Barry Meadows new book

[Tom]

I ordered directly from Barry and got an autographed copy.

Very god book so far.

[Half Smoke]

Originally Posted by Tom

I ordered directly from Barry and got an autographed copy.

Very god book so far.

So Barry is God now?


sorry I couldn't resist

[098poi]

I am of the opinion that Christopher Walken is God. Guy is brilliant.

[Light]

What has he said that is "brilliant" or "Godlike"?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Light

What has he said that is "brilliant" or "Godlike"?

You obviously haven't heard his monologue in "Pulp Fiction".

[098poi]

Originally Posted by Clocker

You obviously haven't heard his monologue in "Pulp Fiction".

Bingo!


Remain calm, I didn't mean to derail the thread.

[Light]

Whatever floats your boat. But I believe your bar is too low. Several others in that movie had better performances and won Oscars for them. Not Walken.

Apologies on a detour of the subject. I thought there was something on a higher level here.

But as long as I am here, has Barry's book raised anyone to a higher level of handicapping,no matter how small?

[098poi]

I like Christopher Walken in anything he does.


As far as the book I have it and haven't finished it all. The thing I like is that it is honest. It pushes the idea that notions and sayings about racing are fine but should be backed up with some data. Dave Schwartz pushes the same philosophy. Some may have found the book a downer but it just presents certain realities of the game. It's still about value, value, value. So if my opinion is better than a whales (on a given day) my return may be higher than it once would have been.


I'm waiting on that day!

[Light]

Originally Posted by 098poi

It's still about value, value, value.

I think there is a large undiscovered territory in horse racing that has yet to be addressed in handicapping books and that is "when does the better hold an edge". You may say when there is value but that is anecdotal. There is no edge if you don't know that (for example) the "value play" in the situation you are playing has a 1% chance of materializing. But in another scenario has a 50% chance of materializing.

When Thorpe wrote his book on counting cards that is exactly how he and other "card counters" earned their profits. Knowing what the odds were that would be successful in various situations and bet the value play when they had the edge. Horse players play blindly assuming in every race they will find an edge and that is clearly false or we would all be rich. But I haven't seen a book that will give statistics rather than anecdotal theory.

I'm not planning to write a book on this but have been researching this for a couple of years. For example I can tell you that a class dropper wins 25% of the time. But what most handicappers do not understand is that that statistic only works for

A) contenders, not long shots. Now you need to define what is a contender

B) What other factors are associated with the class dropper. Is he off a 60 day layoff? Then that percentage drops. Is he switching barns, jock, surface, distance etc. All these affected that 25% statistic and there are statistics for these specific situations. This is what I mean about no books addressing this pink elephant in the handicapping room we encounter with every race.

Even when I hear TVG dudes talking about angles such as "oh this is his 3rd time off a layoff which is a good thing". Is it? What if his last race was a "Top". How does that affect this "3rd off a layoff". Handicappers settle for hearsay rather than demanding to know.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Light

I think there is a large undiscovered territory in horse racing that has yet to be addressed in handicapping books and that is "when does the better hold an edge".

You should talk to Overlay who is a poster here.
He has some excellent materials on that area.


http://www.overlaypublications.com/

[Niko]

I find this to be easier in sports betting than horse racing - handicapping the handicappers.

I'm sure there's a way to do it in horse racing but I'm a lot more surprised by the odds changes in horse racing than the betting lines in sports. It's not the heavy betters (CWT) because they exist in both venues.

I look at typical factors like last race finish, speed ratings, connections, and pace (especially lone speed, dropping speed or fast race shape) to try to determine who might be overbet. I still struggle to find an edge handicapping the handicappers (enough to make a profit that is) except for the occasional longshot. Could be a personal problem The high takeout doesn't help of course.

[RainMan]

Figured a bunch of folks had finished the book by now so was hoping to get a few more reviews before ordering.

[LemonSoupKid]

Originally Posted by Light

I think there is a large undiscovered territory in horse racing that has yet to be addressed in handicapping books and that is "when does the better hold an edge". You may say when there is value but that is anecdotal. There is no edge if you don't know that (for example) the "value play" in the situation you are playing has a 1% chance of materializing. But in another scenario has a 50% chance of materializing.

When Thorpe wrote his book on counting cards that is exactly how he and other "card counters" earned their profits. Knowing what the odds were that would be successful in various situations and bet the value play when they had the edge. Horse players play blindly assuming in every race they will find an edge and that is clearly false or we would all be rich. But I haven't seen a book that will give statistics rather than anecdotal theory.

I'm not planning to write a book on this but have been researching this for a couple of years. For example I can tell you that a class dropper wins 25% of the time. But what most handicappers do not understand is that that statistic only works for

A) contenders, not long shots. Now you need to define what is a contender

B) What other factors are associated with the class dropper. Is he off a 60 day layoff? Then that percentage drops. Is he switching barns, jock, surface, distance etc. All these affected that 25% statistic and there are statistics for these specific situations. This is what I mean about no books addressing this pink elephant in the handicapping room we encounter with every race.

Even when I hear TVG dudes talking about angles such as "oh this is his 3rd time off a layoff which is a good thing". Is it? What if his last race was a "Top". How does that affect this "3rd off a layoff". Handicappers settle for hearsay rather than demanding to know.

I think the biggest story or angle within this context (thanks for the nicely written post) is the topic of "Finding a vulnerable favorite" or "Scenarios of when to maximize your anti-chalk sentiment"

Right?

[horses4courses]

[Aerocraft67]

I recommend the book. For the sake of perspective, let's say I'm an intermediate occasional player with a zeal for the game.

If nothing else, it's a recent, comprehensive, and credibly informative tome on the subject. Other options seem second-rate, or from the olden days of yore.

Might be a bit much for beginners, but the sooner they garner the wisdom, the better. Even more advanced players can probably pick up insights outside of their specialties. It bolstered my holistic grasp of the game beyond parsing garden variety PP data, but also sharpened my insight into the utility of that data.

Poses many questions to consider when evaluating why a horse is in a race and projecting how it might perform, and provides many scenarios on what the answers might be. Not much on wagering, but the author covers that in another book.

The endless parade of unprofitable angles and pitfalls of taking information at face value gets tedious for sure. It might have been more prescriptive in assembling different factors to discover more favorable outcomes, but that's a lot to ask.

The book does point to the work, judgement, and disposition required to succeed. The prospect for winning isn't hopeless, but awfully daunting. Fair enough, we knew that already. I like the allowance for goal achieving and defining success rather than beating the game outright from the onset, which is unrealistic for all but the most dedicated anyway.

I feel more informed in seeking out results that might at least tip some variance from the algorithmic consensus my way. I'll seek uncertainty more aggressively but play it more conservatively.