Physicality Handicapping? - Tell Shackleford

[xfile]

Shackleford is the poster child for the Non Believers of the merit of Physicality Handicapping. He was completely washed out, mental and jittery before the race. He looked horrible and seemed like he was going to leave his race behind the gate. A damn good example for those who do not give merit to Physicality Handicapping. Shackleford didn't know he left his race in the paddock and post and sweated off 20 pounds. Somebody forgot to tell him.

[illinoisbred]

The appearance and track behaivor of each and every animal can really only be compared to what and how they appeared in past races. Kidney sweat,profuse sweating,washiness is significant only if the animal never appeared that way in the past. Years ago,a friend of mine had horses with trainer Joe Broussard here in the midwest. One runner,stakes calibre,always appeared sweaty/washed out. I remember Broussard commenting...when he doesn't washout that will be the time to worry.

[xfile]

So where's the information on pre-race antics of every horse running in every race? You would have to have notes on how every horse behaves for the handicapper's/horseplayer's viewpoint. I was not referring to owners and trainers. Christ they should know their horse.

[illinoisbred]

Agree, if one attends the track daily and physicality/appearance is one's approach,the extensive note-keeping is most likely well worth the effort.

[Robert Goren]

The question is. How good would he be if he didn't wash out before the race?

[xfile]

Agree, if one attends the track daily and physicality/appearance is one's approach,the extensive note-keeping is most likely well worth the effort.
If a player only does one circuit at a time that's possible. Personally I look at every race at every track every day to find what I'm looking for. For someone like me - I can't use this approach. And your average player at an average town would not have the time for this obviously. Not enough hours in the day. It's a non-factor. Now IF there was a service that provides pre-race notes on every horse....There's a business idea for somebody. I think there's a need for it. At least enough info to run split-tests.

[harness2008]

Romans knew about the tendency of his horse to wash out pre race. That was mentioned in his post race interview. However it were the announcers on the telecast just prior to the start i.e. Donna Brothers, Gary Stevens who mentioned that it wasn't a good sign washing out probably because in general for most horses, it indeed is a negative sign. In fact Stevens even predicted a fast pace because of it just prior to the race.

So I believe the connections knew about it and were not concerned at all but the home audience was duped because the broadcasters failed to do their homework. Since the Triple Crown and prep races are covered in fine detail, someone should have spotted it and simply said that Shackleford is washing out but it shouldn't be a factor since he normally does that prior to a race.

[Greyfox]

Donna Brothers, Gary Stevens who mentioned that it wasn't a good sign washing out probably because in general for most horses, it indeed is a negative sign..

Agreed. #6 Sway Away was washed out too and ran terrible.

[xfile]

Romans knew about the tendency of his horse to wash out pre race. That was mentioned in his post race interview. However it were the announcers on the telecast just prior to the start i.e. Donna Brothers, Gary Stevens who mentioned that it wasn't a good sign washing out probably because in general for most horses, it indeed is a negative sign. In fact Stevens even predicted a fast pace because of it just prior to the race.

So I believe the connections knew about it and were not concerned at all but the home audience was duped because the broadcasters failed to do their homework. Since these and the prep races are covered in fine detail, someone should have spotted it and simply said that Shackleford is washing out but he always does that prior to a race. I absolutely agree. I know a guy who canceled a $500 win bet on Shackleford based on what Brothers and Stevens said. Did I mention he was sick after the race? I warned him not to listen. I always mute the sound if it's just me watching. Never cancel a bet. Or go ahead and cancel a bet then go to another window, screen, etc and re-place the bet to throw off the Evil Spirits :cool:

[harness2008]

Wow, thats a tough one. Anyone in their right mind would have cancelled their bet on Shackleford based on what was said just prior to the race. I am not just saying this because this horse won, but I don't think that those comments should have been entirely negative towards the horse just because of a prevailing wisdom concerning washiness. In no uncertain terms Brothers and Stevens indicated that Shackleford left his race on the track prior to the race. Well, now we have learned that there are indeed exceptions to every rule and that the so called experts have their moments also.

[xfile]

My 2 favorite buttons in media life = MUTE and DELETE. Funny enough - the guy I was talking about became sick, washy and jittery AFTER the race. :D

[GameTheory]

Joe Takach used to have a watch service for So Cal. He'd be at the track every single day taking notes around the paddock, and then he'd run to the rail and watch the warmups -- more notes -- and then watch every horse after the race to see how the pulled up and if the jockey gave them a proper cool down gallop (more notes). You need enough subscribers to hire some assistants so someone can be at the track every day every minute or it sounds like a terrible grind. He did it for 10 years or so. The most valuable notes I found were the "poor pull-ups" (after race notes). Any horse that was a poor pull-up (some just out of jockey laziness) was an automatic toss in the next race. Was a great way to get rid of false favorites. I wonder if all the drugs negated that factor later...

[GatetoWire]

There will always be examples that defy rules.
That is why they are rules and not absolutes.
Most horses would not have ran their race if they acted like Shackleford did yesterday.

There are so many things that can go wrong with horse that you can only use these angles as guides.
Trust me that lots of people scored on AK in the Derby because of how he worked and looked.
In the Preakness a lot of those same people missed out because of the way Shackleford moved between the Derby and the Preakness and the way he looked on the track.

Every race is a puzzle and you have to use all the angles to figure it out. That is why it's so much fun and rewarding when you hit on the right angle.

Canceling wagers is also tricky business. For every Life At Ten in the BC you can find a Shackleford that wins.

[NWCTBob]

I too was thrown off by the TV announcers on Shackelford, but I had already called in the exacta box with Shack and AK. If I had waited, I would most likely not made the bet after hearing what was said. I have learned over the years, when ever you cancel or change your mind, the racing gods usually punish you, and the horse comes in.

[xfile]

@FullCardReports Twitter Feed: "Trainer #DaleRomans said better than a 50-50 chance #Shackleford goes to NY (#BelmontStakes) and he will confer with owners before decision"

[Robert Fischer]

Shackleford is the poster child for the Non Believers of the merit of Physicality Handicapping. He was completely washed out, mental and jittery before the race. He looked horrible and seemed like he was going to leave his race behind the gate. A damn good example for those who do not give merit to Physicality Handicapping. Shackleford didn't know he left his race in the paddock and post and sweated off 20 pounds. Somebody forgot to tell him.

I think you are saying either that you don't believe in physicality handicapping. I'm guessing there is a sarcastic tone(always hard to get dry sarcasm on the net) because of the bolded and other lines seeming to contradict what you meant.

I use physicality handicapping, and although it is maybe 5% of my total handicapping, it is important to me. Like everything else that I would invest money into, I'm good with it and I know how physicality opinions should be used with varying factors like my specific knowledge of each horse, adjusting a horses probability, and my wagering decisions.

[delayjf]

You need enough subscribers to hire some assistants so someone can be at the track every day every minute or it sounds like a terrible grind. He did it for 10 years or so. The most valuable notes I found were the "poor pull-ups" (after race notes). Any horse that was a poor pull-up (some just out of jockey laziness) was an automatic toss in the next race. Was a great way to get rid of false favorites. I wonder if all the drugs negated that factor later...

Has Takach retired?

I used his service back in the 90's - and I whole heartedly agree when he said a horse was a poor pull up, it almost always ran badly in their next race. Another valuable tip I was able to pick up and develop on my own was for when a horse was totally exhausted from the race. If I didn't feel the horse was short of conditioning, and thereby needed the race, I would more than likely conclude the horse would bounce in his next start.

[magwell]

I seen him up close in his 3 races at Gulf. the only time he didn't get hot was in the F.O.Y. he is the rare 3% that run good that way. I remember Native Diver use to be like that, I'm sure there are others, but best to pass on them like that unless you know that's their M.O. and thats very rare.

[xfile]

If I'm on a horse and he looks good pre-race it's a bonus. If he looks bad I still make the bet as long as the odds are worth the risk. I would never cancel a bet or change my mind on a 20-1 shot regardless of how he looks in paddock and post. I've cashed a lot of tickets on horses washed out. But then again I'm down here in Florida where we are all washed out. Even the patrons. :cool:

[GameTheory]

Has Takach retired?

I used his service back in the 90's - and I whole heartedly agree when he said a horse was a poor pull up, it almost always ran badly in their next race. Another valuable tip I was able to pick up and develop on my own was for when a horse was totally exhausted from the race. If I didn't feel the horse was short of conditioning, and thereby needed the race, I would more than likely conclude the horse would bounce in his next start.His website is still there, and he has a book about poly surfaces from 2008, but the horses to watch copy is talking about the upcoming 2002 Del Mar meet.

[Robert Fischer]

If I had HD quality feeds on these horses my ROI would be 5 points higher.



If you don't know what you're doing = don't factor in things in your play. It's worth trying to learn some basic things with physicality, but until you do, don't go bananas over things you aren't sure of. But anyone can spot something MAJOR and can factor that.


in general, if you don't have a "book" on the horse, cancelling a bet on a horse that looks to be in bad condition does not hurt your ROI. (Sure there are RARE occasions when a horse who ALWAYS looks bad will at times be overlayed by unfamiliar players who see the bad signs).

If a contender shows some bad signs and you don't know how he usually looks, don't go bananas and toss him while boxing exotics...

[BIG HIT]

Going by postparade only 3 horse that were best to me were #1 nice coat and head and ears looked perky plus most inportant for me tail arch.#5 was what like for the derby looked good then two.Same as above horse #11 was the last.I don't use this for neg only positive as x file said may bet little more when sign are there ethier way bet is on.

[PaceAdvantage]

The question is. How good would he be if he didn't wash out before the race?I was thinking the same thing...

[raybo]

I was thinking the same thing...

Yeah, me too. And then. I think you have to factor in the fight in the horse. Some horses just don't quit, even if they're not at their best physically. I think this could have been the case here, as the pace slowed quite a bit off the 1st quarter. Shack, it appeared, still had enough left and a lot of fight in him.

[PaceAdvantage]

No offense to others, but I just don't get the people who love deep closers, and there are many of you out there.

Give me the horse that goes to the front and fights for every inch of ground any day of the week...to see a horse spurt away as they turn for home, daring the rest of the field to catch them...that's horse racing for me...

Those who dig the deep closers probably love the thrill of "will they or won't they..."

I had the same thrill as I was screaming my head off for Shackleford yesterday to hold on...and he did more than that...once he switched leads for the last time, there was no way he was letting AK by him...even if the race was a half furlong longer.

[plainolebill]

No offense to others, but I just don't get the people who love deep closers, and there are many of you out there.

Give me the horse that goes to the front and fights for every inch of ground any day of the week...to see a horse spurt away as they turn for home, daring the rest of the field to catch them...that's horse racing for me...

Those who dig the deep closers probably love the thrill of "will they or won't they..."

I had the same thrill as I was screaming my head off for Shackleford yesterday to hold on...and he did more than that...once he switched leads for the last time, there was no way he was letting AK by him...even if the race was a half furlong longer.

Yeah, I just watched the replay again - changed leads, lowered his head
and dug in. I really like that colt.

[hugh]

Talk about physicality handicapping...
I was at GG today...
Watching the race 5 horses in the paddock.. the 8 Cinnamon Glo rears back and falls over on its side.. kicking up a ton of dirt and totally freaking out.
After seeing this drama I throw the horse out of my top spot.
I decide to go for a pretty large (for me) exacta box with my 2 other contenders 3 Global Love and 7 Blue Marrow.
Well if that darned horse (8) didn't come tearing out of the gate and blitz the field... my picks finished second and third.
Sometimes physicality handicapping just don't work. :bang:

[xfile]

No offense to others, but I just don't get the people who love deep closers, and there are many of you out there.

Give me the horse that goes to the front and fights for every inch of ground any day of the week...to see a horse spurt away as they turn for home, daring the rest of the field to catch them...that's horse racing for me...

Those who dig the deep closers probably love the thrill of "will they or won't they..."

I had the same thrill as I was screaming my head off for Shackleford yesterday to hold on...and he did more than that...once he switched leads for the last time, there was no way he was letting AK by him...even if the race was a half furlong longer.
This is classic psychology of a horseplayer. HP's like to see deep closers come from nowhere because that excitement gives the brain a chemical reaction similar to anything that feels good, tastes good, looks good, etc. It's far more exiting to see that one come from the clouds than one who can take them gate to wire. Actually the latter is stressful to the psyche. :cool:

[delayjf]

Yeah, I just watched the replay again - changed leads, lowered his head
and dug in. I really like that colt.

He actually didn't change leads until within the 1/16 pole.

[plainolebill]

He actually didn't change leads until within the 1/16 pole.

Actually that's what I was referring too, the last bit of the stretch when Ak was coming to him.

[parlay]

i put alot of weight in my opinion of how they look/walk.
That being said.....
many years ago at Woodbine i loved a yonnie starr trainee.
I think it might of been D. Clark up.
All the way to the track i tried to convince my friends of
his attributes.
I seperated from my friends because i wanted to get a
good look at him in the post parade.
Well, horse gets wound up and throws the jock but doesn't
run off.
I decide not to play.
Of course he romps at 15-1.
My friends see me after the race and are all excited, i was
apparently smiling so they assumed i played.
They laughed all afternoon after i explained what happened.
I was smiling cause it was that or throw myself of the roof :bang: :lol:

[duncan04]

I use phyciality in my handicapping but will never let it talk me off a horse I like. Maybe just limit how much I bet on it but thats about it.

[dav4463]

I was at Trinity Meadows one day and there was a horse that had a morning line of 15/1, maybe 20/1, but I liked him.

I put a win bet on him and watched his odds go down to 5/1. I was in college then so I know my "big" $10 bet wasn't the reason!

In the paddock he reared up and threw his jockey and landed on his back. He practically did a flip in the paddock. He was going nuts. The jockey hopped on again, got thrown off again!

I figured he would get scratched. I cancelled my bet.

Well, he ran.....and he won! Odds went up to about 12/1. I know he paid over $25. I learned my lesson.

[davew]

I do not understand what you are saying in the first post


Shackleford looked good in the paddock and on the post parade -

I had him with 1 / 10 / 11 / 14 in a 10c super box


I am not sure the temperature at Baltimore, but warmer than lately

washed out, sweating profusely, excited about race? not sure

[fmolf]

i also thought shack looked good...just like some people sweat more than others the same holds true for horses....I thought he looked frisky, on his toes and well muscled.....

[raybo]

i also thought shack looked good...just like some people sweat more than others the same holds true for horses....I thought he looked frisky, on his toes and well muscled.....

Yeah, he looked fine to me, although I had doubts he could hold a lead to the finish. Had nothing to do with his physical appearance.

[RichieP]

There will always be examples that defy rules.
That is why they are rules and not absolutes.

Every race is a puzzle and you have to use all the angles to figure it out. That is why it's so much fun and rewarding when you hit on the right angle.


Bingo! :ThmbUp:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fa4HUiFJ6c

[highnote]

Joe Takach used to have a watch service for So Cal. He'd be at the track every single day taking notes around the paddock, and then he'd run to the rail and watch the warmups -- more notes -- and then watch every horse after the race to see how the pulled up and if the jockey gave them a proper cool down gallop (more notes).

I tried Takach's live paddock service a few times. I didn't find it useful. Maybe you have to use it regularly in order to get a feel for how to use the information he presents? There were some interesting things about shoes and other equipment, but I wasn't sure how to use it. My experience with paddock handicapping is that you need to get to know the horses by sight and then compare them to the way they look from race to race. When there is a noticeable change then you bet accordingly.

Also, we would look at the confirmation of the horse and ask "Is he best suited to being a sprinter, a miler or a router. Is he a grass runner or dirt runner?" You can't always get it 100% correct, but you could certainly tell that a Phone Trick colt would have a hard time staying beyond 9 furlongs.

I spoke on the phone to Takach about paddock handicapping and determining a horse's best distance based on it's confirmation. As we spoke, I realized that as a paddock handicapper he was studying things differently than me. So his service was not useful to me. It might be good for others, though.

My paddock handicapping mate and I watched Serena's Song race many times. She was a small filly. He said she would not stay 10 furlongs and that when she raced beyond 9 furlongs she got the "wobbles". Which meant that as she got tired she looked like she was losing her balance. You could tell from her confirmation she wouldn't stay 10 furlongs. It isn't rocket science. You can tell from a horse's confirmation what distance is likely the most suitable.

We found that focusing on the stakes horses was the best way to paddock handicap. We got to know most of the top stakes horses in NY on sight. We could remember what they looked like from race to race. Since we didn't see them every day we might have had an edge over their trainers. The trainers may not detect a change in their horse's coat over the course of a month if they see the horse every day. But if you see the horse with a beautiful coat in May and then you don't see it again until August and you notice the coat is dull you can tell the horse is going in the wrong direction.

The biggest difficulty here is the time involved. You have to be at the paddock every weekend to watch the stakes runners. It becomes a grind. It was fun for awhile, but became like a second job. Just as I was getting good at it I also started a family. Now my weekends are spent on the ball field sizing up the confirmation of elementary school athletes. LOL

[Pell Mell]

No offense to others, but I just don't get the people who love deep closers, and there are many of you out there.

Give me the horse that goes to the front and fights for every inch of ground any day of the week...to see a horse spurt away as they turn for home, daring the rest of the field to catch them...that's horse racing for me...

Those who dig the deep closers probably love the thrill of "will they or won't they..."

I had the same thrill as I was screaming my head off for Shackleford yesterday to hold on...and he did more than that...once he switched leads for the last time, there was no way he was letting AK by him...even if the race was a half furlong longer.

I also hate deep closers but I liked AK because I didn't really consider him a deep closer.
Regardless of what JR said, he knows what he did and I would bet money he puts him in the race in the Belmont. JMO

[GameTheory]

I tried Takach's live paddock service a few times. I didn't find it useful. Maybe you have to use it regularly in order to get a feel for how to use the information he presents? There were some interesting things about shoes and other equipment, but I wasn't sure how to use it. My experience with paddock handicapping is that you need to get to know the horses by sight and then compare them to the way they look from race to race. When there is a noticeable change then you bet accordingly.

Also, we would look at the confirmation of the horse and ask "Is he best suited to being a sprinter, a miler or a router. Is he a grass runner or dirt runner?" You can't always get it 100% correct, but you could certainly tell that a Phone Trick colt would have a hard time staying beyond 9 furlongs.

I spoke on the phone to Takach about paddock handicapping and determining a horse's best distance based on it's confirmation. As we spoke, I realized that as a paddock handicapper he was studying things differently than me. So his service was not useful to me. It might be good for others, though.I never actually subscribed, but in the early days of the internet George Kaywood hired me to be the distribution man (he used to distribute Takach's stuff from his site handicapping.com). So Takach would send me the report, Lauren Stitch would send me her pedigree plays (also included), and then I'd do something with them. I can't even remember exactly, I guess I just put it together and posted it somewhere or sent it to the members or whatever. Anyway, I had access to the thing for several months while that lasted so I started using it. His picks and positive comments were basically not useful, either pointing out obvious horses or just being wrong too often. However, if you handicapped the card normally, then threw out any contenders you had that were "poor pull up" or a few other special negative comments, it was gold. They rarely won, and you were left with the winner in your other contenders, usually at a better price. Eliminated a lot of bad bets and made a lot of races playable by knocking out a low-price horse that you'd have to consider otherwise. Once I figured out how to use the stuff, it was great. (Lauren Stich's pedigree stuff was also very good at the time.)

But it was definitely not a stand-alone method, and he was not doing conformation analysis of basic abilities like you guys (that I remember). He was more about current form, equipment changes, and trainer moves and tells.

[highnote]

However, if you handicapped the card normally, then threw out any contenders you had that were "poor pull up" or a few other special negative comments, it was gold. They rarely won, and you were left with the winner in your other contenders, usually at a better price. Eliminated a lot of bad bets and made a lot of races playable by knocking out a low-price horse that you'd have to consider otherwise. Once I figured out how to use the stuff, it was great. (Lauren Stich's pedigree stuff was also very good at the time.)

But it was definitely not a stand-alone method, and he was not doing conformation analysis of basic abilities like you guys (that I remember). He was more about current form, equipment changes, and trainer moves and tells.

That's what I figured... if you took the time to understand his service then you could probably find ways to make it useful. He picked up on things I would not have picked up on. I looked at the shape of the body -- the size of the chest, the height of the withers compared to the rump. The confirmation of the legs. There is not enough time in the paddock to notice everything. I might notice a tongue tie -- but I didn't keep a record of first time tongue tie or tongue tie off.

I imagine that if you had two people in the paddock every day taking notes and a third person handicapping the card you could probably come up with some good plays. From what I've read about Pittsburgh Phil he would watch them in the paddock, sprint to the post parade, watch them warm up and then make his bets. That's a lot of work and he said it was very difficult.

If you focused on only one class of race you could probably do well -- just focusing on maidens or maybe just state bred maidens. There are some ugly state breds racing in NY. You take one look at them and you know they have no chance. Then you might see some British or German import running on the grass and you can barely contain your excitement.

[Valuist]

Shackleford is the poster child for the Non Believers of the merit of Physicality Handicapping. He was completely washed out, mental and jittery before the race. He looked horrible and seemed like he was going to leave his race behind the gate. A damn good example for those who do not give merit to Physicality Handicapping. Shackleford didn't know he left his race in the paddock and post and sweated off 20 pounds. Somebody forgot to tell him.

"Washing out" is hardly the only aspect of physicality handicapping. They never mentioned the horse having kidney sweat, just was a bit washy in the shoulder area. This might have had some significance if it was 40 degrees. It was over 80 degrees at Pimlico and it is not abnormal for horses to sweat in that kind of heat. Donna Brothers, who usually gives good analysis on NBC, should've known better than to belabor the point that Shackleford was sweaty.

[xfile]

"Washing out" is hardly the only aspect of physicality handicapping. They never mentioned the horse having kidney sweat, just was a bit washy in the shoulder area. This might have had some significance if it was 40 degrees. It was over 80 degrees at Pimlico and it is not abnormal for horses to sweat in that kind of heat. Donna Brothers, who usually gives good analysis on NBC, should've known better than to belabor the point that Shackleford was sweaty.
He was mental b4 the race. The sweat was a bonus

[Robert Fischer]

Dance City was sweated out pre-race

[PaceAdvantage]

Donna Brothers, who usually gives good analysis on NBC, should've known better than to belabor the point that Shackleford was sweaty.Haskin says you should lay off Donna... :lol:

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/horse-racing-steve-haskin/archive/2011/05/28/preakness-telecast-aftermath-no-sweat.aspx

[mountainman]

No offense to others, but I just don't get the people who love deep closers, and there are many of you out there.



One too many of those old movies that have Mickey Rooney winning the big race from 50 lengths back. Why can't a front-runner save the farm sometime? Now THAT'S my idea of a feel-good story. I get misty just imagining it.

By the way, nice job on the preakness, dude. You impressed me, and that's very hard to do.

[PaceAdvantage]

Thanks for the kind words. Made up for my Derby (although my horse, Archarcharch did injure himself...at least that's how I console myself every night... :lol: )

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Valuist
Donna Brothers, who usually gives good analysis on NBC, should've known better than to belabor the point that Shackleford was sweaty.


During the whole broadcast, they spent maybe 10 minutes talking about actual racing.

And five of those were flat-out wrong!

Maybe Donna should comment on the hats next time.