I don't teach coding.
But I am willing to discuss strategy for accomplishing what you have in mind.

One of my favorite movies.
Lancey Howard!
vs
The Kid

Can't comment more specifically.

1. Did the mechanic after several hours of practice figure out how to arrange the cards into the shoe?
Not knowing exactly how you would play each hand-- hit(s), hold(s), split(s), etc-- seems impossible. — Jim Pommier

It would be impossible - unless it was a completely stacked deck. That's known as a "Cold Deck" in the vernacular, and demands a floor man be in on it. (Somebody has to switch the previously prepared deck in and then fake the shuffle.)

But, no. That's not how it is done.

He arranges sequences of cards that wind up serving his purpose (i.e. win or lose).

BTW, must be a face-up game.

It's all in how you pick the cards up.
Once he has a sequence built into the discards, you top the section off with a "signal sequence." Think of something like Ace of Spades, King of Hearts, Jack of diamonds. (A little obvious - only to illustrate a point.)

BTW, I could never do this myself. When the guy showed me I was shocked.

A common way of arranging the cards would be like putting together 2-card combinations that add up to 10 or 11. Thus, once the sequence is live, when you see an "8" you know that the next card is likely to be a 2 or 3. When you see a "7" it is reasonable to expect a 4 next.

So, if you need a small card to prevent breaking, you hold that next small card on top until it's your turn.

Again, this guy was really masterful. This would be above literally all but a half-dozen or so dealers in Las Vegas in that era. (Of which, I knew 2.)

2. Was he taking 1 card from the shoe each time or was he able to slide out 2 with just the one hand? Again, watching the shoe closely seems it would be easy to see more than 1 card coming out of the shoe. — Jim Pommier

Dealing seconds out of a shoe is not difficult. The difficult part is knowing what the top card is so that you have a reason to store it. See #1.

A function of field size and perhaps the style of track in terms of angle, i.e. like Hastings in B.C. is like a bull ring. — Charles Lucas

Surprisingly, not a function of field size except with the tiny tracks (i.e. TIL, SAL, etc.)

But at those tracks, top trainers dominate so strongly that everything points to them anyway (i.e. speed, top jockeys, pedigree, etc.)

Yes, pedigree.
It's a sleeper factor I found and it matters in cheap claimers for OLDER horses!.

Really great questions.
________________

I did a little reading on "Agents" in AI". "Each of the 8 Agents has their own approach to the game". Is each approach somewhat predetermined by the AI programming? — Jim Pommier

The goal of the AI engine is to develop a system that allows each agent to become their own person, so to speak.

Imagine you're going to teach...
... a brand new horse player how to handicap. What do you teach him?

• You teach what you know and believe.
• This becomes his own personal starting point.
• He will begin with the factors you gave and proceed from there.

While he can - and most certainly will - eventually change how he handicaps, his roots will always be in his beginnings.

Will one Agent look at say Pace Shape while another looks at FTS's? Then each one builds from their experience in their particular approach? One agent may like horse #1, while another may like horses #2 and #3?

This is a very simplistic way to explain exactly how it works.

____________________

For example-- "Is there a vulnerable favorite in this race? Which horses' figure to improve or digress? Will only some Agents review and respond to the question, while other Agents do not based on their AI approach to handicapping? Thanks.

Again, precisely right.

There is one significant difference between HUMAN handicappers and AI AGENTS:
While humans are dedicated to improvement, there is a natural tendency to want to continue doing what they are doing now.

To some degree, we just naturally defend our current approach and resist changing it beyond minor improvements.

Agents are not encumbered by such complications.

HOWEVER, the will always be trapped (to some degree) relatively near their starting points; their POINT OF ORIGIN.

____________________
I've designed the 8 agents with HANDICAPPING PERSONALITIES that will have VERY GOOD HIGH contender hit rates.

There is one such agent whose approach will likely have the very highest contender hit rate. However, he will have a difficult time hitting price horses.

Each agent's tendency will be to stay somewhat close to his roots in contender selection, but his (or her) actual handicapping is completely free form in the sense that they have ALMOST ALL of the 3,000+ factors available to them.

Knowing that there's a vulnerable favorite, I can then pass the race or look at other entries — Jim Pommier

Yes, this is valuable information.

Also, does the AI take into consideration the trainer/jockey win and ITM percentage, class rating, earnings per start and the actual horse's win and ITM percentage? — Jim Pommier

It considers just about EVERYTHING.

Of course, it doesn't actually USE everything in every race.

BTW, there isn't actually ONE AI.

They are called AGENTS and there are 8 of them.

Each has their own approach to the game. You can select as many as 5 to be active in any given race.

Yes, @RanchWest - take care.

That's a big step towards understanding what people want and could use.
Thank you.

I'm trying to design something that allows for almost free-form notes.

I think that the key is to have them readily available - so you don't have to go looking.

Do you keep the notes?

WOW!

Won 4/1, $10.00
ytd, B 8 W 26.20, profit 18.20 — RanchWest

Nice play!
You've been performing consistently well.

Any chance of taking you on a percentage basis? :)

Good fortune to you with this.

Thanks Dave, but I think the term "excellent" is overly generous. — William Zayonce

Winning is a fragile state.
Anyone who can win consistently - and your picks over time have shown that you do that - is to be respected.

Even being close to breaking even is an indicator of (at least potential) greatness.

I salute you.

You really are excellent.

I'm familiar with the thread.

Thank you.

Hi Dave, decided to join your Horsestreet blog site and I was just perusing. One of the questions I wanted to ask in terms of the HDW website and it's data is what Past Performance Data do you use. Is it Bris, Equibase, Drf? Also, one of your factors, or can or is this built-in, is horses in cycles tend to show either losing speed on the turn or from 2nd Call to the stretch as negative length loss. I tend to look for horses that have gone 1-2 races whereby this happens particularly if they are chasing and not close to the lead. I have had sucess with these types or will wait to they show improvement in their running. — Charles Lucas

1. Only HDW data.
Cost is $142 per month for all tracks with results.

2. Yes, there are several factors that refer to that.
Things like positions/length lost between calls.

Those are shown in several formats.
Last race
Per race in a graph
Time-decayed
Averages
_______________
Truth: Our suggested approach to speed already recognizes that the 2nd call (i.e. EP) is not as important as it is made out to be.

Of the 52% of all winners that are within 1 length at the 2nd call, 44% of those were already on the lead at the 1st call.

IOW, the 2nd call challengers only account for 8% of all winners and their prices are low.
________
"Do you know what you call a horse who makes a big move on the turn?"
The odds-on favorite.
________

WOW!
Congratulations, @Conley!

Nice article.

TVG and Del Mar this year. — Tom

Sad, isn't it?

Have a chowder for me.

LOL
You're one of us - therefore, we root for your success.
You can do some advertising.

Be reasonable, of course.