Earl Sklar/Unique Handicapping???

[andicap]

www.uniquehandicapping.com

anyone heard of this guy Earl Sklar??

[Rick]

andicap,

Believe it or not, I have a booklet published by him from 1983 called "Racing for Profits Only". It covered longshot (average 8-1 odds) spot plays involving patterns used by betting trainers. The ideas sounded interesting but I never really checked them out. He also published some articles in the old Gambling Times magazine.

[andicap]

He's recycling the same stuff now, but charging money for it....

[Derek2U]

Funny situation. I called the 800# listed in the DRF after
I saw the Sklar web page & I wanted to buy a few things,
maybe $50 worth. I called 3 times & each time a woman answered and she said she was just taking phone calls &
didn't know anything about the items. Ummm .... I just lost
interest.

[Rick]

andicap,

You're right. It looks like about 90% the same ideas he published in 1983. But, it's possible that they might still be good. I wouldn't buy anything from this guy but I already have something that I could check out if I felt like it. But, I'm really not into longshot methods any more. I once believed the way he does, that anything that's profitable must be at long odds, but no more. It's true that it's WAY easier to win using longshot methods, BUT it's also true that you CAN win a lot using methods that get more than 25% winners AND have close to 50% playable races.

Derek,

Why would you want to buy anything from this guy? I thought you already knew all of the answers.

[andicap]

I agree. My biggest problem with longshot methods is if you miss a day, that's when you're big prices could come in. I'm definitely more in line with you're way of thinking.

[rrbauer]

Maybe he's related to Richie Sklar!

[Derek2U]

compared to you guys I'm a novice --- but I do have my
opinions. I really would enjoy reading something that could
be insightful.

[Derek2U]

Any of you hear of "LAZY MANS GUIDE TO SUCESSFUL BETTING?"
It's advertised in the DRF.

[so.cal.fan]

I know Earl Skylar. I have known him for years.
He has been a regular at the So. Cal. tracks for at least 30 years. And NO, RB, he is not related to Fingers.
He used to be a big sheets player (Ragozin) but gave it up a few years back, and went back to developing his own methods.
I couldn't say if he is a winner or not.....don't know enough about his betting.
He is one "handicapping fanatic", I can tell you that.
He has his DRF marked with several different colored inks, we used to laugh and ask him, "how can you read it", he is a pretty nice guy, that's all I can tell you. I've never heard anyone say he is a crook.

[JustMissed]

What's wrong with a guy selling old angles? They still sell William Shakespeare's plays down at Barnes & Noble and he has been dead since 1616.

You know, form darkening/long shot ANGLES are like BOOMERANGS. If you learn the proper way to throw a boomerang and practice with it, it can be a DEADLY WEAPON. If you don't learn the proper way to use it, it is just another old piece of wood laying around.

I have had a couple of things come my way the last couple of weeks that have improved my play tremendously. One of them was given to me for free and the other was a different way to play the trifecta which I discovered from a $3 TSN Sheet for Calder.

IMHO, the value of an angle is how you can use it to improve your play, not how much it cost you to get it.

JustMissed
:)

[wes]

BOOMERANGS that don't come back are just sticks.

wes

[Rick]

IF they're really good angles, they'll still be good. On the other hand, if theyr'e not, they won't. I can't recommend one way or the other. BUT, I do know of several angles that still work more than 20 years after they were developed. So, who knows. The only way to be sure is to check it out. That's what winning players always do though. Don't depend on someone else to tell you whether something works or not. If you do, you're a LOSER. Find out yourself.

[sq764]

Did anyone actually check out his site? 2 things that caught me as odd:

1) He charges $5 for writing on how a horse changes leads. (Um, can I please pay you $20 for a book on how to identify saddle pad #'s??)


2) His 'free' example of 'technological inside' angles was to bet a MSW horse dropping into Maiden Claimers... (My wife even knows that one.. Isn't that like the first thing we learn when entering into the world of handicapping??)

[Rick]

sq764,

Most of his $15 angles seem to be the same ones he was selling in 1983. You can pretty much guess from the names of them what the idea is about. IF they were all available together at a much lower price (as in 1983), they might be worth looking at. But, I think you'd be disappointed at the amount of information you're getting at those prices.

[Tom]

Is this the same guy who used to paint cars in NYC?
"I'm Earl Sklar and I'll paint any car....for $19.95!"

[so.cal.fan]

Rick,
I suspect that Earl is a pretty good handicapper.
Which angles do YOU think are worth any research, if any?
I know you are an avid researcher and have some good angles you use yourself, without disclosing them in detail.......
where are the best areas of research to look into.....in your opinion, which I do respect.
Thanks.

[BillW]

Originally posted by Tom
Is this the same guy who used to paint cars in NYC?
"I'm Earl Sklar and I'll paint any car....for $19.95!"

Earl Scheib (sp?) mebbe?

[Rick]

so.cal.fan,

I think claims are the best area to research for spot plays, but you need to be able to play tracks from all over the country to get enough action. It is possible to do that using Stable Mail and similar services though if you don't mind checking results charts every day.

Also, anything that is shown in results charts but not in past performances is worth a try. One such angle that showed promise involved horses that won by 1 1/2 lenghs or more with the favorite running second.

Another area that's probably worth researching now is layoffs. My guess is that early speed types do a lot better than closers off of a layoff. Maybe one of the database guys would want to look into that.

[so.cal.fan]

Thanks for the tips, Rick.
Jim Cramer of Handicapper's Database Warehouse did a tape seminar several years back at Santa Anita.
He says that pure E type runners do NOT do well off layoffs, however all others do.
Does anyone have any current data on this?
I have long held the theory that Clenbuterol (and similar drugs) will help horses getting ready off a layoff. Actually, some top trainers also hold that theory. This, I believe, is the main reason for horses winning off layoffs, compared to needing races like they did several years ago.

[Rick]

scf,

So E/P types would do better off layoffs? That would make sense since they perform best as a group overall anyway.

Also, it seems to me that workout patterns are very effective in some areas but not in others. If you really know your local circuit well there's may be a preferred pattern. But the same thing may not work elsewhere. My theory is that trainers copy things that have worked for others when they have a good horse. Whether the pattern is actually effective or not, it does seem to show intent.

[so.cal.fan]

According to Cramer, EP P PS S all do well off layoffs.
Pure Es do not. However, I have been fooled by this,
only to have an E run as an EP and win off a layoff.
Of course, it may have been a fluke.
His theory is, that an E, being too fresh, will probably run too fast, too early, and tire.
Trainers do copy others, that has always been true,
I share your opinion on work patterns.
Years and years ago (before, even I remember) Mesh Tenney, who trained Swaps for Rex Ellsworth, used to have horses left in pastures with cows.....they would come into the racetrack with "chewed" off tails.
A very well respected So. Cal. trainer (who has had many stakes winners and is very high percentage) was stabled next to Tenney. He was a young guy just starting out, and saw all the Tenney short tails winning races, so he cut all his horses tails off!
True story. Proves your point, Rick. LOL

[Rick]

scf,

I based my opinion on a Sport Stat study from a few years back that showed early speed types doing better than others and also the fact that my method, which does emphasize early speed, is largely unaffected by the length of the layoff. As usual though, the only way to know for sure is to check it yourself.

Funny story about the tails. Trainers seem to be a very superstitious group. Maybe that's why some tie the tails up now.

[Tom]

SCF...give me a definition of layoff in terms of days and IO'll run a db study on how the various style perform.
Tom

[so.cal.fan]

Tom,
I guess 60 days or more?

[Rick]

Sport Stat called 31-45 days a short layoff and 46 days or more a long layoff. I don't necessarily like that definition all that well, but they did find some significant differences in the "short layoff" range in other studies.

[Show Me the Wire]

So.cal.fan:

Enjoyed your horse tale about tails.

Additionally, I would tend to think a lone E type, in a race, would be just as dangerous off the freshening as any other running style.

Rick:
I tend to agree with Sport Stat’s definition of short and long layoff. Usually any layoff 45 days or under is due to freshening, (including minor problems) and the condition book. A longer layoff period is indicative of a more serious problem addressed by the trainer and it usually will take the horse more time to recover.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

If no action is taken harmony exists.

[Rick]

smtw,

Well, yeah, I guess those two are OK, but you should add another category, maybe more than 90 days, that I would expect to be much more negative in terms of ROI. Call it a "really long layoff" or something.

And, like you said, 30-45 days probably should be called freshening, which I might view as a positive thing in some cases, as opposed to a layoff, which I would view as a negative thing.

But what really matters is how win % and ROI are affected on average by various periods of inactivity. My guess is that 20-30 days is better than under 10 days now. So we could have an "over-raced" category too if you like.

Probably the best way to handle days away would be to compare it to how that individual horse has done in the past under similar circumstances. Maybe we should compare today's days away with the average or median days away in the past and see if there is any significance in the differences.

[Show Me the Wire]

(…compare today's days away with the average or median days away in the past and see if there is any significance in the differences.)

And how many angels dance on the head of a pin? Rick I think you are looking for the near impossible. Adjust yourself perspective to the idea racing is a business. The business is based on getting the horse to the track for races.

The optimum is a race approximately every 21 days. This optimum is impacted by the physical health of the animal and the condition book. Trainers generally do not give their horses time off because the trainer likes the horse, the only time a horse gets time off is when the horse physically off or there are no races for the horse.

Any layoff of more than 60 days is a big negative, unless it is a young horse (bucked shins), but when you get 90 days and longer it is a big warning sign. This is not to say a horse will not win off a long lay off, because they do.

Conversely a horse coming back to the track quickly may be a very good sign or a big negative. The trainer could be striking when the iron is hot or trying to unload the horse after a good performance.

I would tend to believe the best way is not to see how the individual horses perform, but keep tabs on the trainers. For example, If you see a trainer usually racing his stock every two weeks, it surely is a bad sign if he hasn’t raced a certain horse for 5 weeks.

Hope the above makes sense.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[Rick]

smtf,

Yeah, I guess you're right. There are just too many variables involved. It doesn't seem to matter much if I just ignore it as a factor entirely. But following trainers as you suggest may very well make some sense.

[so.cal.fan]

SMTW and Rick,
I think you both make valid points.
I tend to look at the horse's past pattern (as Rick suggests) IF, the same connections have the horse.
I will look at the trainer's pattern IF they now are training a horse they didn't have before.
If a top claiming trainer claims off of "Joe average or Joe O-for" you may want to discard the horses' previous patterns.
If the same guy has had the horse all along, he probably is not going to drastically change winning or near winning strategies.
I would use the same angle for work patterns, as well.

[Rick]

scf,

Absolutely correct and unlikely to ever appear in any software product. You have to use the computer between your ears to pick up on patterns like that.

[JustMissed]

Great comments in this thread.

When I get a little depressed(read as:Lossing my butt at the track), I like to go to Gordon Pines site and read his article about his semi-mechanical contender selection method. It kinda brings back together for me all the basic handicapping stuff I have learned from Mr. Anisle, Jerry Stokes, Joe Takach and ATM.

What is especially helpfull is to remember to look at the throw out horses because these are the ones that usually have that one strong postive(read as: angle), that I missed, and that usally screws up my exacta and trifecta ticket, and causes all the folks to shake their head and say "I don't know how that horse won".

Like Rick said, these horses are usually not picked up by a computer program, are not program favorites, and certainly not the publics favorite but are probably the reason those astute few handicappers that not only know the angles but know how they are applied, can join the 5% Club.

JustMissed
;)