Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
I want to point out the biggest flaw in the book. Meadows sites various factors and they are all losers from his statistics which is a given, no book required.
But how many factors does Meadows display? Maybe 100? Even if I say 200, he is just scratching the surface.
There are tens of thousands of factors a horse can have in any given race. How?
Meadows gives stats mainly with one factor horses. Say second time out maidens who finished 2nd in debut. But he does not give stats on that factor in combination with other factors.
That horse could have been claimed, changed jock to a weak or strong one, changed trainers to weak or strong one, moved to a different surface or distance, come out of a race where the winner came back to win, or he is shipped etc etc etc.
This is the flaw. There are not 100 or 200 factors to look at. There are probably at least 100,000 factors (at least) lurking when you use combinations of factors which results in most horses having more than one factor coming into a race. I know because that is how I handicap, with statistics of combination of factors. I currently deal with statistics of approximately 25,000 factors.
So if a horse comes into a race with the most striking factor as "needing last race", there is a criteria as to what that means. Then from statistics I accrued, I can tell you they win 17% of the time. But lets say this horse is shortening from a route to a sprint and fits the criteria of a horse who can run in a sprint based on his pace in a route, then that win percentage increases significantly. But lets say this horse with these 2 factors changes surfaces, then his win percentage goes down significantly. And this horse can add many other significant factors.
So to say this horse's only factor is that he "needed his last race" would be a major flaw. Statistics are misleading if they are incomplete or partially true.
The only public handicapper I have ever looked up to is Bill Benter. Because he understood the thousands of factors at play in any given race. And he is far and away the most successful.
|
I am surprised by your schizophrenic behavior on this board. In the religious threads you come off as an "enlightened" individual who is in complete control of his "ego", and is above the petty arguments that our egoic self often gets us into. But here in the horseracing forum you get into the silliest arguments where you often try to prove yourself right and everybody else wrong.
You've read this book, and so did we. You found it worthless...and the rest of us found it worthwhile. But this doesn't sit well with you...and you are grilling people for the reasons why they liked the book...as if anyone here owes you some kind of explanation for why they like what they like.
Does your "enlightened self" leave your body when you venture into the harseracing forums here? Who other than your personal "ego" is offended by us liking this book...and who but your "ego" is in search of a suitable explanation from us? Will the REAL "Light" please stand up?
