SAMPLE error in paddock observations

[mountainman]

Incidentally, I have worked around t-breds, owned t-breds, and once aspired to become a trainer. But other than cueing me on how horsemen think, I can't say that hands-on experience has much informed my efforts as a horseplayer or analyst. Watching god knows HOW many races has taught me much more about physicality than I ever learned on the backstretch.

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

It's my guess that The Green Monkey got rave reviews in the paddock.

Great example

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by cj

What I like that Maggie does is tell you how the horses look AND how it compares to how they looked before previous races.

There's the rub....To do any good at all, on has to be there EVERYTIME the animal goes to post.

[cj]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

There's the rub....To do any good at all, on has to be there EVERYTIME the animal goes to post.

Or collaborate with others you trust.

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by cj

Or collaborate with others you trust.

That would work as well HOWEVER, you have the same problem: you cannot SEE the physicality on the FAR side of the track: did it improve or not? Telescopes are not allowed

[dnlgfnk]

I know that physical specialists like Maggie have a unique eye. Yet since Benter, we've been force fed the data driven aspect of the game. The image of guys sitting in hotel suites who may not even watch a race.

And the numbers bear it out, down to capably splitting hairs between a 2-1 and 5-2 shot, etc. over time.

I can't imagine veering from my decision about an overlay, who may be the lone potential beneficiary of the race dynamics, because his head is down and to the side while taking choppy strides warming up, or because he looks like he went swimming. Even if it represents a change from previous appearances.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I know that physical specialists like Maggie have a unique eye. Yet since Benter, we've been force fed the data driven aspect of the game. The image of guys sitting in hotel suites who may not even watch a race.

And the numbers bear it out, down to capably splitting hairs between a 2-1 and 5-2 shot, etc. over time.

I can't imagine veering from my decision about an overlay, who may be the lone potential beneficiary of the race dynamics, because his head is down and to the side while taking choppy strides warming up, or because he looks like he went swimming. Even if it represents a change from previous appearances.

I hear you. And I am always reluctant to bring pre-race physicality onto the air and thus present myself as a purported "expert" on that aspect of racing. But I will describe a horse's stride..without hesitation. And characterizing a performance as "stiff, tentative jabs at the ground" has put me in the crosshairs of a few horsemen.

[Robert Fischer]

Not many people have competence in making observations.

Anyone without competence is going to be pointless to poll (won't tell you about the horses, and won't tell you about the general value of such observations).


Now that you've eliminated almost everyone who plays the horses as being in a category that should never bet significant money on their visual appraisal, you're left with a small group.


Even that small group's opinion only matters within a few angles.

Once in a blue moon, a competent physicality person will see a racehorse and say "oh darn... If I had a say, that racehorse would get an immediate vet exam"

and of those rare observations, most of those will be longer prices on the tote, and of no value to structure wagers against.


Same goes for significant gorgeous standouts, and the odds reflecting lack of potential value for that opinion.

These types of significant extremes are occasionally useful in fields with a bunch of new runners, that no one has much of a past performance book on, or may have one or two races where the flow carried and protected most of the runners.

If they keep a 'book' it helps to alert the boss bettor that "yea she looked completely unwell those last two wins this year, so don't necessarily toss her" and to have the added depth of saying something like "it's a mildly good sign that today his neck is bowed and coat is perfect, while last time he was sweating profusely relative to everyone else and was grazing like an old heifer"

[Tom]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

That would work as well HOWEVER, you have the same problem: you cannot SEE the physicality on the FAR side of the track: did it improve or not? Telescopes are not allowed

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Once in a blue moon, a competent physicality person will see a racehorse and say "oh darn... If I had a say, that racehorse would get an immediate vet exam"

Not on air. The implications of that could be career ending. On a similar tangent, I've seen (as I'm sure is the case with some other analysts) runners I had characterized pre-race (going strictly from the form..negative drops..aborted comebacks..suspicious private sales..etc..etc..) as undoubtedly plagued by "physical issues" pull up or suffer catastrophic breakdown. When that happened I held my breath after the fact wondering if my comments might bring a firestorm down on the trainer involved or even draw rebuke from the state vet or track management. There is candor-and then there is candor. This has occurred, maybe, 3 or 4 x in my career as an analyst.

[46zilzal]

Preparing joints for movements. As the body starts to move, synovial fluid is secreted into the joints (the interface between two bones) and becomes less viscous within the joints. Joints are covered by tissue called the synovial membrane, which secretes synovial fluid to lubricate the joint. As synovial fluid is secreted and becomes less viscous, friction at the joint is greatly reduced. Synovial fluid also serves as a transport medium to provide nutrients to the articulating cartilage and to remove waste. This is critical, as articulating cartilage has little vascularity to provide this function.

from https://biokinetix.com/wp-content/up...BIOKINETIX.pdf

However, if there is osteroartritis (even the earliest phases) this funcion is really reduced

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Not on air. The implications of that could be career ending. On a similar tangent, I've seen (as I'm sure is the case with some other analysts) runners I had characterized pre-race (going strictly from the form..negative drops..aborted comebacks..suspicious private sales..etc..etc..) as undoubtedly plagued by "physical issues" pull up or suffer catastrophic breakdown. When that happened I held my breath after the fact wondering if my comments might bring a firestorm down on the trainer involved or even draw rebuke from the state vet or track management. There is candor-and then there is candor. This has occurred, maybe, 3 or 4 x in my career as an analyst.

Yea.

We are lucky to even hear your general anecdotes and concerns.

That's a diplomatic position to begin with, and today's media is seemingly held accountable word-for-word.


Different story with a team of gamblers, or a rogue physicality specialist whose only duty is finding value on the tote.

[MJC922]

Many tend to go astray when they're starting out looking for positives and they land on all sorts of shiny prancing circus ponies that do nothing. It's more about what are the actual negatives so you can save yourself what may be a serious losing bet. I don't mean books and video negatives, e.g. kidney sweat, I mean track things, at least make a mental note to follow-up on something unusual that you see. Some things I thought were positive at the time are actually quite negative behaviors. The literature here is not the best IMO. There aren't many true negatives that I've found to be highly reliable, just a few. I've never seen the strongest negative I've come across ever mentioned by anyone. I would say favorites with the attribute lose 9 out of 10 but unfortunately it doesn't present itself often. The actual positives for me don't go much beyond good deportment. I will up the wager on my selection if I can see the horse is really focused.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

Or collaborate with others you trust.

That's a flaw in my game.

I spend so much time thinking of ways the prevailing wisdom among sharp handicappers might be wrong, I sometimes find myself going against the grain of people whose opinion I respect a lot instead of listening.

[BarchCapper]

One of the nice things about watching Hong Kong racing (which, due to the timing, I normally only get to see for a few races on Wednesday morning) is hearing paddock analyst Jenny Chapman make a comment on EVERY horse as they go around the walking ring. She's been doing it nearly 30 years.

A lot of "he gets a pass" - as in passing grade with nothing standing out.

The benefit of the walking ring analysis (and race coverage) over there is that the camera is focused on the HORSES the whole time - no talking heads on camera. Though I enjoy hearing what many of our racing commentators have to say, I don't need to watch anyone speak when there are horses to show.