The Skeptical Handicapper by Barry Meadow is Great!!

[headhawg]

Originally Posted by Light

You are still pissed from over 10 years ago when I said that the Handifast software was non profitable and even though free would cost you money if you bet its picks. You should learn to let go.

Handifast was Handiman's baby, not mine. For me, there is nothing to let go. But to slam it the way you did was -- to quote ReplayRandall -- "small-minded, immature and petty". I don't like you because you are an arrogant ass, hence the "guru" moniker. People don't need to read too many of your posts to learn that.

You are entitled to your opinion of the book; nothing wrong with that. But if people are making a decision about whether or not to buy the book they should consider the source of the opinion.

[classhandicapper]

Of those 500 races about 50% showed lower odds and of no interest. What I discovered from the remaining races was that 57% of those entries illustrating a specifically analyzed value relative to the unique Par value won the race. Of the remaining 43% that lost, 18% of them Placed. Aside from finding this distinct evaluation, I later realized what I had stumbled upon when considering that the average final odds for these winning entries was around 2.3/1. Using a $2 base line Win bet the total bet would be $500. The gross return would be about $940 which produced a net profit of $440.

So, while I was able to isolate a majority of false favorites the true favorites discovered at the odds value range specified could certainly become decent plays.

That's some very powerful stuff if it's even close to sustainable.

For me, a major key to this game is to find a really bad favorite or other very low priced horse to key against. Some will win, but if they win at half the rate they are supposed to win, it's pretty hard to lose betting against them. That's tougher to do than people think.

I don't expect you to elaborate on how you separated them, but I'm going to ask anyway.

[classhandicapper]

My feeling on handicapping books in general is that when you start out, the good ones are an excellent short cut towards understanding the game better. But once information is public, it slowly loses value. That's partly what I've been talking about when I said the game changes. Not only does the sport itself change, the values change as handicappers improve or certain factors become more or less fashionable. It's finding the holes or blind spots in what's popular and accepted now that is the fertile ground for value. But the more info out there, the better it gets, the more generous good handicappers are with their general knowledge or knowledge about specific horses, the fewer holes will be available.

[Light]

Originally Posted by headhawg

Handifast was Handiman's baby, not mine. For me, there is nothing to let go. But to slam it the way you did was -- to quote ReplayRandall -- "small-minded, immature and petty". I don't like you because you are an arrogant ass, hence the "guru" moniker. People don't need to read too many of your posts to learn that.

You are entitled to your opinion of the book; nothing wrong with that. But if people are making a decision about whether or not to buy the book they should consider the source of the opinion.

If you had let go of your own stupidity of hanging on to your negativity about me, you would just have given a clean counter opinion to my opinion of the book.

Instead you interject that I am an ass etc. That's on you. The only place that you got the idea that I am an ass is because I disagreed with you years ago about the Handifast program.

That shows how weak you are in your own convictions. I don't carry resentments about people like you and RR because as you will learn when you "grow up", resentments and bitterness only hold you back from growing up.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

That's some very powerful stuff if it's even close to sustainable.

For me, a major key to this game is to find a really bad favorite or other very low priced horse to key against. Some will win, but if they win at half the rate they are supposed to win, it's pretty hard to lose betting against them. That's tougher to do than people think.

I don't expect you to elaborate on how you separated them, but I'm going to ask anyway.

I can show you what I meant when I mentioned “What I discovered from the remaining races was that 57% of those entries illustrating a specific value relative to Par won the race”.
Now I wouldn’t expect you understand everything that’s going on with the format of the tote analysis I use, but essentially what I look for at 3 minutes to post (shown as the 4th betting interval) is whether the betting favorite has both the designated odds level and the lowest entry value relative to the value of Par.

Tote Analysis for Race #9 – Santa Anita – Mon 2-20-23

PP	M/L	OPEN	4TH	PP	END	4th	3rd	2nd 	1st 	FIN
POS	ODDS	ODDS	ODDS	POS	110	96	93	91	94	PAR
1	6.0 	4.5 	4.5 	1	99	83	70	73	81	
2	12.0 	31.0 	36.0 	2	233	214	193	174	176	3
3	5.0 	4.5 	3.0 	3	136	86	85	89	101	4
4	3.0 	5.0 	4.5 	4	81	96	82	82	78	5
5	5.0 	13.0 	12.0 	5	164	186	204	205	162	
6	5.0 	14.0 	12.0 	6	120	125	135	174	195	
7	12.0 	6.0 	9.0 	7	89	87	90	88	89	2
8	4.0 	2.0 	2.5 	8	94	59	56	41	47	1
9	12.0 	13.0 	17.0 	9	149	155	154	149	167	

.
.

[classhandicapper]

What does Value of Par mean?

[Aerocraft67]

Maybe it's utility is limited for the advanced player. But it's not a great beginners book, either. It's a pretty solid read for the intermediate player.

A few years have already caught up with it, but it remains the most notable tome on the subject in quite some time. How many recommendable handicapping books were published in the last 20 years? Not to mention books that remain relevant.

Maybe the insights aren't profound in hindsight, but it does encourage you to consider how a horse might outrun its performance evidence, and not succumb to the consensus. That's pretty sound guidance, even if you know it already.

Aside from the angle Tom noted, I view most of the statistical work as demonstrating that most logical angles don't deliver edges with suitable sample sizes. Fresh data not likely to change those conclusions. It's a book, not a database. If anything, I found the dismal parade of failed angles pretty tedious.

[pandy]

Swartz's Percentages and Probabilities is very similar and both books can be useful.

In regards to some of the stats, you have to be careful about how you interpret them. For instance, I recall that Barry's book showed that blinkers off did better than blinkers on. But, this was based on "all". In other words, he said that blinkers on isn't a good angle because if you bet all blinkers on horses you'll lose. But that goes with every handicapping angle and factor. They all lose if you bet everything blindly.

If you bet every horse that drops from a MSW to an MDN CLM race you'll lose, too, but that doesn't mean that you ignore it. If you bet every key trainer or jockey change, you'll lose.

Personally, I think that blinkers on is a very strong longshot angle if you are good at picking and choosing. The bottom line is, many good, consistent, racehorses, including some top-caliber stakes horses, were ordinary horses until they added blinkers. And many horses have won first time in blinkers and paid huge prices. Naturally, you can't bet every horse that adds blinkers. But there's no question that blinkers can dramatically improve a horse, and often does, and therefore, to say that it's not a good handicapping angle is absurd.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

What does Value of Par mean?

When the tote analysis is in operation during a typical betting cycle all of the money in the mutual and exacta pools are being digested and analyzed at each predetermined betting interval (Say 12min, 8 min, 5 min, and 3 min to post). At each interval the tote formulas produce an individual entry value as well as the Par value. The entry value is determined by the monies bet on each one. The Par value is established through a combination of ALL the monies bet together.

It then just becomes a matter of visually comparing each entry value with the Par value at each interval. So basically, it takes me approximately 9 minutes to determine the entries of interest and whether the race is even playable based on their odds at 3 min to post. A far cry from the time-consuming handicapping techniques I used in the past. The game is now really just a game with the bottom line focused on one thing: Making Money.

But every once and while for shits and giggles I’ll rekindle a desire to see if my manual handicapping abilities are still there. Yesterday at SA was a good example: (You be the judge)
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?t=175016
It reminded me of just how tedious the game from that perspective can be and why I want no part of playing it that way.
.
.

[big frank]

Originally Posted by pandy

Swartz's Percentages and Probabilities is very similar and both books can be useful.

In regards to some of the stats, you have to be careful about how you interpret them. For instance, I recall that Barry's book showed that blinkers off did better than blinkers on. But, this was based on "all". In other words, he said that blinkers on isn't a good angle because if you bet all blinkers on horses you'll lose. But that goes with every handicapping angle and factor. They all lose if you bet everything blindly.

If you bet every horse that drops from a MSW to an MDN CLM race you'll lose, too, but that doesn't mean that you ignore it. If you bet every key trainer or jockey change, you'll lose.

Personally, I think that blinkers on is a very strong longshot angle if you are good at picking and choosing. The bottom line is, many good, consistent, racehorses, including some top-caliber stakes horses, were ordinary horses until they added blinkers. And many horses have won first time in blinkers and paid huge prices. Naturally, you can't bet every horse that adds blinkers. But there's no question that blinkers can dramatically improve a horse, and often does, and therefore, to say that it's not a good handicapping angle is absurd.

Agreed Pandy --- some of my biggest priced winners were first time blinkers !

[big frank]

seems like WAY 2 many angles ! could probably have 5 horses out a 7 horse field with a positive angle ----- info overload

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Light

Based on the enthusiasm here I bought the ebook version of this book and having read 10% of it all I can say so far is

As I continued reading today it gets worse:

"the goal of this book is to get you to think about handicapping in a way that considers various elements...because sometimes you have to downgrade a horse with seemingly positive form and sometimes you have to upgrade a horse who at first glance looks like a throw out."

If this book said "for beginners" I would give him a pass. But if this is the low caliber bar this book thinks is a revelation, I'll laugh it off for thinking something so banal is a difference maker. We all do that every day in our handicapping. Where has this guy been? Under a rock?

]

[Tom]

Originally Posted by headhawg

We get it. No one can make you think. That explains a lot.

[Bustin Stones]

Originally Posted by Light

Based on the enthusiasm here I bought the ebook version of this book and having read 10% of it all I can say so far is

As I continued reading today it gets worse:

"the goal of this book is to get you to think about handicapping in a way that considers various elements...because sometimes you have to downgrade a horse with seemingly positive form and sometimes you have to upgrade a horse who at first glance looks like a throw out."

If this book said "for beginners" I would give him a pass. But if this is the low caliber bar this book thinks is a revelation, I'll laugh it off for thinking something so banal is a difference maker. We all do that every day in our handicapping. Where has this guy been? Under a rock?

It's Barry Manilow, lower your expectations.

[Light]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

It's Barry Manilow, lower your expectations.

I can't stand hearing Manilow sing.

Now 9/10th through the most redundant book I have ever read. He asks a million questions and answers none. Says maybe this maybe that. All his stats says nothing works so he says its up to the reader to "figure it out".

But he tortures you with the most banal details of things like weight carried, blinkers, jockeys, trainers etc while telling you nothing new. Just things you've heard a million times. Not only once but repeatedly throughout the book. Uncle!

I know BM is not as dumb as his book. I was hoping maybe he would talk about his show betting method that caused TS to tell him to stop betting. There is nothing about betting or the psychology of betting.

There is absolutely nothing written in this book that would improve your game. But there is a lot written that can make you worse as a handicapper than you are now.

If I handicapped with the mindset he puts forth in the book, I would jump off a bridge. I sometime felt like I was reading the words of someone in an insane asylum.

The book's sole purpose is obviously to make money. Extremely cliche. It's only because its a book written by a "celebrity author" that anyone pays attention. If it was written by a nobody, nobody would care.