Mark Cramer
C & X Report

EXPERIMENT: Don't panic - we're just trying to see if we can reasonably post the newsletter on the website. At this point we are having some problems and we think it relates to the volume of content. This is not formatted but give it a read if you dare.

C&X 11
CONTENTS
Editorial
Claiming Crown Recap: Odds Line Workshop
Should we give a sheet?
Steve Fierro in Action: Portrait of a Winning Horse Bettor
Fierro: There�s No Such Thing as a Professional Horseplayer
Anatomy of a Longshot
Advance View of BC Turf
C&X Cafe
The Supertrainers
Profiting from Total Chaos Races
Notes to Readers

EDITORIAL
Steve Fierro recently remarked how he saw no rational reason why the same person who drives 80 miles to get an extra half point in his favor on a football point spread would not even consider using a betting line to decide on the minimum playable odds for a horse.
It�s the classic distinction between picking winners and picking bets.
Consider that you are looking for a house. House A is a beauty for $600,000. It is appraised at $500,000. House B, not quite as good looking, is on the market for $300,000. It is appraised at $400,000.
Which house is the winner? House A probably has a better location, an extra bedroom, and superior woodwork. But it�s a bad investment. With House B you get a bonus of $100,000 when you buy it. Put in $50,000 to make it look just as good as House A, and you�re still ahead of the game.
These are the only two houses you have found in the area where you need to live. Which is the buy?
House A is certainly the �winner� of any competition. But House B is a better bet.
People like Barry Meadow, Dick Mitchell and myself have long been advocates of picking bets as opposed to picking winners. You still need the skill of picking contenders in order to pick bets, but most races do not offer a deterministic winner and they contain several contenders.
If you buy the idea of an odds line, as it works for football wagers or house purchases, then why not consider it for horse betting? This is a featured subject we shall confront in this new C&X. We�ll explore the concept with specific races as well as a player profile of Steve Fierro.
In striving for quality and innovation, I am hoping that this issue will represent a new peak in C&X performance. I assure those of you who are considering renewing a subscription that we will not �bounce� from this performance, that we will leave no stone unturned in our goal of helping you to improve your return on investment at the races.
It�s a long-term process. We do hope you�ll stay with us for the next year. Consider and the past few issues and then ask yourself what other publication reaches so deeply into handicapping, money management, and betting psychology.

THE PERSONAL ODDS LINE:
A RECAP OF CLAIMING CROWN
We�re using Claiming Crown because it was featured on our website and most of you have already read the pps. That saves lots of space, otherwise taken up by pps. Let�s look at each of my lines, as published in the website.
THE IRON HORSE
Gram�s Folly, 5/2 in my line, went to post at 7-1
Rough Draft, 5/2 in my line, went to post at 8/5
I call this a co-favorite race. How often is it impossible to split hairs between the two best horses. Normally I demand a 50 percent overlay. So I needed 4-1 on either of these horses. I got it with Gram�s Folly.
Scott Stevens outsmarted the jockeys of these above horses. He controlled the pace aboard trainer George Bango�s Superman Can, who forced Rough Draft two wide and Gram�s Folly three wide (and in fact between 4- and 5-wide on the first turn). Two days earlier I had talked to trainer George Bango. He�d commented:
�We�re gonna kick their asses. We got the kryptonite!�
George often talks this way, and he did not provide any evidence as to just how he would kick ass. Bango�s groom, Monserrat, is a friend of mine. He told me the horse was sharp. But he�s often said the same thing about horses that ended up losing. To his credit, he�s never predicted a race result.
Gram�s Folly had nothing left after the wide on both turns and finished third, a length from the win. Rough Draft was second. Superman Can won at 16-1.
One win bet. One loss. (When I lose this way, I have no regrets. My horse was live, and he outran his odds.)
THE EXPRESS
Tough race. I had five contenders, with 9/2 for both Chisholm and Longonot. You could tell from the website trainer and jockey comments that I had much more interesting info on Chisholm. But Chisholm was coming from a lower class track than the four other contenders. Longonot had come from Gulfstream. I wrestled with the dilemma and decided to emphasize Chisholm because of the fast times. I figured that the Beyer figs underestimate times from lower-level tracks. Chisholm did 1:10 twice and his most recent was allegedly faster than 1:10, as I had mentioned on our site.
Chishom went off at 9-1, though I bet him when he was 7-1. We needed 6-1 for the 50 percent required overlay. We got quite a bonus.
It is in this type of race that linemaking is the difference. You could have put a blanket over the top five. But the four other contenders all went to post at odds significantly lower than the personal odds I gave to them on our site. Longonot, 9/2 on my line, was only 3-1 on the board: underlay. Halo Hunter, 5-1 on my line, was 6-1 on the board, not enough of an edge, especially when comparing this to Chisholm�s track odds, which were twice as high as my line odds for him. Cherokee Prospect, 6-1 on my line, was 5/2 at the track: way too low. And Devil�s Con, 6-1 on my line, was only 2-1 at the track. Clearly, there was only one real overlay among the contenders and that was Chisholm.
Those who are picking winners would have found this race excruciatingly complicated. For the personal odds line maker, it couldn�t have been easier.
Chisholm won and paid $20.20.
One win in two bets.
THE GLASS SLIPPER
Here I made a fatal mistake. Prior to receiving the Morning Line, Steve Fierro and I had both leaned to Banished Lover. We�d discovered that his fractional par times from early speed routes had measured up to the sprint times of other contenders. However, those of us in the press box received the printed track Morning Line days in advance. I became discouraged by the fact that Banished Lover was the ML favorite. I�d originally thought I had made a big discovery only to be told by the ML that I knew nothing special. I switched my final line, changing Moving Fever down to 5-2 and Banished Lover up to 7-2. The two other contenders, Sweep in Philly and I Love Lisa were rated by me as between 5-1 and 6-1.
Lisa and Philly both were way under at 3-1 on the board, so it was easy to eliminate them from consideration. Moving Fever was also way under at 9/5. Banished Lover was very close to a bet. He was 7-2 in my line, and a definite bet at 5-1. I decided I�d take him at 4-1, remembering how I�d liked him on top originally, only to be swayed by the ML. He went off at 7-2, so I passed.
Banished Lover won convincingly, while Moving Fever was second.
After the fact, it was easy to discover the flaw in my line.
I did have the exacta at 25.40, since I saw in my line that there was a huge separation between the top two and the bottom two contenders. The exacta price seemed like a huge overlay.
So far, in the win hole: one win, one loss, and one pass.
THE RAPID TRANSIT
Satan�s Code, 3-1 my line, 6-1 on the board. Bet him.
Sure You Can, 4-1 my line, 5-1 on the board, not enough advantage, and less so compared to my top contender, so no bet.
Heroic Sight, 9/2, my line, 7/2 track. Under. No bet.
Quote Me Later, 9/2 my line, 3-1 track. No bet. Quote Me Later was second. Satan�s Code moved boldly into the stretch, and looked like a winner in midstretch, but then hung, to lose by �.
Heroic Sight won, paying 9.80. A four-horse box of my contenders led to $152 trifecta payout.
Win bets so far: one win, two losses, one pass.
THE EMERALD
Stage Player, 3/2, needed 2-1 for a 50% edge. Did not get it. He went off at odds-on. No bet.
He Flies, 3-1, needed 9-2.
Here I had my only tough decision. Technically I was not getting my odds with He Flies, at a hard 7/2. But, though I�ve always written in C&X that we need a 50 percent overlay, I had neglected to mention that fact on the website. I suspected that some C&X readers may not have remembered the guideline from previous issues, so I decided to bet the horse. If he lost, my win bets were still showing a solid profit.
Stage Player won the race. He Flies hung and finished third.
Win bets so far: one win, three losses, one pass.
THE JEWEL
Musique Toujours, 7/2, off at 3-1. No bet.
Spooky Mulder, 7/2, off at 5-1. Bet.
Spooky Mulder�s rider failed to grab the lead, and it was over for him. Musique Toujours fought gamely, and was possible interfered with by the eventual winner, finishing second. The winner winner was the longshot Intelligent Male, trained by the amazing longshot trainer, Wayne Catalano (an incredible 33 percent wins).
Win bets, final tally: one win at 20.20 and four losses. That�s a 100 percent profit!
Had we been strictly picking winners and not picking bets, without the benefit of an odds line to tell us what to do, most likely we�d have not played Chisholm in a race that was much too tough to call, but we would have wagered on Stage Player, collecting at odds on. That would have resulted in a flat-bet loss.
Hands down: the picking-bets strategy outperformed the picking-winners strategy. In the long run, the picking-winners strategy may have a higher hit rate, but will produce a much lower return on investment.
The r.o.i. oriented player who wants a profit at the end of the year would do better collecting less frequently but at higher payoffs, better than collecting slightly more often at lower payoffs.
The best way but not the only way to engage in a picking bets strategy is to make an odds line. Some good players can wing it, sensing which horses are overlayed and which are not, but this is not as easy as it might seem.
In the above lines, all contentious races but one, I had my contenders� odds add up to 80 percent, giving 20 percent to the rest of the field.
For example, in the Express, I had five contenders, at 9/2 (18 percent), 9/2 (another 18 percent), 5-1 (16 percent), 6-1 (14 percent) and another 6-1 (14 percent), for a total of 80 percent. In most cases, with some exceptions such as The Jewel, I give 80 percent to my contenders and 20 percent to the rest of the field.
This is called a 100% line. Porgram Morning Lines often add up to nearly 12O%. That means they give every horse a greater chance to win than is objectively possible. We know that in any given horse race, there is a 100 percent chance of having a winner. No more and no less. A 120 percent line lowers the odds on every horse, thereby giving each horse a higher percentage probability. This encourages more irrational action from the crowd.
Example: we have our top pick at 3-1 (25%) in a 100 percent line. The program ML maker has more percentage points to work with, so he makes the same horse 2-1 (33%). If this horse goes off at 3-1, he�s a no-bet for the 100 percent line maker but he becomes a bet for the 120 percent linemaker. By making a 100 percent line, you are being more demanding as a bettor, as it is tougher to find a real overlay. In fact, your odds lines gives you instructions as to what must be done, including instructions to pass. A 100% odds line is the best way to not make dumb wagers, for it will show you quite clearly just when you know nothing different from the betting public.
So, how does one decide on the odds in order to make a personal line? Believe me, it�s much simpler than you think. First, you handicap, isolating contenders. Most regular players are reasonably good at this stage. Then you weigh which horses have more plus factors and more minus factors. The ones you like the most are given lower odds. The ones you like less are given higher odds. You must be able to tell yourself WHY you like one contender more than another. You must have reasons. If you cannot reason, it means you do not understand the race, and you can make no odds line. Not being able to reason about a race is another sure way to call for a pasadena.
Once you have your contenders isolated and objective reasons why one is more likely to win than another, you convert your odds to percentages and add them up. Most of the time, at least with beginners, they will add up to more than 100. Then you must adjust, by raising odds of horses you think you overestimated.
Here�s a handy odds/percentage table:
1-2 = 67% 5-2 = 28% 15-1 = 6%
3-5 = 62% 3-1 = 25% 20-1 = 4%
4-5 = 55% 7-2 = 22% 30-1 = 3%
Even = 50% 4-1 = 20% 50-1 = 2%
6-5 = 45% 9-2 = 18% 99-1 = 1%
7-5 = 41% 5-1 = 16%
3-2 = 40% 6-1 = 14%
8-5 = 38% 8-1 = 11%
9-5 = 35% 10-1= 9%
2-1 = 33% 12-1= 8%
In giving your contenders 80 percent of the line, you need not include non-condenders. That saves time, and only requires memorizing the those percentages in the bold.

Normally I would recommend my own books on this subject, but a newer book by Steve Fierro, The Four Quarters of Horse Investing, adds some valuable procedures to simplify the process. It�s available for Today�s Racing Digest.
Later in this article, I�ll reprint a odds-line model from Thoroughbred Cycles that will make the process considerably easier.
Each month of C&X will usually feature one workshop on personal odds lines, so if you follow us monthly, you can pick it up. Though no other issue will lean so heavily on this one concept.
The best way is to learn from practice. Each day you go racing, pick out a race or two and practice making a line. After the race, analyze the results. After you�ve made 20 lines, begin to validate. Your 3/2s should win more than your 2-1s and your 2-1s should win more than your 3-1s, etc. Compare how you�d do strictly betting top picks as opposed to betting only the overlays, even if they�re not top picks. Once you�ve gotten used to this process, it will help you considerably with exotic wagering, as we will learn in subsequent issues of C&X.
Winging it without a line
The great news is that, if you practice the process, you may be one of the select few who will be able to wing it without making a strict line. Clearly, winging it is much easier after you�ve practiced the process and have gotten the feel for judging wager value.
If the validation process shows your lines to be way off, you will learn that it�s necessary to improve your handicapping. A line can only go so far. Bad handicapping will produce a bad line (garbage in, garbage out), but the act of making lines can improve your handicapping, by forcing you to think more precisely, even if you abandon the process later on.
Two good handicappers will not come up with the same line. No line is completely objective. That�s why we call it a personal odds line. However, for most players, the act of doing odds lines will make their handicapping and betting more objective than it had been in the days of trying pick winners frequently enough to overcome the onerous track takeout.
To make the line process easier, I published a handy Abbreviated Betting Line in Thoroughbred Cycles, back in 1990. I�ll reproduce it here, and that way you won�t have to memorize the percentage equivalent of each odds. In this table, a lone-contender would get 67 percent of the total, for 1-2 odds. In a race where you come up with only two-contenders, I give them a total of 75 percent of the odds. In a three-contender appraisal, I have the odds of the three add up to 78 percent. And in a four-contender affair, they add up to 80 percent. In theory, the more contenders we have, the more likely the winner will be among those contenders.
Abbreviated Betting Line
One Contender
Rank 1 your line: 1-2 (67%) need for a bet: even money
Two Contenders
Rank 1 your line: 3-2 (40%) need: 2-1
Rank 2 your line: 9/5 (35%) need: 5-2
Three Contenders
Rank 1 your line: 2-1 (33%) need: 3-1
Rank 2 your line: 3-1 (25%) need: 9/2
Rank 3 your line: 4-1 (20%) need: 6-1
Four Contenders
Rank 1 your line: 5/2 (28%) need: 4-1
Rank 2 your line: 7-2 (22%) need: 5-1
Rank 3 your line: 5-1 (16%) need: 8-1
Rank 4 your line: 6-1 (14%) need: 9-1
These model lines are easy to use. All you need to do is determine the number of contenders you have (your handicapping), and rank them in order of preference (your handicapping). Then, give them the odds of the above table. The table tells you the minimum odds you can bet them at. By requiring a 50 percent overlay, we compensate for any lack of precision in our own handicapping and also compensate for the times when our horse may get late action after we�ve already bet. This is my simple model but it becomes your personal odds line when you rank the contenders of a race and fit them in.

SHOULD WE GIVE A SHEET?
I�m not a Sheets-type of guy, but I do respect the concept of the Sheets, the Raggies and the breakaway bitter rival, Thoroughgraph. I question the idea of boosting a horse�s figure just because he went wide, for sometimes wide is the fastest part of the track. Every wide trip should be analyzed according to whether it was better or worse to be on the rail on that particular day.
But that�s a small gripe. In general, the Sheets are reasonable figures. By laying them out in reverse chronology, the handicapper can look at the sheet of a horse and spot any performance cycle patterns.
But what happens when shippers square off against each other, expecially when some of these horses are from tracks where the Sheets has no regular guy doing the numbers? Such was the case with Claiming Crown.
Here are two striking examples.
In the first leg of the Claiming Crown, the favorite, Rough Draft, had earned two consecutive 3 ratings. (THE LOWER THE NUMBER, THE FASTER.) Prior to that he had a 5, a 4 and a 5. Quite consistent.
The next best was Gram�s Folly, even though he was 7-1. He too had a 3 in his most recent race, preceeded by a 9 and a 4. He had once earned a 3 in a route race, placing him on equal terms with the favorite.
Nothing else compared. My own sheetless analysis had come up with the same conclusion.
On the morning of the big race, Jeff Maday asked me to look again at Superman Can, the eventual winner. Jeff thought that this George Bango horse had a some chance to surprise.
But at the precise moment that Jeff had asked me to look, I had the sheets in front of me. Superman Can had just reached a new peak, with an 8 sheet rating. His previous best was 11. Some sheets people would say that this would set him up for a bounce. I�m not dogmatic about a bounce. Superman Can had suddenly improved when going from sprint to route. Maybe he simply liked routing better than sprinting. Maybe he would gain energy from the experience and not bounce.
Sperman Can�s last Beyer fig was as good as the last Beyer of Rough Draft!: 77
However, in the Sheets, that same comparison was Rough Draft with a fast 3 and Superman Can with a slow 8.
I was influenced by the huge Sheets gap and, unfortunately, it convinced me to not go any further into Superman Can, in spite of trainer George Bango�s optimism.
We all know that Superman Can won the race. In my evaluation of the Sheets, the red flag went up. There was the suspicion that horses from a small track like Canterbury do not get a fair shake from the Sheets guys.
In the next race, same thing happened. Chisholm had earned the same 1:10s as the other contenders in the race. But according to the Sheets, Chisholm had three slower 5s compared to three 2s for Longonot, two 1s and a 4 for Devil�s Con. The Sheets said Chisholm was too slow, even on his peak days. Good for me that I had already decided on Chisholm based on his raw times, and was not swayed by the Sheets to get off.
The Beyer figs were a little more believable for Chisholm, but still underestimated the Canterbury horses.
Chisholm got 86 and 76 Beyers for his two 1:10s. Meanwhile, Devil�s Con got a 98 Beyer for his 1:10.1 at Delaware and a 92 for his 1:10.3 at the same track. Longonot received an 89 for his 1:10.2 at Delaware.
The Sheets were simply wrong about the Canterbury horses. The Beyers were less wrong. And the old-fashioned Daily Racing Form speed ratings/track variants were closest to the truth.
Chisholm received a 94-13 and a 94-11 for his two 1:10s at Cby. Longonot received an 89-09 for his 1:10.2 at Delaware. Devil�s Con received a 98 Beyer and a 90-13 DRF speed rating for his 1:10.1 at Delaware, and a 92 Beyer with an 87-20 DRF rating for his 1:10.3.
In this one case, at least, the DRF speed rating/track variants were closer to the truth than the Beyers.
Sheets and Beyer fig makers have a right to be wrong from time to time. We shouldn�t be too picky. However, they advertise that their figures transfer from one track to another. Clearly, in analyzing these two Claiming Crown race, both the Sheets (and the Beyers to a lesser extent), underrated the Canterbury horses, or overestimated the speed of the Canterbury surface. Either way, they did not come through.
Could this be a fig problem for other small tracks across America? If so, there may be some betting value in playing small track horses against the major leaguers. I�ll be researching this possibility and hope to come up with findings for C&X 13.
PS. Larry Benavidez, assistant trainer for the Sadler barn, told us prior to the Claiming Crown Jewel, that they had intentionally rested Musique Toujours because they used the Sheets in spotting their horses and that the Sheets made them suspect that Musique Toujours could bounce following a peak performance. An interesting question arises:
Did Musique Toujours just miss winning the big race because of the layoff?
Or did the layoff help him avoid the bounce and produce a near winning performance?

STEVE FIERRO IN ACTION:
PORTRAIT OF A WINNING HORSEPLAYER
With Steve�s permission, I was allowed to watch him play the races for five consecutive days. As one who needs to be alone to concentrate and focus, I�d find it difficult to play while being observed and questioned. No problem for Fierro the Ironman.
What I learned should be a great lesson for all of us, including yours truly.
Fierro the handicapper
Steve told me he enjoyed the �Short Form� article from C&X 10, and that he uses that approach. But on scrutinizing his play, I realize that he combines the short form with handicapping nuances. In my case it�s a 2-step procedure: first the short form, and then, check details on pace and hidden class, to make sure I did not miss anything. Fast-thinking Steve is able to cover both steps in one.
Fierro the odds maker
Because of his responsibilities for Today�s Racing Digest along with obligations for supplying information to Reno casinos, Steve has to handicap at least four tracks per day. Even with the major California circuits take a break for three weeks, Steve has to do Fairplex. He is well-served by what he calls �templates�, as explained in his The Four Quarters of Horse Investing, published by Today�s Racing Digest. These are abbreviated model lines, such as what is mapped out above, but more elaborate and attuned to subtleties. He practices what he preaches. First he isolates contenders. Then he attaches value to those contenders, in the form of an odds line. The templates are hierarchies of odds, depending on how many contenders he�s isolated, but also depending on how strongly he feels about a race (how rational or irrational the race appears to him).
Fierro the bettor
The Ironman bets many races, but he does so serenely. This is because the instructions for his win bets (he rarely plays exotics) are written into his personal odds lines. For this reason, his betting decisions are not poisoned by last-minute handicapping. If a contender is going off above his line odds, it�s a bet. If the horse is at or below its line, there�s no bet.
Steve also has developed built-in filters. Of course there�s no bet if his analysis parallels that of the crowd, for in such cases, all his horses would go off at below the line odds he�s ascribed for them.
However, if his line is too different and he has too many overlays ... or, if betting action on a legit favorite is prohibitive, Fierro has strict rules that allow him to pass the race. He calls these filters, and this is one part of his book that�s worth the price of the whole manuscript.
The point is that Fierro sets up strict guidelines, even for things like where to sit and what betting window to use. He has prepared the scene so meticulously that he eliminates 99 percent chances of error.
He structures everything in a way that he can only bet when he has a true advantage.
Fierro can be up and down from his seat, betting and board watching for several tracks, and volume of intense attention doesn�t phase him. That�s because he�s well prepared and finely structured in his practice.
Most important, he practices what he preaches. You read his book and then you watch him bet. He�s a man of his word.
Fierro the record keeper
Steve keeps meticulous records. Validation is the name of his game. He knows which types of lines perform the best and which ones need modifying. He knows his r.o.i. track by track, so he can make handicapping adjustments at a weaker circuit.
Like so many high-PROfile players, he has other sources of income. When he�s confronted with the generic question of �why produce other products if you can win at the races,� Fierro has a valuable answer, printed below.
As you will read, the whole notion of horse betting professionalism is questioned by Fierro, but by my notion, Fierro is a pro. Maybe I�m prejudiced because he�s using an overall methodology that I ascribe to. But in the days that I observed him in action, he was practicing exactly what he preaches to others, and he was regularly collecting more money than he was betting. His lines are made public, so Fierro has no secrets.
In a world where it�s difficult to be a cheerleader for anyone, I would be honored to be named president of the Steve Fierro fan club.

EXTRACT FROM FIERRO�S THE FOUR QUARTERS OF HORSE INVESTING:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PROFESSIONAL HORSEPLAYER
I have never seen or heard of any organization that presents professional horseplayer credentials. I don�t care how many books they have written. I don�t care if they play daily. I don�t care if they bet the national debt every day. There is no magic bridge to cross. There is no special room you enter.
Those who do believe in professional horseplayers feel that in order to accomplish this, you must:
1. Quit your job.
2. Take every cent you have, and that�s your bankroll.
3. You then proceed to bet more money and make more money than you ever have in your life.
4. You never have to work again.
5. If you make one red cent other than from betting, you cannot be a pro.
Since when does 100% of total income dictate the definition of a professional, in any business? With that standard, if you made 20% of your income from betting, no way you could be a pro. Only racing holds such standards.
If you said it was 5% of your income you�d earned from race betting, you�d be viewed as a charlatan. But in truth, the percentage of your wagering income in relation to your overall personal income is not what dictates your level of professionalism.
I know someone who made less than 5% of his income from his profession. His name is Tiger Woods. He broke all records for money earned in a golf season. But he earned untold millions in endorsements that same year. His income as far as overall percentage from his profession was very little in terms of his total income for the year. Who would dare say that Tiger is not a professional golfer.
Consider the example of two individuals. One is at the track every day. The other is retired, and generally goes to the track when he knows his peers will be present, once or twice a week. The first individual wagers anywhere from $100 to a couple of thousand per race. The retired gentleman bets $2 to $5 a race.
The composite general perception about these two, from other horseplayers, is as follows:
Player One is a real pro. He must be since he has been here every day for as long as I can remember. He also bets big money on nearly every race. He must be doing something right.
As for Player Two, who was an actual guest on my radio program, the comment was: Why in the world did you have him on? What does he know? He is only a two-to-five dollar bettor!
Now let�s take a reality check. Player One has a very tidy monthly per diem. He has inherited this. He lives in a very swank home that was also inherited, and spends a lot of time in Las Vegas playing any and every form of gambling he can. He wagers $100 on horses 5-1 and up and in the exotics. He saves his big plays, $2,000 or more, for horses that generally head to post at 7/5 or less.
If you ask this player how he does, he will be the first to tell you, �I could make a living on what I lose here trying to make a living.� Give him credit for brutal honesty. He knows his reality. When it comes right down to it, he is not a winning player. He loves the ponies and he loves gambling. He has the means to do it every day, win, lose or draw. It works for him.
The funny thing is the perception that other players have of him. �He did it again,� they say. �He just cashed another $4,000 ticket. He sure makes a lot of money!�
Our other player, though not a big bettor, has developed a process that is centered around the principals of this book (rigorous adherence to betting only overlays as they relate to a personal odds line, and even more rigorous record keeping to validate what works and what doesn�t). He has done this successfully not because of The Four Quarters of Horse Investing since he was doing this well before my book was written.
The reason I invited him to be a guest on my radio program was because of the respect I had for him and his approach to the game. That has nothing to do with the level of wagering. He had something valuable to share.
You are not a pro based on how much you bet but because of how you bet. Even then you can�t be considered a pro ... BECAUSE THESE IS NO SUCH THING!

ANATOMY OF A LONGSHOT
Several C&X factors converged on one horse in the 7th Race at Canterbury Park, 6 1/2 dirt, July 16. Let�s look at the arguments one by one, and rest our case.
I was just out of a lavish dinner, a few glasses of wine slowing down my already slow thinking. I decided there would be no betting unless I came up with something clear and simple.
Thinking back to the previous issue of C&X, I decided to practice �short-form� handicapping, eliminating proven losers at the class level and no-win stables, in this 12-horse field, claiming 4,000 Which Have Not Won A Race In 2004 (nw1). I also had my eye on the conditions, based on research from C&X1.
Eliminations: Handicapping against the clock
#2 Tez Tarak. Seven straight losses at these same conditions, same claiming level.
#7 Pakenham. Was just clobbered at this level for a 5-percent stable.
#9 Owens County. One loss at this level/conditions, and two straight losses at �nw1�. Two other losses at claiming 4,000, nw2.
#10 Watermellon Run. Just lost at this level, and last time he was here in Cby from Canada, he was a regular loser at claiming 3,500, nx1. Had an 8-percent stable.
#11 Frosty Prince. Three losses at this level, and another at nw1, 5,000.
#12 Coffee Bubbles. Regular failure at this level, and also at 3,500, nw1. Zero percent stable.
In a total of 1 minute 11 seconds, I had eliminated half the 12-horse field.
More eliminations: Pace
The field came up with no early thrust. The only horse showing speed in a sprint was #11, already eliminated. (That horse had coughed up leads as a lone front runner, so the pace scenario made no difference for him.) Since all of these horses were non-winners for the year, it would be difficult for any of them to overcome a pace disadvantage. With no speed in the field, any sluggish starter was doomed. I decided to toss out any horse that was in the second half of the field for the first two calls of its last three races.
Eliminate:
#1 Ave de Rapina. Never better than 7th position in first two calls, and never nearer than 5 lengths from the leader.
#5 Cossatot Falls. Never closer than 5th at the second call, and never nearer than 9 lengths from the lead.
Eliminations: Combining the Short Form criteria with the pace factor
#3 Fleeting Alliance. Lost one race at this level/conditions (three races back), 7-percent stable, only moderate early fractions in last when in a route and now shortens up to a sprint.
#4 Classic Nightmare. Mid-pack first- and second fractions in last two, both of them for conditions of nw1 at claiming 5,000, 9-percent stable.
I had eliminated 10 of the 12 horses in the time it would take John Henry to do a mile and a half on the turf.
C&X Class Drop Research
Recalling the C&X Crib Sheet, I noticed that the two remaining contenders, #6 Huggy Boy and #8 Sumthing for Alex were dropping in class from non-conditioned claimers, races that had been open to winners. The rest of the field had come from races open only to non-winners for the year.
#8 Sumthing for Alex was coming from statebred races, non-winners of 3 lifetime, while #6 Huggy Boy was coming from completely open company.
It was either HUGGY BOY or pass the race.
Huggy Boy presented an amazing angle to go along with the fact that he was, in the spirit of the law, the only real dropper.
In has last race he had shown early speed for the first time, racing in first position for the first three calls of a 7 1/2 on the grass. Prior to that race he had never been better than fifth in the first two calls, and never closer than 5 lengths. Usually he was back of the pack.
His only reasonable race was last year, here at Cby, for 6 1/2 on the dirt, same as today, when he finished fourth by seven lengths at 15,000 claiming, with rider Escobar. Tonight he was switching to Escobar for Bernell Rhone, a 13 percent trainer who had won a race the night before with a similar class dropper.
It was difficult to believe that this horse was 15-1. Had I had time to do a personal odds line, he�d have been no higher than 3-1. But my having done lines over the years made it easy for me to wing it in this case. He was definitely my most likely winner. I bet him to win and singled him in the pick three.
I handicapped the second and third legs of the pick 3 with equal speed, using the �Short Form�.
HUGGY BOY won this race, and I collected.
I had two horses in the next leg and they finished 1-2, with the winner as the second favorite.
Entering the third leg, I was alive with two of the only three droppers. For one of my live horses, I had the whole pool, for over $6,000. The other was paying over $700. I was also alive on five other horses for about $100. These were combinations for which no one had all three winners.
Living and dying by the Short Form
The horse I had for a would-be $700-plus pick three finished second. The horse that beat me would never have been left off my ticket had I gone deeper than the Short Form. He had lost a single race at this 10,000 maiden claiming level. But, to my distress, I noticed after the fact that his losing race had been over a sloppy track. He had a 30 percent trainer in Hugh Robertson, and in his second career start (this was his fifth race), he had finished second in a mile on the Cby dirt at Maiden Special Weight. In essence, he was still not a proven loser, and in some ways, this race could have been considered a class drop in the spirit of the law.
I was deprived of a $500-plus pick three payoff, but I could find no one around to blame, and my wife was 6,000 miles away.
I couldn�t blame myself. I simply did not have enough time to handicap thoroughly. I couldn�t blame the dinner. The shrimp was delicious, and so were the huge chocolate covered strawberries. I couldn�t even blame the Short Form either, because thanks to that abbreviated method, I had cashed on a $30 winner.

SIDEBAR:
The Newly Found Early Speed Factor
HUGGY BOY entered for 6 1/2f Clm 4000N1Y
25Jun04 Cby 7 � T Clm 7500 1 1 1.1 3nk 5.5 9.8
5Jun04 Cby 1 1/16 T Clm 7500 8 5.6 5.6 5.5 9.5 9.8
15May04 Cby 6f Clm 5000 2 10 10.13 10.14 10.10 10.11
19Jly03 Cby 1 T Clm 20000 2 10.9 10.10 10.12 10.17 10.22
8Jun03 Cby 1 Alw20000s 5 6.5 6.7 6.10 6.10 6.23
24May Cby 6 � Clm 20000 6 5 5.3 6.8 5.4 4.7 (his best race) Pattern Match. Same trainer, Bernell Rhone, had a winner the night before with (1) a big class drop, (2) switching to the 6 � furlong distance of his best previous race, (3) also switching to Escobar, the rider who was on him for his previous best.
ADVANCE VIEW OF BC TURF
In last month�s article, �A Bizarre Odyssey, With Some Potential BC Futures Horses,� Doug Thomson had this to say about the horse Doyen.
�Doyen made amends at Royal Ascot two weeks later, breaking a course record over an American-style firm turf. Europe is very much on to him, but he is worth a look in any early American-based futures bet for the Breeders� Cup Turf.�
Thomson�s future view of this Godolphin horse has already been validated with his victory in the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Diamond Stakes at Ascot, 25 July, a mile and a half.
Traditionally this race is a stopoff on the way to the BC Classic. But with this new victory for Doyen, his future book odds for both the Arc de Triomphe and the BC Turf will descend.
For me the real story of the Ascot race was another horse: the one that I played. In the French pools, Doyen, a former Fabre horse, was 3/2, while French filly Vall�e Enchant�e was overbet at 7/4. That left overlay odds on Kenneth McPeek�s Hard Buck.
As a parenthesis to this story, I must mention that for quite some time, since the dollar has descended and the Euro gets you a buck twenty, I�ve been telling American owners and trainers that there are some lucrative opportunities in the Old Continent. If Lance Armstrong can win races here, why not some fine American horses?
Much credit goes to McPeek, who was the first trainer to enter an American trained horse in this prestigious race. I gave a long look at Hard Buck. He had proven that he could ship big time, as he had finished second in the thirteen horse field Sheema Classic at Dubai, only a half length from the victory, at 12-1. I was getting 17-1 at the French OTB. (I later read that he�d been 33-1 with British bookies.)
In fact, I saw two other horses that could challenge, including the improving Gamut, a Michael Stoute horse that also has BC Turf potential, though he prefers it softer than he would likely get at Lone Star. Gamut was 9-2. So I keyed the 17-1 Hard Buck back and forth with the favorite, Gamut, and another price horse. I did this knowing that Doyen was a legit favorite.
Hard Buck, with Gary Stevens aboard, made a gallant effort and at one point looked as if he could actually win the race. But Doyen had the field at his mercy and took over to win by three.
Sulamani finished third and a troubled Gamut finished a courageous fourth. The horses they left in their wake were no slouches. It�s tough to find a classier field of turf horses.
Both Hard Buck and Gamut become potential upsetters in the BC Turf. With Doyen pointed to the Arc de Triomphe, what if Godolphin then passes the BC in favor of the Japan Cup, or if they decide, with nothing more to prove on turf, to enter their star on the dirt in the BC Classic?
Futures betting is complicated and rarely do we get favorable odds. But it�s worth checking. The Euros may have already grown their winter coats when the BC Turf is run at Lone Star. The American horse Hard Buck may be that good if helped by the weather.
In any case, I would nominate Mr. Kenneth McPeek for Trainer of the Month. He had the balls to ship an American horse into the toughest field in Europe, and he�d already been to Dubai. He emerged from Ascot with considerable purse money and the applause of many a Euro �turfist�.
Meanwhile, British bookies installed Doyen as the pre-race favorite for the Arc (2-1 at Coral).
McPeek commented that, �the Arc is certainly an option, and if it�s not Hard Buck, we would certainly be able to come with another horse.�

SUSSEX STAKES OFFERS IMPORTANT CLUES FOR BC-MILE
The July 28 Sussex Stakes, always one of the very top Euro mile affairs, has provided us with important advance info for the BC-Mile.
The 5/2 favorite, Refuse to Bend, refused to run any further after leading for halfway, and bent back into a distant last place. He had been 2-for-2 in Group 1s at the distance for the hot Godolphin-Dettori combo. Did he throw in a clunker? Has he passed his peak? Did the dueling do him in? Or did he bleed, which if so, would move him up with the inevitable BC lasix.
Soviet Song is on the rise. She lost by a neck to Refuse to Bend in her previous race. Here she was aglow. Don't forget that a Euro filly won last year's Mile.
Nayyir, the second place finisher who would have gotten up to win if the race had been a couple of yards longer, is an experienced shipper who has done well at Dubai. Dubai may not be that different from Lone Star. Maybe Dubai turf winners should be given extra points for the Lone Star turf events.
And finally, the mystery horse, 13 for 15 going into the Sussex, but a huge longshot, having won most of those at the lesser Italy circuit. Cumani has higher expectations for this won, and how much higher can a horse get. He put away the fave. He once won at Longchamp. He always fires. He ships well. And he has that all-important early Euro speed that translates well in American turf races. So what are his odds in the BC-Mile future?
Lot's of good clues from the Sussex that will be lost in the shuffle at BC time, when the race is looked back up on paper alone.


C&X CAFE

Hi Mark,
�
Nice work on the Claiming Crown -- your notes were invaluable.
�
Interesting note: There were four races (4th, 5th, 7th, and 9th) in which there were Big Win Theory horses (yes, you had to stretch the 4-1/2 lengths on the 4th race candidate):
�
4th -- Superman Can (4-1/2) -- Win
5th -- Chisholm (5-3/4) -- Win
��� ��� Setthehook (5) -- Place
7th -- Heroic Sight (5-1/4) -- Win
��� ��� Satan's Code (5-1/2) -- Show
9th -- Intelligent Male (8-1/2) -- Win
�
Four winners in four races, and not a horse out of the money. I had Chisholm, Heroic Sight, and Intelligent Male (all winners) on that basis, for a nice day :-)� I'm thinking maybe the Big Win Theory works better with claiming-type horses :-)
�
Best regards,
�
Gary
Hi Gary,
My thanks to you, as well as to a few other C&X readers who were good enough to e-mail me and let me know you had bet Chisholm to win, right off my odds line and arguments in his favor. As for the Big Win, many C&X readers will recall that my Big Win research has received both positive and negative reports and seems to continue on its yoyo.
The method has done well enough to merit further research, and your idea of restricting the Big Win to a particular type of race may make sense. In fact, the Claiming Crown races were all based on Starter Allowance, so that might be a place to begin.
For those of you who were not part of this C&X polemic since the debut, I�ll recap the rules of the Big Win, hoping that one or two of you might use Gary�s comments to do follow-up research.
Rule: Horse must have won previous race by 5 lengths or more.
Exclusion 1. Horse must NOT be coming from a maiden claiming race, where a big win could simply be an illusion created by a poor field. The jump from a Md Clmg win to a race against winners has proven, by our own research, to be a worthy elimination.
Exclusion 2. Horse must NOT be coming from a big win over a sloppy or muddy track, for such races are often won by large margins, with so many horses in the field not being able to handle the wet surface.
Exclusion 3. A big win prior to a layoff loses its peak-form element and calls into question the condition of the horse.
Superman Can�s win was, as Gary alludes, in the spirit of the law but not by the letter of the law, since his big win was short from qualifying by a half length. I did not bet Superman Can, but I do see the logic of the fact that he was one for one at the distance (so his previous sprint races were probably not representative) plus that his trainer had a positive r.o.i. in route races. I�ve always enjoyed hearing George Bango opine with humor, and enjoy visiting his barn. But I had never seen him win such a big race.
All the other horses Gary mentions were qualifiers, except Intelligent Male, whose Big Win came over a muddy surface. There too, one could have reasoned, in the spirit of the law, that his previous race, on a fast track, was nearly a big win as well, plus the fact that he had a dominant trainer. C&X had previously mentioned that Catalano was one of the few modern supertrainers who had escaped the public�s scrutiny. He too maintained a flat-bet profit in route races over a lengthy period. But alas, I was more impressed with Musique Toujours� trainer, not only for long-term profit but as a master shipper.
I do hope that more of you were able to use the website info for a profitable result. The winner was amongst my listed contenders in four of the six races, and my top listed horse won twice, placed twice and showed twice, on a card in which four or five of the six races could have been considered as contentious.

THE SUPERTRAINERS
Even before Andrew Beyer�s feature presentation on �the Supertrainers� at the February Handicappers� Expo in Las Vegas, C&X has long held the view that dominant trainers should be emphasized in our handicapping, and I underlined the concept in the recent �Short Form� article in which I referred to social darwinism at the race track.
In his presentation, Beyer suggested that these trainers might be using secret ingredients. The word �larceny� was not used, but there was an implication that some modern substances might be a part of this new trend, for the great trainers of 30 years ago did well to win 15 percent of the time.
Looking at the winners of the Claiming Crown races, as a mere example, supertrainers with 20-percent-plus win rates lost the first leg (won by a horse with Superman in his name), won the second leg (Van Winkle, 21% for the year and 20 percent for 2003), won the third leg (Zimmerman, 26 percent), won the fourth leg (McCaslin, 27%), won the fifth leg (Mullins, 29 percent), and won the sixth leg (Catalano, 33 percent).
Journalists are supposed to ask the tough question, though most end up being cheerleaders. Other journalists raise questions on their own, but then hesitate before posing those controversial questions directly to the principle parties.
I�ve done my best to serve my audience by asking the toughest of questions. A few years ago, when Passero was still a dominant trainer, I asked him how it was possible for him to sustain such a high percentage of winners. He responded by explaining that he used an unguent on the horses� legs under the bandages that included cayenne peppers. That�s all I could get out of him.
At this year�s Claiming Crown, I decided to rain on the parade, but asking a tough question. I arrived a little late to the winners� cocktail party and Catalano was already gone. But I did find Zimmerman (26 percent), and I put the question to him as directly as possible, without being accusatory.
�How is it possible,� I asked, �for trainers like you to maintain such a high win percentage? In the heydey of racing, the best trainers found it difficult to win even fifteen percent of the time!�
Zimmerman looked taken aback by my question, as if I had been trying to spoil his party. But he quickly gained composure and responded with supercontrol of the situation.
He explained to me that there were two ingredients to a high hit rate. First, you needed to have the best of owners. And second, you needed to spot your horses in the right races, even if it meant that they might be claimed away. These two factors overlapped in some ways, because the owners must be willing to lose a horse.
In Beyer�s aforementioned presentation, he mentioned a third factor. The Supertrainers often cleaned up at local tracks where they could dominate. (Social darwinism, survival of the fittest.) But he also mentioned that once they had to face other, their percentage would go down.
I thought of Beyer�s comment when noting that some Supertrainers were absent from the winners� cocktail, for they had been blanked for the day. The most notable absence was Scott Lake, who was close all afternoon, but couldn�t send out a winner. In fairness to Lake, his Rize, in the finale, was the victim of what appeared to be a serious foul entering the stretch. I watched the replay 15 times and each time came away with the impression that Rize might have won that race had it not been for the �incidents� in early stretch.
In any case, no way a Supertrainer is gonna admit that he�s using undetectable substances, no matter how you phrase the question.

PROFITING FROM TOTAL CHAOS RACES:
WHEN LOSERS BACK INTO A WIN
Recently I played a pick three in which I had narrowed the first leg down to two horses.
One horse seemed to stand out in the second leg, but it was a filly against the boys on the grass. Normally I like playing fillies against the boys on the turf, but not when they are the favorites. Getting beyond the filly, the race turned up highly contentious, with horses that loved the turf and/or high percentage trainers on the grass.
The third leg was a statebred maiden claimer with a bunch of proven losers and one horse that had finished second against straight maidens three races back, at 25-1. He also had a set of regular and improving works going into this race. That one horse looked like a potential single, except that this was a statebred race, where funny things are known to happen. None of the horses had ever run to par.
Either of the last two races could have been a single. Either could have been an ALL.
I chose the middle leg to use the all.
I got the first race, but then disaster struck when the favorite, the filly, won the second leg.
Egg on my face
Already I had egg on my face, having pressed the ALL button in a race that was eventually won by the favorite.
In the third leg, it looked like my horse was going to win. There was no pleasure in this, as he ended up as the favorite, and the pick 3 payoff would have been less than any banal place bet return.
Just at the finish line, my horse got beat by a 40-1 and, after the fact, the pick 3 payoff looked quite attractive, had I switched the ALL from the second to the third leg.
My recent betting history does not qualify me to write an article about using the ALL. But notwithstanding my breakdown in logic, I was once good at this and intend to be good at it again. In any case, as a racing journalist, I have observed some pretty good players use the ALL to their great advantage, and what I have to write is based on their successes.
The mistake, if there was one, in the above pick 3 was the choice of the ALL. The trainer of the filly in the second leg had a 25 percent hit rate on the grass. She was dropping into allowance from a stakes race for fillies in which she�d finished a creditable fourth. She had the best Turf Beyer figs, and as we�ve written in these pages on several occasions, Turf Beyers have been tested by various researchers to be more accurate than dirt Beyers. Sometimes what was once contrarianism ends up as simple stubborn behavior.
When to use the ALL
Sparingly. That�s the first rule. If you are not selective, you can drive yourself to the poorhouse using the ALL.
The classic go-for-it case in a pick 3 is when you have, in one leg, a standout single that is at least 5-1 in the morning line. Or in another case when you are sure that you�ve bought the race using two horses with at least one of them as a worthy longshot. No sense using the ALL if you have no great insight into one of the other two legs.
The other non-ALL leg should be completely understood by the player. Even if multiple horses are used, it should be virtually assured that those horses, collectively, have a 90% chance of winning.
You can calculate your chances. A single with a 50% chance (.5) times a double, triple or quadruple with a 90% chance (.9) times 100% in the ALL race (1.0). 1 X .5 X .9 = .45. You would have a 45 percent chance.
Or with Chisholm at my personal odds of 9/2 (.18), times the two top horses in the next race, including my line�s 5-2 (.28) and 7-2 (.22) for a combined .50 chance in the second leg, times the ALL in the third leg (1.0), for a total probability of .09 or a 9 percent chance. If you get 125-1 on a 9% chance, then it�s a huge overlay.
The ALL should be used in a negatively contentious race when all the horses are proven losers at the class level or none have been able to run to par. It can also be used in a deeply contentious race in which the favorite is no better than the rest. The lesser-of-evils race is most befitting for an ALL. It should be made up of horses whose performance boxes show more places then wins, and more shows than places. Especially the potential favorites should be non-win types. In my turf filly case, I had chosen a contentious race with many good horses and various high-percentage trainers (ok), but with a favorite who had some degree of legitimacy (not ok).
In this turf filly example of mine, either I should have used the last race as the ALL (easy to say after the fact) or simply not played the pick 3.
My most successful ALL play is in exactas or trifectas, when my best-by-far horse in the race is up against a negative pace configuration, and often is a horse with more seconds or thirds than firsts in his performance box.
In exacta backwheels, I have a flat-bet profit with this type of wager. But I use it sparingly. Occasionally I�ll do what some of my brilliant colleagues do more successfully, use the exacta backwheel horse as a single for third in the trifecta, with the ALL on top, and two or three horses in the place slot.
The red flag should go up when you are thinking of backwheeling a horse that shows 1 win, 11 places and 1 show. This may simply be too obvious, especially if there are very low odds on the this backwheel candidate.
For trifectas, normally the third slot is the most difficult to figure, since a profound pace influence on a race is more likely to distort the results of third place than of second or first place. An incredibly fast early pace could leave the third slot to any horse that can wait and pick up pieces, but it also helps horses who are courageous stayers and figure to be part of the fast early pace.
In such cases, a trifecta with Single/three horses/ALL can be backed up with a tri as place bet, moving the same three horses to the top position, three horses/Single/ALL.
Be sure that the use of these formulas, which we refer to as the FORM, must depending on the CONTENT (the dynamics of the past performances). No Form can be applied without mastering the Content. That�s why selectivity is important. The same C&X rule for straight betting applies to exotics: No insight, no bet.
THE WORST THING A PLAYER CAN DO IS TO ADD MORE HORSES TO EXOTICS TO COMPENSATE NOT UNDERSTAND THE RACE. The shit-hits-the-fan method does not work in constructing exotics tickets.
The ALL is used only after you have a gifted understanding of the other legs (serial bet) or a brilliant value choice at overlay odds for win or place in an exacta or trifecta.
The menu in simulcast racing is large. The exotic player will not survive unless he cherry picks only those juiciest races, the ones he has a special insight into.
The ALL is reserved for those rare moments when you have big reasons to like a horse at 5-1 or up, and then, only when the ALL part of the combination is definitely and totally up for grabs.
In order to make this apparent, I have embarrassed myself in showing you what should NOT be done. Never do an ALL when there is a potentially legitimate favorite.
SIDEBAR:
TWO HIGH YIELD �ALL� SITUATIONS
(1) You love a horse to win at decent odds. Playing the ALL in the place slot of the exacta will result in a payout that is superior to the win bet, oddswise. For example, you like a 5-1 in a six-horse race. A theoretical $10 win bet will return $60. It would cost $10 to wheel the 5-1. If the lowest exacta combination on the board is $60, then you have a chance to get MORE THAN 5-1 by wheeling the horse instead of win betting. Increasingly this bet is more difficult to find, as late money high rollers step in to crush such opportunities.
(2) At lesser tracks with small pools, where high-roller money is absent, if you love a longshot in one leg of the pick three, there is a reasonable chance that, if he wins, the pick three will pay out for only two winners. In such cases, the ALL in a total chaos leg of this pick 3 could give you the whole pool. And if not, you may end up collecting with only two of three. This is what I have observed to be the BEST OPPORTUNITY for the pick three.
NOTES TO READERS
The weekend of the Forego Handicap looks like the right time to do our final Stakes Weekend of this C&X cycle 1-12.
On September 4, I will choose two of three races offered: the Forego, Grade I, Saratoga, 7f dirt, the Arlington Matron, Grade III, f&m turf, and the Palomar at Del Mar, Grade II, f&m, turf.
Usually the rains come earlier in August and it�s a fast track at Saratoga for the Forego. This would serve us also as information for the Breeders� Cup Sprint. The other two races might give us some clues for the BC F&M Turf. I cannot promise at this time, but I am studying a way in which we can make the Stakes Weekends a more interactive affair, with readers invited to contribute objective information. By objective, I mean factual. For example, for Claiming Crown weekend, our reader Gary would have been able to send us the list of Big Win horses. It would not be a chat group format. Just a hard-data forum that could be of help to all of us. In any case, if you�ve not yet renewed your subscription, C&X promises to offer new paths in horse race publishing and revolationary handicapping concepts for the upcoming subscription year.
One of those paths is the Interactive Interview. We can begin an experimental phase as of now. The interviewee will be Steve Fierro. You�ve read his profile, above. You have some idea about what makes him tick. Now you can fire away with inquiries for Steve. Don�t be afraid to ask tough questions. We can only take a limited number of questions, so if yours is not used, please do not be offended.
I�m gonna use snail mail for this one, as my racing life is far too glued to the screen and I need a break. If you come up with a good question, mail it, via snail mail, to:
Mark Cramer
1, rue de la Cour des Noues
75020 Paris
Should your letter containing the question for Fierro arrive during one of my frequent betting trips to the USA, do not worry. I will get to all correspondance sooner or later. If you feel you would like to participate but would prefer to interview another profiled player, you can wait until the next interactive interview. Once a reader�s question is accepted for an interactive interview, if volume of correspondance is large, questions from readers who have not participated in prior interviews will be given priority. Fierro can be asked questions on any subject, including line-making, tournament strategies, money management, handicapping nuances, professional betting.
̐