Cramer Class Drop Jockey Switch

[oller21]

Hello everybody. I've been browsing this board for some time now and you all appear to be very knowledgeable cappers. I hope to be able to make some money at this difficult game and any help you could provide would be appreciated. I wanted to know if any of you were familiar with Mark Cramer's Class Drop Jockey switch angle and do you know if it's profitable?

[headhawg]

tryingtowin,

If what you mean by "profitable" is playing it blindly in all situations it probably isn't although I don't have any research stats to support that opinion. I use the angle as part of my overall handicapping process (as well as the Class Drop/Track Switch angle).

However, the horse still has to meet the requirements on figs, form, etc, but a switch to a leading jock OR a jock that has won with the horse before plus a drop in class is a sign of postive trainer intent.

HH

[BMeadow]

From a survey printed in the February 2001 issue of Meadow's Racing Monthly, involving 197,194 horses who were switching to a higher-rated jockey (using a rating method that involved jockeys' win and in-the-money percentages over the past 365 days) and dropping in class (defined as dropping at least 20% in purse value from last race):

Win percentage: 14.3%
ROI: 0.78 (loss of 22 cents per dollar)

Just one more logical idea that doesn't work.

[GameTheory]

I know Cramer has criticized Meadow's research methods. You can read an example of that here:

http://www.gambleinparadise.com/articlex383.html

I must say I agree with him. Meadow seems to test ideas out of the context they were intended for or with parameters of his own invention, and then declare flatly that "this doesn't work". I don't know the specifics of the test for the class drop/jockey switch angle, but there are many obvious scenarios where you would want to exclude certain races from the test. (Like, was the original jockey even available? Is this a shipper? Is this horse coming back from a long layoff? Is "higher-rated" jockey mean *any* higher rated jockey, even if they are rated almost equally? How big a drop are we talking about?)

Tests like this will have a tendency to get you to throw away good ideas that signal positive trainer intent in their proper and logical context. For instance, a positive jockey switch could actually be to a lower rated jockey if that jockey happens to be one that this particular trainer likes to give live mounts to.

Also, as been pointed out here before, Barry Meadow criticizing other authors in his newsletter while he is selling his own product is a bit of a conflict of interest. Since the newsletter is defunct, that point is now moot, but something to keep in mind when looking at the old issues...

[BMeadow]

I agree with GameTheory that all handicapping involves context. For instance, sometimes fast workouts may be a positive (e.g., the horse is training strongly), but other times they're a negative (the trainer always works his horses fast, and has entered his $200,000 yearling for an $8,000 claiming price).

However, if I state that some theory yields positive results, I'm going to have to do a lot better than testing 200 races, or giving some examples. Even if I'm a nice man who sincerely believes in what I'm writing.

I'd love to have a dollar for every player who read some idea in a handicapping book, played real money on it, then wound up with a very light wallet as a result.

Handicapping writers generally have shown almost a disdain for real statistical research. I don't see where pointing out their errors--in methodology, in interpretation, in mathematics--is a bad thing.

In any case, the best handicappers know when to use a particular angle and when to ignore it, and why another factor is crucial in one case but meaningless in another.

[GameTheory]

What I find worse than not attempting "real statistical research" is attempting it and doing it wrong. Garbage in, garbage out.

I am not going to argue with you because I'm ignorant of what you've published in your newsletter for the most part. But the snippets I've seen cited or that people have shown me seem to me to be misguided, as if your focus is just on discrediting ideas/people rather than trying to find out the truth of what handicapping ideas have value (in some context) and which don't. Your studies seem to have far too wide a frame of reference which naturally leads to mediocre results no matter what the method/angle.

I'm not just picking on you -- there is flawed research everywhere in all sorts of fields, much of it done by trained statisticians. It's a tricky business...

[trying2win]

Question for Barry,

In some systems, in addition to the usual rules, the author will specific an odds range to bet...e.g:

--Don't bet on a horse less than 4-1 or more than 15-1. Was an odds range rule taken into effect when your researchers did a test for a system?


--Another comment: Actually I've seen some commercial systems that were not that bad, but with some modifications to some of the rules, adding an odds range (if there wasn't one) and applying the system to certain racetracks, some positive results were attained.

-- With a lot of research and testing, I've even developed some of my own methods or angles with some ideas gathered here at the Pace Advantage site (I prefer using my own methods and angles). For example, I've found that some of the self-developed angles work well at a track like Mountaineer Park, but are losers at several other tracks. Over time, I've become a believer in the use of track-specific methods or angles.

T2W

[BMeadow]

<<In some systems, in addition to the usual rules, the author will specific an odds range to bet...e.g:

--Don't bet on a horse less than 4-1 or more than 15-1. Was an odds range rule taken into effect when your researchers did a test for a system?

--Another comment: Actually I've seen some commercial systems that were not that bad, but with some modifications to some of the rules, adding an odds range (if there wasn't one) and applying the system to certain racetracks, some positive results were attained.>>

In many of our tests, we did specify odds ranges. A complete list of every system tested is in our Index To Articles (Real System Workouts) under Meadow's Racing Monthly on the website trpublishing.com.

Sometimes a system might contain a useful idea. However, you have to be careful about checking it on 10 racetracks, finding it worked on 1, and saying it's a good system for that track--just as you might test it for each day of the week and found it was profitable on Fridays only.

My advice: be careful about jumping to conclusions.

On another subject, I can't very well respond to Game Theory's comment because he says he "is ignorant of what you've published in your newsletter." I can't review a movie if I haven't seen it, no matter who tells me what about it.

[alysheba88]

How people can find problem with Barry's work against some of the "huckters" out there is beyond me.

The hucksters peddle their "Holy Grail" systems because they know there is a segment of the public looking for and believing in them

[Light]

If there is a profitable system that was printed in a book, most handicappers would have heard about it by now. And if there was a profitable system that did catch on with handicappers it would surely turn into a losing ROI with it's popularity.

The only times I've benefitted from these nuggets of gold is when I elaborated on a system/angle and put my own personal spin on it. Whenever I read the Bris handicapping champions methods they allways say "I use this" or "I use that".So what.So does everyone else. What they don't tell you is HOW they use it.

[The Skeptic]

A little off topic but directed towards Barry Meadow Research.

I recently exchanged some communication with a gentleman who regularily used to post on this board. He sells a good product re: Dr Z if that offers any clues . I don't want to get off topic whether Z works or not anymore (it doesn't just for the record).

He mentioned his software works because of the "Favorite Longshot Bias". Red flags red flags. He then mentioned Barry's research pertaining to Fav/LS bias being flawed when defending his Z system software but offered no substance. I also seem to recall others critiquing it a number of years ago. Now Barry...just for the record I do respect your work! He said the research that was done was flawed. I told it's simple....there either is or isn't a Favorite Longshot Bias? If you're selling this product and defending it with this "F/LS bias" is there or is there not a true favorite Longshot bias? He's under the firm belief it's there and I'm inclined to trust the Meadow Research. At the same time as perpetrated in Betting at the Racetrack by Dr Z (whose orig work is also respected) it claimed a profit on extreme favorites and it's obvious there isn't.

Without getting into a Z debate because there isn't one....Barry would you mind elaborating on the following in context of your past published research:
1) the results of your Fav/LS Bias Research
2) the controversary that had surrounded it
3) comments as a whole

Thank you.

[BMeadow]

Results of 200,000 races published in our January 2000 issue of Meadow's Racing Monthly:

Betting all favorites--ROI was 0.81
Betting all 2nd choices--ROI was 0.82
Betting all 3rd choices--ROI was 0.80
Betting all 4th choices--ROI was 0.79
Betting all 5th choices--ROI was 0.79
Betting all 6th choices--ROI was 0.78

It was only on 8th and higher choices (23-1 and up) where longshots were overbet. Extremem favorites (2-5 and below) are slightly underbet, but still do not exceed an 0.86 ROI. Thus, the old favorites-longshot bias (which WAS true at the time I did Money Secrets At The Racetrack, based on surveys of more than 50,000 favorites) is no longer true.

As for the Dr. Z system, it was based on something called the Harville Formulas, which stated that if a horse went off at odds of so-and-so, it should finish second or third a certain number of times based on those win odds. Sounds good--but in real life it didn't pan out.

To test it, I went through 1,000 races with an odds-on favorite (the type of horse most likely to be a Dr. Z selection and totaled up how often these horses finished second and/or third. Groups were separated into 4-5 and up, 3-5 to 4-5, etc. Every group showed that the Harville Formulas vastly overestimated how often these horses would actually finish in the money. The differences ranged from 3.5% short on 4-5 shots to place to 11.2% short on 1-2 shots to place.

Simply put, while the theory was good, it didn't work in practice--mainly due to the assumption that all 3-5 shots are alike, which they're not. Some run the same Beyer every time, are likely to repeat it, and pay little to place and show as a result. Others are win-or-out type who if they don't win, get nothing--and thus are not bet so heavily to place and show, and do not finish in the money as often as their win odds might indicate.

There is no "controversy" over the Dr. Z method. It simply doesn't work.

I looked at all races in the past 4 years and calculated the win, place and show probabilities for all odds ranges. A pdf of some of the results is at this link:

http://track-judge.com/itmodds.pdf

If I can find the Harville formulas, I will post a comparison.

CAJ

[BMeadow]

Harville Place Formula: (assumes 17.1% takeout)
0.319 + 0.559 (Wi / W)
-----------
(Pi / P)

Harville Show Formula (assumes 17.1% takeout)
0.543 + 0.369 (Wi/W)
-------
(Si / S)

Wi/W, Pi/P, and Si/S represent the ratios between the individual horse's best in a particular pool vs. the total bet in those pools.

[BMeadow]

Due to formatting problems, though this was correct in my screen, it didn't come out correctly on the Pace Advantage page.

The denominators should be Pi/P and Si/S, in the formula, to the numerator Wi + W in each case.

So place is 0.319 + 0.559 x the ratio
And show is 0.54 + 0.369 x the ratio