How does he look on the track?

[CBedo]

In another thread, we have had some strong opinions about the "look" of a horse on the track as part of the handicapping process. Some think it means everything while some think it is useless. Personally, I think it has it's place somewhere in the middle, and for me it's a minor factor. It's one more piece of the handicapping puzzle that I can use to possibly make better handicapping decisions. I believe it's like other forms of handicapping in that it takes practice, observation, and feedback, and like other handicapping methodologies as well, it can be helpful or harmful to your bottom line depending on how you use it.

For simulcast bettors, the question is do you get a good enough look at the horse to make a physicality assessment, and if not, do you trust someone else to do it for you, as we now have more and more people tweeting from the track? I'm undecided there, and I definitely don't have enough history with the twitter guys to trust their judgement...yet.

I'd love to hear other's thoughts on the subject.

CBedo

P.S. This was Quigley's first tweet for SA for the firt race: "Welcome 2 the start of what should b a GREAT 31 day Oak Tree meet - In r1 I thought the 2 looked best and the 8 looked horrible"

and of course, the 8 won, and the 2 ran up the track.

[FantasticDan]

I started a thread earlier in the summer that had many interesting responses on the physicality assessment topic:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59475

[CBedo]

I started a thread earlier in the summer that had many interesting responses on the physicality assessment topic:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59475Thanks for the reference. I figured there were other threads, but was too lazy to use the search function. Having read the hialirity of the arguements in the Andy Serling thread, I thought I'd fire it back up.

[illinoisbred]

One time many years ago I spent my typical 3 hours hanicapping the days races,laid out my plan of attack for the day,and left for the track.I liked a horse to win in the 1st race so I waited by the paddock to get a look.This huge,unruly,snorting,and dumb-looking[no offense to the horse-Monterey Gold] came in and gradually made his way to the paddock stall of the one I was interested in. It was a real dose of reality-my partners in my best-laid plan was an unruly beast controlled by a 115lb. guy.I immediately thought no way could something like this ever be worth taking a short price.I think of that a lot and try not to look too hard today. Oh, he did win -at approx. 2-1-I backed off.

[bisket]

i'll give an example that would probably best explain that yes i do look at the horses, and i bet mostly online. last december in the cashcall in my opinion before the race there were two horses that would definately finish 1st and second after looking at the pps. one was pioneer of the nile. everybody was all over this one. he moved to baffert's barn and had a series of bullet works, and wasn't facing the competition he faced previously in his other races. the other was i want revenge. all he hads to show for himself was a few sprints in which he finished a closing in the money finishes. the times for the races were fast. then he raced at 1 1/16 mile and broke his maiden. i wasn't as impressed with his maiden win as i was with his finishes in his sprints which raced at very FAST TIMES. my question was how big is this colt? if he was a little guy i didn't like him as much. little guys usually make better sprinters. now if he was a big horse i like him ALOT. why because this said to me that this horse was a router WITH MOST IMPORTANTLY A GOOD TURN OF FOOT. you have routers like say richards kid that just constantly run 12's. or you have routers that can run a 23 and still run 12's afterward. if i want revenge was a large colt he was a router that was also quick. this is a devastating combination. he finished second that day, and the next time also. i lost on him both times, but i stuck with him and collected in the gotham!!

[CBedo]

This was Quigley's first tweet for SA for the firt race: "Welcome 2 the start of what should b a GREAT 31 day Oak Tree meet - In r1 I thought the 2 looked best and the 8 looked horrible"

and of course, the 8 won, and the 2 ran up the track.Just to give the other side, Quigley did say the 5 looked the best in the 2nd and won, paying 16.80.

[jonnielu]

In another thread, we have had some strong opinions about the "look" of a horse on the track as part of the handicapping process. Some think it means everything while some think it is useless. Personally, I think it has it's place somewhere in the middle, and for me it's a minor factor. It's one more piece of the handicapping puzzle that I can use to possibly make better handicapping decisions. I believe it's like other forms of handicapping in that it takes practice, observation, and feedback, and like other handicapping methodologies as well, it can be helpful or harmful to your bottom line depending on how you use it.

For simulcast bettors, the question is do you get a good enough look at the horse to make a physicality assessment, and if not, do you trust someone else to do it for you, as we now have more and more people tweeting from the track? I'm undecided there, and I definitely don't have enough history with the twitter guys to trust their judgement...yet.

I'd love to hear other's thoughts on the subject.

CBedo

P.S. This was Quigley's first tweet for SA for the firt race: "Welcome 2 the start of what should b a GREAT 31 day Oak Tree meet - In r1 I thought the 2 looked best and the 8 looked horrible"

and of course, the 8 won, and the 2 ran up the track.

The video feed from every track is lousy for purposes of physicality. You will have to be very good at it before you can get what you need from the video feed.

The "best horse" mentality will get in your way as you attempt to develop this just the same as it gets in your way on handicapping. You are not looking for the "best looking" horse. The truth is that most of them look good, and the differences are quite subtle. Most people cannot do this well because they are trying to measure specifics instead of being open to the idea of trying to read the horses general attitude.

Impatience and fear will often look the same in general, it takes a feel for the horse as a living being to pickup the differences. The signals are not particular things as much as overall.

Horses are spirited animals, that is the first thing to understand. A horse is born to run, and it will run itself to death if need be. The second is that the horse can feel and look like a world beater, but if it does not have the ability to win today's race, it probably won't.

To get the most out of physicality, you will have to join it with an accurate assessment of ability. A bet to win should pass on both issues, looking no better then the rest is not a negative.

But, if physicality weren't a high impact factor, a physicality guy like myself would not be able to still lean on it after 30 years. When a horse has been gone 60 days to two years, physicality will answer the question. How important is it? Multiply what you think workouts are worth by 4. If there is anything in racing that tells you very little, it is workouts. Unless you are there watching the workouts, then you are right back to physicality anyway.

Does it mean anything? Would it be nice to know when to double a win bet, and be right 70% or 80% of the time? That is the value of it. It has been so as long as you or I have been alive also. Physicality is one of the major consistencies of this supposed inconsistent game.

jdl

[Greyfox]

The occasional horse with negative physicality signs will run its eyeballs out.
The occasional horse who has very promising physicality signs won't go at all.
In general though the horses physicality signs can supplement your decision as to when to make a strong play versus a light wager.

[TJDave]

Some think it means everything while some think it is useless.



It's about 90% of how I pick them. Or more importantly, how I eliminate them. ;)

I'll qualify a horse by reading condition books. Trainer competence and intent through work patterns. But if they don't warm up good I throw them out.

[Overlay]

I think that it's possible to win consistently without taking physicality into account (whether by choice or by necessity), but I also think that someone who is very skilled in physicality and body language can handicap effectively on that basis, and that knowledge in those areas can be a beneficial supplement to the traditional analysis of published form. (That's one of the things that I like most about handicapping. There are so many different approaches, or combinations of approaches, that can succeed.)

[Robert Goren]

I sure appearance means alot if know what to look for. I haven't a clue. I have know people who grew up with horses, was in 4-H, and took judging classes that can tell a good looking horse from a bad one. Of course they can't read the racing form. On the few times I can get one of these people to go to the races with me, I clean up. They lose their shirt because they always bet the best looking horse. I just ask the how does this horse looks and if they say fine I bet it. If they say he is too fat or too lean or his ankles don't look just right or some other flaw, I ask about another horse. One thing for sure is that just because someone is a trainer, that doesn't mean that they know anything about how a horse should look. If they did there would not be so many claims of horses that never run again or have to take many months off before racing again.

[Java Gold@TFT]

I always like to see my picks before the race but at the same time I like to see what the competition looks like. I have watched for many years and know what I want to see and I am right more times than wrong if I decide not to bet a horse based on appearences. That being said, there are still going to be the times you are wrong. Read any article about this year's Woodbine Mile. Every writer agrred with me and the jockey and trainer that Ventura was very washy and a bit aggravated. Of course after the race the trainer and jockey just brushed it off as excitement and being keyed up. Still she looked awful to my eye going to the gate and I wouldn't touch her. She won easily.

When watching the Pac Classic I told my wife that I really liked the way Richard's Kid and Parading looked in the post parade and wasn't overly impressed with Einstein. Einstein ended up messing up my tri by finishing 2nd but I had an idea about a 24-1 and 8-1 shot that day that finished 1st and 4th. It's still almost impossible to get it all right from a computer screen but the worst part is some of the post parades that some tracks show. They show the horses going in the direction where the view is blocked by the lead pony. Then they don't show the horses breaking away from the post parade and gallopping down the track to warm up. Frustrating.

All in all, I think it's worth the time to learn but it is a matter of learning from experience. There are no hard and true rules and as has been said before one of the most important things is to see the horse each race and have an idea of how it usually behaves to see if there are changes.

[bisket]

another good example is the other 3 year old i liked going into the derby quality road. he demolished an execellant group of 3 yeard old sprinters in the fountain of youth. he's going into the fla derby against dunkirk who won impressively twice. the big question going into the fla derby is can quality get a route. two things said yes he can. he raced against some excellant sprinters in foy, and raced right along with them during very quick opening fractions. the others faded and he just kept going all the way to the end NOT LOSING HIS FORM. what i mean by this if you watch a horse run he'll have definate rythm to it. when he tires his rythm changes. this didn't happen at all to quality. the other thing that said to me quality could get a route was the fact that he was a big colt. he's 17 hands!! why do i like bigger horses for routes. i don't like bigger horses for routes any more than smaller ones, but when i see a pace line like quality had in the foy, and he didn't lose form that says something. but most importantly BIG HORSES AREN'T USUALLY QUICK AND CAN RUN WITH SPRINTERS EARLY. the fact that quality could get out quickly and he was big said to me this guy is an athlete and special. the physicallity in relation to the numbers!!! is whats important.

[illinoisbred]

Once I saw a horse in the paddock- he was listless and his coat was very drab and dull,and besides that was off a2-3 mo. layoff. He ran terrible.He returned 7 days later,his coat was shiny and he was prancihg about the paddock like he owned the place.He won-at almost 16-1.Colleen's Proud Boy-AP-1993-4.

[fmolf]

Once I saw a horse in the paddock- he was listless and his coat was very drab and dull,and besides that was off a2-3 mo. layoff. He ran terrible.He returned 7 days later,his coat was shiny and he was prancihg about the paddock like he owned the place.He won-at almost 16-1.Colleen's Proud Boy-AP-1993-4.
physicality is not so much looking for the tell tale signs of fitness but comparing how ones selection looks today as compared to how it looked before its last race and noting any important changes.Some horses never get that bright illustrious coat that some horses do.But it could be bright for them...ditto for dappling.....some horses never are up on their toes.. others prance when happy and healthy.It definitely helps to know how the horse has looked and ran in the past compared to his looks on the track today.

[illinoisbred]

physicality is not so much looking for the tell tale signs of fitness but comparing how ones selection looks today as compared to how it looked before its last race and noting any important changes.Some horses never get that bright illustrious coat that some horses do.But it could be bright for them...ditto for dappling.....some horses never are up on their toes.. others prance when happy and healthy.It definitely helps to know how the horse has looked and ran in the past compared to his looks on the track today.
Yes, thats probably the key-change. I n my example,it seemed like drastic change considering the 7 days between races. I'm almost too embarrassed to admit-I really liked him the 1st time and did bet him.The 2nd time, because of the change, I put a mere 2.00 to win on him.

[Valuist]

One of my favorite angles is the very sharp looking horse in the paddock who had been taking decent early money; at least more than anticipated. I find physicality works best with the secondary contenders. A strong contender can still win despite looking just ok.

[Imriledup]

In another thread, we have had some strong opinions about the "look" of a horse on the track as part of the handicapping process. Some think it means everything while some think it is useless. Personally, I think it has it's place somewhere in the middle, and for me it's a minor factor. It's one more piece of the handicapping puzzle that I can use to possibly make better handicapping decisions. I believe it's like other forms of handicapping in that it takes practice, observation, and feedback, and like other handicapping methodologies as well, it can be helpful or harmful to your bottom line depending on how you use it.

For simulcast bettors, the question is do you get a good enough look at the horse to make a physicality assessment, and if not, do you trust someone else to do it for you, as we now have more and more people tweeting from the track? I'm undecided there, and I definitely don't have enough history with the twitter guys to trust their judgement...yet.

I'd love to hear other's thoughts on the subject.

CBedo

P.S. This was Quigley's first tweet for SA for the firt race: "Welcome 2 the start of what should b a GREAT 31 day Oak Tree meet - In r1 I thought the 2 looked best and the 8 looked horrible"

and of course, the 8 won, and the 2 ran up the track.


What the horse looks like on the track and how he moves in the warmup is a huge factor in my handicapping. I won't bet if i can't see them.

As far as betting horses off looks goes, that's a dangerous thing to do blindly. Its like blindly betting off a professional clocker's morning workout comment.

I believe that you want to use these things (clocker comments and post parade and paddock notes) as SUPPLEMENTS to already strong handicapping.

Have your handicap done and use this to tweak what you know about the race instead of using it as an end all.

[Marlin]

I only concentrate on live racing. This is 90% of my wagering strategy. I use traditional methods to handicap. I then determine bet size on how the horse looks in the paddock and post parade. This cannot be seen on paper. It is the one of the few advantages the everyday player still has. I rarely play favorites and cannot explain the joy in my heart when I see a favorite that has no chance in the paddock. Priceless!!!

I rarely bet a horse solely on physical apperance. I only increase or decrease my wager depending on appearance. Trust me when I say IT WORKS. The advantage is that the number player cannot quantify it. The other great thing is that those who think they know what they are looking at do not. I love when "horse" people explain how good or how poor a horse looks when in reality they are not even close.

[Imriledup]

I only concentrate on live racing. This is 90% of my wagering strategy. I use traditional methods to handicap. I then determine bet size on how the horse looks in the paddock and post parade. This cannot be seen on paper. It is the one of the few advantages the everyday player still has. I rarely play favorites and cannot explain the joy in my heart when I see a favorite that has no chance in the paddock. Priceless!!!

I rarely bet a horse solely on physical apperance. I only increase or decrease my wager depending on appearance. Trust me when I say IT WORKS. The advantage is that the number player cannot quantify it. The other great thing is that those who think they know what they are looking at do not. I love when "horse" people explain how good or how poor a horse looks when in reality they are not even close.

Good post, being there live is HUGE if you watch races live with binoculars and really inspect the horesflesh up close and personal. I'll never understand why people watch races on TV when they are there live, people should be crowding the apron to see the live race and make detailed notes on gallop outs, coat, disposition, etc.

[WinterTriangle]

In another thread, we have had some strong opinions about the "look" of a horse on the track as part of the handicapping process. Some think it means everything while some think it is useless.

I would think it depends on who is doing the "looking".

Inexact science?

I certainly don't get how PPs and data, that represent what a horse did (in the past tense) against completely different horses on a completely different track, can be considered a more *exact* science, than evaluating horseflesh in the paddock (if you're good at it) 5 minutes before they're going to run. :)

If you don't evaluate the horse physically, then how, may I ask, can you ascertain that the horse is at his *best* today, and/or compare him to "last time"?:confused:

Answer: you can't. You are "going on faith" with paper data.

[Java Gold@TFT]

My biggest problem is that even if I know what I like to see, my home track is Saratoga. Get inside that paddock and there are very few in any given race that you can toss just based on looks. With that trainer colony and those owners almost every horse comes in looking their best. That's why I try to get more out of the time they are actually on the track before the race. Except for a few other days during the year I am stuck with the track feeds on a computer screen.

And as was pointed out above - I have already handicapped the race and have an idea of who I'm concentrating on but if another horse jumps out at me I will go back to re-evaluate the pp's before betting.

[gm10]

There is a very useful book on this.
The author defined a lot of different paddock variables, noted their values for a lot of horses and races, and then tried to find their if any predictive power. And the result is surprisingly positive.

http://www.watchingracehorses.com.au/

[lamboguy]

physicality is a key component in handicapping. certain aspects of the looks cannot be seen on television though. if a horse has a poor looking coat more than likely the horse does not sweat. when a horse doesn't sweat there could be other issues going on like lack of eating or nervousness, never any good when you have your money down on those types. i know there have been big winners from non-sweaters like the one that jonathan shephard had that won a grade 1 race, but that is not the norm.

[ManeMediaMogul]

I disagree that physical appearance cannot be judged via television. With only two 15-day meets in my neighborhood, the simulcast feeds are all we've got. If you pay attention, you can get a decent line on your selection and sometimes find a horse that looks like a beast compared to the competition.

[Bruddah]

Physicality inspection definitely has it's place in a handicappers tool box. That being said, it's only good if you're at the track and observing in the paddock, post parade and the warm up routine, on the back side, before they load in the gates. Additionally, don't waste your time on low level claimers. They all have dull coats and aches and pains.

Physicality is like any other tool. You have to know when and where the tool should be used. As usual fellas. It's more Common Sense than rocket science. :ThmbUp:

[illinoisbred]

Playing from home one's observations are severely limited by the video feed.Hawthorne does a reasonable job from the indoor paddock, but once on the track you don't see much. Also, is it just me or here,it doesn't seem horses do much once on the track other than walk along with the outrider with the jockey and outrider involved in conversation for the best part of the warm-up period.From the feed provided its rare when a horse is turned loose to gallop.When they are turned loose its usually a horse returning off a layoff[Williamson does this often] and they end up performing poorly in the race.Also, once the cold weather hits here post parades are very abbreviated-as little as 3-4 minutes. they basically leave the paddock and walk to the gate,with little or no warmup.

[fmolf]

Playing from home one's observations are severely limited by the video feed.Hawthorne does a reasonable job from the indoor paddock, but once on the track you don't see much. Also, is it just me or here,it doesn't seem horses do much once on the track other than walk along with the outrider with the jockey and outrider involved in conversation for the best part of the warm-up period.From the feed provided its rare when a horse is turned loose to gallop.When they are turned loose its usually a horse returning off a layoff[Williamson does this often] and they end up performing poorly in the race.Also, once the cold weather hits here post parades are very abbreviated-as little as 3-4 minutes. they basically leave the paddock and walk to the gate,with little or no warmup.
the few times i do bet from home i forego any paddock inspection except for unruly behavior.....shiny coats and dappling are too hard to get a good gauge of.....my main plays come from being at the two nyra tracks bel...aqu...once in awhile mon or med.I believe that you need to do some handicapping because even if a horse is in tip top form he must be able to come close to the speed and pace demands of the race at hand.Some horses are just to slow,compromised by the pace,or simply outclassed ad out for conditioning!I could never rely on phsyicality as a stand alone.If i did i would limit my choices to one of the top three public selections on the tote board a la jonnieliu

[Fastracehorse]

How a horse looks is integral to my game. It means I'm connected to the track - that's why it's hard to play too many tracks - ones loses that CONNECTION.

It can be as powerul as paper 'capping but frustratingly it can throw U off as well.

My rule is that I don't change my mind based on looks but can use it as an addendum.

Many, many times there are contentious races where I don't have a strong opinion. But based on looks I can make one - an example today was Belmont's 2nd: Mott's horse looked gr8 on the track and won easily - good start to the p-4 - which was blown up later by a 24-1 shot.

About the 24-1 shot: It looked gr8 at the top of the stretch - and then won. If I had been watching the parade maybe I would have used it - but I didn't. Trainer Patrick Kelly hadn't won in a long time. I noticed he had one more in the 7th - I thought it would b a price but it won and paid $10.

Watch his barn in the coming days.

fffastt

[WinterTriangle]

.....shiny coats and dappling are too hard to get a good gauge of.....

All that tells you is that the horse is in reasonable condition. Why everyone laughs at that guy who does the KY Derby reports, I forgot his name.

There are a number of good books and videos out about walking short, wide, how to tell soreness, tail, ear positions, how the croup looks, legs, what all the different wraps could mean, etc. Can you tell if a horse is a tad stiff behind?

I took an experienced horsewoman with me to the paddock one day and I got an earful. Stuff I never even thought about, very subtle stuff she picked up on. Which is what got me more into physicality handicapping.

as noted, horses at Saratoga, if you're only looking for good coats and muscles, that would be the lowest common denominator, since these aren't nags / donkeys from bush tracks. :)

[jonnielu]

I would think it depends on who is doing the "looking".

Inexact science?

I certainly don't get how PPs and data, that represent what a horse did (in the past tense) against completely different horses on a completely different track, can be considered a more *exact* science, than evaluating horseflesh in the paddock (if you're good at it) 5 minutes before they're going to run. :)

If you don't evaluate the horse physically, then how, may I ask, can you ascertain that the horse is at his *best* today, and/or compare him to "last time"?:confused:

Answer: you can't. You are "going on faith" with paper data.

Good to see that a few get it. This post and Marlin's are quite accurate as descrptions. Those that insist on everything being quantified, just never can get the feel for physicality.

jdl

[jonnielu]

the few times i do bet from home i forego any paddock inspection except for unruly behavior.....shiny coats and dappling are too hard to get a good gauge of.....my main plays come from being at the two nyra tracks bel...aqu...once in awhile mon or med.I believe that you need to do some handicapping because even if a horse is in tip top form he must be able to come close to the speed and pace demands of the race at hand.Some horses are just to slow,compromised by the pace,or simply outclassed ad out for conditioning!I could never rely on phsyicality as a stand alone.If i did i would limit my choices to one of the top three public selections on the tote board a la jonnieliu

My choices are not limited to the top 4 ML, but most handicappers would be wise to use the fact that these 4 will win 70% of the races today. When combined with other hard, and never changing consistencies, one can learn a great deal about the realities of horse racing.

You will find plenty of $20.00 winners amongst these four, and there is no better factor to center yourself on.

jdl

[BIG49010]

Some tracks do a great job showing the horses, I think Gulfstream might be the best. New York used to do a great job, but for the for last year they rush the post parade and show you a better view of the out pony!

I have bitched to TVG, HRTV, Andy here on the board about NYRA, nobody gives a shit.

[Bruddah]

All that tells you is that the horse is in reasonable condition. Why everyone laughs at that guy who does the KY Derby reports, I forgot his name.

There are a number of good books and videos out about walking short, wide, how to tell soreness, tail, ear positions, how the croup looks, legs, what all the different wraps could mean, etc. Can you tell if a horse is a tad stiff behind?

I took an experienced horsewoman with me to the paddock one day and I got an earful. Stuff I never even thought about, very subtle stuff she picked up on. Which is what got me more into physicality handicapping.

as noted, horses at Saratoga, if you're only looking for good coats and muscles, that would be the lowest common denominator, since these aren't nags / donkeys from bush tracks. :)


Triangle, I am sitting here looking at a picture of the 1999 winner of The Southwest at Oaklawn. His name was Jim'smrtee and he paid $106-$33.20-$24.20 When he came onto the track he had silver dollars all over him and I remarked to a friend, "there's a treasure chest of silver dollars". He was magnificent looking in the post parade, up on his toes with his neck arched. A truly magnificent 3yo specimen.

When I went inside to bet him he was 24-1. I never looked at the odds board again until he won the race. He was 52-1. One of my biggest scores ever, I had $200 to win and place on the animal. If I had kept watching the odds board, I would never have bet the horse. I was initially going to bet $500 to win and place. I said to myself "you must be nuts betting a $1000 on a longshot like this". Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda will bite you in the A$$ everytime.

Over the years at Oaklawn, I have had more than a half dozen "large" winners based on physicality alone. If one can get good or lucky at spotting the "Fit and Ready" horses at Oaklawn, you will find many Golden Nuggets. The early in the year meet produces several such winners.

I highly recommend the video by Trillis Parker and Chris McCarron named "The Fit and Ready Horse". You can order it from the Gambler Book Store in Las Vegas. Good Luck.

[jotb]

My suggestion would be to focus on the different types of equipment changes that might be added from the previous race. This is really for cappers that are at the track almost every day making notes on each horse on the type of equipment that they had the previous race and the race today. Different types of blinkers and bits can enhance a horses performance and at the same time you can figure out why these pieces of equipment are used for. It can sharpen you up if you know what to look for.

The more commonly used blinkers are called full cup, semi-cup, and French cup. A French cup uses a small piece of plastic, or "cup," to limit sight, while a full cup uses a much larger cup and is quite restrictive of a horse's vision. The semi-cup falls between the two. Extension blinkers have one side (usually the right) almost completely covered to block a horse's vision and are used on individuals that "get out", or start to severely drift to the outside while running down the lane. Some blinkers use screens to protect a horse's eyes from dirt kicked in its face during a race. Others have a small hole drilled into the cup to allow the horse to see behind him.

Then you have the "bits". Light ring bit or big old hollow mouth snaffle bit. This is usually a good sign on young inexperienced horses. An elevator bit (3 rings running up the side of the bit) gives the trainer the option how much leverage he want to give the rider. If the reins are attached to the lowest ring you can assume the horse is either headstrong or impulsive.

The run out bit is used on horses that either lug in or bear out. Also called prong or burr bits. These bits might help for the reasons above but don't discount some soreness in the body or legs. Some horses that drift in might due so just out of fatigue. The control tongue bit called the "Serena's Song' helps certain horses that tire prematurely due to the tongue suddenly obstructing the airway.

Hope this help some
Joe

[jonnielu]

Some tracks do a great job showing the horses, I think Gulfstream might be the best. New York used to do a great job, but for the for last year they rush the post parade and show you a better view of the out pony!

I have bitched to TVG, HRTV, Andy here on the board about NYRA, nobody gives a shit.

You are certainly correct about that, it is clearly evident that "common" fans are seen as a nuisance by NYRA. They have no idea, and couldn't care less why the average racegoer shows up in the first place. If that weren't true, they might do something to get more showing up, instead of so many of the things that send the average racegoer to the casino.

In 1936 people flocked back to horse racing because pari-mutuel wagering promised to level the playing field. It didn't matter how rich or poor you were, your $2 could be bet with the same skill. And, if you were better at horse racing then Richie Rich over there, well that was something that regular people liked that much more about the game. Especially, in the middle of a depression.

Physicality is still the one thing in horse racing where it is still possible for the Kentucky farm boy to stand equal to the princes of high society. And, maybe even a little taller. A lot of the fancy figures, and sophisticated book learnin', can often fall well short of the equine subject matter.

jdl

[PaceAdvantage]

In 1936 people flocked back to horse racing because pari-mutuel wagering promised to level the playing field. It didn't matter how rich or poor you were, your $2 could be bet with the same skill. And, if you were better at horse racing then Richie Rich over there, well that was something that regular people liked that much more about the game. Especially, in the middle of a depression.The same is true today, is it not? The only difference is, in 1936, you didn't have a casino around every corner and a lottery in every convenience store.

Racing was the only legal wagering game in town back in 1936.

Plus, you didn't have the Internet in 1936. Even though on-track attendance has plummeted compared to 1936, betting handles are still there, thanks to OTBs the Internet.

Attendance isn't everything when it comes to the health of the sport. Wagering handle is the true barometer.

And now we've gone off-track one again in a thread. Let's start to move the discussion back towards the original poster's intent...

Thanks.

[BIG49010]

TVG and HRTV should showcase the beauty of the animals, instead of the constant blabber about tickets which the average guy can't hit with there help anyway.

Get a guy like Joe Takach on the network with a show, or Bruno the workout guy to show people what a good horse looks like.

My 2 cents, but like I said before they don't give a shit, we need mindless slots, to make it work.

My rant has been the same for 20 year, 1st it was intertrack wagering is going to save us, then otb is going to save us, then full card simulcasting is going to save us, now it is slots, next it will be sports betting, then finally it will be prostitution.

How about improving your product, and that starts with better coverage of the stars you have!!!

[Bettowin]

Triangle, I am sitting here looking at a picture of the 1999 winner of The Southwest at Oaklawn. His name was Jim'smrtee and he paid $106-$33.20-$24.20 When he came onto the track he had silver dollars all over him and I remarked to a friend, "there's a treasure chest of silver dollars". He was magnificent looking in the post parade, up on his toes with his neck arched. A truly magnificent 3yo specimen.

When I went inside to bet him he was 24-1. I never looked at the odds board again until he won the race. He was 52-1. One of my biggest scores ever, I had $200 to win and place on the animal. If I had kept watching the odds board, I would never have bet the horse. I was initially going to bet $500 to win and place. I said to myself "you must be nuts betting a $1000 on a longshot like this". Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda will bite you in the A$$ everytime.

Over the years at Oaklawn, I have had more than a half dozen "large" winners based on physicality alone. If one can get good or lucky at spotting the "Fit and Ready" horses at Oaklawn, you will find many Golden Nuggets. The early in the year meet produces several such winners.

I highly recommend the video by Trillis Parker and Chris McCarron named "The Fit and Ready Horse". You can order it from the Gambler Book Store in Las Vegas. Good Luck.


This year at Oaklawn I posted here that I thought Summer Bird looked the best going into the Ark Derby but I figured he wouldn't win that day. He just had that "look" of a pure route runner but wasn't quite as in shape as the others. If I weren't there in person that "look" wouldn't have translated over the screen.

[jonnielu]

TVG and HRTV should showcase the beauty of the animals, instead of the constant blabber about tickets which the average guy can't hit with there help anyway.

Get a guy like Joe Takach on the network with a show, or Bruno the workout guy to show people what a good horse looks like.

My 2 cents, but like I said before they don't give a shit, we need mindless slots, to make it work.

My rant has been the same for 20 year, 1st it was intertrack wagering is going to save us, then otb is going to save us, then full card simulcasting is going to save us, now it is slots, next it will be sports betting, then finally it will be prostitution.

How about improving your product, and that starts with better coverage of the stars you have!!!

HRTV told me that they can't upgrade grandpa's 70's design (okay, if you are there to run out for a better look) in-house video feed. Because it would cost money for a couple of more cameras and someone to know what horses to point them at.

I guess grandpa's product is as good as it gets, even 20 years after the kids have thoroughly rejected it.

jdl