurant a few months before his untimely death...and we had a great conversation. I asked him if he considered himself to be a "gambler"...and he laughingly told me that he couldn't think of a better way to describe himself.

David Sklansky is poker's premier theorist...and the game's most prolific author. I spent two days with him at the Bellagio sportsbook...where we had a blast. I got into a lengthy philosophical conversation with him about the investor/gambler argument when it comes to advantage play...and he told me that anyone who denies that he is gambler either hasn't been playing long enough -- or doesn't play for money that matter. He too emphatically stated that he counts himself among the gamblers.

Now...I am not particularly fond of the word "gambler"...or the stigma that it's associated with. I would much rather call myself an "investor". But I feel foolish saying that I am investing...when these three legendary players all agree that GAMBLING is what we do when we walk to the betting window, or pull up a seat around the green baize.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I have a close friend who has elevated himself to the level of being one of the best poker players in the world. He started in the game by making a modest deposit in an online poker site...and has parlayed that to the kind of bankroll that allows him to now sit in some of the biggest cash games to be spread in a casino...where he wins with amazing regularity. I asked him if he considers himself to be a gambler or an investor...and he answered without hesitation that he is a gambler.

This poker player is also responsible for introducing me to the best cash-game poker player that the poker world has ever known -- an experience for which I will be forever grateful. Wherever poker players congregate and talk about the game's best players...the name of the late David "Chip" Reese is at the top of everybody's list. I met Chip Reese at a Bellagio restaurant a few months before his untimely death...and we had a great conversation. I asked him if he considered himself to be a "gambler"...and he laughingly told me that he couldn't think of a better way to describe himself.

David Sklansky is poker's premier theorist...and the game's most prolific author. I spent two days with him at the Bellagio sportsbook...where we had a blast. I got into a lengthy philosophical conversation with him about the investor/gambler argument when it comes to advantage play...and he told me that anyone who denies that he is gambler either hasn't been playing long enough -- or doesn't play for money that matter. He too emphatically stated that he counts himself among the gamblers.

Now...I am not particularly fond of the word "gambler"...or the stigma that it's associated with. I would much rather call myself an "investor". But I feel foolish saying that I am investing...when these three legendary players all agree that GAMBLING is what we do when we walk to the betting window, or pull up a seat around the green baize.

I think that the time period determines the difference between gambling and investing. If you're talking about a single race or a single race card, or even an entire month, then yes, you are gambling, because you have no idea which of your individual bets will make you money. But, if you know that long term, whether to you that means a year, 2 years, 5 years, 15 years, etc., you will have made more income than you have spent, then you're much closer to being an investor than a gambler. The term "gambler" carries so many different connotations, to so many different people, and even the public as a whole, one could probably apply that word to an investor, regardless of the vehicle, as well. But, if you're talking about horse racing, the term "investor" is much harder to apply, because the vast majority of players lose money over time, and have absolutely no long term edge/advantage in the game.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by traynor

I think that records comprised of small samples of races--no matter how "accurately" those records are kept--are pretty much worthless. Attempting to define reality by the results of the last 100, 200, or 300 races is an exercise in futilty. So Capper Al is right on that point--"record keeping" as ordinarily defined by the average bettor is a farce. Lots of pretty numbers and colorful screenshots, but essentially worthless as predictors.

The "trends" supposedly "discovered" are little more than a sprinkling of data points in a random distribution that "seem" to form a pattern. Sprinkle in a few more races (as in "try to apply the trend in the real world by betting on it") and the trend disappears, while a "new trend" seems to appear. Not worth much.

Absolutely true. Keeping records for managing your budget is different than doing analysis on handicapping systems. Wow! Someone agrees.

[Tom]

I think that records comprised of small samples of races--no matter how "accurately" those records are kept--are pretty much worthless. Attempting to define reality by the results of the last 100, 200, or 300 races is an exercise in futilty. So Capper Al is right on that point--"record keeping" as ordinarily defined by the average bettor is a farce. Lots of pretty numbers and colorful screenshots, but essentially worthless as predictors.

Totally disagree. You nor Al know what records people keep so your opinion on them are what is worthless. Neither of you can speak to anything but your own records and how you use them. Plenty of people out here are proving you both wrong every day.