Is there a vulnerable favorite? I seem to land quite often on the ML or wagering favorite. Knowing that there's a vulnerable favorite, I can then pass the race or look at other entries. 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?

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.

Based on overall past performance, current connections and today’s race conditions, does this horse figure to improve; regress; stay about the same; or unknown?

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? 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? Very interesting science as it relates to horse race handicapping.
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.

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.

Thanks Dave, sounds very interesting.