The Skeptical Handicapper by Barry Meadow is Great!!

[OverlayHunter]

In the past 2 weeks i have caught four double digit winners blinkers on

big frank, thank you for the insight. Do you find any difference with that angle between the better tracks or lesser tracks?

[maddog42]

According to Massa and Meadow, Blinkers off is more profitable than Blinkers on. This has been confirmed by Fotias and others. Paradoxically they regard either one as a positive since they signal a major equipment change and often a major improvement.

[Light]

Originally Posted by maddog42

According to Massa and Meadow, Blinkers off is more profitable than Blinkers on. This has been confirmed by Fotias and others. Paradoxically they regard either one as a positive since they signal a major equipment change and often a major improvement.

That's not what the author said.

If you go towards the end of the book and look at his blinker section Meadows says:

"If a horse requires blinkers its generally a negative sign, since many horses race quite competently without them. Blinkers indicate problems. The trainer is grasping at a solution which may or may not work".

You say (above) blinkers are "often a major improvement" according to Massa and Meadows

But according to Massa's numbers from the book its a losing angle

B's on .70 ROI
B's off .82 ROI.

This is an example of common knowledge any horse player with around one year experience can deduce without stats.

[Tom]

If you are [laying horizontals, roi doesn't matter. You need the winner, underlay or not.

You only look at helf the equation, roi. The effectiveness of the factor in predicting winners, hit rste, is the other.

We had a thread here by Biggestal when the book came out, and we discussed this very factor. I (and other HTR users) ran studies with similar results, off got more winners.
I eventually developed a spot play centered on BFOFF with certain types of horses and classes the showed a net profut for over a year that I used it.

I think it was Jeff Platt that came with a formula tyat rated factors by combining the two, but I lost it, mabe jCAPPER user remembers it.

[maddog42]

Originally Posted by Light

That's not what the author said.

If you go towards the end of the book and look at his blinker section Meadows says:

"If a horse requires blinkers its generally a negative sign, since many horses race quite competently without them. Blinkers indicate problems. The trainer is grasping at a solution which may or may not work".

You say (above) blinkers are "often a major improvement" according to Massa and Meadows

But according to Massa's numbers from the book its a losing angle

B's on .70 ROI
B's off .82 ROI.

This is an example of common knowledge any horse player with around one year experience can deduce without stats.

On page 59 of the book both blinkers on and blinkers off are listed in the 12 or more positive factors list. When combined with 12 or more positive factors it shows one of the highest ROI's .99 (blinkers off) and I have used this for many very nice hits. While .99 ROI is still negative.... if you are patient and pick your spots combined with other positive factors it is a superb play.

[maddog42]

Another of the spot plays I like is the second time lasix angle. Combined with other positive factors it is a really good one.

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by Tom

We had a thread here by Biggestal when the book came out, and we discussed this very factor. I (and other HTR users) ran studies with similar results, off got more winners.
I eventually developed a spot play centered on BFOFF with certain types of horses and classes the showed a net profut for over a year that I used it.

I think it was Jeff Platt that came with a formula tyat rated factors by combining the two, but I lost it, mabe jCAPPER user remembers it.

wow, i forgot about that thread made 4 years ago. here is a repost of one of my responses.

“For me it’s always been blinkers on for young inexperienced horses, blinkers off for older more experienced types. The book didn’t break it down by age of horse”

pandy and i had a short discussion on the subject.

thanks Tom, for the memory jog.

Allan

[romankoz]

I have this book and finally dipped in for a refresher.
None of the actual statistics were of use as has been mentioned here they all lose.
What I had done is underline key comments such as "try to determine exactly what the change is and why it was made" p. 340. My emphasis would be "why"? which kind of leads to "get to know the trainer better than his wife knows him" p342 which leads to "some trainers are ready to roll on opening day..." p 347 which finalizes at "keep records and you'll understand trainers mind games" p 349. Page 350 lists a number of "his record..." checks.
I think one of the better comments is "playing against the trainer who is doing poorly... is often more lucrative".
Mathematically if there is a trainer in a race whose record with 4/1 and less chances is ordinary, and believe me there are quite a few of them around in OZ, surely their odds are unders long term so mathematically you will be receiving better odds on other trainers/runners.

I think thought provoking ideas are more important in this book than the stats. The reader needs to extend themselves rather than expect the book to solve the puzzle.

By some Godlike grace my book opened to p.391 where I have highlighted "who is likely to be underbet in this race" and "not who is likely to win this race".
If you know your trainers and jockeys you will have a good idea to start with. I know in OZ when some trainers travel a fair distance have a second look and ask as above "why" has this trainer traveled.
I personally backed a 16/1 winner at Ascot in Perth on the basis the trainer B Borg took two horses across the country simply because he may travel to the closer Qld more often but going to Perth is a big move for a trainer like him.

[maddog42]

On Thursday at Churchill the 91-1 shot qualified under the QWSR guidelines. No wonder Tom checks this in maiden races. Alas I didn't bet this race with those guidelines because my 23-1 had the lead but finished 3rd. Trifecta paid 33k.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by Light

That's not what the author said.

If you go towards the end of the book and look at his blinker section Meadows says:

"If a horse requires blinkers its generally a negative sign, since many horses race quite competently without them. Blinkers indicate problems. The trainer is grasping at a solution which may or may not work".

You say (above) blinkers are "often a major improvement" according to Massa and Meadows

But according to Massa's numbers from the book its a losing angle

B's on .70 ROI
B's off .82 ROI.

This is an example of common knowledge any horse player with around one year experience can deduce without stats.

The kind of stats found in the book are interesting and can be useful. This particular stat about blinkers really doesn't mean anything. No one in their right mind thinks that you can bet every blinkers on or blinkers off horse and win. But the fact is that some horses improve dramatically when they add blinkers and win and pay huge prices. And I think it's significant that there have been stakes-winning horses that were doing nothing at the start of their careers and then completely turned it around in blinkers. And there have been many solid raceway horses that struggled and then became much better horses after blinkers went on.

Some things to look for are maidens who shy away from other horses, or seem to get intimidated racing inside, or pull themselves up after taking the lead.