Issue pdf now out: Barry Meadow, Gulfstream Stats, bias

[DeanT]

In The December Issue: of Horseplayer Monthly


-A trainer is 15% off the claim, wins 32% sprint to route, is pretty good with a certain jockey. How are we supposed to use these numbers? Barry Meadow explains how to, and not to, use published statistics when we handicap.

-Lenny Moon shows you how to build a track profile. Top handicappers talk path and speed bias.

-Dan Needham wants data, Melissa Nolan looks at "The Sheets", Mike Dorr offers some suggestions on grading stakes.

-Chad Brown is in the Supertrainer Spotlight, Gulfstream Meet Stats, Ed DeRosa, and much more in the December issue of the Horseplayer Monthly!

http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/hanamonthly.html




We hope you like it. Please give us any feedback you might. Trying to make it a better Horseplayer Magazine.


Thanks for reading and sharing it.




Dean

[DJofSD]

Barry Meadow?

I thought he'd retired from racing for health reasons. Or am I full of whatever?

[DeanT]

He has retired from betting, but watching and still writing a little bit. He seems to be doing well.

[DeanT]

A quick post on Barry's stats column in the mag:

eff Platt - a full time horseplayer - had this to say about Barry Meadow's recent article in Horseplayer Monthly (Page 1 here). (http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/hanamonthly.html)

"That article by Barry Meadow should be required reading for anyone who does data mining."

I would agree, but I think even if you don't data mine, it's well worth reading too.

Oftentimes we are prey to the little bitty numbers at the bottom of the PP's or if we're looking at Trackmaster programs for clues on what to bet. If we do a few things and use some common sense, we'll be much better off.

1. If we are datamining, Barry makes a few points about backfitting. Backfitting is simply looking to exclude horses out of a sample that makes your ROI or win percentage go up. This rarely holds moving forward. Why? Because we are excluding in a capricious fashion.

2. Use Common Sense: When we are trying to build something that will work for us - in harness or thoroughbred - our rules need to make sense.

For example, a case was giving on page two of the Horseplayer Monthly about maiden specials dropping to maiden claimers. Many handicapping books talk about horses having shown speed, dropping, as better bets and they are correct. This makes perfect sense. What about then using trainer stats to help us out even more.

MSW to MCL 14% over large sample, ROI $0.75
MSW to MCL w/ Horse showing top "E" number 25%, ROI $0.92
MSW to MCL w/ Top "E" number with a set of trainers who excel at the move 32% ROI $1.02

That progression of modeling follows a handicapping pattern.

3. We can still use our eyes. You see a trainer with a five year rate off the claim of 22-104. That's fair, but that's what the trainers win percentage is. What if, suddenly we see a run where the guy or gal goes 2 for 4? That's meaningless, too. Now, let's say out of those four, the horses raced unbelievably well - like I mean really well - then we may be onto something with this trainer. New vet? Something sinister? It could be, and the stats don't tell us how they are off the claim until we see how the horses race. I like to use my eyes to ensure this trainer is worth watching off barn changes.

3. Subsets. Further, in both standardbred and thoroughbred racing, off claim moves happen regularly, and there is gold in them there hills. Subsetting off claim trainers by time off is one way that tends to work over time. For example, in harness there was a horse a few weeks ago who won off the claim at 9-2. The horses was a decent horse and it was not a shock, but a few things made this an interesting bet:


The horse was off 25 days
Lasix was added
Several equipment changes, including the hopples out an amazing 4.5 inches
The trainer won like this once or twice before
That's compelling, and not a one week wonder everyone and their brother is on board with (at a probable 4-5).

Similarly, in thoroughbred racing we see the same thing. With some trainers (if they don't like the horse) he is back in quickly. If they do see some potential, and they give the horse a little time, the horse will be good. Some trainers > 45 days but less than 60 days off the claim are tremendous.

You won't see that solely in the numbers, we have to use our eyes, like in number two.

Anyway, give Barry's article a read. It, and the rest of the magazine (it's free) had some interesting insight. (http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/hanamonthly.html)

[CincyHorseplayer]

Got it in an email.This is great stuff for real players by real players.Always look forward to it.Thanks guys.

Rod

[098poi]

The Barry Meadow article is great.

[DeanT]

Thanks guys. Everyone who writes articles (for free) tends to play every day, which is kinda cool.

[Segwin]

Enjoyed the PDF very much.

Lenny Moon's writeup on the track profile with the link to his free Excel spreadsheet was appreciated as well.

Thanks for the work - always look forward to the next issue :ThmbUp:

[DeanT]

Enjoyed the PDF very much.

Lenny Moon's writeup on the track profile with the link to his free Excel spreadsheet was appreciated as well.

Thanks for the work - always look forward to the next issue :ThmbUp:

Thanks.

Lenny is a younger guy (around 30) with a family - pretty busy, but is totally into the game. He made it to the NHC last year and is usually playing in a tourney somewhere. Glad to have him writing an article here and there for it.

[DeanT]

A quick bump for those who might've missed the original thread or mailout.

Happy new year everyone!

With the weekend finally arriving, here are a few quotes and a reminder from us!

**** And for me when handicapping what “it” most often “depends” on is PRICE, which is why my favorite line in Len Ragozin’s book The Odds Must Be Crazy is “at 30-to-1 I loved the line [the horse’s form or pattern]; at 3-to-1 I would have hated it.” (Ed DeRosa)

**** A man touting his own system might tell you that it had an ROI of 37% last year at Belmont. Nice (if it's true), but what about every other track? Did it lose everywhere except Belmont? Often, it's the information that isn't being revealed that it is the most revealing. (Barry Meadow)

**** This angle provided a couple of bomb winners in 2013, including Phil’s Thunder at Woodbine who paid $77.

**** This year, unlike some pockets in his career, maiden claimers have not been a strong suit. His win percentage has been decent (23%), but his horses are very over-bet (returning 77 cents on the dollar)

**** Short term and more subtle track biases however give astute horseplayers a major advantage and it takes only a few minutes a day to find them. Here's how. (Lenny Moon)

**** The condition moves and form cycle theories Ragozin formulated have revolutionized not only handicapping but thoroughbred training methods and claiming as well. Finding value through hidden form and avoiding racing horses too often so as to avoid bouncing are now commonplace in modern racing. (Melissa Nolan)

Where did those quotes come from? The Horseplayer Monthly. Download 20 action packed pages right here, for free (http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/hanamonthly.html). And signup to never miss an issue (we do not spam!) Have a great weekend everyone.

[DeanT]

JD's Fan or Handicapper quiz was run on the blog for those who may have not downloaded it. I thought it was worth a chuckle or two.

http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2014/01/fan-or-handicapper-find-out-now.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[DeanT]

We're close to sending out the new issue. Since some of it has some Pacead and Mark Patterson references, will probably link it up in the general section. If that's okay with Mike.

Here's a shot of the cover. Hopefully we'll have this out tomorrow. It's going to be well over 30 pages I think.



https://twitter.com/HplayersAssnNA/status/436929386151829504/photo/1

[Charli125]

Another great piece by Barry that really simplifies the successful gamblers way of thinking.

I haven't even made it through the whole thing yet. This one is massive!