The Skeptical Handicapper by Barry Meadow is Great!!

[Tom]

I have no doubt Light never read the book or never understood a word of Ht.
His replies/criticisms are baseless.

No problem, those who got good things from it surely don't need any advice from him. Those who don't like that kind of date study don't either.

[Poindexter]

I am a little bit curious about what some might expect from a book like this or Dave Schwartz' book and i haven't read either. But in a game where the odds are so efficient especially on winning horses, how does one come up with an angle with a large number of trials that shows a profit? If they do, what are the chances it does so on the next two years of racing after this trial?

Imo, if you are looking to get valuable information you are looking for angles in the single digit loss roi over a large sample. Those are positive. Angles that lose over 20% to 25% roi are negatives. When you are handicapping and you see a positive angle, that doesn't mean you automatically bet the horse, but you do want to have your antennas up to see if there are other goods reasons to like the horse.

This game is tough. The guys dominating it have made it so much tougher. All you can do is look for positive factors or negative factors that help us make better handicapping decisions. Books like Barry's or Dave's are not going to make us into winners. They can however add to our handicapping knowledge and make us better handicappers. Most of us certainly are not going to do the work on our own, so makes a lot of sense to use the resources provided at us at a pretty negligible cost (Barry's book is a lot more negligible than Daves), to try and up our game if we are going to continue to bet the sport.


To conclude when you read books like these you are looking for handicapping tools to make your handicapping better. If you are looking for a miracle book that is going to make you a winner in this game, you are looking for the impossible.

[Light]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

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.

Not true. When I've argued with boxcar about God I certainly had an ego. If I did not I would say nothing.

As far as "enlightenment", its funny how many people think I am flaunting my "enlightenment". Again, if I was "enlightened", I would not respond to all the nonsense on this board. It's pure entertainment. It's egoic.

So I am not schizoid. It's all ego. Although I have had rare ventures into the non egoic realm, but I'm sure others have had too.

Originally Posted by thaskalos

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.

Yes. when someone says they like a book that I find worthless, then tell me why you like it. Enlighten me. Why would that question scare you or Acorn?

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Who other than your personal "ego" is offended by us liking this book...

It's not my ego that is offended. Its everything in existence that is offended when you say one thing and respond in a manner that is the opposite of what you say.

Maybe you can articulate better than Acorn about what you learned from the book. Educate me instead of attacking me about my ego as your cop out. That's called an ad hominem.

[Light]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Maybe there are 100,000 separate handicapping factors in a race, and Barry Meadow only addressed 200 factors in his book. To the "hi-tech" player this may seem terribly inadequate, but to me it's quite satisfying...because that's still a lot better than what I myself am capable of doing. So...I give a little money to guys like Barry Meadow...and they do some of the work that I am unable (or unwilling) to do myself. And I find nothing wrong with that.

You miss the point. Lets take the alphabet. There are only 26 letters in the alphabet but millions of words as a result of the combinations of letters.

What Meadows teaches you is the alphabet and you think you are learning something. If you are 2yo then yes. But in the real world, its unrealistic because most of the words you read are a combination of the letters. Nobody talks in single letter form.

The same is true for factors of a horse. Very few horses have only one factor. They have a combination of factors. Meadows is oblivious.

[Light]

And one last thing I forgot to mention. All of Meadows stats are corrupt.

When you compile data for a statistic there must be a CONTROL to what goes in the data. If you lump contenders with pretenders your stats are not going to be clean.

If someone comes up to you at the race track and puts a gun to your head and says give me the winner of this race or I'll blow your head off, but you have two choices. He says:

"Two horses in this race fit into the same statistical category of coming off a layoff according to BM's book. The favorite who has finished in the money in his last 10 PP's and the longest shot on the board who has never been better than 4th in his last 10 PP's."

Who are you going to tell the executioner you like?

If you believe Meadows statistical analysis, the favorite and the longest shot on the board would be equal statistically. Because they fit in the same statistical category for factors coming into this race.

After all you believe in the BM's book, the single stat, and that Light is an Egotist. In fact, the concept of a horse having "multiple factors" is "heretical" and too "complicated" for your brain.

Then take the longest shot and I'll send you flowers at your wake.

You can't lump contenders with hopeless horses and make clean statistical data.

When you find it to be appalling to question a "celebrity author" for his "concepts" then you are guaranteed to never grow in your pursuit of greater success, whatever that is.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Light

And one last thing I forgot to mention. All of Meadows stats are corrupt.

When you compile data for a statistic there must be a CONTROL to what goes in the data. If you lump contenders with pretenders your stats are not going to be clean.

If someone comes up to you at the race track and puts a gun to your head and says give me the winner of this race or I'll blow your head off, but you have two choices. He says:

"Two horses in this race fit into the same statistical category of coming off a layoff according to BM's book. The favorite who has finished in the money in his last 10 PP's and the longest shot on the board who has never been better than 4th in his last 10 PP's."

Who are you going to tell the executioner you like?

If you believe Meadows statistical analysis, the favorite and the longest shot on the board would be equal statistically. Because they fit in the same statistical category for factors coming into this race.

After all you believe in the BM's book, the single stat, and that Light is an Egotist. In fact, the concept of a horse having "multiple factors" is "heretical" and too "complicated" for your brain.

Then take the longest shot and I'll send you flowers at your wake.

You can't lump contenders with hopeless horses and make clean statistical data.

When you find it to be appalling to question a "celebrity author" for his "concepts" then you are guaranteed to never grow in your pursuit of greater success, whatever that is.

What makes you think that you are qualified to preach to us about “greater success”, whatever that is?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

What makes you think that you are qualified to preach to us about “greater success”, whatever that is?

I think it comes from his total ignorance and pride in it.

[formula_2002]

So much conversation. I'm buying the kindel edition just to join in.😎

[headhawg]

PA forum members

I give you the challenge (pick one)-- Ken Massa's expertise or Lighthead's whatevershitheshovels-ise?

Reading his posts shows that Light knows nothing about statistical analyses. He probably used ChatGPT to make himself sound psuedo-intelligent.

Whenever he posts I can't help but recall this scene from The Hunt for Red October...

[Light]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

What makes you think that you are qualified to preach to us about “greater success”, whatever that is?

It's a free country.

[Light]

Originally Posted by headhawg

PA forum members

I give you the challenge (pick one)-- Ken Massa's expertise or Lighthead's whatevershitheshovels-ise?

Reading his posts shows that Light knows nothing about statistical analyses. He probably used ChatGPT to make himself sound psuedo-intelligent.

Whenever he posts I can't help but recall this scene from The Hunt for Red October...

You talk a lot but say nothing.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

What makes you think that you are qualified to preach to us about “greater success”, whatever that is?

Originally Posted by Light

It's a free country.

Seriously, answer Thask's question....I'll await your reply.

[Light]

Anybody can have greater success than what Meadows preaches which is nothing.

[headhawg]

Originally Posted by Light

You talk a lot but say nothing.

And yet you reply with nothing. Good job!

[Light]

Originally Posted by headhawg

And yet you reply with nothing. Good job!

The only thing you say are ad hominems.