Originally Posted by Andy Asaro (Post 2821485)

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.


https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/st...52232078168064

Originally Posted by Tom (Post 2821502)

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

Originally Posted by westernmassbob (Post 2821633)

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.

Originally Posted by westernmassbob (Post 2821633)

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.

Originally Posted by rastajenk (Post 2821656)

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%.

Originally Posted by westernmassbob (Post 2821659)

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.

Originally Posted by rastajenk (Post 2821656)

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%.

Originally Posted by rastajenk (Post 2821687)

You are correct on both points.

But aren't you essentially saying that most viewers would do themselves a favor to ignore Maggie and Gabby, because most viewers are like me and don't really know much about physical interpretations? They're just relying on someone's expertise, and the current crop certainly makes it fun and entertaining. The original post queried about "the most important information" and I happen to be in the group that disagrees. That's all. :cool:

Originally Posted by westernmassbob (Post 2821689)

The info that Maggie and Gabby bring to the table is priceless. " I noticed during the warmup the number 6 horse seemed to slightly be limping and his gate was off." This may sound a bit extreme but things they have brought up have not been far off. What professional or non professional capper would not take this information into consideration ?

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk (Post 2821698)

Are the "whales" often mentioned here still holed up in their headquarters, merely looking at the whole process quantifiably and with the law of large numbers in place, ala Benter/Woods? Do they have a quantifiable/algorithmic method for incorporating what Maggie describes 15 minutes before post?

Originally Posted by Jeff P (Post 2821702)

I have been told at least some of the whale teams are paying observers for physicality information.

And yes, they do have quantifiable algorithmic methods for incorporating physicality observations.

Interesting sidebar:

I have been told the observers are compartmentalized.

All communication is supposed to be one way. The observer's job to simply submit physicality observations and nothing else.

The system is designed so that the observers have no way of knowing who the other observers are, how to contact team members they don't have a need to know, or whether or not their physicality observations are actually used in the team's fundamental model.

This is done to make it difficult for team members and observers to go out and form a new team on their own while taking other team members, source code, and/or the team's fundamental model, etc. with them.

Which apparently, has actually happened a few times.


-jp

.

Originally Posted by Jeff P (Post 2821702)

I have been told at least some of the whale teams are paying observers for physicality information.

And yes, they do have quantifiable algorithmic methods for incorporating physicality observations.

Interesting sidebar:

I have been told the observers are compartmentalized.

All communication is supposed to be one way. The observer's job to simply submit physicality observations and nothing else.

The system is designed so that the observers have no way of knowing who the other observers are, how to contact team members they don't have a need to know, or whether or not their physicality observations are actually used in the team's fundamental model.

This is done to make it difficult for team members and observers to go out and form a new team on their own while taking other team members, source code, and/or the team's fundamental model, etc. with them.

Which apparently, has actually happened a few times.


-jp

.

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro (Post 2821704)

Those guys get information from all the top stables, vets, and whoever else can give them an edge.

Originally Posted by CBYRacer (Post 2821711)

What's in it for those other parties? Why would they provide this info?

Originally Posted by Tom (Post 2821691)

It's not that anyone is "changing on the fly" as making the betting drcision.
I'm going into a race with several options, waiting to see the odds, get the paddock information, then decide the bet. A horse I like last night at 4-1 ml is now 8-5 and Maggie says he dosen't look good, yeah, that is not my bet. Another at 10-1 ml is now 6-1 and Maggie says this has nevr looked better.....

The process is not over until you make the bet.

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro (Post 2821712)

$$$$$$$

Some of those guys meet with Racing Execs on a regular basis. I doubt all they're asking for is another quarter point rebate. It's about access

Originally Posted by CBYRacer (Post 2821716)

I guess I'm imagining these whales as more quant-geek...Ingenious and above board. For what it's worth, I consider rebate negotiation above board.

Originally Posted by CBYRacer (Post 2821709)

First, there would probably be significant variability in terms of how individual observers rate horses across the physicality dimensions.

Originally Posted by CBYRacer (Post 2821709)

Second, you can't buy historical datasets so you need to build these observational datasets ground-up which would take time.

Originally Posted by Jeff P (Post 2821726)

I not only agree but suspect the team leads are well aware of this.

I think they are able to work around this by employing multiple observers who collectively make a lot of observations over the course of a meet.

If I were modeling horse physicality myself :) I would create three columns in a database table:

phys01 value=ObserverId (a number unique for each observer.)

phys02 value=0 for horses where no physicality observation was made. Value=1 for horses where a physicality observation was made.

phys03 value=0 for horses where no physicality observation was made. Value=Some_Number (a physicality score created by the observer making the observation.)

From there, once you've gathered observations from multiple observers for a meet or two, it shouldn't be difficult to perform significance testing by running the observations data through a stat package.

If the observations of an individual observer aren't statistically significant after a couple of meets, or have far less significance than those of the other observers:

You'll know. At which point you can decide to cut that observer loose.

But if the observations of an individual observer are statistically significant or consistently better than those of the other observers:

You'll know that too. At which point you can implement that observer's work in your model. And possibly make that observer an offer he or she isn't likely to refuse.



Agree here as well.

But if you do find an observer who provides statistically significant insight:

Now you have information not readily available to others.

From there, you should be able give your model a leg up over the competition.


-jp

.

Originally Posted by CBYRacer (Post 2821716)

I guess I'm imagining these whales as more quant-geek...Ingenious and above board. For what it's worth, I consider rebate negotiation above board.

Originally Posted by $w1fT (Post 2821762)

The computer teams are ruining the game.

Originally Posted by ronsmac (Post 2821817)

More like ruined.

Originally Posted by ranchwest (Post 2821818)

Most of us know that, while horses generally have consistent patterns, they are not race cars.

Same with physicality handicappers. While there are a few general items on a checklist, I have witnessed a number of situations that were simply unique. Sometimes I have taken an educated guess. For instance, I saw a horse with about a 4 inch cut that was slightly healed. The placement of the cut on the hip suggested it might be from a gate experience and i guessed that the horse was not going to be happy racing. After the horse ran poorly, I figured out who the owners were and asked about the cut. I had guess correctly. Such odd sights should arouse concern. I've seen many things only one time and had to make a decision as to whether to upgrade or downgrade a horse based on what I saw. It isn't all about being on the toes, being washy or being muscled. And, sometimes there is a fine line between showing positive energy and being nervous. A fine line between being naturally sweaty and being washy. There's a lot to learn about physicality. I have learned some, but I definitely learn something new with every observation.

Originally Posted by BarchCapper (Post 2822551)

Originally Posted by ranchwest (Post 2821818)

Most of us know that, while horses generally have consistent patterns, they are not race cars.

Same with physicality handicappers. While there are a few general items on a checklist, I have witnessed a number of situations that were simply unique. Sometimes I have taken an educated guess. For instance, I saw a horse with about a 4 inch cut that was slightly healed. The placement of the cut on the hip suggested it might be from a gate experience and i guessed that the horse was not going to be happy racing. After the horse ran poorly, I figured out who the owners were and asked about the cut. I had guess correctly. Such odd sights should arouse concern. I've seen many things only one time and had to make a decision as to whether to upgrade or downgrade a horse based on what I saw. It isn't all about being on the toes, being washy or being muscled. And, sometimes there is a fine line between showing positive energy and being nervous. A fine line between being naturally sweaty and being washy. There's a lot to learn about physicality. I have learned some, but I definitely learn something new with every observation.