Horseracing Betting: How much merit is there in "paddock watching"?

General / Jack Houghton / 24 January 2009 / 8 Comments

Jack Houghton comments on Simon Rowlands' recent article on the art of reading a horse's ability by watching him stroll around the paddock...

Do you ever feel like you're being baited? I mentioned to Rowley that I was a little short of inspiration for this week's missive, and that I was looking forward to an upcoming sabbatical from betting.betfair.

It's okay, it's okay... I'll be back at the start of March so your withdrawal symptoms from my writing will be short-lived.

Back to Rowley. Knowing I was lamentably lacklustre in the ideas department, he posts his latest article: a summary of the thoughts of a chap called Jonjo on paddock watching; giving us pointers for next time we go to the races. And I couldn't help thinking: did he only write it to wind me up? Was this his way of giving me a fraternal, virtual nudge towards something to talk about?

Because OMG (text speak, get with it): a greater pile of poop I have not read since being forced by a toddler into repeated recitals of "The Story of the Little Mole Who Knew it Was None of His Business"; about, of all things, a mole who walks around with a dog-turd on his head.

First up, Jonjo tells us we should make note of horses who track-up. Unless they can't track-up, in which case we should watch them move to post instead. Okay, I've done all that and can confirm all the horses I saw either tracked-up, or moved on their way to post.

Look for horses who really use their shoulders. Yep, they all do that. Apart from one. He didn't use his shoulders and just kind of keeled over when trying to walk. What next? Oh yes, a confident, bold slap of the hoof. Ooh, it's tricky this one. Is that a bold and confident slap I see over there? I'm not sure. In the end I decide it's more of a rakish, foppish wallop, so discount the horse from calculations.

Now the head. Eliminate all the ones with overly small eyes. Hang on, there's a horse with one eye over there. What about him? Well, having no eye must be worse than a small eye, so he's out.

Jonjo isn't worried about overbites. After all, Dancing Brave had one. I'm not an expert Jonjo, but I think Keira Knightley has one as well, and it hasn't done her any harm. So we agree: overbiters are in.

He likes big ears on a horse. Does he mean he likes horses ridden my Kevin Manning? Because he has massive ears. No, no, he's talking about the size of a horse's ears. Good-sized rather than small and piggy. None of the horses I see have little pink ears, so they all pass the earing test. But I swerve a couple with sweaty heads, as advised, mainly because it looks like they want to eat me.

Right, now we need a neck in-keeping with the rest of the horse's physique. Yes, they all have horse's necks. Apart from that furry creature over there, but that turns out to be John McCririck.

I can't take this nonsense anymore. Does anyone seriously think the size of a horse's ear or eye will affect it's athletic ability? They don't. And any shysters who try to convince us otherwise should be treated with the same contempt with which sensible people treat astrologers and financial advisors.

A horse's racing potential is determined by a combination of factors like the efficiency of its cardiovascular system, its percentage of slow- to fast-twitch muscle fibres and its proprioceptive ability. And none of this can be determined to any degree of accuracy by simply looking at a horse.

In all the years I've stood next to so-called "good judges" - whether in sales' rings or paddock-side - I'm yet to find one able to divine anything other than a series of characteristics within a standard deviation for racehorses. And none of them demonstrated any success with their predictions of ability; other than you would expect from someone picking horses at random.

That's not to say that horse inspection doesn't have its uses. Ensuring regimented biomechanics when buying can help eliminate horses likely to be more prone to injury. But paddock-side, unless a horse is doing something it doesn't usually do, inspection is of no use whatsoever.

Think of it in terms of your tissue price. If a horse has a sweaty head, how should that affect its odds? Does it turn a [3.0] shot into a [5.0] shot? If anyone can cogently answer that question I might change my tune. In the meantime I'm off to look at pictures of Keira Knightley's overbite.

Comments (8)

1. Jonjo | 24 January 2009

   "But paddock-side, unless a horse is doing something it doesn't usually do, inspection is of no use whatsoever"

   You may not have read a greater pile of poop Jack, but you've certainly bested it by writing that!

   It's very easy to be 'selective' & knock comments that were intended to give a fairly broad idea of what people are looking for with 'paddock inspection' but I would suggest that if you have (and you say you have, so I have no reason to doubt you) spent lots of time with 'good judges' & found them (& their paddock picks) to be nigh on useless, maybe these 'judges' are actually not as 'good' as they would have you think??? because if they could not signpost you five or six in a decent sized field of maidens that would either need the race badly, or improve with racing with reasonable accuracy, they were probably utter bluffers. I have often backed winners subsequent to seeing them patently in need of a race at one venue, observing them in the race & factoring in likely improvement for the race, provided they have run right through the line (yes Jack, I'll save you the opportunity of doing another hatchet job & point out that of course they ALL run through the line unless they pull up - I mean finish their race off well - dont burst themselves to exhaustion - looking at their demeanour when they unsaddle often helps there)

   Each to their own Jack, but I would imagine you are a form/figures man. That's fine, but if people can add another string to their bow & learn something about how horses ought to look when they are tuned to the optimum & actually make a few quid from it, why knock them for it, unless you just want to appear a smart arse & say it's no good because you cant do it, or simply 'dont get it'?

2. Jack Houghton | 25 January 2009

   Thanks for the comment Jonjo. As you say, I probably just don't get it.

   I've just read a back copy of the Racing Post and note that Inglis Drever has been retired. As I'm off for a few weeks and won't get chance, I wanted to post a message saying goodbye to the old boy.

   In the days when I thought I was an in-running punter, he was pretty much the only horse I made a profit on and, when I realised in-running punting really wasn't my thing, he continued to be a horse with a habit of getting me into profit (or at least limiting my losses).

   So thanks me ol' mucker; enjoy your retirement.

3. Jonjo | 25 January 2009

   Enjoy the break Jack
   & well said on Inglis Drever, cracking horse.

4. Ian Dean | 26 January 2009

   ...despite his small ears.

5. Dave Nolan | 28 January 2009

   Hello Jack

   I know your a "figures" man and there is nothing wrong with that-I lean that way myself but I think you need to be a little more open minded.I don't back horses that are sweating badly unless they have shown this tendency before and still performed well.If I've taking a early price about one and it gets into a muck sweat I'll generally lay it off even at a loss.They don't win very often.If they haven't run for a while and they parade looking a bit porky (unless they generally carry plenty of condition)surely it has to be a major factor in what it's real chance is.They might get away with it over sprint trips but not many unfit horses win over a distance of ground.
   Enjoy your break

   regards

   Dave Nolan
   

6. R Hills is God | 28 January 2009

   Simon Rowlands' articles are always informative and thought provoking. He can be mentioned in the same breath as such writing/broadcasting legends as Hankin, Boyce, Mordin, Green.....

   Houghton's offerings, by contrast, appear to be little more than the random scriblings of someone WAY out of their depth.

7. Inigo | 11 February 2009

   "I would imagine you are a form/figures man".

   Jack, or should I say Jak strikes me as more of a poncho man - certainly a suitable case for treatment!

   However, stopping short of sycophancy, I'd hasten to support any joust at paddock reading to the depths of ear size and eye size. This is surely a bridge too far and any such scrutiny of horses should be saved for those who form that special bond with the equus genus - I don't subscribe to such publications, but each to their own.

   What news of the Manassa Mauler? Perhaps we'll see you on the paddock rail at the festival.

   Enjoy your break.

   Inigo

8. Mark Littlewood | 17 November 2011

   Jack I suggest you read watching racehorses by Geoffrey Hutson or ask the Hong Kong based betting syndicate how they justify employing paddock watchers or read my article 'watching the paddock watchers'. Next time you feel short of an article don't write one!