PDA

View Full Version : Everyone Needs a Coach - You Need a Coach


Because I Can Jim
08-06-2013, 04:27 PM
I was talking with my coach/mentor (Kahunab) last night and he pointed out that he is my coach.

I have spent a lot of my life studying self-help, psychology, motivation, philosophy, etc... and thought this topic would make for a good reminder posting.

My mom taught me to be very independent. I don't need anyone to take care of me. When I have a problem, I solve it myself. I don't ask for help unless it is so far beyond me to be able to work through the situation and then I feel funny about asking for the help. It was just my upbringing.

My Hapkido Grandmaster Sang H. Kim would tell me "There are those who can do. There are those who can teach. Then there are those who can do and teach -this is best."

In the real world, everything of any importance is done in teams.

Tiger Woods has a coach.
Michael Jordan had a coach.
Baseball hitters and pitchers have coaches.
Any one in any kind of sport or endeavor has a coach.

This forum is a coach and those posting on it are coaches.

But, here is the thing.... Coaching to improve requires two-way comunication. There has to be a dialog. If you don't ask... your question will never be answered. If you ask and the response is not what you expect, think about it and post your thoughts.

From my Grandmaster - "It is one thing to do. It is another thing to teach. In teaching you learn so much more than in the doing. In doing, you learn about your own unique physical structure, psychology, etc... In teaching, you have to learn about other's perspectives of how to apply a techinique if you are tall or short, fat or skinny, etc..." So, in teaching, the teachers learn as much if not more than the student so don't consider it a one-way street and without students they would not be able to continue to learn.

Who is a better golfer - Tiger Woods or his coach?

So, why does Tiger have a coach? He has one because his coach helps him to think about his game and how to improve it. And what does Tiger do? He works on his game making slight changes through constant improvement and then comes out playing better than before. This is what my coach pointed out to me last night.

I had a preconceived notion of my hanidicappnig game from back in 1985. My coach helped me to revamp my game. It looks nothing like it did from back then although it is based upon the same fundamental concepts presented in the Sartin Methodology from various teachers/instructors. After four months of work, I am now profitable.

Yet, my game is mentally draining and while I am not (was not) concerned with picking winners, I am looking down the road.

My coach said, Jim, you have an ROI of over 50%. You can retire rich. LOL!

My response was that I don't need to have any more sessions with him if that was the case, but,..... I am about constant improvement. We discussed parts of my game such as being mentally draining and not being concerned with picking winners if I was going to move on to exotic betting.

And in the discussion, it turns out that my thinking about Running Styles is weak.

This is what a coach is for.... He points out things for you to think about, but, you have the final say as to what you do. For example, he uses Best VDC for pace line selection. I use Last Line and decide upon if those are the lines I want to use. He is a good coach. He gets me to think without telling me what to do. Yet, without the dialog we had last night, my game would have stayed the same.

He asked me before we hung up if this discussion was of any help. It was hard to phrase that while I don't need to open up a can of worms because I don't want to fix what is not broke, I could feel internally the frustration with what we were talking about - and that was a good thing, because the frustration means that I am learning through his guidance.

So, don't be afraid to post to the forum. There are many here who are giving and willing to help - and that includes me too. While our games are different, some will resonate more than others. But, all will get you to think. What you hear may not be what you want to hear and it will at times be frustrating, but, it is all a part of the natural process of learning. Ultimately, you will decide what works best for you.

Jim
Any Questions. Any Time.

Bill V.
08-06-2013, 06:39 PM
Thanks Jim

Please post those questions. I feel people who teach and learn in a large group
will prosper more than they do with just a small gathering of friends

I use myself as an example. I always did well in the beginning
I learned from a small group of friends. But I would never have advance past
a certain level, because I had no way to ask questions. If I asked
a question about using the 3rd line instead of the last line, my friends would
tell me "don't change" your doing well" That is because my friends wanted me
the way I was . I don't think they wanted me to change.

I feel that Pace and Cap is an improvement because we all can advance together.

Bill

Because I Can Jim
08-06-2013, 08:03 PM
Absolutely Bill!

And that is why I posted this thread as a topic.

When I teach where I work (college subjects), it amazes me how many students will not ask questions. Then when they take an exam or have to complete a project, they get stuck because they must apply what they are learning and by that time it is too late.

I realize that handicapping is very much akin to subjects like Accounting and Math and not like History and Sociology.

With Accounting it is about understanding concepts and then "applying" that understanding. This is college level thinking.

With History, it is about memorization and repeating what is memorized. This is high school level thinking.

Too many people will read the forums, read a book and then try to work a race. They get stuck. It is too hard because they have to apply what they are learning and that is something they are not accustomed to doing. They are accustomed to "looking up" an answer instead of "figuring out" the answer.

You and others on this forum have been figuring it out for so long that we don't even remember what it is like to be spoon-fed.

When people get stuck, they need to "ask" questions which will give them direction to figure it out for themselves. That is what a coach does... quides them. They do not teach them.

In college level work, it is not the teachers job to teach. It is the students job to learn.

Coaches guide..... students learn.

So when the posts that will inevitably come asking "How can I get a coach?", what needs to happen is for the person to put forth the effort in applying what they learn from this forum in order to know what questions to ask. In asking the questions, the people who give freely of their time such as yourself, will then guide them to find the answers for themselves.

Jim

Ronestes
08-06-2013, 08:54 PM
I've been handicapping over 40 years, mostly the trotters, I started really concentrating on the runners the last 5 years, read everything I could get my hands on and tried different software. In the past year I started learning with RDSS, watched the videos, read the manuals, follow ups and have been following on the boards. I feel confident in picking the pacelines and playing 2 horses off the bl/bl, what I am looking for is some direction in deciding which factors and screens in RDSS you look to for making the decisions to eliminate some of the contenders. Right now, I have been mostly using running styles, whether the race looks to go early or late and which horses benefit. I really haven't used the match-up yet. Looking for some pointers to turn my game around, as I have yet to hit a break even point Thanks Ron

Because I Can Jim
08-07-2013, 12:49 PM
Hey Ron,

First, and my apologies (where are my manners?) welcome to posting to the forum. Good to have you aboard.

Seeing that you have some "grounding" in the methodology, as you know there are different ways of selecting contenders.

The thing about selecting contenders is that psychologically, we have a tendency to somewhat ignore it in favor of picking pacelines (this is due to having to look at pacelines to pcik contenders, but, we focus too much on paceline selection in my humble opinion) and we have a tendency to have sitting in the back of our minds that we will have the winner among the top 5 contenders that we select 100% of the time. How not true!

As an aside, we also seem to be stuck mentally on this idea that we need to have 5 contenders. Arghhhh! (Sure, it makes for easy compilation of statistics, but, it is not reality. I know that flies in the face of die hard methodologists because the Doc often referred to "getting the race down to the top 5 true contenders, but, on the other hand, the Hat at first was getting down to 5 and as his level of skill progressed it became 4, then 3 then 1 and even just 1. Something to think about.)

Anyway, back to business - selecting contenders....

There are many tools to use. You must find what works for you. There are those who use class. FTL's posts are the best reading on class that I have read. While I am not schooled in class, I can understand its usage. The racing secretary writes the conditions. The trainers decide if their horse fits those conditions, is fit and can compete at that level of competition. An analogy is like having high school baseball, college ball, the minors and then the majors. If you have a player, where would you put him?

Even the usage of APV has its applications from the Yellow Manual as far as class is concerned.

Others look at the lifetime records.

People use speed ratings and Beyer numbers when they think about speed.

The MatchUp is a whole other area which I lean towards,but, is too big of a topic for the discussion in this post.

People use BLBL as a tool to help with contender selection.

There are others of course. But, the point is that you feel a bit lost with contender selection or you feel it is an area of your game that can use some improvement. I understand that.

But, remember, you are not going to get the winner in your top 5 contenders 100% of the time!

So where do we start since there is so much to choose from?

I will post again to this thread a little latter today with how I go about selecting contenders. But, for now I'd like to leave you with something to think over......

We need a base to work from to be able to judge our effectiveness. For that read rmath's quick thread on VDC and CSR. It can be found here:
http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9188
For him and his selection criteria he states that his Top 5 on both VDC & CSR has the winner 81.4% of the time.

Think about that. Out of every 10 races the winner is not part of the top 5 only two times.

I have had statistics and teach Business Statistics at the college level. I am aware of such things as standard deviation and population/sample size, etc... So, as I present some things, I am only presenting them as generalities as a direction realizing the inefficiencies of their accuracy.

I found rmath's information very informative. 81.4% of the time having the winner in the top 5.

I decided to do a quick sample and found that if you did nothing else but treat RDSS2 as a black box, used the Best 3 VDC as a pace line selection strategy and just kept only the top 5 VDC's (found on the Segments tab), I had the winner 76% of the time in the top 5. So, I would be throwing the winner out 1 time in every 4 races.

So how does all of this help me?

It give me a starting point to think from. If I used PDSS2 as a black box, would I be hap?y with 75-80%? What additional concepts/ideas can I add to my thought process to help increase that percentage? What would happen if I added CSR? What would happen if I used Total Energy to help eliminate non-contenders? etc.....

Incorporate a concept and see how it feel and track what results are obtained.

As I said, due to time constraints at this very moment, I will present some thoughts as to how I go about which horses I use as contenders in another post probably later today.

However, in thinking about this, I just ran some quick numbers using the last 20 races I did live. I use the non-contenders and secondary contenders feature of RDSS2. I did not eliminate any of the winners as a non-contender. I did make the winner a secondary contender 5 times based upon the criteria of top 5 (which I do not wholely embrace). So I kept the winner in my top 5 75% of the time. Can I do better? Sure. It si just a matter of how I look at it. There is always going to be "grey" areas and as I said, statistically I also don't agree with such a small sample size, but, it is presented as a quick jumping off point.

So, I will see you in a future post today or tomorrow....

Jim
Any Questions. Any Time.
"No one knows what you think they know." - Ken Roberts

Ronestes
08-07-2013, 02:02 PM
Jim, Thanks for getting back, I am going to do some back research from some previous races to look at those items, am looking forward to your further posts. Ron

Because I Can Jim
08-08-2013, 11:32 AM
Anyone interested in seeing the response via videos to Ron's question can go to the following post on the forum:

http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?p=91716&posted=1#post91716

Have a great day!

Ronestes
08-08-2013, 02:04 PM
Jim, Thanks for the videos, this is exactly what I was looking for, I am going to apply this to Saratoga this afternoon. Let you know of any questions I will have Ron