Not just this guy but I've never quite understood picking on looks.

Too many rock up to the marshalling yard, without knowing the history and background of the horse or what it looked like last start. It could have look immaculate last start and ran last, so looking immaculate today doesn't really do much for it. Another horse could look plain and you look past it. But if it looked like crap last start and ran 2nd then isn't the improvement in its look the best indicator? Yet because it still only looks plain it won't be picked.
Best example from the Riverina a few years ago. A horse called King of the Ranch was the best looking horse I have ever seen. You'd pick him every week if going on looks. There were some old horses like Master Echelon, Jack and Simon and Cool Warrior who might not have looked as good some weeks and you wouldn't have picked on looks. Some weeks Master Echelon, Jack and Simon and Cool Warrior mightn't have looked quite as good as King of the Ranch, but they looked a lot better than they usually did. Joe Blow picking on looks would have picked King of the Ranch. But knowing the horses and the improvement in their individual looks proves more useful. It only ever seems to be mentioned when one looks fat first up and trims up 2nd up.

Also, it also amazes me how some tipsters best on looks also happens to have the best form and is not always actually the best on looks. I'm not looking at Gary Harley...