The Skeptical Handicapper by Barry Meadow is Great!!

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Light

I'm not worried about the money. But it looks like you cannot answer the question. What did you learn from the book that you did not know before?

It's rare that I'm in agreement with you Light, but I will wait for an answer to your question.

[cj]

Of course any single factor is going to be a loser, but obviously some are much better than others, right?

[Tom]

Exactly right.
No single chemical cures any illness, but certain combinations of them cured polio, smallpox, and are many others.

Knowing which fatcors cut into the takeout is a good place to start looking.
Which ones improve the pweformance of other factors, ie, the workout I mentioned, used in MSW races, or with layoff horses.

The boook is a serious study that provides thosw willing to use it a valuable tool. Ken Massa is a reputable researcher who's client use the same kind of data to create many, many profitable spot plays.

And to answer the question, what new was learned, for me, it was blinkers off was much better than blinkers o verified by my own study as a result.

[headhawg]

Originally Posted by Light

You're obviously the combative one. First I am a "Lighthead" and then someone who doesn't know shit.

Yet I've never derided you. Just disagreed with your opinion.

Your "I'm innocent" schtick doesn't fly with me or anyone else who pays attention to your posts. You're like the kid who picks a fight and then realizes that the beat down is inevitable and holds out his arms palms up and says "What did I do?"

[Tom]

Another thought, if you are playing horizontals. factors need only point to winers, not profits. You will be playing underlays if you want to cash a P5 ot P6.

I jjust built a bookcase. Didnt use onlt a saw, used a tape measure, a screw driver, a drillll but without the saw, never would got 'r done.

[Dave S]

Originally Posted by cj

Of course any single factor is going to be a loser, but obviously some are much better than others, right?

Actually the book did have several single factors that showed a profit. For example: Debuting Maidens whose last work was a bullet showed a 6% flat profit.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Dave S

Actually the book did have several single factors that showed a profit. For example: Debuting Maidens whose last work was a bullet showed a 6% flat profit.

That's two factors .

Debut (1st timer) is a negative
Bullet work is a negative

[dlivery]

Originally Posted by cj

That's two factors .

Debut (1st timer) is a negative
Bullet work is a negative

But why not maiden's where the gold lays?

[acorn54]

i am not going to pick apart the book on this forum, as i don't think that is fair to mr. meadows who did alot of work to put together the book. just buy the damm book and give the author his fair dues. the man has a good reputation in my book (no pun intended), and if you don't feel the same way just move on, instead of trying to get something for nothing.
for me the book was well worth the price as it validated my research into ,what i have been doing in studying the race horse date i use.

[Light]

Originally Posted by acorn54

i am not going to pick apart the book on this forum, as i don't think that is fair to mr. meadows who did alot of work to put together the book. just buy the damm book and give the author his fair dues. the man has a good reputation in my book (no pun intended), and if you don't feel the same way just move on, instead of trying to get something for nothing.
for me the book was well worth the price as it validated my research into ,what i have been doing in studying the race horse date i use.

No one is asking you to knock the book. Just back up what you say. When I asked you to tell me what you learned from the book, you became defensive (twice) rather than giving me your honest opinion.

That's quite a peculiar response coming from someone who found the book "enjoyable" and a "learning experience".

[Dave S]

Originally Posted by cj

That's two factors .

Debut (1st timer) is a negative
Bullet work is a negative

Correct. My mistake.

[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.

[Dave S]

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.

Thousands of factors? I don't know- maybe. But the real question is how many unique factors there are that are not highly correlated with one another- that is the thorniest question.

[thaskalos]

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?

[thaskalos]

I have been handicapping on an almost daily basis for the last 40+ years...but I have never bothered to use a database in my practice. In fact...it took me almost 40 years to give up my printed edition of the DRF. So, even after all these years of handicapping experience, I have all these handicapping factors swirling inside my head...and I haven't been able to put them in any kind of order so I could use them within a proper "frame of reference".

I often see a horse who shows an uncharacteristically good, or uncharacteristically bad, last race...or a horse who steps drastically up in class after sharp efforts...or a horse who is stepping drastically down in class off of lackluster efforts...or a sharp horse who has been claimed by a much worse trainer...or a dull horse who has been claimed by a much better trainer...or a horse who has been running big speed figures at a minor track and now moves to the "majors"...or a horse who has been running slower speed figures at a major track but now moves to the "minors". I see all these horses and I would like to have some idea of how these types of horses perform over a large sample of similar situations. And since I don't have a vast database to rely on...I would like to see a book by a reputable source who could shine a flashlight on these handicapping mysteries for me.

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.