It's the most important information I can get from any broadcast
 

Poll is at 80% agree. I didn't expect it to be controversial but somehow it became that. Depending on where you are in your handicapping ability it's the most important information I can get if I can't be at the track.

:ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

The other girk, "Andy" on TVG is good, too.
And the Mig is very helpful.

This information you can't get anywhere else. I have been saved from a lot of
losing bets by listening.

:ThmbUp:

I am one who, when I'm listening to the audio, is most likely to use the paddock info for:

1) Horses that I was interested in that I now toss based on negative assessment.
2) Confirmation on a horse I was interested in based on positive assessment.

I, myself, don't tend to add horses or switch horses based on positive assessments on those that weren't part of my original mix.

Nobody can hide the way a horse looks.

Gabby Gaudet #1, and Maggie Wolfendale #2 as far as paddock preview they are without a doubt, THE BEST.



Best at breaking a race down: Blanket finish... Vic Stauffer, Andy Serling, Simon Bray, Mark Patterson, Matt Carothers.

I’ve touched on this very subject before. How handicappers can make picks days before a race and not make adjustments based on how a horse looks on track is strange. It’s not just AS and the other NYRA handicappers it happens at other tracks. Seriously Andy, how come we have never seen you change your selections on the fly? Not even based on a just horses appearance on track before race but track bias as well.

When I see something particularly odd in the paddock, my most common reaction is to pass the race. Or certainly to pass on the horse.

You can't possibly be this obtuse.

Dissenting opinion here. Not with the personalities mentioned here particularly, I'm just not into the physicality judging. After all, aren't all runners at NYRA dappled out, on the muscle, on their 'toes,' etc. I come from a circuit where swayback, ouchy-looking runners with decent pp's are just as likely to do well as the prettier ones...unless the prettier ones ship in from Lexington or Louisville for an easy score.

Does anyone keep track of the accuracy of paddock reports? That would be way to tedious for any normal person to take on, but public handicappers are certainly subject to close examinations of their accuracy.

To sum, I don't think I have ever, and am unlikely to, change a wager based on a paddock report. I guess I'm part of Andy A's 20%.

They mention several horses when they come on track not just the ones they may have picked earlier in the day. They also have good memories of how the horses looked the last time they raced (The ones best at it take notes on appearance to compare from race to race). Their opinion doesn't cause me to throw out a horse that looks bad unless it's a favorite. And when they point out a longshot of over 10-1 I might put them underneath in a vertical wager. This is the only information you can't get on your own if you're not there and because of their experience even if I was there I couldn't read the horses as well as they can.

There was a paddock report about several weeks back that showed a horse all lathered up with the white foam around his neck. Eight horse field and none of the other horses showed this type of sweating. The commentator said this wasn’t a good sign and pointed out other horses who looked better on track.That horse went off the favorite and finished dead last.

:ThmbUp:

Sometimes horses wash out in most of their races and still run well. That's why it helps to have someone who knows the horses on the circuit and can remember how they looked in prior races.

You clearly know very little about physicality. You're probably doing yourself a favor ignoring the information because you don't know how to interpret it.

But, FYI, physicality can also be employed at the lesser circuits. It's just a different ballgame.