On-Track Observation

[traynor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I agree with you...reality cannot be explained by mere numbers...and inaccurate numbers at that. I have spent considerable time thinking about the clues that body language provides -- especially the ears. It initially appeared to me that the horses might INDEED be motioning towards their "leader" with the flicking of their ears...but it later occurred to me that they might just as easily be arranging their plans for after the race.

As simple-minded as the numbers-player is to think that his numbers explain the horse racing world...I believe the body language player is equally simple-minded -- when he presumes to decipher the intentions of a horse by a brief and casual observance of its demeanor before the race.

What presumptions can we draw by watching a human athlete's demeanor before an athletic event...and why should equine athletes be any different?

Both the human and the equine worlds are more complicated than that...IMO.

PS...

I believe that more can be gained by watching the horse AFTER the race.

It is the folly of humans to continually seek certainty in an uncertain world. That is nowhere more apparent than at a racetrack.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Yes. If the trainer is purposely placing his charges in over their head, it has nothing to do with him not knowing or distinguishing which horses are sound. It has to do with economics not knowledge of horses.

SMTW...let me ask you a question:

You are a horse trainer, and you take me into your barn...where you proceed to point out certain horses to me who you say are plagued by nagging but invisible leg injuries. I follow the performances of these horses, and I find that none of them ran well in their subsequent starts...and I feel that I have been exposed to a great source of "inside information". But then I look at the subsequent races of the REST of your horses...and find that none of THEM ran well either.

Now I am stumped. Did the "injured" horses fail to run well because of their "injuries"...or is this sort of lackluster level of performance what should be EXPECTED in your barn -- given your training skill or the quality of your horses.

When testing the effectiveness of a new drug in humans...they give medicine to half the group...and withhold the medicine from the other half. If both halves of the group report the same findings...then the drug companies know that they've got nothing new to offer.

[Maximillion]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Because they are to slow to win. Lots of trainers depend on their day rates and they don't want to lose horses, especially sound horses. Sound horses are easier to take care of and train. To avoid losing their day rate and an easy care horse, the horse is entered in races over its head. The other trainers won't drop a slip for what they feel is an over priced horse or the horse is entered in tougher non-claiming races. The plan is to keep the horse more than it is to win.

Then there are the trainers who erroneously over value a horses talent and owners who want to keep their animal as a pet.

Lots of factors for low percentage trainers with very sound horses. The horse may look great in the paddock, ears pricked, nice stride, good confirmation and still lose.

Good post.
I think that when horses like what your decribing above are finally dropped in class they are often very bad bets.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by traynor

The point is that you can learn to see it. For example, a sore horse moves in a particular way that indicates the area of soreness. It isn't necessary to go through some rigamarole about what one saw in a Joe Takach video, or read in a book somewhere. A shortcut is what the NLPers call "uptime."
http://www.nlppati.com/articles/uptime.shtml

Essentially, most people are too busy talking to themselves, worrying about how they will be perceived by other people, or rehashing the old days to pay attention to the real world in front of them. At racetracks, that can be costly.

My view on body language is that for me it is a waste of my time. I've got all the books and the videos. I spent many days and hours taking notes and observing but the return on my time spent was not worth it. It is both physically and mentally exhausting to watch the paddock, then watch the warmups and then run to the window to try and get a bet down.

My philosophy is that my handicapping methods are good enough to point out the horses that should be fit and ready to run top race. I trust that the trainers, whose habits I know well, will not waste a race by running an unfit animal. I am sure that I have bet many unfit horses by ignoring body language as a factor but I know many body language experts who tear up a lot of tickets.

An experience I had with Joe Takach cemented my philosophy. It happened at Del Mar where I was discussing the day's card with another handicapper and Joe was listening to the conversation. I really was excited about 3 particular horses and after explaining my reasons Joe chimed in and essentially said my selections had no chance while reeling off a list of maladies for each horse. When each of my selections came romping home a winner I questioned whether spending a lot of time and effort trying to understand body language was time well spent. For the record, I believe that Joe Takach is the hardest working handicapper at the track and I have nothing but admiration for his work ethic and knowledge of horses.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by AndyC

My view on body language is that for me it is a waste of my time. I've got all the books and the videos. I spent many days and hours taking notes and observing but the return on my time spent was not worth it. It is both physically and mentally exhausting to watch the paddock, then watch the warmups and then run to the window to try and get a bet down.

My philosophy is that my handicapping methods are good enough to point out the horses that should be fit and ready to run top race. I trust that the trainers, whose habits I know well, will not waste a race by running an unfit animal. I am sure that I have bet many unfit horses by ignoring body language as a factor but I know many body language experts who tear up a lot of tickets.

An experience I had with Joe Takach cemented my philosophy. It happened at Del Mar where I was discussing the day's card with another handicapper and Joe was listening to the conversation. I really was excited about 3 particular horses and after explaining my reasons Joe chimed in and essentially said my selections had no chance while reeling off a list of maladies for each horse. When each of my selections came romping home a winner I questioned whether spending a lot of time and effort trying to understand body language was time well spent. For the record, I believe that Joe Takach is the hardest working handicapper at the track and I have nothing but admiration for his work ethic and knowledge of horses.

Modeling--whether of humans or horses--is a fairly easy skill to develop. It is not really all that difficult. What IS difficult is putting essentially qualitative information into a quantitative perceptual framework.

As far as the incredible complexity of horse racing, I think Bradshaw had it down pat.
“... it ain’t nothing but a horse race; just figure out who’s gonna lead and who’s gonna chase.” ~ Jim "The Hat" Bradshaw

Sometimes the complexities and difficulties are subjective perceptions, rather than accurate descriptions of external reality.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by traynor

As far as the incredible complexity of horse racing, I think Bradshaw had it down pat.
“... it ain’t nothing but a horse race; just figure out who’s gonna lead and who’s gonna chase.” ~ Jim "The Hat" Bradshaw

Sometimes the complexities and difficulties are subjective perceptions, rather than accurate descriptions of external reality.

Sometimes a man is blessed with an abnormally heightened sense in one aspect of his being...at the direct expense of the other senses.

He is great at doing something...but he lacks the ability or the eloquence to properly explain how he is doing it.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Maximillion

Good post.
I think that when horses like what your decribing above are finally dropped in class they are often very bad bets.

I agree. The trainer whom is so intent on keeping the horse is now ready to lose it, you have to ask why?

[traynor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Sometimes a man is blessed with an abnormally heightened sense in one aspect of his being...at the direct expense of the other senses.

He is great at doing something...but he lacks the ability or the eloquence to properly explain how he is doing it.

That sounds like an extended euphemism for "one-trick pony." The myth of one sense being at the expense of another (or others) is an old one, and not necessarily true. In most cases, not even close. It would be equivalent to saying that if one learns one topic, it diminishes one's ability to learn other topics. The complete opposite is true--the more one learns, and the more diverse the topics learned, the easier it becomes to learn new/different/other topics and fields of endeavor.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

SMTW...let me ask you a question:

You are a horse trainer, and you take me into your barn...where you proceed to point out certain horses to me who you say are plagued by nagging but invisible leg injuries. I follow the performances of these horses, and I find that none of them ran well in their subsequent starts...and I feel that I have been exposed to a great source of "inside information". But then I look at the subsequent races of the REST of your horses...and find that none of THEM ran well either.

Now I am stumped. Did the "injured" horses fail to run well because of their "injuries"...or is this sort of lackluster level of performance what should be EXPECTED in your barn -- given your training skill or the quality of your horses.

When testing the effectiveness of a new drug in humans...they give medicine to half the group...and withhold the medicine from the other half. If both halves of the group report the same findings...then the drug companies know that they've got nothing new to offer.

You are making an assumption. The assumption is I as a trainer am trying to win a race. What I am trying to explain is your assumption may not be correct. I as a trainer may not be trying to win a race, but protect myself from losing a horse and protect revenue generated by that horse and get a piece of the purse.

With that said if the trainer you are talking to you tells you he is trying to win and he can't that goes to training skill.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by traynor

That sounds like an extended euphemism for "one-trick pony." The myth of one sense being at the expense of another (or others) is an old one, and not necessarily true. In most cases, not even close. It would be equivalent to saying that if one learns one topic, it diminishes one's ability to learn other topics. The complete opposite is true--the more one learns, and the more diverse the topics learned, the easier it becomes to learn new/different/other topics and fields of endeavor.

Jim "The Hat" Bradshaw wrote two versions of the same handicapping book. I dare anyone to make any sense of either one of them. The man might have been a handicapping GENIUS...but he could not make you understand how he did what he did. Others have the style and the eloquence...but they have nothing of substance to say.

It's hard to get style and substance together.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

You are making an assumption. The assumption is I as a trainer am trying to win a race. What I am trying to explain is your assumption may not be correct. I as a trainer may not be trying to win a race, but protect myself from losing a horse and protect revenue generated by that horse and get a piece of the purse.

With that said if the trainer you are talking to you tells you he is trying to win and he can't that goes to training skill.

Am I also making an incorrect assumption when I say that the trainer who is not trying to win races will have a hard time keeping clients?

How common do you suppose these trainers that you are describing are?

[PhantomOnTour]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

SMTW...let me ask you a question:

You are a horse trainer, and you take me into your barn...where you proceed to point out certain horses to me who you say are plagued by nagging but invisible leg injuries. I follow the performances of these horses, and I find that none of them ran well in their subsequent starts...and I feel that I have been exposed to a great source of "inside information". But then I look at the subsequent races of the REST of your horses...and find that none of THEM ran well either.

Now I am stumped. Did the "injured" horses fail to run well because of their "injuries"...or is this sort of lackluster level of performance what should be EXPECTED in your barn -- given your training skill or the quality of your horses.

When testing the effectiveness of a new drug in humans...they give medicine to half the group...and withhold the medicine from the other half. If both halves of the group report the same findings...then the drug companies know that they've got nothing new to offer.

We were in the paddock - the horses he pointed out were not trained by him.

Those who can - do
Those who can't - teach

Just because he sucks at training doesn't mean he cannot readily identify a sore horse....nor can he do anything to right those sore horses

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

We were in the paddock - the horses he pointed out were not trained by him.

Those who can - do
Those who can't - teach

Just because he sucks at training doesn't mean he cannot readily identify a sore horse....nor can he do anything to right those sore horses

Oh, sorry.

I thought he was pointing out his OWN horses.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Am I also making an incorrect assumption when I say that the trainer who is not trying to win races will have a hard time keeping clients?

How common do you suppose these trainers that you are describing are?

Yes. Mostly the small barns, who can't afford to lose horses. Some of these trainers only have one client. Some owners are more interested as keeping their horses as pets and don't view horses as investments.

[PhantomOnTour]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Oh, sorry.

I thought he was pointing out his OWN horses.

No worries Thask - when I say this dude was a bad trainer I was understating it...2-45 was being generous

He now sells life insurance.

EDIT: okay, I looked the guy up and he wasn't that bad.
23-237 lifetime record