What Makes a Good Handicapping Show?

[cratman]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

In the thread below...

So all of a sudden Serling is a great guy on TV

DylanESP said...


which made me think...

WHAT MAKES A GOOD HANDICAPPING SHOW?

Is it the quality of the picks?

The explanations of why?

Pace analysis?

Mr. Serling is hard working and often insightful. His show could improve by according more respect to talented co-hosts such as Ms. Gaudet and Ms. Wolfendale who often supply different perspectives.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

1) How many trainers do you want to see interviewed? Is there time for this? There must be at least 50 different trainers on any given day - the logistics of this are virtually impossible (they have to agree to be interviewed, and what trainer or jock is going to announce their strategy on TV?...good luck getting Chad Brown on camera these days).

2) see the response to #1

3) I can see how the track is playing by watching the races carefully

4) Maggie Wolfendale !

5) Richard Migliore !

Apparently the assumption has been that I was talking about Fox. I wasn't. I was talking about the industry.

Fox gives me more of what I want than other track feeds and broadcasts. The more the merrier for me.

There's a market for handicapping and putting tickets together on these shows also, but personally I have no interest in any of it. In some cases the people making selections and tickets are not very experienced or never made it much past the handicapping books of the 70s and 80s. That's not the game anymore. I'm not sure that's helping new players beat the game. And in terms of betting, it's probably hurting.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by CheckMark

I second that but don't forget his co-host, Nancy Holthus they do an excellent job with the show they put on each and every day plus also the live observations from Nancy in the paddock and comments on the track with Vic is second to none

I'm a little biased since I do cover Oaklawn myself but nothing beats 2 good handicappers/analysts like Vic and Nancy!

Some day I would like to meet them in person plus witness the beauty of Oaklawn Park itself maybe grab a few tipsheets too while I am there and a Corned Beef Sandwich if they are not both sold out

Nancy and I appreciate the kind words.

First and foremost, we like to remind players and ourselves that the races are a place for fun and excitement.

As for my philosophy. It's very basic.

Teach don't Tout.

We're all going to pick our fair share of winners.

If things I say and help a player gain the knowledge to cultivate his/her own opinion. I've done my job.

[Tom]

FOX is pretty deficient in the coverage of ladies' hats on their shows.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by cratman

His show could improve by according more respect to talented co-hosts such as Ms. Gaudet and Ms. Wolfendale who often supply different perspectives.

Please explain more. I am confused.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Please explain more. I am confused.

You're not the only one!!!

[MJC922]

The more people there are who actually walk away from a race thinking they could've had that winner the better the show is IMO. It's kinda like that paceline stuff, I'd have been 7 for 8 today if only I'd picked lines this way, and so the next day they come back and pick lines that way and go 1 for 8. The point is if they keep coming back for more then what you're spoon feeding them is working as intended. Actual profitability is not so relevant, return business is the key. Andy and team have always done a good job packing in a lot of insights. I've never heard Vic but I'd like to. For me though I've always liked quiet study after a race, then some paddock inspection. I was a pre-race warm up observer when I did my best 'work' so I wasn't really in range of a television much between races.

When you're there every day you notice things, I remember a casual player betting Roman Ruins because Messina warmed her up so thoroughly before the race and she was a fairly honest mare, she happened to get it done that day. I didn't bother to tell the guy he always warms her up like that.

For me to win I needed to be there to handicap all of those races, see how they set up before, set how they unfolded during, then ultimately form solid opinions of who was best given how the race was run so the handicapping would flow very smoothly in the future. If you're a bias guy you factor that into the opinions too. The point is after months of handicapping and observation you have this literally huge knowledge base to draw upon and that's invaluable, it's the key quite honestly. People like Serling have that knowledge base so I can see where it's worth listening to him to fill in some details because casual players really don't have anything but ink on the page, it's very detached.

[Poindexter]

1) The ability to convey information not obvious to most.
2) The ability to convey that information in a way that anyone can understand and learn from.
3) The ability to give out horses that outperform their odds (over the long run-they don't have to be profitable from an roi perspective(which is very hard) but the roi needs to be in the -1 to -10 % long term at worst or else you are just blowing wind.
4) The ability to make the race being analyzed seem exciting and challenging.
5) A passion for the sport.
6) How to intelligently attack the race from a betting perspective.


Cover all of those bases and you will have a pretty good show.

[lamboguy]

the horse race handicapping shows are way better than the football ones i see all over the place now. when you watch sports they give you useless information and statistics. my example is that they are telling you to bet a team because they are 19 wins and 10 losses after losing to teams from the other conference after losing 2 games in a row! i don't bet the sports, and now i know why.

[CheckMark]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

the horse race handicapping shows are way better than the football ones i see all over the place now. when you watch sports they give you useless information and statistics. my example is that they are telling you to bet a team because they are 19 wins and 10 losses after losing to teams from the other conference after losing 2 games in a row! i don't bet the sports, and now i know why.

Not all information is useless in sports

I personally use a lot of statistics from my database that I have for pro sports and college ball I typically create a line for the games (using my power ratings) and then research stats/info as to why I should/shouldn't bet this team etc using the database

Not saying your opinion is totally wrong but it just depends on how you interpret the information that this person gives you and what you choose to do with it; That is how you can win big money or lose everything you got

[CheckMark]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Nancy and I appreciate the kind words.

First and foremost, we like to remind players and ourselves that the races are a place for fun and excitement.

As for my philosophy. It's very basic.

Teach don't Tout.

We're all going to pick our fair share of winners.

If things I say and help a player gain the knowledge to cultivate his/her own opinion. I've done my job.

You are very welcome Vic (and Nancy)

And what you said above is 100% true sir thank you for that!

You and Nancy always teach me something different each time I watch the pregame show or watch live as the races go on

Cannot wait to see you guys again starting December 9th!

[cratman]

Originally Posted by the little guy

You're not the only one!!!

One example is that Maggie Wolfendale often appears to be cut off in mid sentence when commenting on an upcoming race. Not sure who makes that decision, but given that it seems to be Mr. Serling's show one might assume that he likely has some control or at least input.

She provides insights concerning body language in real time that are, in many cases, a different and useful basis for upgrading or downgrading a horse. This also provides an opportunity to compare her professional observations with handicappers' own observations with the object of improving in this regard.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by cratman

One example is that Maggie Wolfendale often appears to be cut off in mid sentence when commenting on an upcoming race. Not sure who makes that decision, but given that it seems to be Mr. Serling's show one might assume that he likely has some control or at least input.

She provides insights concerning body language in real time that are, in many cases, a different and useful basis for upgrading or downgrading a horse. This also provides an opportunity to compare her professional observations with handicappers' own observations with the object of improving in this regard.

This is special stuff. It's my show? What planet are you on? Maggie gets cut off? What show are you watching. I get some moronic criticisms, and take some idiotic shots, but this is so ridiculous that I am actually worried that you need immediate help. Then again, you still think Gabby Gaudet is on the show...and she hasn't been on in five years.

I'm going to show this to Maggie on Thursday. She will definitely enjoy the laugh.

[Tom]

Then again, you still think Gabby Gaudet is on the show...and she hasn't been on in five years.

WOW! You really cut her off!

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by CheckMark

Not all information is useless in sports

I personally use a lot of statistics from my database that I have for pro sports and college ball I typically create a line for the games (using my power ratings) and then research stats/info as to why I should/shouldn't bet this team etc using the database

Not saying your opinion is totally wrong but it just depends on how you interpret the information that this person gives you and what you choose to do with it; That is how you can win big money or lose everything you got

the only information i have ever seen in sports that is any good is knowing what Billy Walters is betting before he sends his beards out to bet those games.