gaining insights thru others

[senortout]

Has anyone gained useful information from listening to Maggie in the paddock before the races at Saratoga? I know I have not. What do others think?

A side note on the same subject...do you really think she can note the difference in appearance in all those horses on a race-by-race basis, and looking back at past inspections...for all those horses who have raced in NY?

[PaceAdvantage]

A side note on the same subject...do you really think she can note the difference in appearance in all those horses on a race-by-race basis, and looking back at past inspections...for all those horses who have raced in NY?If she takes notes and/or keeps a database, why not?

It's not like it's Earth-shakingly difficult.

[Robert Fischer]

:confused: this thread's OP was nothing like what I expected from the title.

[iceknight]

Has anyone gained useful information from listening to Maggie in the paddock before the races at Saratoga? I know I have not. What do others think?

A side note on the same subject...do you really think she can note the difference in appearance in all those horses on a race-by-race basis, and looking back at past inspections...for all those horses who have raced in NY? You gain some useful information, but usually pre-race paddock analysis has not helped me a great deal in all races, either from Maggie's notes (which I record as a sub-database - because I like to compare Andy Serling's picks vs Maggie's picks/notes vs my own) or from my own observations (from tv coverage). However, her notes on sprinters are slightly more weighty than the ones on route races. Have followed only for 2-3 meets now so still too early to comment.


However, one place the pre race notes helped me a lot (esp from pre-race warm-up observations) are at Los Alamitos - Ed Burgart's comments.

[Stillriledup]

:confused: this thread's OP was nothing like what I expected from the title.

Yeah, i was thinking it was a thread about listening to SRU's nonsense and how could you possibly gain any insight from a guy like that! :D

Lucky he spared me!

As far as Maggie goes, i do listen to what she's saying and incorporate her opinions into my handicap on occasion.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I can't say that even when I watch every horse before every race in the paddock and warmups and all I get constant insights that affect my bets.But I can say that some prerace horses I've liked I bet more or less based on what I saw.Or seeing a favorite look totally f**ked up in the paddock.I've seen them looked zoned out/drugged out(cloud eyes),coat so dull they look like a transient,or limping noticeably in the post parade.The positives are more subtle and their strength is in it is so subtle.Taller,stouter,longer or more well built legs,brighter coat and muscletone than it's competition.Or simly how they feel,when they are aware of everything and into it,want to come over and look at you because they notice you staring,looking like a boxer in the prefight entrance song during the post parade,bouncing around and high strung without being pathological.I have noticed some horses I've overlooked and bet them if it was a longshot along with my other play.And I have had horses I liked on paper that I have bet 2-3-5 times as much as I originally planned because how they looked was icing on the cake.I notice they come in bunches too.I hand a handful of them late last summer.

I have not heard this gal you speak of Senortout but I have appreciated what the gal from Woodbine bring to the table with appearance and pedigree.

[Tom]

I think she would make a good guest for Andy on a Thursday night, even better for Steve Byk with more time to chat about how she does it.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I wouldn't want her job. Maggie has a very delicate balancing act to maintain "truthful" insight on the horses she discusses, while not being too negative on some of those hapless NY breds, or horses that are obviously hurt or wound up and not going to run well.

I do find her comments useful since appearance is one of the "underweighted" factors in playing the ponies, and she's one of only a handful of public 'cappers that provides that for us.

I would trade that though for bettor camera work in the paddock and post parade. The difference between NYRA and say, Japan Racing, is about as big as the distance between NYC and Tokyo.....

[Robert Fischer]

Maggie does a nice job, and she clearly has a strong understanding of handicapping and trainer moves as well as physicality.

She gives solid information, and she illustrates some of the things involved with looking at a horse in the paddock.

I can't understand why anyone would be displeased with Maggie. She does a nice job and doesn't exactly take up a bunch of time that could be spent on anything else, and it draws the camera into the paddock so you can see the horses.
This thread almost seems like sour grapes.

As far as the thread title goes, "gaining insight through others" is one of the best ways to learn. Maybe I will start a thread on the subject some time.

[DeltaLover]

I try to never hear any commentary or read any analysis by public handicappers of 'paddock' analysts.

I also pay no attention to body language, warm ups and paddock behavior.

Same applies to tips that are coming left and right from my 'insiders' friends.

My input is restricted to proprietary past performance data and the pool analysis.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I try to never hear any commentary or read any analysis by public handicappers of 'paddock' analysts.

I also pay no attention to body language, warm ups and paddock behavior.

Same applies to tips that are coming left and right from my 'insiders' friends.

My input is restricted to proprietary past performance data and the pool analysis.

I agree on the tips, and I can understand that appearance can't easily be quantified, and may very well be reflected in the pools. But I've found that for every "bad" looking chalky horse I toss, I get burned less than 20 percent of the time by the horse running well....

However, I can easily see that if a player's game was advanced enough based on proprietary info, the appearance factor could be minimized or ignored....

[CincyHorseplayer]

I absolutely love it.Starting with Quirin and Kovitz our mathematical and computer friends will always be showing us the next probability,rating,and pool analysis and I will follow them down every successful trail.But they leave us willingly the edge of a reality they can't strangle.Therefore they cast it off and put it down while barely seeing it at the bottom slope of the nose and gleefully yet begrudgingly only chime in to let you know repetitively how much it is a flawed concept.Grits said it best that there are lots of ways to beat this game and because of beating it proves them right.Awesome chick!And of course she's right.I'll follow your paper trail boys,always,but I am so glad you walk away from this side of the game and don't have the capacity,werewithal,pride,passion,or desire to do so.People like to think of ideas as a living,breathing things,and of course they are right too,but in this game we actually do have a ton of living,breathing things and that's a great thing!I do and am going to take my chunk of change out of this game and you might win more than me over your lifetime simply because you bet more than I do,but you will never draw the joy from this game that I do that comes along with the cash.I thought the best of both worlds was the goal right?!

[stringmail]

I have no interest in who she likes but I am interested in any negative comments she provides regarding a horse. Similarly, I am interested when she notes if a horse is acting differently than they have in the past (fractious, washy, sullen)

[Grits]

Cincy--I wish someone really did believe me to be an "awesome chick", instead of one who is not so easily impressed and who mouths off with regularity! There's one thing about it, though--there's a helluva lot more money in my handbag tonight than in my horseplaying friend's wallet. The one who lost his $1800 before yesterday's last race and ask me to spot him $200. We all have technique and lack of tolerance. :lol:

I've believed forever that there are so many approaches to this game. So many that we can never, ever count them, nor would we want to keep up with them all. Ever. We'd become lost in such confusion. And to drone on and on arguing them is thoroughly useless to me. White noise.

We--each of us, have approaches that get results. Our own study, our own ideas, our own thoughts and summations, our own cache of tools are executed when we bet. We're always seeking to make our game better, to walk out the gate up, instead of down. Its what keeps us coming back.

And Maggie, yes, she's mighty good. And to start a thread on whether she is or not, instead of the "actual header" which didn't appear to be anything regarding Maggie's skill. This, too, is useless. Totally.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Cincy--I wish someone really did believe me to be an "awesome chick", instead of one who is not so easily impressed and who mouths off with regularity! There's one thing about it, though--there's a helluva lot more money in my handbag tonight than in my horseplaying friend's wallet. The one who lost his $1800 before yesterday's last race and ask me to spot him $200. We all have technique and lack of tolerance. :lol:

I've believed forever that there are so many approaches to this game. So many that we can never, ever count them, nor would we want to keep up with them all. Ever. We'd become lost in such confusion. And to drone on and on arguing them is thoroughly useless to me. White noise.

We--each of us, have approaches that get results. Our own study, our own ideas, our own thoughts and summations, our own cache of tools are executed when we bet. We're always seeking to make our game better, to walk out the gate up, instead of down. Its what keeps us coming back.

And Maggie, yes, she's mighty good. And to start a thread on whether she is or not, instead of the "actual header" which didn't appear to be anything regarding Maggie's skill. This, too, is useless. Totally.

I like illusion shakers and heartbreakers.Gals who topple gods in their spare time and yawn!The Virginia Hill of the horseracing world is the woman of my dreams.You keep telling me you're too old for me so I'll leave it at that!

You take one man or woman,they set about with a goal,they go from one stage to the next to the next to the next etc.At the final stage does this person look back at stage 1 and recognize no truth?Are they really convinced they have ascended the evolutionary scale to the point that looking back is pointless?I think they do.It's the monotheistic approach that was mentioned as horses being a slim piece of paper back in the day.It's ever prevalent today.Look at Delta's post.Very smart guy who I have always and will always be influenced by.Pouring his scorn on this approach though.There is no singular way to understand an animal.Those of us who desire to know the animal AND use the factual information and who DO understand the fundamental math of betting,we have the best edge on earth.Not only that the vaccum of an objective approach that requires new programming is filled by us with natural passion for the game.To these data elitists that rings of outdated romanticism and nostalgia.To me it translates to werewithal and breathes life into my lungs to accomplish what I want to accomplish in this game.Not there yet.But baby this train is heading north!:cool:

[iceknight]

For the record, I should add that while we are discussing Maggie Wolfendale's physical analysis (which is very good especially when the negatives are pointed out) maybe the other posters could chip in and mention which other track handicappers/physicality 'cappers discuss this on tv/video stream.

Does Jill Byrne (sp?) at Churchill do this? Katie Mikolay - FG/PID?

Anyone at Arlington ?
Woodbine?
Delaware ?
Gulfstream (winter).

These are tracks I mostly play so I would be interested hearing any tips! thanks in advance.

[jahura2]

For the record, I should add that while we are discussing Maggie Wolfendale's physical analysis (which is very good especially when the negatives are pointed out) maybe the other posters could chip in and mention which other track handicappers/physicality 'cappers discuss this on tv/video stream.

Does Jill Byrne (sp?) at Churchill do this? Katie Mikolay - FG/PID?

Anyone at Arlington ?
Woodbine?
Delaware ?
Gulfstream (winter).

These are tracks I mostly play so I would be interested hearing any tips! thanks in advance.

People may disagree but I think Jill Byrne is one of the sharpest female analysts around, pretty knowledgeable handicapper also. Aside from settling on some obvious favorites too often, when she likes an outsider in a race she is not shy about touting the horse. From what I observed she had a solid Churchill spring meet.

[Grits]

Interesting thing about the internet. There's often no byline. The only place where one can compose anything without writing skill. None whatsoever. Not one lick of ability with regard to content, sentence structure, correct spelling, etc.

The real kicker? This poorly classed individual ranks female analysts only, and does so, first, by their looks. Grading them from ugly to pretty. Their knowledge being secondary. :bang:

The only reason any of it caught my eye? The absolute lack of writing skill was stunning and comical--though my two choices were at the top.

Caton Bredar and Donna Barton Brothers.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_is_the_best_female_television_horse_racing_ana lyst

[Hoofless_Wonder]

People may disagree but I think Jill Byrne is one of the sharpest female analysts around, pretty knowledgeable handicapper also. Aside from settling on some obvious favorites too often, when she likes an outsider in a race she is not shy about touting the horse.

Agreed. Jill provides great insight on what is a very tough circuit for me, though I don't recall her commenting on the horse's appearance too much, though maybe a little.

The gal from Woodbine is very good at letting you know what the ponies look like in the paddock, and whether or not they might be ready for the turf or a stretch out. Their analysts are pretty good with the picks for the race from PPs as well.

The only other circuits I know where the public analysts comment on the horses' appearance are overseas - Japan, Australia and Hong Kong.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Interesting thing about the internet. There's often no byline. The only place where one can compose anything without writing skill. None whatsoever. Not one lick of ability with regard to content, sentence structure, correct spelling, etc.

The real kicker? This poorly classed individual ranks female analysts only, and does so, first, by their looks. Grading them from ugly to pretty. Their knowledge being secondary. :bang:

The only reason any of it caught my eye? The absolute lack of writing skill was stunning and comical--though my two choices were at the top.

Caton Bredar and Donna Barton Brothers.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_is_the_best_female_television_horse_racing_ana lyst

That's a damn scary write up, since it appears to be written by some bonehead with way, way, way too much free time on his hands. Screams "John Hinkley Syndrome" big time. :eek:

[Grits]

I was amazed that anyone could write so poorly...and be totally unaware of their lack of skill. Creepy, yep. :lol:

[HUSKER55]

Maggie's bio is on the internet and the girl has credentials. Her dad is an established trainer and she also has a degree in broadcast journalism. In the mornings she is also an exercise rider. That means she talks to the trainers.

My take is that she is always trying to beat the tack favorite at good odds.

I think she does a good job.

JMHO

[Grits]

Maggie's knowledge is far above that of her predecessor. She's an asset, not a hat. ;)

[Johnny V]

I think Maggie does a very nice job. I had occasion to talk to her a couple of times in the past and she is both very personable and knowledgeable and seems to take her job very seriously and puts forth plenty of effort in what she does.

[classhandicapper]

I pick up information from other people from time to time, but I don't bet on it unless it's something I think I already understand well.

For example, if I hear Andy Serling say that the rail was dead at Parx on a certain day and I hadn't looked at the charts for that day, it will prompt me to look at them and watch a few replays to see if I agree with him. I'm not going to just assume I agree with him, but appreciate the info.

If Maggie says that a certain horse looks like a sprinter, but today's race is a route, I know I have no understanding of what that means for the horse's chances or what her stats are like in those situations. I'd assume it was probably a small negative, but I'd probably just ignore it if I loved the horse and had no reason to think it couldn't handle a route from the PPs.