On-Track Observation

[traynor]

If you want to understand horses, watch their ears. It can give you a big advantage over those who believe they are "trip handicapping" or "reading equine body language" by watching videos.

http://www.bbc.com/news/28583944

[Fingal]

Down at the walking ring you'll have people who look for the kidney sweat, chewing on the bit, dapples or the Joe Takach followers that look for stride. I watch ears, those things on a swivel. Are they alert, are they turned to the groom & jockey then turn back forward to the business at hand, or are they lackadaisical & listening to the crowd ?

[PhantomOnTour]

Due to so many folks playing from home (and thus limited views of the runners pre-race) I believe physicality handicapping is a viable avenue for someone who knows what they're seeing....and can get to the track itself to watch.

[thaskalos]

I recall seeing a video about horse body language, many years ago...and the ears were mentioned. But the advice was general in nature...as in, "flat ears indicate that the horse is in a bad mood".

From what I see...the vast majority of the horses have their ears pointed forward, with the occasional flicker as a reaction to the oncoming sounds.

This ear-inspection advice can get a little contradictory though...

http://www.wikihow.com/Understand-Horse-Communication

[traynor]

I recall seeing a video about horse body language, many years ago...and the ears were mentioned. But the advice was general in nature...as in, "flat ears indicate that the horse is in a bad mood".

From what I see...the vast majority of the horses have their ears pointed forward, with the occasional flicker as a reaction to the oncoming sounds.

This ear-inspection advice can get a little contradictory though...

http://www.wikihow.com/Understand-Horse-Communication

Watch the horses as they are being led to the paddock. In many cases, the horses will determine among themselves who the winner of the race will be. That horse can often be determined by watching the ears of horses ahead and behind it--as if they are listening for instructions. For example, when a horse is fourth in line, the first three are continually swiveling their ears backwards, and the later horses are primarily pointing forward, it might be wise to take another look at all those Equibase numbers. They may be missing something.

There should come a time in every racegoers life when he or she sees some simple aspect of reality that most ignore or miss--and cashes a VERY healthy ticket as a result. It is very likely to completely change how one looks at horse races--for the better.

[traynor]

I think the reason many avoid (or minimize) onsite observation is a lack of self-confidence. Observation requires that one both develops and uses his or her own skills. For those willing to exert the effort, the rewards can be substantial. For those who require excuses for losing, it is an activity best avoided.

[thaskalos]

Watch the horses as they are being led to the paddock. In many cases, the horses will determine among themselves who the winner of the race will be. That horse can often be determined by watching the ears of horses ahead and behind it--as if they are listening for instructions. For example, when a horse is fourth in line, the first three are continually swiveling their ears backwards, and the later horses are primarily pointing forward, it might be wise to take another look at all those Equibase numbers. They may be missing something.

There should come a time in every racegoers life when he or she sees some simple aspect of reality that most ignore or miss--and cashes a VERY healthy ticket as a result. It is very likely to completely change how one looks at horse races--for the better.

I agree with you...reality cannot be explained by mere numbers...and inaccurate numbers at that. I have spent considerable time thinking about the clues that body language provides -- especially the ears. It initially appeared to me that the horses might INDEED be motioning towards their "leader" with the flicking of their ears...but it later occurred to me that they might just as easily be arranging their plans for after the race.

As simple-minded as the numbers-player is to think that his numbers explain the horse racing world...I believe the body language player is equally simple-minded -- when he presumes to decipher the intentions of a horse by a brief and casual observance of its demeanor before the race.

What presumptions can we draw by watching a human athlete's demeanor before an athletic event...and why should equine athletes be any different?

Both the human and the equine worlds are more complicated than that...IMO.

PS...

I believe that more can be gained by watching the horse AFTER the race.

[PhantomOnTour]

I think the reason many avoid (or minimize) onsite observation is a lack of self-confidence. Observation requires that one both develops and uses his or her own skills. For those willing to exert the effort, the rewards can be substantial. For those who require excuses for losing, it is an activity best avoided.
Totally - I really don't know what I'm looking at, other than obvious signs of distress or energy.
I've told this story before, but...

I knew a very low % trainer at FG about 10-15yrs ago (I am talking about a 2-45 type trainer), but he took me into the paddock one day and started telling me about some runners who were off here or had some swelling there...and it was all Greek to me (calling Thaskalos!).
Sure enough - the sore runners didn't do well.
But the main gist is that I couldn't see the swelling or the sore right front, or any of it, really.

[traynor]

Totally - I really don't know what I'm looking at, other than obvious signs of distress or energy.
I've told this story before, but...

I knew a very low % trainer at FG about 10-15yrs ago (I am talking about a 2-45 type trainer), but he took me into the paddock one day and started telling me about some runners who were off here or had some swelling there...and it was all Greek to me (calling Thaskalos!).
Sure enough - the sore runners didn't do well.
But the main gist is that I couldn't see the swelling or the sore right front, or any of it, really.

The point is that you can learn to see it. For example, a sore horse moves in a particular way that indicates the area of soreness. It isn't necessary to go through some rigamarole about what one saw in a Joe Takach video, or read in a book somewhere. A shortcut is what the NLPers call "uptime."
http://www.nlppati.com/articles/uptime.shtml

Essentially, most people are too busy talking to themselves, worrying about how they will be perceived by other people, or rehashing the old days to pay attention to the real world in front of them. At racetracks, that can be costly.

[thaskalos]

Totally - I really don't know what I'm looking at, other than obvious signs of distress or energy.
I've told this story before, but...

I knew a very low % trainer at FG about 10-15yrs ago (I am talking about a 2-45 type trainer), but he took me into the paddock one day and started telling me about some runners who were off here or had some swelling there...and it was all Greek to me (calling Thaskalos!).
Sure enough - the sore runners didn't do well.
But the main gist is that I couldn't see the swelling or the sore right front, or any of it, really.

By his trainer stats...his healthy runners didn't do well either...

[Tom]

Even if you know what you are looking at, it still depends on how that appearance is start to start, as we have learned with TV races not long ago.

[Show Me the Wire]

By his trainer stats...his healthy runners didn't do well either...


Because they are to slow to win. Lots of trainers depend on their day rates and they don't want to lose horses, especially sound horses. Sound horses are easier to take care of and train. To avoid losing their day rate and an easy care horse, the horse is entered in races over its head. The other trainers won't drop a slip for what they feel is an over priced horse or the horse is entered in tougher non-claiming races. The plan is to keep the horse more than it is to win.

Then there are the trainers who erroneously over value a horses talent and owners who want to keep their animal as a pet.

Lots of factors for low percentage trainers with very sound horses. The horse may look great in the paddock, ears pricked, nice stride, good confirmation and still lose.

[thaskalos]

Because they are to slow to win. Lots of trainers depend on their day rates and they don't want to lose horses, especially sound horses. Sound horses are easier to take care of and train. To avoid losing their day rate and an easy care horse, the horse is entered in races over its head. The other trainers won't drop a slip for what they feel is an over priced horse or the horse is entered in tougher non-claiming races. The plan is to keep the horse more than it is to win.

Then there are the trainers who erroneously over value a horses talent and owners who want to keep their animal as a pet.

Lots of factors for low percentage trainers with very sound horses.

My intention was to point out that a 2-45 trainer is not the best "laboratory" in which to conduct this sort of an experiment. Am I wrong?

[Show Me the Wire]

My intention was to point out that a 2-45 trainer is not the best "laboratory" in which to conduct this sort of an experiment. Am I wrong?

Yes. If the trainer is purposely placing his charges in over their head, it has nothing to do with him not knowing or distinguishing which horses are sound. It has to do with economics not knowledge of horses. Economics can also mean darkening a horse's form to win a big score down the road.

I should point out these trainers usually have small barns and can't afford the economic hit of losing a horse.

[traynor]

Yes. If the trainer is purposely placing his charges in over their head, it has nothing to do with him not knowing or distinguishing which horses are sound. It has to do with economics not knowledge of horses.

Good point. It is way too easy to believe one "understands a trainers intent" with little or no basis for that belief.

[traynor]

I agree with you...reality cannot be explained by mere numbers...and inaccurate numbers at that. I have spent considerable time thinking about the clues that body language provides -- especially the ears. It initially appeared to me that the horses might INDEED be motioning towards their "leader" with the flicking of their ears...but it later occurred to me that they might just as easily be arranging their plans for after the race.

As simple-minded as the numbers-player is to think that his numbers explain the horse racing world...I believe the body language player is equally simple-minded -- when he presumes to decipher the intentions of a horse by a brief and casual observance of its demeanor before the race.

What presumptions can we draw by watching a human athlete's demeanor before an athletic event...and why should equine athletes be any different?

Both the human and the equine worlds are more complicated than that...IMO.

PS...

I believe that more can be gained by watching the horse AFTER the race.

It is the folly of humans to continually seek certainty in an uncertain world. That is nowhere more apparent than at a racetrack.

[thaskalos]

Yes. If the trainer is purposely placing his charges in over their head, it has nothing to do with him not knowing or distinguishing which horses are sound. It has to do with economics not knowledge of horses.

SMTW...let me ask you a question:

You are a horse trainer, and you take me into your barn...where you proceed to point out certain horses to me who you say are plagued by nagging but invisible leg injuries. I follow the performances of these horses, and I find that none of them ran well in their subsequent starts...and I feel that I have been exposed to a great source of "inside information". But then I look at the subsequent races of the REST of your horses...and find that none of THEM ran well either.

Now I am stumped. Did the "injured" horses fail to run well because of their "injuries"...or is this sort of lackluster level of performance what should be EXPECTED in your barn -- given your training skill or the quality of your horses.

When testing the effectiveness of a new drug in humans...they give medicine to half the group...and withhold the medicine from the other half. If both halves of the group report the same findings...then the drug companies know that they've got nothing new to offer.

[Maximillion]

Because they are to slow to win. Lots of trainers depend on their day rates and they don't want to lose horses, especially sound horses. Sound horses are easier to take care of and train. To avoid losing their day rate and an easy care horse, the horse is entered in races over its head. The other trainers won't drop a slip for what they feel is an over priced horse or the horse is entered in tougher non-claiming races. The plan is to keep the horse more than it is to win.

Then there are the trainers who erroneously over value a horses talent and owners who want to keep their animal as a pet.

Lots of factors for low percentage trainers with very sound horses. The horse may look great in the paddock, ears pricked, nice stride, good confirmation and still lose.

Good post.
I think that when horses like what your decribing above are finally dropped in class they are often very bad bets.

[AndyC]

The point is that you can learn to see it. For example, a sore horse moves in a particular way that indicates the area of soreness. It isn't necessary to go through some rigamarole about what one saw in a Joe Takach video, or read in a book somewhere. A shortcut is what the NLPers call "uptime."
http://www.nlppati.com/articles/uptime.shtml

Essentially, most people are too busy talking to themselves, worrying about how they will be perceived by other people, or rehashing the old days to pay attention to the real world in front of them. At racetracks, that can be costly.

My view on body language is that for me it is a waste of my time. I've got all the books and the videos. I spent many days and hours taking notes and observing but the return on my time spent was not worth it. It is both physically and mentally exhausting to watch the paddock, then watch the warmups and then run to the window to try and get a bet down.

My philosophy is that my handicapping methods are good enough to point out the horses that should be fit and ready to run top race. I trust that the trainers, whose habits I know well, will not waste a race by running an unfit animal. I am sure that I have bet many unfit horses by ignoring body language as a factor but I know many body language experts who tear up a lot of tickets.

An experience I had with Joe Takach cemented my philosophy. It happened at Del Mar where I was discussing the day's card with another handicapper and Joe was listening to the conversation. I really was excited about 3 particular horses and after explaining my reasons Joe chimed in and essentially said my selections had no chance while reeling off a list of maladies for each horse. When each of my selections came romping home a winner I questioned whether spending a lot of time and effort trying to understand body language was time well spent. For the record, I believe that Joe Takach is the hardest working handicapper at the track and I have nothing but admiration for his work ethic and knowledge of horses.

[traynor]

My view on body language is that for me it is a waste of my time. I've got all the books and the videos. I spent many days and hours taking notes and observing but the return on my time spent was not worth it. It is both physically and mentally exhausting to watch the paddock, then watch the warmups and then run to the window to try and get a bet down.

My philosophy is that my handicapping methods are good enough to point out the horses that should be fit and ready to run top race. I trust that the trainers, whose habits I know well, will not waste a race by running an unfit animal. I am sure that I have bet many unfit horses by ignoring body language as a factor but I know many body language experts who tear up a lot of tickets.

An experience I had with Joe Takach cemented my philosophy. It happened at Del Mar where I was discussing the day's card with another handicapper and Joe was listening to the conversation. I really was excited about 3 particular horses and after explaining my reasons Joe chimed in and essentially said my selections had no chance while reeling off a list of maladies for each horse. When each of my selections came romping home a winner I questioned whether spending a lot of time and effort trying to understand body language was time well spent. For the record, I believe that Joe Takach is the hardest working handicapper at the track and I have nothing but admiration for his work ethic and knowledge of horses.

Modeling--whether of humans or horses--is a fairly easy skill to develop. It is not really all that difficult. What IS difficult is putting essentially qualitative information into a quantitative perceptual framework.

As far as the incredible complexity of horse racing, I think Bradshaw had it down pat.
“... it ain’t nothing but a horse race; just figure out who’s gonna lead and who’s gonna chase.” ~ Jim "The Hat" Bradshaw

Sometimes the complexities and difficulties are subjective perceptions, rather than accurate descriptions of external reality.

[thaskalos]

As far as the incredible complexity of horse racing, I think Bradshaw had it down pat.
“... it ain’t nothing but a horse race; just figure out who’s gonna lead and who’s gonna chase.” ~ Jim "The Hat" Bradshaw

Sometimes the complexities and difficulties are subjective perceptions, rather than accurate descriptions of external reality.

Sometimes a man is blessed with an abnormally heightened sense in one aspect of his being...at the direct expense of the other senses.

He is great at doing something...but he lacks the ability or the eloquence to properly explain how he is doing it.

[Show Me the Wire]

Good post.
I think that when horses like what your decribing above are finally dropped in class they are often very bad bets.

I agree. The trainer whom is so intent on keeping the horse is now ready to lose it, you have to ask why?

[traynor]

Sometimes a man is blessed with an abnormally heightened sense in one aspect of his being...at the direct expense of the other senses.

He is great at doing something...but he lacks the ability or the eloquence to properly explain how he is doing it.

That sounds like an extended euphemism for "one-trick pony." The myth of one sense being at the expense of another (or others) is an old one, and not necessarily true. In most cases, not even close. It would be equivalent to saying that if one learns one topic, it diminishes one's ability to learn other topics. The complete opposite is true--the more one learns, and the more diverse the topics learned, the easier it becomes to learn new/different/other topics and fields of endeavor.

[Show Me the Wire]

SMTW...let me ask you a question:

You are a horse trainer, and you take me into your barn...where you proceed to point out certain horses to me who you say are plagued by nagging but invisible leg injuries. I follow the performances of these horses, and I find that none of them ran well in their subsequent starts...and I feel that I have been exposed to a great source of "inside information". But then I look at the subsequent races of the REST of your horses...and find that none of THEM ran well either.

Now I am stumped. Did the "injured" horses fail to run well because of their "injuries"...or is this sort of lackluster level of performance what should be EXPECTED in your barn -- given your training skill or the quality of your horses.

When testing the effectiveness of a new drug in humans...they give medicine to half the group...and withhold the medicine from the other half. If both halves of the group report the same findings...then the drug companies know that they've got nothing new to offer.

You are making an assumption. The assumption is I as a trainer am trying to win a race. What I am trying to explain is your assumption may not be correct. I as a trainer may not be trying to win a race, but protect myself from losing a horse and protect revenue generated by that horse and get a piece of the purse.

With that said if the trainer you are talking to you tells you he is trying to win and he can't that goes to training skill.

[thaskalos]

That sounds like an extended euphemism for "one-trick pony." The myth of one sense being at the expense of another (or others) is an old one, and not necessarily true. In most cases, not even close. It would be equivalent to saying that if one learns one topic, it diminishes one's ability to learn other topics. The complete opposite is true--the more one learns, and the more diverse the topics learned, the easier it becomes to learn new/different/other topics and fields of endeavor.
Jim "The Hat" Bradshaw wrote two versions of the same handicapping book. I dare anyone to make any sense of either one of them. The man might have been a handicapping GENIUS...but he could not make you understand how he did what he did. Others have the style and the eloquence...but they have nothing of substance to say.

It's hard to get style and substance together.

[thaskalos]

You are making an assumption. The assumption is I as a trainer am trying to win a race. What I am trying to explain is your assumption may not be correct. I as a trainer may not be trying to win a race, but protect myself from losing a horse and protect revenue generated by that horse and get a piece of the purse.

With that said if the trainer you are talking to you tells you he is trying to win and he can't that goes to training skill.
Am I also making an incorrect assumption when I say that the trainer who is not trying to win races will have a hard time keeping clients?

How common do you suppose these trainers that you are describing are?

[PhantomOnTour]

SMTW...let me ask you a question:

You are a horse trainer, and you take me into your barn...where you proceed to point out certain horses to me who you say are plagued by nagging but invisible leg injuries. I follow the performances of these horses, and I find that none of them ran well in their subsequent starts...and I feel that I have been exposed to a great source of "inside information". But then I look at the subsequent races of the REST of your horses...and find that none of THEM ran well either.

Now I am stumped. Did the "injured" horses fail to run well because of their "injuries"...or is this sort of lackluster level of performance what should be EXPECTED in your barn -- given your training skill or the quality of your horses.

When testing the effectiveness of a new drug in humans...they give medicine to half the group...and withhold the medicine from the other half. If both halves of the group report the same findings...then the drug companies know that they've got nothing new to offer.
We were in the paddock - the horses he pointed out were not trained by him.

Those who can - do
Those who can't - teach

Just because he sucks at training doesn't mean he cannot readily identify a sore horse....nor can he do anything to right those sore horses :D

[thaskalos]

We were in the paddock - the horses he pointed out were not trained by him.

Those who can - do
Those who can't - teach

Just because he sucks at training doesn't mean he cannot readily identify a sore horse....nor can he do anything to right those sore horses :D
Oh, sorry.

I thought he was pointing out his OWN horses. :blush:

[Show Me the Wire]

Am I also making an incorrect assumption when I say that the trainer who is not trying to win races will have a hard time keeping clients?

How common do you suppose these trainers that you are describing are?

Yes. Mostly the small barns, who can't afford to lose horses. Some of these trainers only have one client. Some owners are more interested as keeping their horses as pets and don't view horses as investments.

[PhantomOnTour]

Oh, sorry.

I thought he was pointing out his OWN horses. :blush:
No worries Thask - when I say this dude was a bad trainer I was understating it...2-45 was being generous :D

He now sells life insurance.

EDIT: okay, I looked the guy up and he wasn't that bad.
23-237 lifetime record

[Billnewman]

Watching the ears during the race will help you decipher what the horse is thinking as well. Their ears are pinned when they side by side challenging each other. Then when they think their work is over, say they open up 5 lengths with 100 yards to run they will prick their ears. Some horses think the race is over as soon as make the lead. They will prick their ears and start shortening stride. It's a sign of their mind wandering. While you're in the paddock watching the horses body language you may as well look at the riders as they come out and see what kind of body language they exhibit. I remember Mike McCarthy at finger Lakes. Whenever he started using the stick to practice his golf swing his mount had no chance.

[imofe]

Sometimes a man is blessed with an abnormally heightened sense in one aspect of his being...at the direct expense of the other senses.

He is great at doing something...but he lacks the ability or the eloquence to properly explain how he is doing it.

For some reason, people think that you only have knowledge in an area if you can explain it. Schools use this for evaluating students and it is very popular.
True story. I am being taken around by a principal to show me what to look for in a classroom. We will go into the rooms and ask the students what they are doing. If they can not explain what they are doing, they did not master it. We go into a math class and the kids are learning about prime numbers. They are in the process of writing prime or not next to a number. We ask one boy what they are doing. He says they are learning about math. The principal shakes her head at me and tells me he doesn't get it. The next boy she asks explains that someone needs to make computers safer by writing codes, and knowing prime numbers is needed for that. She shakes her head in approval and smiles at me. Later I talk to the teacher. The 1st boy got all 20 answers correct and the second boy got 10/20.

[pandy]

I think looking at horses on the track is more useful at the lower class tracks, where the horses race more often and do have soreness and other physical problems. At the current Satatoga or Del Mar meets, I don't think it's going to be that helpful.

I've bet horses because I liked the way they looked and hit, but it's sort of like pedigree handicapping. You see a horse making its turf debut that has a great turf pedigree and play it and it wins easily and you think, wow, how smart am I? Then the next 10 horses you bet that have great turf pedigrees don't run a lick.

The bottom line is, if a horse isn't one of the fastest horses in the race, it is not going to win, regardless of how great it looks on the track, or how well bred it is.

When betting first time starters, I prefer to bet horses that were purchased after working out (two year old in training sales). You see many horses that are well bred and look fantastic that sold for a ton of money, but they were bought as yearlings so the owners never got a chance to see them run, and they can't run, even though they are beautiful and well bred. It amazes me how people will buy a horse without seeing how it runs.

[traynor]

I think looking at horses on the track is more useful at the lower class tracks, where the horses race more often and do have soreness and other physical problems. At the current Satatoga or Del Mar meets, I don't think it's going to be that helpful.

I've bet horses because I liked the way they looked and hit, but it's sort of like pedigree handicapping. You see a horse making its turf debut that has a great turf pedigree and play it and it wins easily and you think, wow, how smart am I? Then the next 10 horses you bet that have great turf pedigrees don't run a lick.

The bottom line is, if a horse isn't one of the fastest horses in the race, it is not going to win, regardless of how great it looks on the track, or how well bred it is.

When betting first time starters, I prefer to bet horses that were purchased after working out (two year old in training sales). You see many horses that are well bred and look fantastic that sold for a ton of money, but they were bought as yearlings so the owners never got a chance to see them run, and they can't run, even though they are beautiful and well bred. It amazes me how people will buy a horse without seeing how it runs.

Some would argue the complete opposite--that it is only a question of degree. At "lower class" tracks, the differences may be apparent to a casual or inexperienced observer. Those same differences--on a finer scale--are every bit as apparent at "higher class" tracks.

Once one understands what to look for, and how to look, one understands that one is not looking for isolated specifics that do or do not exist (specific muscling, dappling, etc.) but for the many shades of value in a range.

Life would be simple if a checklist of boolean values could be ticked off as each horse passes, with some meaningful (profitable) result. Unfortunately, that only works in the marketing material and claims. Much like "trip handicapping."

Regardless of past performance information, the bottom line is that in most races, three, four, or more horse have a shot at winning. Astute observation can often be used to pinpoint which of that group is more likely to perform better and which is likely to perform worse than the past performances indicate.

You made an interesting comment, though. I think many (if not most) of the current crop of observational handicappers (or those who use observational handicapping to augment other approaches to race analysis) learned their craft at minor tracks (where the differences are more apparent). However, once the skills are developed, the larger mutuel pools at major tracks offer better opportunities for profit. Part of that may be the belief of (many) bettors at major tracks that "all the horses are in good shape or they wouldn't be here," which enables them to avoid too much thinking, and spend their time staring at past performances.

[traynor]

For some reason, people think that you only have knowledge in an area if you can explain it. Schools use this for evaluating students and it is very popular.
True story. I am being taken around by a principal to show me what to look for in a classroom. We will go into the rooms and ask the students what they are doing. If they can not explain what they are doing, they did not master it. We go into a math class and the kids are learning about prime numbers. They are in the process of writing prime or not next to a number. We ask one boy what they are doing. He says they are learning about math. The principal shakes her head at me and tells me he doesn't get it. The next boy she asks explains that someone needs to make computers safer by writing codes, and knowing prime numbers is needed for that. She shakes her head in approval and smiles at me. Later I talk to the teacher. The 1st boy got all 20 answers correct and the second boy got 10/20.

One of the interesting conclusions of the US military study generally referred to as the Jedi Project is that the top experts in a given area are unable to explicitly describe how they do a given thing. Specifically, their expertise goes beyond "conscious" abilities.

The same conclusions result in a very interesting field (that I was once fortunate enough to participate in) usually referred to as "shadowing." The "shadower" unobtrusively observes a SME (subject matter expert) to find out how they do what they do and chunk that knoweldge down to enable it to be taught to others. Great practice for observational handicapping.

You might find Grinder and Bandler's Structure of Magic interesting. It is based on modeling a number of highly successful therapists unable to explicitly describe what they did and how they did it, and was the seminal work that evolved into neurolinguistic programming.

[overthehill]

My experience has been a bit different. I would not necessarily dismiss a horse a horse who looks bad, or bet a horse because he looks good, but will bet a horse who is a big price if he looks good, despite what his form looks like. many of them look like they are in the hunt and then give it up in the stretch but some of them win by open lengths. if they are trained by a good trainer of have a good jockey up i give xtra credit. when carracio was a hot bug boy last year he picked up the mount on a horse that had shipped to delaware from mountaneer. according to the beyers he had no shot but he won easily at 40-1.

[jk3521]

I think all of the horses at minor tracks look terrible. That's why they end up there.Very few of them show any sign that they want to run. They just have to. :D

[DeltaLover]

This is a topic we have discussed may times in the past, but from what I can see from the responses this thread attracted it still seems to be interesting for many of us.

In my opinion "reading equine body language" is useless for betting purposes and aside from checking for front bantages, I spend zero of my handicapping energy towards this direction.

Still, I admit that there are people claiming that they can judge how a horse will run based on looks.. If this is the case, it is very simple to prove that the are correct, just by posting their opinions in a related thread instead of repeating the same theories over and over...

[jk3521]

Even in Maggie Wolfendale's paddock report she mentions 3,4, or 5 horses in large fields that show good body language. Sometimes she's right, sometimes not.

[thaskalos]

It is often said that the horse who appears to be high-strung in the paddock is a bad bet...because he is using up his energy before the race. By the same logic...shouldn't the horse who is lethargic-looking in the paddock be a DESIRABLE wager...since it spends as little energy as possible before the race?

[Tom]

Still, I admit that there are people claiming that they can judge how a horse will run based on looks.. If this is the case, it is very simple to prove that the are correct, just by posting their opinions in a related thread instead of repeating the same theories over and over...

What do think Maggie does every single day?
I'm quite sure she doesn't feel obligated to prove anything. She already has.

[EMD4ME]

Yes, she has. As a player who didn't really think she was impressive in her early days, I am now a full believer in Maggie. I write all of her assessments down in my formulator and she is spot on a majority of the time.

[Fingal]

It is often said that the horse who appears to be high-strung in the paddock is a bad bet...because he is using up his energy before the race. By the same logic...shouldn't the horse who is lethargic-looking in the paddock be a DESIRABLE wager...since it spends as little energy as possible before the race?

I forget whose book it was in- an early Beyer, Dawidowitz or someone else like that in they've seen too many that were lethargic in the walking ring & post parade except that 30 yards from the gate they turn into Secretariat. I ended up second guessing myself of figs vs. appearance so much that now I only give it a passing glance.

Now there are others that swear & profit by it, so to each their own.

[castaway01]

It is often said that the horse who appears to be high-strung in the paddock is a bad bet...because he is using up his energy before the race. By the same logic...shouldn't the horse who is lethargic-looking in the paddock be a DESIRABLE wager...since it spends as little energy as possible before the race?

I think it's high-strung as in skittish, kidney sweat = bad; high-strung as in on their toes, attentive = good. Lethargic is never good, except when it is (as in, horses that always look lethargic and relaxed/disinterested but run well anyway).

That's why I could never make a dime based on visual judgment of the horses and I think it's a rare skill to be able to win money with it. Every so often a horse looks much better than the others, visually, but those events are few and far between and they're usually 3-5 at the time, so I'm probably seeing what my paper handicapping told me I'd be seeing.

[traynor]

This is a topic we have discussed may times in the past, but from what I can see from the responses this thread attracted it still seems to be interesting for many of us.

In my opinion "reading equine body language" is useless for betting purposes and aside from checking for front bantages, I spend zero of my handicapping energy towards this direction.

Still, I admit that there are people claiming that they can judge how a horse will run based on looks.. If this is the case, it is very simple to prove that the are correct, just by posting their opinions in a related thread instead of repeating the same theories over and over...

Festinger and many others have provided ample insights into, and analysis of, the perceptual and cognitive biases that are created by cognitive dissonance. It is not just that "to a carpenter with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." It is that the carpenter is prevented from objectively processing information that conflicts with his or her pre-existing perceptual and cognitive biases--despite compelling disconfirming evidence that strongly suggests the biases are primarily ego-defenses rather than objective descriptions of external reality.

"To a carpenter with a hammer, everything looks like a nail" is only one side of the coin. The other side is that cognitive dissonance prevents the carpenter from seeing (and cognitively processing) anything that is not a nail. It is not rocket science--just basic human nature.

[DeltaLover]

Festinger and many others have provided ample insights into, and analysis of, the perceptual and cognitive biases that are created by cognitive dissonance. It is not just that "to a carpenter with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." It is that the carpenter is prevented from objectively processing information that conflicts with his or her pre-existing perceptual and cognitive biases--despite compelling disconfirming evidence that strongly suggests the biases are primarily ego-defenses rather than objective descriptions of external reality.

"To a carpenter with a hammer, everything looks like a nail" is only one side of the coin. The other side is that cognitive dissonance prevents the carpenter from seeing (and cognitively processing) anything that is not a nail. It is not rocket science--just basic human nature.




Since you talk about nails, I have to say that “I will believe when I put my finger where the nails were”...

Until then I will consider things like paddock handicapping some form of a wishful thinking of the horse bettor and nothing more...

[traynor]

Since you talk about nails, I have to say that “I will believe when I put my finger where the nails were”...

Until then I will consider things like paddock handicapping some form of a wishful thinking of the horse bettor and nothing more...

If I were interested in convincing you of anything, I would probably try a lot harder. Fortunately for both of us, I am not.

[DeltaLover]

If I were interested in convincing you of anything, I would probably try a lot harder. Fortunately for both of us, I am not.

This is 100% fine Traynor...

What i do not understand though, is what makes you to express your claims in a public forum, if you do not care about backing them with some evidence?

[cj's dad]

I still have the video cassette which is titled "Spotting the Ready to Win Racehorse".

I found it interesting and worth watching.

[sammy the sage]

This is 100% fine Traynor...

What i do not understand though, is what makes you to express your claims in a public forum, if you do not care about backing them with some evidence?

he doesn't have to...the horse whisperer has PROVEN that body language does account for something ;)

[traynor]

This is 100% fine Traynor...

What i do not understand though, is what makes you to express your claims in a public forum, if you do not care about backing them with some evidence?

Perhaps the most difficult to understand is the motive of those who declare things they personally are unable to do as generically impossible.

[DeltaLover]

Perhaps the most difficult to understand is the motive of those who declare things they personally are unable to do as generically impossible.


I am not ready to believe in stories involving things like green dragons, trips through time and astrology..

Despite the fact that I realize that mythology might serve some purposes and be an interesting topic to many, I still prefer to rely on the Aristotelian (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic) sequence of case - observation - experiment - conclusion whenever it comes to the formation of my opinions and beliefs..

[Grits]

I will consider things like paddock handicapping some form of a wishful thinking of the horse bettor and nothing more...

To study past performances, crunch numbers, class, placement in today's race, etc, is a must. In addition, being in the grandstand/paddock watching horses--their action, their muscle, their head carriage, etc in the paddock and in the post parade? And benefit from doing so? No. This is not "wishful thinking". I believe you're mistaken. Traynor has an honest point about your declaration. TV or a computer doesn't compare to physically being at the track watching horses prior to their races. Its an asset.

[DeltaLover]

To study past performances, crunch numbers, class, placement in today's race, etc, is a must. In addition, being in the grandstand/paddock watching horses--their action, their muscle, their head carriage, etc in the paddock and in the post parade? And benefit from doing so? No. This is not "wishful thinking". I believe you're mistaken. Traynor has an honest point about your declaration. TV or a computer doesn't compare to physically being at the track watching horses prior to their races. Its an asset.


Of course I can be wrong! The way to prove this (or any other similar) point is simple and this is what I am proposing...

We can easily keep a (public) data base with related, paddock inspection data and check their validity after we have gather enough of them.

The null hypothesis, is that this kind of a process will not have a significant impact to the bottom line..


Let's see if it holds true of false...

[castaway01]

To study past performances, crunch numbers, class, placement in today's race, etc, is a must. In addition, being in the grandstand/paddock watching horses--their action, their muscle, their head carriage, etc in the paddock and in the post parade? And benefit from doing so? No. This is not "wishful thinking". I believe you're mistaken. Traynor has an honest point about your declaration. TV or a computer doesn't compare to physically being at the track watching horses prior to their races. Its an asset.

I think it is an asset, but that for me and most other people who don't/can't spend every day watching horses live in the paddock, we don't know as much as we think we do. Someone like Maggie Wolfendale provides excellent information on who looks good in the paddock and who doesn't, and just listening to that would add more to my game than my spending the time to try to interpret horse body language and convince myself I know something.

[Exotic1]

To study past performances, crunch numbers, class, placement in today's race, etc, is a must. In addition, being in the grandstand/paddock watching horses--their action, their muscle, their head carriage, etc in the paddock and in the post parade? And benefit from doing so? No. This is not "wishful thinking". I believe you're mistaken. Traynor has an honest point about your declaration. TV or a computer doesn't compare to physically being at the track watching horses prior to their races. Its an asset.

Visual inspection and other approaches intuitively can be asset but I think what DL is saying is can someone "prove it"? In other words, if an expert visual inspector maintained a log or database of selections based solely on appearance that met the rigors of sample size etc, they would then be able to prove the usefulness of visual inspection. To make it a little more fuzzy, can inspection be used to compliment a figure based metric - appearance both good or bad and can this proven? I think I read on this board where Jeff P was able to add visual inspection into a final grade or something like that. Maybe not.

Grits, I have a feeling you will say that the proof is found in the pocketbook and you're just fine with the proof you have seen. I would tend to agree with that type of bottom line test. But still the visual inspection component is measurable and provable and to a scientist like DL he is asking for proponents to prove it, if possible.

[overthehill]

Today at indiana downs was a classic case of why this is not a waste a time. in a maiden race a a horse opened at 1/9 and went off at 1/2 who came on to the track swishing its tail like crazy and displaying lots of kidney sweat. it showed early speed but finished off the board. initiallly i was going to box it with a long shot in exactas but when i saw how it looked i didnt use it.

[Grits]

DL, I'm not going to keep records or supply you with long term data simply because I disagree with you that, observing horses, after handicapping them is "wishful thinking". Maggie has been getting on horses all her life, and she still does so in the morning. She's good at her job!

I knew just a couple of things in the last day or two. On Sunday, Alpha was a bad, bad bet and Farhaan, his stablemate, who went off at the longest price in the field, wasn't. Alpha and Easter Gift paled in comparison to Farhaan in appearance--weight/fitness/ready to race--in the paddock and post parade. Alpha ran hard off the long layoff, but Farhaan won it by three, easily.

On Monday, Weaver had, two year old, Cyclogenesis, making his first start. A turf sprint going 5 1/2 in a field of 8, 3 of whom were not firsters. He looked outstanding going to post. Excited, alert. Breaking away, he took off from his pony. A friend asked me, "who do you like"? I told him, "Weaver's 3 horse is gonna run well." He won by three.

This is a hard game, there's no tried and true. Any plan, can and does go awry. I try not to discount anyone's means when they are cashing wagers. To do so would be a mistake on my part.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I still have the video cassette which is titled "Spotting the Ready to Win Racehorse".

I found it interesting and worth watching.

I prefer the sequel, "Spotting the Ready to Lose Racehorse".

A slow horse on his toes and with ears pricked, and tail away from rump, and dappled coat is, well, still a SLOW horse.

A contender who has negative signs can be tossed with some degree of confidence, though it's even better to take notes on individual horses from race to race. Some can show up looking near death, and then run like the wind.....

Subjective though it is, a sharp eye on the appearance of a horse is one of the last remaining value "separators" for handicapping..... :ThmbUp:

[traynor]

Visual inspection and other approaches intuitively can be asset but I think what DL is saying is can someone "prove it"? In other words, if an expert visual inspector maintained a log or database of selections based solely on appearance that met the rigors of sample size etc, they would then be able to prove the usefulness of visual inspection. To make it a little more fuzzy, can inspection be used to compliment a figure based metric - appearance both good or bad and can this proven? I think I read on this board where Jeff P was able to add visual inspection into a final grade or something like that. Maybe not.

Grits, I have a feeling you will say that the proof is found in the pocketbook and you're just fine with the proof you have seen. I would tend to agree with that type of bottom line test. But still the visual inspection component is measurable and provable and to a scientist like DL he is asking for proponents to prove it, if possible.

That would be as foolish and one-dimensional as relying exclusively on crunching Equibase PPs to make selections.

[GameTheory]

That would be as foolish and one-dimensional as relying exclusively on crunching Equibase PPs to make selections.To make profit (maybe), but it could certainly establish whether it was a useful practice or not, especially if it could be quantified into numerical factors. I have a book around here somewhere that attempted to do something like that -- has pictures of various ear positions, etc.

I once posted in this forum about a program that I had made that made selections based *solely* on the last race chart comments for each horse. It had a winning hit rate of around 19% and was usually profitable (I say usually because profit came from huge longshots, so it did badly in most small samples but ok on large ones). Not the greatest way to actually play in real life, but certainly showed that it could be a valuable factor. (Of course I was mocked by a few for posting such a thing, which shows why it could be valuable -- it was both predictive and handicappers did not want to take it seriously.)

[DeltaLover]

To make profit (maybe), but it could certainly establish whether it was a useful practice or not, especially if it could be quantified into numerical factors. I have a book around here somewhere that attempted to do something like that -- has pictures of various ear positions, etc.

I once posted in this forum about a program that I had made that made selections based *solely* on the last race chart comments for each horse.

I have gone through the same direction in the past, using Markov chains to analyze past performance chains, although I have to admit with not much success (if memory serves, marginally beating a completely random bettor)...

[johnhannibalsmith]

It is often said that the horse who appears to be high-strung in the paddock is a bad bet...because he is using up his energy before the race. By the same logic...shouldn't the horse who is lethargic-looking in the paddock be a DESIRABLE wager...since it spends as little energy as possible before the race?

I'll try to make a comparison that might work and put it into perspective a bit - there's a look of controlled energy that is probably the ideal point. Like a boxer making his entrance and appearing utterly focused and reeking of adrenaline, but every action is measured and made with confidence.

Then there's two wiry drunks in the parking lot about to come to blows but seem intent on exerting themselves with looping haymakers that serve to exhaust them more than actually harm the intended target. By the time the dance commences, they've run out of both true physical energy and any mental advantage.

Of course, there's the boxer, Geraldo Rivera or Tonya Harding, that certainly can't be accused of wasting any energy - but the mental element, the intensity and confidence, is simply non-existent.

There's the middle ground. Controlled confidence and radiant energy despite a sense of complete calm.

[traynor]

:p To make profit (maybe), but it could certainly establish whether it was a useful practice or not, especially if it could be quantified into numerical factors. I have a book around here somewhere that attempted to do something like that -- has pictures of various ear positions, etc.

I once posted in this forum about a program that I had made that made selections based *solely* on the last race chart comments for each horse. It had a winning hit rate of around 19% and was usually profitable (I say usually because profit came from huge longshots, so it did badly in most small samples but ok on large ones). Not the greatest way to actually play in real life, but certainly showed that it could be a valuable factor. (Of course I was mocked by a few for posting such a thing, which shows why it could be valuable -- it was both predictive and handicappers did not want to take it seriously.)

Triangulation--a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative approaches--is often useful. It could be argued that reducing qualitative analysis to a set of numbers would be self-defeating, and little more than a different form of quantitative method.

Business analysts (among many others) discovered quite awhile back that when the quantitative approach indicates A is best, the qualitative approach indicates B is best, the optimal choice is often C--none of the above.

The example of a slow horse that looks great (mentioned above, by Hoofless-Wonder) is a good example. So would be the inverse--a horse with big numbers that looks and acts like Eeyore. In such cases (and many others with much less drastic differences) it is not especially useful to revert to quantifying by degrees (which puts too much emphasis on largely cosmetic differences in sets of numbers, most of which are little more than imperfect descriptors of some segment of a past event).

Passing such races (despite occasional lost opportunities that one will tend to remember much more strongly than the much greater number of losing wagers saved) is usually a good idea.

[Maximillion]

:p

Triangulation--a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative approaches--is often useful. It could be argued that reducing qualitative analysis to a set of numbers would be self-defeating, and little more than a different form of quantitative method.

Business analysts (among many others) discovered quite awhile back that when the quantitative approach indicates A is best, the qualitative approach indicates B is best, the optimal choice is often C--none of the above.

The example of a slow horse that looks great (mentioned above, by Hoofless-Wonder) is a good example. So would be the inverse--a horse with big numbers that looks and acts like Eeyore. In such cases (and many others with much less drastic differences) it is not especially useful to revert to quantifying by degrees (which puts too much emphasis on largely cosmetic differences in sets of numbers, most of which are little more than imperfect descriptors of some segment of a past event).

Passing such races (despite occasional lost opportunities that one will tend to remember much more strongly than the much greater number of losing wagers saved) is usually a good idea.

I know you have been firm on this from day one, and I believe you when you say that you use visual analysis effectively.
Do you have to actually be at the track though to do this to your satisfaction?

[thaskalos]

:p

Triangulation--a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative approaches--is often useful. It could be argued that reducing qualitative analysis to a set of numbers would be self-defeating, and little more than a different form of quantitative method.

Business analysts (among many others) discovered quite awhile back that when the quantitative approach indicates A is best, the qualitative approach indicates B is best, the optimal choice is often C--none of the above.

The example of a slow horse that looks great (mentioned above, by Hoofless-Wonder) is a good example. So would be the inverse--a horse with big numbers that looks and acts like Eeyore. In such cases (and many others with much less drastic differences) it is not especially useful to revert to quantifying by degrees (which puts too much emphasis on largely cosmetic differences in sets of numbers, most of which are little more than imperfect descriptors of some segment of a past event).

Passing such races (despite occasional lost opportunities that one will tend to remember much more strongly than the much greater number of losing wagers saved) is usually a good idea.
Reading this, I find myself wondering if you've ever authored anything for mass readership.

And if not...why not? :ThmbUp:

[GameTheory]

:p

Triangulation--a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative approaches--is often useful. It could be argued that reducing qualitative analysis to a set of numbers would be self-defeating, and little more than a different form of quantitative method.

Business analysts (among many others) discovered quite awhile back that when the quantitative approach indicates A is best, the qualitative approach indicates B is best, the optimal choice is often C--none of the above.

Yes, maybe, but that assumes that both A & B have already proved their merit and are both available to you. The same could be said of any two factors whether both are quantitative or qualitative or one of each. If one thing says good and another says bad, then you've got a decision to make, what else is new? Should we just never look at one of the factors to make it easier on ourselves?

But getting back to the point, if you want to find out whether something is worth doing, then some sort of structured test where you isolate it needs to be done (either by looking at it as a sole factor or by somehow making "all else equal" if it is to be used as minor modifying factor that doesn't make sense in total isolation).

And "reducing" qualitative analysis to numbers is not self-defeating, it is the only way to use it (in the general sense), naturally if you overdo it looking for phantom distinctions that's no good, but even if all you have is "this is positive" or "this is negative" that is the same as "reducing" it to 1/0. Just depends how fine a granularity is useful for that particular factor. Is it little more than than a different form of quantitative method? Of course -- all factors are as soon as you bring them to bear in any structured, disciplined (i.e. repeatable) way. That's not a criticism though. Ultimately, there is no such thing as "hard" data at the source of all our factors, they've all undergone this transformation into numbers or categories. We put things in bins, we create (ultimately) arbitrary thresholds, we order and rank things, etc. That's how we make sense of the world, not just in handicapping but in all things.

[traynor]

I know you have been firm on this from day one, and I believe you when you say that you use visual analysis effectively.
Do you have to actually be at the track though to do this to your satisfaction?

Yes.

[traynor]

Yes, maybe, but that assumes that both A & B have already proved their merit and are both available to you. The same could be said of any two factors whether both are quantitative or qualitative or one of each. If one thing says good and another says bad, then you've got a decision to make, what else is new? Should we just never look at one of the factors to make it easier on ourselves?

But getting back to the point, if you want to find out whether something is worth doing, then some sort of structured test where you isolate it needs to be done (either by looking at it as a sole factor or by somehow making "all else equal" if it is to be used as minor modifying factor that doesn't make sense in total isolation).

And "reducing" qualitative analysis to numbers is not self-defeating, it is the only way to use it (in the general sense), naturally if you overdo it looking for phantom distinctions that's no good, but even if all you have is "this is positive" or "this is negative" that is the same as "reducing" it to 1/0. Just depends how fine a granularity is useful for that particular factor. Is it little more than than a different form of quantitative method? Of course -- all factors are as soon as you bring them to bear in any structured, disciplined (i.e. repeatable) way. That's not a criticism though. Ultimately, there is no such thing as "hard" data at the source of all our factors, they've all undergone this transformation into numbers or categories. We put things in bins, we create (ultimately) arbitrary thresholds, we order and rank things, etc. That's how we make sense of the world, not just in handicapping but in all things.

Or--according to Korzybski--how we pretend to understand the world by affixing labels to things, then responding to the label (as if it were real rather than a purely artificial construct) rather than the thing labeled. By falling into the trap of defining something as "worth" 2.73 when combined with something else with an acceptable range of 9.4 to 12.7, the tacit assumption is that enough identical (or nearly identical) situations have been thoroughly monitored and evaluated in the past to know the exact value of each--not just in isolation--but in all possible combinations with all other relevant influences. That is pretty much impossible in horse racing.

With all due respect to the bean counters, I don't think a very good job has been done quantifying the (relatively easy) quantifiable aspects of horse racing, much less the qualitative aspects. The current state of software--including that which its developers embellish with phrases like "artificial intelligence" and "machine learning"--is not much better (if at all) than the old time "systems" that assigned points for various "factors" to arrive at some "bet the high number" simplification.

The difficulty is in the confounding variables--influences overlooked, ignored, hidden, or otherwise obscured--that make quantification much less useful than it might otherwise be. "Precise" humerical evaluations look very impressive, and may give aid and comfort to those who believe in them, but (in horse racing) are usually only descriptive, not prescriptive.

[DeltaLover]

Or--according to Korzybski--how we pretend to understand the world by affixing labels to things, then responding to the label (as if it were real rather than a purely artificial construct) rather than the thing labeled. By falling into the trap of defining something as "worth" 2.73 when combined with something else with an acceptable range of 9.4 to 12.7, the tacit assumption is that enough identical (or nearly identical) situations have been thoroughly monitored and evaluated in the past to know the exact value of each--not just in isolation--but in all possible combinations with all other relevant influences. That is pretty much impossible in horse racing.

With all due respect to the bean counters, I don't think a very good job has been done quantifying the (relatively easy) quantifiable aspects of horse racing, much less the qualitative aspects. The current state of software--including that which its developers embellish with phrases like "artificial intelligence" and "machine learning"--is not much better (if at all) than the old time "systems" that assigned points for various "factors" to arrive at some "bet the high number" simplification.

The difficulty is in the confounding variables--influences overlooked, ignored, hidden, or otherwise obscured--that make quantification much less useful than it might otherwise be. "Precise" humerical evaluations look very impressive, and may give aid and comfort to those who believe in them, but (in horse racing) are usually only descriptive, not prescriptive.

:ThmbUp: Nice post..

I would add to:


The difficulty is in the confounding variables--influences overlooked, ignored, hidden, or otherwise obscured--that make quantification much less useful than it might otherwise be.

that this 'difficulty' is magnified by the stochastic nature of the game which is pretty accurately reflected in the odds offered by the various pools...

Either we want to accept it or not, the take out in this game is so large, that it is quite possible to evaporate the edge of even the most astute horse bettor, as his competitors improve their abilities to handicap and play.

[PhantomOnTour]

I think some of y'all are missing the boat on physicality handicapping.

The paddock is as important as the warmup, and no one is talking about that.
It's all nervous energy, ears pricked, kidney sweat etc etc etc...but what about that runner who has swelling in his left rear or seems off in his right rear or is walking short?
That is to be seen in the paddock with the horses moving in slo-mo, giving you a nice long look at his legs, equipment (bits!!!), demeanor etc...

I know only about 2% of us even get to the track on a regular basis anymore, but that's the spot to be.

[Tom]

Like it or not, they are horses - living creatures,not data points.

[overthehill]

I certainly would not mock you. I still remember making a big bet blind without knowing the price on a horse making its second start on the turf over 25 years ago. in its first start on the turf it was blocked three times during the running of the race and closed for third beaten 2 lengths for all the money.it went off 70-1 that day and was trained by Oliver Hosang a trainer i had never heard of. In its second start it was the 4-1 ml second choice from the #12 post and the jockey had hopped off it to ride the 3-1 ml favorite. I bet out with confidence hoping for 5-2 and was shocked when it paid $26 after it wired the field by 6 lengths! Unfortunately I havent seen that kind of opportunity again given all the opportunities to see replays and trip handicapping vogue those types of trip horses are now more likely to be underlays.

[thaskalos]

:

Either we want to accept it or not, the take out in this game is so large, that it is quite possible to evaporate the edge of even the most astute horse bettor, as his competitors improve their abilities to handicap and play.

And the process is so subtle, that most of us won't even know when that point is reached.

[traynor]

I think some of y'all are missing the boat on physicality handicapping.

The paddock is as important as the warmup, and no one is talking about that.
It's all nervous energy, ears pricked, kidney sweat etc etc etc...but what about that runner who has swelling in his left rear or seems off in his right rear or is walking short?
That is to be seen in the paddock with the horses moving in slo-mo, giving you a nice long look at his legs, equipment (bits!!!), demeanor etc...

I know only about 2% of us even get to the track on a regular basis anymore, but that's the spot to be.

Not missing it at all. I am a big fan of watching the horses as they first enter the track, on the way to the paddock, in addition to the paddock and warmups. I think the most important part is to really focus on each horse for a period of time long enough to get a good idea of its appearance, condition, and demeanor. And periodically focus back on each entry to see if the first impressions are accurate, or whether it appears differently on later inspections. With all due respect to Joe Takach and others who seem to believe a quick glance on a video is sufficient, that may be why so many find it "difficult."

[traynor]

:ThmbUp: Nice post..

I would add to:



that this 'difficulty' is magnified by the stochastic nature of the game which is pretty accurately reflected in the odds offered by the various pools...

Either we want to accept it or not, the take out in this game is so large, that it is quite possible to evaporate the edge of even the most astute horse bettor, as his competitors improve their abilities to handicap and play.

One of the best learning experiences of my life was realizing how sharp the bettors at Fraser Downs were(are) in relation to bettors elsewhere. The result was nearly doubling my ROI by the simple expedient of passing races in which my top choice was over 3/1. My ego can take it. My bank account loves it.

[traynor]

Like it or not, they are horses - living creatures,not data points.

Of all things in handicapping, that is one of the most important to understand.

[traynor]

And the process is so subtle, that most of us won't even know when that point is reached.

That is what makes it so interesting. No matter how good/accurate/profitable/whatever some approach may be at any given moment, it is only a matter of time (usually short) until others replicate it and drive the available profit down into the red.

The only way to survive is to stay ahead of the crowd. I like it like that.

[Poindexter]

Are there any services out there that do this type of analysis? In other words they are at the paddock of say Del Mar, they post notes on to their web site and a novice would then have access to it for a fee. Say $10 bucks a day. Similar to a clocker report. Seems like if someone was reallly good at observing these things and explaining them to the layperson, they could do well with such a service. Guys like me couldn't tell the difference between a horse who is dead lame and a horse who looks ready to win a grade 1. I would probably pay the $10 bucks a day and see if it helps me and continue on as long as it did help me.
If I start tossing all of my winners because of this service, I won't stay with them very long :lol: .

[traynor]

Are there any services out there that do this type of analysis? In other words they are at the paddock of say Del Mar, they post notes on to their web site and a novice would then have access to it for a fee. Say $10 bucks a day. Similar to a clocker report. Seems like if someone was reallly good at observing these things and explaining them to the layperson, they could do well with such a service. Guys like me couldn't tell the difference between a horse who is dead lame and a horse who looks ready to win a grade 1. I would probably pay the $10 bucks a day and see if it helps me and continue on as long as it did help me.
If I start tossing all of my winners because of this service, I won't stay with them very long :lol: .

I think it is a lot like writing your own software (even relatively simple) as opposed to using someone else's. There is something added to the process when you realize that it is your money that will be wagered on the output/observations that is totally lacking in purchased services.

People (of widely varying skill levels--the caveat being the same as for software "if it so good, why does he/she need my money, rather than using it herself/himself?) have been marketing various visual analyses and trip notes for many years. I have never found one worth buying (other than to try it out). Whenever I try to take shortcuts and save time, it costs me money.

Don't cut yourself short. It isn't that difficult.

And that is not to say that there are no services out there that are worthwhile. It is just that I have never found any.

[eqitec]

I've experimented with systematic paddock observations and measurements somewhat according to the principles of The Body Language of Race Horses by Ainslie & Ledbetter. My efforts have included development of an iPad app for recording such observations at the paddock and immediate transmission of my observations via the track WiFi to my friends.

The image below shows a mocked up sample from the iPad app of a few horses from tomorrow's card at SAR.

Based on my experimentation, I can tell you that this is not easy to do. The time available for such observations is very limited, and one's view of the horses are badly obstructed most of the time, especially at SAR where the paddock layout and hordes of paddock insiders make it virtually impossible to see any given horse for more than a few seconds. DMR was a little easier due to the paddock layout. TAM & FL were the easiest of the other tracks where I've tested.

Consequently, I've had to restrict my observations to an exception-based system. Rather than trying to observe all horses for all body language features, I observe for only exceptionally good or bad body language features which standout in the few seconds when my view of the horses are unobstructed.

[traynor]

I've experimented with systematic paddock observations and measurements somewhat according to the principles of The Body Language of Race Horses by Ainslie & Ledbetter. My efforts have included development of an iPad app for recording such observations at the paddock and immediate transmission of my observations via the track WiFi to my friends.

The image below shows a mocked up sample from the iPad app of a few horses from tomorrow's card at SAR.

Based on my experimentation, I can tell you that this is not easy to do. The time available for such observations is very limited, and one's view of the horses are badly obstructed most of the time, especially at SAR where the paddock layout and hordes of paddock insiders make it virtually impossible to see any given horse for more than a few seconds. DMR was a little easier due to the paddock layout. TAM & FL were the easiest of the other tracks where I've tested.

Consequently, I've had to restrict my observations to an exception-based system. Rather than trying to observe all horses for all body language features, I observe for only exceptionally good or bad body language features which standout in the few seconds when my view of the horses are unobstructed.

The difficulty is identical to that experienced by those learning (and using) various coding schemas (for example, language coders in therapeutic, counselling, or conflict situations). Observations (other than simple yes/no, as in the case of bandages) are of phenomena that occurs on a range. Unless that range (and the various points on that range, or the precise yes/no point on each of those ranges) is explicit, repeatable, and exact, the observations go directly into the zone mentioned above regarding Korzybski: labeling something, then responding to the label rather than to the thing labelled.

For example, muscling is not a boolean factor, and "well-muscled" is an arbitrary, subjective evaluation that could be interpreted differently at different times. With Secretariat at one end of the spectrum and Eeyore at the other end, nearly all horses will fall somewhere in between.

[senortout]

You guys....you lost me at 'carpenter and nail'

:sleeping:

[traynor]

You guys....you lost me at 'carpenter and nail'

:sleeping:

It is really simple. It only seems difficult or complex when people try to explain it.

Watch the opening of Boss (series). Watch the shot of the golfer. You don't need to know anything about golf, or how to swing a golf club--it is glaringly apparent (or should be) that it is a clumsy swing.

Observational handicapping is not much more complex than that. Same with trip handicapping.

[cashmachine]

Of course I can be wrong! The way to prove this (or any other similar) point is simple and this is what I am proposing...

We can easily keep a (public) data base with related, paddock inspection data and check their validity after we have gather enough of them.

The null hypothesis, is that this kind of a process will not have a significant impact to the bottom line..


Let's see if it holds true of false...

I am doing it several months and can report significant success with it. I watch videos of trackworks that happen couple days before the race; I grade horses on 8 dimensions. All grading happens strictly before actual race so in no way knowledge of race results can get into my grading. When I grade videos, I don't know odds, past history, jockey, trainer - I know absolutely nothing about the horse. Of course I remember some catchy names but I don't remember how those horses did in the past, at least not at a conscious level. After the race happens I enter results into my database and program automatically compute evaluation of my grades.

Some marks are absolutely useless; but 4 of them raise my ROI to about -0.1 (ROI of random bet is about -0.2). Again, I don't know odds of horses when I grade video. When I combine basic grades into combos, they become more powerful. One combo has ROI -0.01 (count is 198 cases out of 1860 observations). One combo has ROI +0.21 (count is 100 cases out of 1860 observations). Keep in mind that I compute ROI of place bets, so individual payouts are small and single large win cannot affect my ROI. I proved to myself beyond any reasonable doubt that video handicapping does add some value to handicapping process.

[traynor]

I am doing it several months and can report significant success with it. I watch videos of trackworks that happen couple days before the race; I grade horses on 8 dimensions. All grading happens strictly before actual race so in no way knowledge of race results can get into my grading. When I grade videos, I don't know odds, past history, jockey, trainer - I know absolutely nothing about the horse. Of course I remember some catchy names but I don't remember how those horses did in the past, at least not at a conscious level. After the race happens I enter results into my database and program automatically compute evaluation of my grades.

Some marks are absolutely useless; but 4 of them raise my ROI to about -0.1 (ROI of random bet is about -0.2). Again, I don't know odds of horses when I grade video. When I combine basic grades into combos, they become more powerful. One combo has ROI -0.01 (count is 198 cases out of 1860 observations). One combo has ROI +0.21 (count is 100 cases out of 1860 observations). Keep in mind that I compute ROI of place bets, so individual payouts are small and single large win cannot affect my ROI. I proved to myself beyond any reasonable doubt that video handicapping does add some value to handicapping process.


A key point in your success (and the lack of success by others) may well be the process you use (bolded above). There is an almost overwheming desire in people to "be right." That desire corrupts observations to a greater extent than most are willing to admit. "Studying the past performances" and then looking at the horses in the paddock or warmup may VERY strongly bias the observer toward the favorite, a horse with a "big number," a horse with a top jockey/trainer, or some other critieria unrelated to physical observation. That bias very strongly affects what people see, and how they interpret what they see.

There is a long, involved explanation for all this that has to do with heuristics and ""preserving cognitive resources" that I will bypass.

The bottom line is that objective observation is mandatory. The process described above--because it does not seek validation for "decisions" already made--may be much more useful than other approaches.

[davew]

You need to see post parade and warm-up if you are going to bet any maiden races with first and second time starters. If you skip all of these races, I can see Deltas point.

[jk3521]

Speaking of observation, I observed Rotundo Jr. in the paddock yesterday. Unmistakeable w/ that bowtie ! Also all the horses in the Travers looked great in the paddock, but my eye was caught by #3, he looked fantastic ! Then I looked down on my Form and said no way! May be one to put in my Stable Mail for somewhere down the line.

[BIG49010]

RTN the last couple days have been broadcasting Saratoga in HD, it sure helps this topic.

[fmolf]

what i do is handicap the race narrow down the field then narrow it down further by paddock and post parade inspection.I then make my decision on who to bet based on these observations in conjunction with the tote odds.It is not very often at all that i will wager on a horse solely on appearances.For all the naysayers though any horseman will tell you a horse on his toes,with dappled coat ,a tail held outward off the rump and defined muscularity are all positive signs of a happy healthy racehorse.as an aside it is important to view horses as they enter and warm-up on the track as some, especially older horses do not exude any energy until closer to actual post time