crash
7th May 2006, 10:09 AM
VARIENCE [a small piece from Charles Carroll's book, 'Handicapping' ]
Perfect play in Blackjack can be achieved. A master player knows the percentage on every turn of the card and what the correct response is. He tries to program himself, like a computer, to make the right move in response to “input.” If he makes an actual mistake, he knows it and tries not to do it again next time, but—here comes the Zen: he also knows that in pure terms, given the percentages of the game and his “edge” he could make every correct move and theoretically lose for months! Since horse racing has vastly more variables than Blackjack, you would have to be a major bliss-ninny to take that big a series of losses with a Buddha smile, believing you are making right bets—without questioning something about your play.
So how could I prove that this can happen: perfect horse racing bets—resulting in a string of predictable losses?
I cannot—it is impossible to prove directly—there are too many variables. It is a very rare race indeed where you cannot look back with the wisdom of retrospect, and say in your best Chris Lincoln voice, “Well, clearly if I had taken the third speed line before the layoff….” But, my point is that, given what you knew before the race, your betting decision might have been exactly right. We have to learn to distinguish between legitimate learning experiences, and the red herrings of retrospect. These red herrings often turn up as “rules” and “spot plays.”
So, what’s the flip side of “variance?” How about if somebody did everything wrong and won? That would be indisputable—no need to go back and search through the fish pile of reasons—they just plain WON.
I suggest you seat your handicapping ego in a lotus position while I rest my case with the following (from “Thoroughbred Quotes,” Thoroughbred Times, February 26, 2000):
“I don’t know anything about horse racing. I don’t know anything about the odds. I don’t know anything about this. I picked up the sheets with the horses’ names on it and I bet the names I liked. There was also one jockey I bet with my name, ‘Sellers.’”
This was Audrey Louie-Sellers telling Daily Racing Form how she defeated more than 270 other participants to claim first prize and $56,855 in the Flamingo Reno Winter Challenge. Her brother entered her in the tournament in return for babysitting his son
.
Perfect play in Blackjack can be achieved. A master player knows the percentage on every turn of the card and what the correct response is. He tries to program himself, like a computer, to make the right move in response to “input.” If he makes an actual mistake, he knows it and tries not to do it again next time, but—here comes the Zen: he also knows that in pure terms, given the percentages of the game and his “edge” he could make every correct move and theoretically lose for months! Since horse racing has vastly more variables than Blackjack, you would have to be a major bliss-ninny to take that big a series of losses with a Buddha smile, believing you are making right bets—without questioning something about your play.
So how could I prove that this can happen: perfect horse racing bets—resulting in a string of predictable losses?
I cannot—it is impossible to prove directly—there are too many variables. It is a very rare race indeed where you cannot look back with the wisdom of retrospect, and say in your best Chris Lincoln voice, “Well, clearly if I had taken the third speed line before the layoff….” But, my point is that, given what you knew before the race, your betting decision might have been exactly right. We have to learn to distinguish between legitimate learning experiences, and the red herrings of retrospect. These red herrings often turn up as “rules” and “spot plays.”
So, what’s the flip side of “variance?” How about if somebody did everything wrong and won? That would be indisputable—no need to go back and search through the fish pile of reasons—they just plain WON.
I suggest you seat your handicapping ego in a lotus position while I rest my case with the following (from “Thoroughbred Quotes,” Thoroughbred Times, February 26, 2000):
“I don’t know anything about horse racing. I don’t know anything about the odds. I don’t know anything about this. I picked up the sheets with the horses’ names on it and I bet the names I liked. There was also one jockey I bet with my name, ‘Sellers.’”
This was Audrey Louie-Sellers telling Daily Racing Form how she defeated more than 270 other participants to claim first prize and $56,855 in the Flamingo Reno Winter Challenge. Her brother entered her in the tournament in return for babysitting his son
.