Triple Crown season brings out the annual battle of theory vs. theory, or put another way, my supposition can kick your supposition\'s ass. In a game of probabilities, that seems inevitable. It was readily apparent leading up to the Derby. What it amounts to is a house of cards built on a series of \"if...thens.\" What strikes me as important, and often overlooked, is the nature of an \"if.\" Is there a continuum on which \"ifs\" and \"shoulds\" are located, and do we recognize when we\'re building a case on one as opposed to the other? Value obviously comes into play here, as well, because building contingencies on a potential 50-1 return is a different matter than on 2-1. Knowing the difference is the key. I\'d like to think my 2-1 wager is constructed on a platform of \"shoulds\" as opposed to \"ifs.\"
What seems most apparent is that many of us engage in outcome determinism, a legal term used to describe a judicial decision or opinion that is pre-ordained, and facts will be shaped to fit the desired outcome (TGJB may have experienced this in Kentucky, and it has become increasingly evident in the output of the Supremes). Here, we see it most frequently in the rush to judgment against a favorite. Someone recently wrote he will never bet a favorite. That\'s fine as long as you\'re sitting out some races, because, if not, you\'re already assuring yourself a roughly one-third loss on all your wagers. That\'s a tough nut to crack on top of the 15%+ vig we\'re already getting whacked.
This seems to all be part of the human element of the game, and for me, it\'s my biggest downfall, because regardless of the ever increasing amount of information I absorb, I can\'t overcome my own irrational biases. For example, there is rarely a horizontal wager that I feel I can\'t successfully attack. There, I\'ve said it. \"Hello, my name is moose, and I\'m a horizontalaholic.\" Look in the mirror and tell yourself you don\'t have one, too. If not, you might be among the 10%, or less, who actually make money at this game.
A year ago, when the Horseplayer Now site was running its \"Night School\" series, Michael Beychok, along with a casual acquaintance of mine, appeared in a segment focusing on the Psychology of the Horseplayer. It was useful and informative, but sadly not life changing for me. While watching the \"Horseplayers\" series on Esquire, I often wondered if Christian Hellmers, who is in the midst of a phenomenal run, has the right kind of incantations and incense to keep his head clear of all the noise that gets in the way of cogent analysis. All kidding aside, I\'d really like to know.
