Barry Meadow Wins Inaugural Ron Rippey Award

[DeanT]

http://www.brisnet.com/brisnet_promo...nnerMeadow.pdf

LEXINGTON, Ky. (Oct. 9, 2014) - Longtime handicapper and author Barry Meadow has secured the first-ever Ron Rippey Award for Handicapping Media for his piece, “Statistics and Garbage”, that appeared in the Horseplayers Association of North America newsletter.
Brisnet.com will present Meadow with the Rippey Award and a $1,000 cash prize at the National Turf Writers and Broadcasters dinner on Wednesday, Oct. 29, at The Derby in Arcadia, Calif.

“My goal in the article was to help handicappers think about the statistics they consider every day and encourage them to ask the right questions,” said Meadow, who is best known for his Money Secrets at the Racetrack and as a horseplayer advocate. “I’m delighted that
articles aimed at players now have their own separate category for recognition. Sure, the game needs owners and breeders and trainers and all the rest, but it’s great that pieces designed to help handicappers will be honored as well.”

The Handicapping Monthly e-magazine is available for free each month. You can sign up to get it and read back issues here. http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/hanamonthly.html

Thanks to Ed DeRosa for considering a submission from a Horseplayers Group. And thanks to them for creating an award for Ron and for horseplayers.

http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/hanamonthly.html

[horses4courses]

Good stuff

[thaskalos]

Barry has always understated his achievements in the game...but his modesty does not fool the expert player. In a game where integrity comes in short supply, he's got tons to spare. I've been a gambler all my life...and I've read everything gambling-related in sight. Barry Meadow's words are the ones I remember the most...and the ones that I repeat most to others.

Respect!

[098poi]

Here is a link to Barry's article

http://blog.horseplayersassociation....s-garbage.html

[Light]

I would not give Barry an award for that article. A complete rehash and repetition of what every experienced handicapper would tell someone testing a system. Nothing new. On top of that Barry has nothing positive to say. What protocol would he consider validation of a method? No mention. What he insinuates is that there is never a validation because what works today may not necessarily work tomorrow. Gee, where did I hear that before? Oh yes, about a million times on this board. I would really like to know what this guy would consider legitimate positive results in testing horse racing results when you consider that time is infinite and any system will obviously have good and bad runs during that period. His article is basically a doomsday scenario offering nothing to work with, just a lot of "warnings". Great cautionary advice for beginners and idiots. Useless for the modern handicapper.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Light

I would not give Barry an award for that article. A complete rehash and repetition of what every experienced handicapper would tell someone testing a system. Nothing new. On top of that Barry has nothing positive to say. What protocol would he consider validation of a method? No mention. What he insinuates is that there is never a validation because what works today may not necessarily work tomorrow. Gee, where did I hear that before? Oh yes, about a million times on this board. I would really like to know what this guy would consider legitimate positive results in testing horse racing results when you consider that time is infinite and any system will obviously have good and bad runs during that period. His article is basically a doomsday scenario offering nothing to work with, just a lot of "warnings". Great cautionary advice for beginners and idiots. Useless for the modern handicapper.

Whether or not some of what you write is true, all of it is true or none of it is true, i think that your words would ring stronger and truer if you were to write your own article for us to critique. You could write something up that we haven't read a million times on this board...or, something that we have never heard before, something revolutionary for the modern handicapper (that's us!) to sink their teeth into.

If what Barry wrote is useless, how about writing something up that's better.?

[Light]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

If what Barry wrote is useless, how about writing something up that's better.?

So what did you learn from the article that you didn't already know?

All BM did was parrot the rhetoric out there on this issue. He (like everyone) asks for larger sample sizes.What he and nobody else questions is, is there a point where you can have too large a sample size that it not only skews the results but makes them unreal because people don't make 400,000 bets just on favorites (for example,from the article). They don't make 400,000 bets in their lifetime.

My point is there is fallacy in an under sample and an over sample. And where is the optimum point. BM gives specific values for under sample examples but general, broad brush, non specific answers to what is acceptable in a "scientific" study.

Because the truth is there is no answer. When you make a bet, it is unique. Not only you, but the entire situation is in a specific space and time that will never be again.That includes the mental and physical state of the owner, trainer, connections, horse, you, jock,track,equipment,medication, weather,etc,etc.

When you accept the above paragraph, you will see that it is possible to make a profit with a system with a negative return providing you are not a zombie and have intelligence. Nobody bets robotically. So when these samples are given that you will lose the track take betting 400,000 favorites, who cares. Nobody does that, nobody will do that or can do that, and nobody ever will. If that isn't the most useless piece of information I have ever heard I don't know what is.

But there are many times where the favorite will win. There are subsets in every negative system and some of these are positive. If BM was here, again he would want an unspecified "large" sample of this subset. That would prove nothing. If you take a still larger subset from that one, you would get a different answer and it goes on.

Every bet you make is not connected to some database.When you decide to bet a favorite, you are doing it based on other factors beside favoritism. This is what a database does not see. It only sees favoritism. So BM's database is not really reaching into why a handicapper bet the favorite. It is only looking externally. The first statistic a horse player learns is favorites win 33% on average and it is a losing proposition. BM is not impressing me. He is boring me. And to get an award for that?

[GameTheory]

The article is fine. It is good for those to hear that haven't heard it before (and is therefore somewhat simplified for that target audience as it should be). If you aren't part of that group any longer, good for you, it isn't for you. Of course it isn't the be all and end all on the subject, but why would it be, and he points to some other reading material at the end. (Books' worth, because that's what you need.)

I'm sure Barry didn't know he was "competing" for an award when he wrote it, and so if you think there is some better piece of recent writing about handicapping that should have been considered please point it out. (I have no idea what this award is and what they were looking at.)

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Light

Because the truth is there is no answer. When you make a bet, it is unique. Not only you, but the entire situation is in a specific space and time that will never be again.That includes the mental and physical state of the owner, trainer, connections, horse, you, jock,track,equipment,medication, weather,etc,etc.

When you accept the above paragraph, you will see that it is possible to make a profit with a system with a negative return providing you are not a zombie and have intelligence.

Light, give a little more expansion and detail to what I highlighted; a personal unique example, if you can.....

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Light

So what did you learn from the article that you didn't already know?

All BM did was parrot the rhetoric out there on this issue. He (like everyone) asks for larger sample sizes.What he and nobody else questions is, is there a point where you can have too large a sample size that it not only skews the results but makes them unreal because people don't make 400,000 bets just on favorites (for example,from the article). They don't make 400,000 bets in their lifetime.

My point is there is fallacy in an under sample and an over sample. And where is the optimum point. BM gives specific values for under sample examples but general, broad brush, non specific answers to what is acceptable in a "scientific" study.

Because the truth is there is no answer. When you make a bet, it is unique. Not only you, but the entire situation is in a specific space and time that will never be again.That includes the mental and physical state of the owner, trainer, connections, horse, you, jock,track,equipment,medication, weather,etc,etc.

When you accept the above paragraph, you will see that it is possible to make a profit with a system with a negative return providing you are not a zombie and have intelligence. Nobody bets robotically. So when these samples are given that you will lose the track take betting 400,000 favorites, who cares. Nobody does that, nobody will do that or can do that, and nobody ever will. If that isn't the most useless piece of information I have ever heard I don't know what is.

But there are many times where the favorite will win. There are subsets in every negative system and some of these are positive. If BM was here, again he would want an unspecified "large" sample of this subset. That would prove nothing. If you take a still larger subset from that one, you would get a different answer and it goes on.

Every bet you make is not connected to some database.When you decide to bet a favorite, you are doing it based on other factors beside favoritism. This is what a database does not see. It only sees favoritism. So BM's database is not really reaching into why a handicapper bet the favorite. It is only looking externally. The first statistic a horse player learns is favorites win 33% on average and it is a losing proposition. BM is not impressing me. He is boring me. And to get an award for that?

Fair enough.

I didn't learn anything because i already know it all.

I do agree with you every race is completely rare and its own island, no two races are alike, those are good points.

[Light]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Light, give a little more expansion and detail to what I highlighted; a personal unique example, if you can.....

It is the phenomena of "being in the zone". I have mentioned in the past that this game has more to do with one's mental state rather than "statistics". And that mental state will override "statistics". Look at the current baseball playoff games statistics. The best pitcher in baseball, Kershaw, just got blown out in 2 games and his team has been eliminated. His ERA is over 5 in the playoffs. During the regular season, he is almost unbeatable.

Applying BM's article in the baseball arena would tell you that Kershaw would almost certainly win at least one game. What is the difference? IMO it is his mental state. Why did the wild card Giants beat the team with the best record in National league? They are "in the zone". Why did the wildcard KC Royals sweep the best team in the American league?. They are in the zone. This is why you can't rely on statistics as an definitive answer to sports events, because they are not the definitive factor in the outcome of sports events. Mental state is.

You asked my personal experience with this. Yes I have had several times where I could do nothing wrong betting horses. Like having the Midas touch. But those experiences are like a dream. When I try to recapture what I did right, it as fleeting as trying to remember a dream. Try to replicate it statistically and you cant. And that works both ways. You can also beat a negative statistic. The missing element in both statistics is you. And you are dynamic, not static like a statistic. One can only try their best. But to look at statistics as the end all has been proven over and over that it is not necessarily true (either way) due to the uniqueness of each event.

[thaskalos]

I must be playing this game wrong...because I've never experienced the kind of "zone" where I seem to be doing nothing wrong. I always lose many more times than I win...and I can never get into the kind of winning "rhythm" that the term "zone" is used to describe. To me PERSEVERANCE is the key. You play to the best of your ability all the time...and let the chips fall where they may.

Kershaw has a lot more control over the outcome of his game than I have over the outcome of mine.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I must be playing this game wrong...because I've never experienced the kind of "zone" where I seem to be doing nothing wrong. I always lose many more times than I win...and I can never get into the kind of winning "rhythm" that the term "zone" is used to describe.

In 1982, a friend and I experienced the "zone" at Apache Greyhound Park, just outside Phoenix. For 11 magical days, we won every bet imaginable, Doubles, Tri's and the BIG Q, which we hit 3 times, all signers. We lived it up after the races every night and partied 'til dawn. Just as suddenly as the zone appeared, it vanished and never returned. It is one of the best memories of my gambling life.......

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I must be playing this game wrong...because I've never experienced the kind of "zone" where I seem to be doing nothing wrong. I always lose many more times than I win...and I can never get into the kind of winning "rhythm" that the term "zone" is used to describe. To me PERSEVERANCE is the key. You play to the best of your ability all the time...and let the chips fall where they may.

Kershaw has a lot more control over the outcome of his game than I have over the outcome of mine.

I've been in that zone a few times in my gambling career, you feel like no matter what you bet it will win. Its good to be in that state of "euphoria" but very dangerous because its easy to cut corners and make more bets than you should. I've also been in the zone where i was 100% convinced i would never win another bet and if they ran a 1 horse race, the horse would somehow fail to finish and i would lose anyway.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Light

It is the phenomena of "being in the zone". I have mentioned in the past that this game has more to do with one's mental state rather than "statistics". And that mental state will override "statistics". Look at the current baseball playoff games statistics. The best pitcher in baseball, Kershaw, just got blown out in 2 games and his team has been eliminated. His ERA is over 5 in the playoffs. During the regular season, he is almost unbeatable.

Applying BM's article in the baseball arena would tell you that Kershaw would almost certainly win at least one game. What is the difference? IMO it is his mental state. Why did the wild card Giants beat the team with the best record in National league? They are "in the zone". Why did the wildcard KC Royals sweep the best team in the American league?. They are in the zone. This is why you can't rely on statistics as an definitive answer to sports events, because they are not the definitive factor in the outcome of sports events. Mental state is.

You asked my personal experience with this. Yes I have had several times where I could do nothing wrong betting horses. Like having the Midas touch. But those experiences are like a dream. When I try to recapture what I did right, it as fleeting as trying to remember a dream. Try to replicate it statistically and you cant. And that works both ways. You can also beat a negative statistic. The missing element in both statistics is you. And you are dynamic, not static like a statistic. One can only try their best. But to look at statistics as the end all has been proven over and over that it is not necessarily true (either way) due to the uniqueness of each event.

Don't want to take this off topic, but i love your post and wanted to add something about Kershaw that i believe is true. Now, this is just my opinion and won't ever be shared with mainstream society, but my theory on Kershaw is that he's just not all that great.

I have more theories on the Royals "zone" and a lot of it has to do with karma. Teams who have had LONG stretches of failure get this "Edge" when they finally get a good team that's hard to explain. Its part hunger and its part that NOBODY thinks they can win, so they have no pressure on them, its much different when you're playing for the Yankees and you're expected to win, its a lot harder to play the games knowing that if you don't actually win the world series, you're a failure and even if you win it, you aren't doing anything great because you're just doing what you were supposed to do.

One ball bounces the other way in the wildcard game and we aren't really talking about the Royals or them being in a zone, they were lucky to win that game as luck is needed in a 1 game playoff, especially a game decided by 1 run.