Mark Cramer
C & X Report

The hard copy of #15 will be in the mail @ Dec. 14


CONTENTS
Editorial: riders and insurance
The Butterfly Effect: Chaos Races
Research: the Informed Minority
The Bus to Bowie
C&X Caf�
The Right Questions
Endnote

EDITORIAL:
RIDERS AND INSURANCE
I happened to have been present some years ago at a strange scene. In the race following a huge downpour, a rider refused to honor his contract to take a mount, insisting that the track surface was too dangerous. One or two other riders followed suit.
I happened to be in the room when an upper-level manager of the track in question made an unexpected comment:
�Why do those pinheads keep causing me anguish?�
I�ve only ridden a horse on a few occasions, and I doubt if an accomplished rider would feel the same fright as I did when my horse got spooked. But as a regular bicycle rider, I can empathize with those jockeys who believe they need better health and accident coverage. If we ride Amtrak, we expect them to insure their passengers, and when we drive, having enough insurance is a wise decision. So why not enough coverage for guys who ride horses?
Just for the fun of it, I do all my commuting by bicycle, and I often find myself in a situation where there�s a truck to my left and parked cars to my right. What would happen if the truck lugged in? Or if a car door opened in my face? I have the luxury of slowing down in such circumstances. Riders who slow down when moving through a hole will end up with a low ranking in the standings and eventually lose mounts.
From time to time, late for a gig, I take a calculated risk and speed up to get through the hole, doing my best to scan for any problems ahead. At those moments, I can enter the mind of a jockey who�s accelerating at 40 mph when moving through a hole that could close up on him from one second to the next. That�s his job.
As a bettor, I have a selfish and cynical reason for wanting jockeys to have more insurance coverage; I want to be sure they will take all the risks they are supposed to on the horse I have bet. Their insurance is my insurance. As a fan, I applaud these courageous athletes and believe they deserve to be treated with dignity. Twenty or thirty top riders make enough to pay for themselves, but the vast majority are struggling to make a living. I know them well. My applause goes out to the top riders who go out on a limb on this issue, and it is not for me to judge how they choose to make their point. In the end, they are defending the ones who battle every day just for a piece of a small purse in a claiming race that I�ve wagered on and enjoyed.
I also respect the fact that it�s an expensive proposition to operate a race track. It�s a labor intensive industry. So, why not some sort of jockey-insurance surcharge on OTB establishments that do not have to deal with the huge overhead of running a race track? Just a thought.
The human nature jockey angle
And we end this editorial with a rider angle. The riders I�ve known are extremely competititive individuals who thrive on adversity. When a rider takes a spill, play him back on his next mount. Over the years, this very occasional angle has been profitable, though my sample is so small that it could very well be a pure coincidence. Use only riders with a 12-percent or up win rate.

THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT:
CHAOS RACES AND WHAT TO DO WITH THEM
This is a big subject. First, we need to define what a chaos race is. Then, we must decide what to do with it.
Definition
In simple terms, a chaos race is one in which comprehensive nuts-and-bolts handicapping, using pace, speed, form and class cannot decipher a reasonable hierarchy of contenders. Each of us comes up with our own vague way to identify such a race. On these pages we�ve talked about chaos races as those in which all horses are proven losers at the class level, and others in which none of the horses can run to par. These two views, representing speed and class, often overlap or coincide. However, this is a broad brush method for identifying unplayable races, intended for the simulcast handicapper who must scan many dozens of races.
Looking closer, it�s still possible that a proven loser race or one in which no horse can run to par can produce a horse match-up scenario with which the handicapper can come up with a logical overlay. It doesn�t happen often, but the pps may be decipherable in such cases.
To approach the idea of chaos races in an all-encompassing way, we should get beyond formulas and deal with each race on its own terms. The handicapper should be able to plot the running of the race, based on the fractions found in the horses� past performances. The first step is to answer the question: �Who gets the lead?� Then answer: �Who has the lead at the half, who�s stalking, how far behind do the pressers project to be, and where are the come-from-behinders?
Unfortunately, many races come up which are not plottable. I recall the BC-Sprint won by Squirtle Squirt, in which nearly every expert had projected a pace duel. What they failed to do in the speed-clogged race was to discern between three types of speed horses: the need-to-lead horse, the versatile speed horse that can lead or press, and the speed of the speed.
The need-to-lead horse will run even faster than his capable fractions, whatever it takes to grab that lead. He�s not so easy to identify. How often has an apparent need-to-lead horse stalked or pressed and then pounced to win? It happens. If an apparent need-to-lead horse has passed horses on more than a single occasion, then he may have the ability to pass horses again.
The versatile horse is easier to identify but tougher to map out, because we do not know if he�s gonna get the lead or wait. This depends on split second decisions of his jockey, as well as how his rivals break from the gate. Most riders do not decide in advance what they will do. They wait to experience the unfolding of the race. If they can�t tell their strategy in advance, how can we be sure?
The speed-of-the-speed is easy to identify, unless there�s a need to lead horse in there that can race faster than his own capabilities, thus keeping up with the speed of the speed.


Speed of the speed
A lone speed horse is identified by most of the crowd and rarely goes of at good odds. A more profitable wire-to-wire candidate is the speed of the speed, for the crowd anticipates a pace duel. The speed of the speed versus need-to-lead horses is the ideal scenario, for once the need-to-lead horses do not get the lead, they become followers, and the speed-of-the-speed horse is converted into a lone front runner.

Now, let�s say that you are good at this and can filter out the uncertainties. After that, you still have to deal with the start of the race, as well as post position. Is the speed outside or inside? Does the horse mind racing in a crowd or does he prefer to be free from stress? Are there any poor starters in there who could upset the dynamics of the start, swerving or bolting? Unlikely, you say, but one swerve at the start could trigger a butterfly effect and change everything else that was supposed to happen in the race. (I refer to the idea that the flapping of wings of a butterfly over Hawaii might be factor # 2,349, the one that triggers a storm in Southern California, the straw that breaks the camel�s back.)
In a horse race, very minor factors, if they occur at strategic moments, could have a major effect on the race. The handicapper�s first step is not to calculate all these subtle factors but to recognize if and when they exist. Call them �ifs� if you like. When too many if factors have accumulated, it makes objective calculation of the race impossible.
Let�s look at this in a binary way, just to simplify. If there are too many binary match-ups (in other words, too many direct impacts between pairs of horses in a race), then we can only scratch our heads. It would be equivalent to a break of pool balls, and trying to calculate where the ball near the center will bounce to. How many different points of contact will this ball have before the final clack sends it going on its way?
This is chaos. After the fact, you can calculate how it unfolded. But before the event, it is simply baffling.
It only takes one questionable horse in a field to create a situation of chaos. What to do with a horse who goes to the front 40 percent of the time, stalks 20 percent of the time, and waits the other 40 percent? In 40 percent of the cases, he will be out there winging and compromise the chances of the two other early speed horses. In 20 percent of the cases, he may make it difficult for the best horse in the race, a lone stalker who, when allowed to race unstressed, would capture the lead in the stretch ... but who, if stalking side by side with another horse, will become discouraged and fade.
The various possibilities become exponential in a chaos race. In a non-chaos race, on the other hand, we can plot the running with little difficulty.
Of course, this is not the whole story. The form factor figures prominently in the pace configuration. If you get it wrong about whether a certain front runner or stalker is peaking or declining, then you get the whole dynamic of the race wrong.
A chaos race is one in which the primary variables are subject to significant impact from possible secondary variables, or one in which primary variables are intrinsically contradictory and offer more than one scenario to be projected.
What to do with chaos races
You have many options.
First, you can pass. The handicapper who only attacks when he has a clear advantage will have much less action, passing each and every chaos race, and only playing when he knows with reasonable certainty how the race will unfold.
This may be the best option for some of you. It is the most likely option to improve your return on investment. Before you start arguing that you would prefer to put your handicapping to use, allow me a rebuttal ... that by identifying chaos races and passing them, you are putting your handicapping to use. You are using handicapping skill to filter out crap-shoot races. If you do this well, the large majority of passed races are transformed into victories, for you will have won money by not playing. Not only will you save money from what would have been a losing bet but you will also have more money left to bet on races you truly understand.
In the second possibility, you can handicap chaos races by making an odds line. Since an odds line weighs probabilities based on the way the handicapper sees percentages, the handicapper can build into the line a scenario where a horse will take the lead 40 percent of the time, stalk 20 percent, and run in back of the field the other 40 percent. If the odds-line maker figures it�s 70 percent probable that the horse will improve form and 30 percent probable that he will decline, those percentages can be built into the line. But, you must be able to envision these percentages in an approximate way. If you have no latch on them, which is often the case for yours truly, you just pass. But if you do have the time and mental energy to weigh a series of contradicting percentages, you have a chance to pick out a good longshot. You may discover that when weighing all the pluses and minuses of each horse and each match-up of horses within the race, you decide that none of the contenders have a better chance than the others, and you have 5 contenders. So you make each one 5-1 (16%) which adds up to 80 percent, and you give the rest of the field collectively a 20 percent chance to win. With 5-1, you would need odds of 7 � -1 for the required 50 percent overlay. Since it�s a chaos race, you demand 8-1 minimum odds for any of your contenders. If four of them are below 8-1 and one of them is above, you bet the one that�s above. This is the way I had ended up with money on Thunder Gulch and Monarchos, in two Kentucky Derbies where I would have had no way to �pick a winner�, and which qualified as chaos races.
The idea of playing chaos races in this way is that you would pass low-priced winners and losers, and most of those would be losers and you would retire from a betting market that offered no longshot bargain. (Warning: part of the chaos definition is that the favorite should be unreliable. There�s no worse outcome than identifying a chaos race and then watching the favorite win.)
My recommendation is to play chaos races sparingly, if at all, and only when you know the horses so well that you can incorporate every possible subtlety into the line.
The third way to confront chaos races is to bypass all conventional handicapping and become an anti-handicapper. Ed Bain does this when he bases bets strictly on the trainer factor. He no long has to decide whether a race is logical or chaos-determined. He knows that more often than not, the answer is not found in conventional handicapping. I embrace this anti-handicapping method in periods when I can identify a worthy automatic betting factor.
A fourth way, which is entirely dependent on your ability to identify chaos races, is to use the ALL. And then, only when you truly understand two other races in the Pick 3. If you have failed in discerning the pool-ball-break effect of the pps, in other words, if it is not really a chaos race, then you could end up with a favorite winning a race in which you have used the ALL: catastrophic. On the other hand, the ALL is a way of making chaos work in your favor. If you KNOW for sure that a race is chaos, then you can reasonable expect a longshot to win. That means special maneuverability in Pick 3s and other exotics.
By the way, often with a chaos race, it�s easier to pick the place horse than the win horse. If a place horse stands out in a chaos race, then a backwheel or trifecta sandwich could yield huge IRS returns.
Solution 4 is the most attractive but also the most dangerous. The best way to get started in putting chaos in your favor is by passing races designated chaos and then keeping records of your passes. Once your records prove that this is indeed a money saving device, you can begin to explore the other three avenues for using chaos races.

MORE ON THE INFORMED MINORITY
from Mike

Hi Mark,

I�ve pushed the numbers around for the last couple of days without much new insight. It may be that there is still not enough data to draw conclusions other than at a very high level. In this message I�ll deal with the question of Odds. I�ll send another message in the next day or two looking at the DRF Handicappers. [Editor�s comment: see next month�s C&X for part II.]

The first table looks at the results for ALL Informed Minority (IM) qualifiers by year, assuming a $2 bet level:

Win Place Show
Year Starts # Net $ ROI # Net $ ROI # Net $ ROI
2000 14 1 68.00 2.43 2 18.20 0.65 4 9.80 0.35
2001 17 3 29.40 0.86 4 4.10 0.12 7 15.60 0.46
2002 20 2 103.00 2.58 3 10.20 0.26 4 -12.40 -0.31
2003 15 2 31.20 1.04 3 11.40 0.38 6 12.40 0.41
2004 17 0 -34.00 -1.00 1 3.60 0.11 4 6.00 0.18
Total 83 8 197.60 1.19 13 47.50 0.29 25 31.40 0.19


Blindly betting the IM qualifiers was profitable 4 of 5 years in the Win pool, 5 of 5 years in the Place pool, and 4 of 5 years in the Show pool. Over the 5 years the bet would have returned 119% on a Win bet:

WIN (8/83 = 9.6%)
$Bet: 166.00
$Return: 363.60
$W/L: 197.60
ROI: 119%

As you suggested, this is encouraging as an automatic bet candidate, but also suggests a look at various odds levels. The next two tables look at the results of IM qualifiers by Final Odds and ML Odds:

Win Place Show
Final Odds Starts # Net $ ROI # Net $ ROI # Net $ ROI
= 9/1 23 2 -8.40 -0.18 4 -14.50 -0.32 7 -7.10 -0.15
10/1-14/1 24 2 -8.60 -0.18 4 -3.20 -0.07 11 29.30 0.61
15/1-19/1 10 0 -20.00 -1.00 0 -20.00 -1.00 1 -12.60 -0.63
= 20/1 26 4 234.60 4.51 5 85.20 1.64 6 21.80 0.42


Win Place Show
ML Odds Starts # Net $ ROI # Net $ ROI # Net $ ROI
= 8/1 25 3 5.80 0.12 5 -8.30 -0.17 11 17.00 0.34
10/1-12/1 20 1 -18.80 -0.47 2 -16.80 -0.42 5 -5.40 -0.14
15/1 14 1 26.00 0.93 2 1.60 0.06 3 -7.40 -0.26
= 20/1 24 3 184.60 3.85 4 71.00 1.48 6 27.20 0.57


Looking at the Final Odds table, the only odds level that looks profitable is 20/1 and higher. The table shows a profit in the Show pool for 10/1-14/1 qualifiers, but this is likely just an anomaly. The ML Odds table is a little more mixed, but shows basically the same sort of results.

It appears that the approach of betting only IM qualifiers that are going off at 20/1 or higher is, after all, the best bet. If you�re busy on Breeders Cup day and can�t follow the odds before betting, it looks like the best approach would be to limit yourself to all IM qualifiers with a ML of 20/1 or higher.

The high risk/reward play would be to bet Win only. Sensible, and still quite profitable, alternatives would be to bet Win/Place or Win/Place/Show:

Win Win/Place Win/Place/Show
Starts # Net $ ROI # Net $ ROI # Net $ ROI
Final Odds =20/1 26 4 234.60 4.51 5 319.80 3.08 6 341.60 2.19
ML Odds =20/1 24 3 184.60 3.85 4 255.60 2.66 6 282.80 1.96


To complete the picture, here�s how these two strategies would have fared year-by-year. First, Final Odds of 20/1 or higher:

Win Win/Place Win/Place/Show
Year Starts # Net $ ROI # Net $ ROI # Net $ ROI
2000 4 1 88.00 11.00 1 114.80 7.18 1 122.60 5.11
2001 3 0 -6.00 -1.00 0 -12.00 -1.00 0 -18.00 -1.00
2002 7 2 129.00 9.21 2 160.00 5.71 2 164.20 3.91
2003 4 1 39.60 4.95 1 51.40 3.21 1 54.60 2.28
2004 8 0 -16.00 -1.00 1 5.60 0.18 2 18.20 0.38
Total 26 4 234.60 4.51 5 319.80 3.08 6 341.60 2.19


Next, ML Odds of 20/1 or higher:

Win Win/Place Win/Place/Show
Year Starts # Net $ ROI # Net $ ROI # Net $ ROI
2000 4 1 88.00 11.00 1 114.80 7.18 2 129.80 5.41
2001 6 0 -12.00 -1.00 0 -24.00 -1.00 0 -36.00 -1.00
2002 4 1 81.00 10.13 1 99.80 6.24 1 104.20 4.34
2003 3 1 41.60 6.93 1 55.40 4.62 1 60.60 3.37
2004 7 0 -14.00 -1.00 1 9.60 0.34 2 24.20 0.58
Total 24 3 184.60 3.85 4 255.60 2.66 6 282.80 1.96


Both strategies show a profit 3 of 5 years in the Win pool, 4 of 5 years in the Place pool, and 4 of 5 years in the Show pool. You know more about this stuff than I do, but this seems pretty good to me for what is, essentially, a �Long Shot� play.

Assuming you�re not overcome by �information overload�, I�d appreciate any insights. If you�d like to see the raw data, I can send you an Excel spreadsheet. I looked at some other parameters like �ML Overlays� and �Bet Downs� but nothing meaningful emerged. I got the same non-result when I looked at the data by BC Race. Again, as I said at the beginning of this message, it may be that there is still not enough data to draw conclusions other than at a very high level.

Regards,

Mike

Cramer comments�:
Great work Mike. This is what the C&X community is all about. For those of you who have not been following the angle, Mike took a point from a book of mine (out of print) which I called �The Informed Minority�. The idea is that the best of public handicappers are privy to every type of information that we may not have, and are dedicating their lives to this pursuit. They follow the races every day, and get all related articles off the wires.
If there were only a way to pick their brains.
Conventional wisdom would say that we should follow the consensus. But managing by committee has not been proven more effective that individual management. For this reason, stock and bond mutual funds are usually managed by individuals. Consensus is a least common denominator that may lose the edge of creative thought.
How often have we noted that when one talented individual goes out on the limb and questions the establishment, he has some good reason to do so.
Furthermore, in the mix of public handicappers, the mediocre ones are the most likely to choose the chalk. So an oddball horse being picked on top is more likely to have come from an �informed renegade� than a handicapping conformist.
Since my own research on the subject, I�ve had the chance to view my own public handicapping in the context of the informed minority, for occasionally I am asked to do picks in a race track program or as part of a group seminar. In my own records, my bottom line is much improved when I�m the only one picking a horse. Sure I get egg in my face, but the winners more than make up for the losers.
This says that the same handicapper can sometimes be part of the conventional majority or the informed minority.
Mike has spend a great deal of time putting this research together, for his own benefit, as well as for ours. Someone else should step forward from the C&X community to continue this sharing. Anyone saved all your Kentucky Derby or Triple Crown forms? Why not write up the record of the informed minority and send it to us. You do not have to use sophisticated charts as Mike has done. Other readers coming from a racing circuit where you have at least 8 public handicappers listed could do the same type of research.
Mike is absolutely correct about the best subset: the straight win bet on 20-1 when a horse qualifies after having been selected by one, and only one, public handicapper. However, the larger sample of betting all informed-minority horses (a) regardless of odds and (b) across the board looks extremely promising. The former stat comes from a sample of 24 longshot bets. We would need more evidence. The latter comes from a sample of 83 bets, and has survived all kinds of the usual statistical obstacles. In the long run, this may be more sustainable.
The good news has twofold:
That this concept is based on a fundamental logic, and therefore is less likely to falter.
That this concept is applicable to many other racing settings, with the BC serving as the laboratory.
So check it out at your favorite racing venue and report back to us.

NEW YEAR�S RESOLUTION I
RACES FOR YOUNG 3-YEAR-OLDS
Horses who were two-year-old child prodigies more often than not disappear when turning 3. Ever since Thoroughbred Cycles, I�ve been noting this tendency. The reason is simple. Most two-year-olds are not developed enough to race maturely enough to show their true abilities (like 17-year-old baseball players). A privileged minority of 2-y-os are more precocious and against their own age at two, can dominate the races they enter. After all, they�re racing against green competition. These dominant horses are the ones who have become adults prematurely and are competing against kids.
Then, come the third year of life, things begin to even out as the rest of the horses from the same generation begin to reach a maturity level.
This is the reason why all so often, horses that peaked at two years old have lost races at low odds when they come back as threes.
In the DRF, Watchmaker came up with a list of 2-year-old champions and charted their performance as threes, something I had already done in past years.
Of the last fifteen 2-year-old male champions, only one did anything worthwhile as a 3-year-old. Timber Country had won the 2yo championship in 1994, and came back in 1995 to win the Preakness. But the exception proved the rule: the Preakness was his last start.
Considering the other fourteen 2-year-old champs, only two went on to win a Grade 1 event as threes, and that was quite some time ago. Rhythm, champion 2-year-old male in 1989, won the 1990 Travers. Fly So Free, a divisional champ in 1990, won the 1991 Florida Derby.
And that�s it. No BC-Juvenile winner has ever won a Kentucky Derby, and a good proposition bet would be to wager that no horse entered in the 2004 Juvenile will win the Kentucky Derby. (Hmmm, what kind of odds can we get on that one?)
So, as we approach the new year, what are we looking for in 3-y-o races? Lightly-raced two-year-olds who have shown some reason to have promise, even if it is only in the fact that they were well bet, but have underachieved. Sharp works, first race after a layoff, and a trainer with a 15 percent or higher hit rate are signs that the comebacker will improve against rivals who were superior as twos.
Finally, when we get to the time when maidens go as 3yos and up, the threes retain the advantage, as the fours have already shown that they will not have much talent.
There are a few exceptions among the fours, when they were lightly raced and have an excuse in their past history for not having raced much when younger.

C&X CAFE
IN DEFENSE OF SIMPLICITY
it's the end of the year and looking back on it I just wanted to take a bit of time and say thank-you for a good publication.� I have no idea how you find the time do everything that you do.� Much of it, i only assume, comes from the fact that simplicity is achieved through complexity and I think you, along with the people you interview, have� reached that point.� A point i most likely will� never reach.� Something like the AAA baseball player who can't make the major leagues.� You know he is good, but he just can't get to the next step.� Although he still grinds out a profit.� Albeit, a AAA one.� To try and repay your generosity I would like to submit the following for Breeder's cup day.� I CANNOT give the number of horses with the % of races� won etc because i have been a nomad this past year and my racing forms have come up missing.�� If I didn't think this to be a truism I would never send it to you.� To get the American contenders there are only a few things to consider.�� #1� run first or second� in one the past 2 races with both races being a Grade I or II.� 2. separate those by the Beyer speed Ratings.� It had positive results again this past year.� I am sure it has been positive in the past.�� I will give you one example of how this came about.� The sprinter Speightstown in this past breeder's cup was a definite contender� with the 2nd race back being his best. He is trained by Pletcher who was once an assistant with D. W. Lukas who trained Thunder Gulch.� I do not remember the year� Thunder Gulch won the kentucky derby but his past performance mirrored that of Speightstown. After the derby Lukas was interviewed and they asked him what happened to T. Gulch when he ran in the Bluegrass stakes at Keeneland.� Lukas explained, to win the blue grass is a nice race to win if you have never won it.� But having done that, one doesn't want to empty the tank in a race like that when the big one is next.� Combine that with your knowledge of the Euro horses and you have a strong contingent of horses for any breeder's cup.� I hope this benefits you.�� One last thought on the first guideline.�� Grade I and II races stand alone.� Any others with high speed ratings� can be considered a "cheap speed" type horse. That's how good the breeders cup is.� Any Grade III horse and lower will succomb to the "class" just like any other horse on any given card.�� I hope that you can benefit from this and that I didn't lead you astray.� I am really sorry I can't back up my statement with numbers like you do.� But the last 2 or 3 breeders cups should be positive results.� thank you.�
don a
Cramer comments�:
Don has a point. How often has yours truly tried to finesse it with all kinds of nuances, only to get beat by the common sense horse? Don probably has a point that at the Grade I level, certain horses are simply outclassed, no matter what figure they have earned. There�s a delicate balance between elegant simplicity and hidden subtleties. And then there are races where neither will help. The winners of the BC-Mile and the BC-Juvenile really required a stretch, and only the Third Way, some form of anti-handicapping, could have picked them.
There are times, though, when a Grade I or Grade II race includes horses that are has-beens. In such weak fields, a Grade III winner can upset.


PEDIGREE NOTE
From various publications, I�ve collected and synthesized expert comments about the fact that American breeding is more and more focused around just a few strands of the Phalaris line. Storm Cat is the big guy, but not far behind are Awesome Again, one of many from the Northern Dancer family. (Euro breeders love Storm Cat.) There�s also A.P.Indy, from Seattle Slew, from Bold Ruler and regulars like Gone West, Unbridled (Fappiano), and Forty Niner (Mr. Prospector). Dynaformer, Kris S.(Roberto), Danzig and Sadler�s Wells are especially strong on turf. Most good turf horses can be traced in one way or another to Northern Dancer.
However, there�s a stallion line on the opposite side of the pedigree structure, going back to Man O'War, Matchem, and the Godolphin Barb (as opposed to Eclipse and the Darley Arabian), that continues to standout among the current crop of freshman sires.Successful Appeal, by Valid Appeal, by In Reality, by Intentionally, is dominating the competition among first-crop sires, and if my sources are correct, they are leading in stakeswinners, stakes horses, and sire production index. The Man O'War line, through In Reality, has maintained such strength even though nearly every other non-Phalaris sire has disappeared from the top rankings of almost all important North American Pedigrees. (Pleasant Colony (His Majesty) is still holding out.)
None of these big sire names are going to make us any money, because they are already prominent. However, it always pays to keep up with new sires who come from these lines. Of all researchers, Mike Helm is the one who is the best at projecting future performance from a relatively new sire.
New-sire clusters
Handicappers would do well to note any longshot winners by relatively new sires. Such winners tend to come in clusters.

THE BUS TO BOWIE
(or I was a teenage horseplayer, or A Lesson in Money Management)
I had just turned 17 at the time. At Aqueduct and Belmont you could get in but you had to be 18 to bet. I looked about 15. If I couldn�t get an older person to go with me, I would find any old guy with a cigar and a plaid jacket to put in my bet for me.
It is often said that these were backward times, but for me it was the Age of Enlightenment. We had Jean Shepherd on the radio. We had �The Witching Hour� on the radio at midnight, where you could hear �The Monkey�s Paw� and Edgar Allen Poe stories. We had WLIB, which introduced us to The Miracles and Bobby Blue Bland. It was the station with the best rhythm and blues, but they did not call it R&B at the time. We had Jack Kerouac and his On the Road, and Ferlinghetti, whose poetry you could actually understand. We learned about none of this from our teachers. It traveled around from one kid to another.
I would take girls (we called �em �chicks� at the time) to the Bowery and we�d step over drunks to get into The Five Spot and hear Thelonius Monk and Charlie Mingus. They didn�t ask our age.
We had Mr. Foster, the economics teacher who wore a bowtie every day and advised us that railroads would make a comeback, and that we should invest in railroads. I had an emotional investment in trains, because I loved �em and I still do. Luckily, I did not invest. I didn�t even know what investment was at the time.
We also had American Turf Monthly and eventually we learned that there was indeed life after death because Ray Taulbot continues to write for American Turf Monthly long after he died. My one chance at eternal life is the possibility that American Turf Monthly will publish my new articles after I die.
We also had winters, and the bad thing about winter was a halt to racing. When Steinbeck came out with a book called The Winter of Our Discontent, I scanned it for information about how people survived without racing. There was nothing, so I decided to not read the book. Aqueduct closed. Belmont closed. There was only Bowie, in Maryland. They had buses to Bowie.
I invited my girlfriend Alice to Bowie one afternoon. Alice was more advanced than I was. She listened to folk music. When I lamented one morning at Bayside High School that Jackie Wilson had been shot, she grimaced.
�What do you care about Jackie Wilson? He�s only a rock and roll singer.�
It was my first time traveling out of town with a girl. I intended to handicap in the bus, but that turned out to be impossible, so when we arrived, I geared up to handicapping race by race.
It was a cold grey day, but the entrance into Bowie was one of the warmest days in my life. To this very day, no one can tell me that it�s real racing in an OTB, because I know what it�s like to go into Bowie race track after long weeks of no action.
Alice had prepared sandwiches but I had hotdog money in the wallet in my back pocket, along with the return bus tickets.
In my front left pocket I had twenty dollars, my entire bankroll for the day, enough to bet two dollars on each race and a $2 daily double.
I didn�t have enough time to handicap the second race before post time of the first race, but I liked the horse in the first, so I decided to take a chance and go over my prescribed limit, playing him two bucks across the board. He won, and for me it was an important amount of money. I wanted to impress Alice by winning big. (Only years later was I mature enough to appreciate that her opinion of me had nothing to do with whether I won or lost at the races.) In fact, she might have loved me more if I had blown the $20.)
I faced the eternal question. When you score, what should you do so that your profits do not erode? Bus trips back from the race track after a losing day were gloomy. There was a typical New York scene. On the bus on the way to Aqueduct, everyone would be buzzing, joking, grinning, sitting up in their seats and leaning across the aisle to recommend can�t-lose horses. On the bus back from Aqueduct: total silence. There might have been one guy in the bus who had won money that day, and he�d better shut up or he�d be lynched by the rest of the passengers.
The eternal question of what to do to avoid the erosion of profits was magnified by the fact that this time, it would be a 5-hour bus ride. Of course, I had Alice with me, but even that was little consolation, for I wanted to be a hero for her during those five hours, which meant I wanted to win big.
I still remember the smell of cigars as I handicapped the second race, anticipating a second score that would put me at the level of assured profits for the day. To this very day I love the smell of cigars, and long for the voice of Mel Allen, hawking White Owl Panatellas. Cuban cigars were being phased out of the American market, and I had no idea about the joys of a Cohiba, though we did get Cuban music on various New York radio stations, including on the Symphony Sid jazz show.
I did the best I could on the second race. The half hour between the first and second were pure joy. There was the encouraging voice of Alice, the smell of cigars, and the smell of the print of the past performances, which no other newspaper could equal.
In the second race I played a horse across the board and he was out of the money. In the next race, I decided to forget the across the board and bet $4 to win. The horse finished second. After a few more losing races, I was nearing the end of my profits and decided to play it safe, I bet an iffy horse to show at pretty good odds. He won.
By the end of the afternoon I was up 40 cents. Subtracting overhead, it was not a good day for business.
To this very day, the same question surfaces. What to do so that the profits from a big score do not erode. I�ve seen big pick six winners end up breaking even, and daily double crushers end up tapping out for the day.
Neither of the two obvious strategies work. The first strategy is to raise your bet and crush �em. Relatively speaking, that�s what I did in my own small way at Bowie in the second and third races, since I was supposed to only bet two bucks per race. The other strategy is to play it cautiously. That�s what I did in the later races at Bowie. I tried both of these legendary strategies, to no avail.
The only way to protect a high r.o.i. is to not do anything differently. Continue to do what allowed you to be successul in the first place. Not to tighten up and not to loosen up. It�s the race itself that determines how and if you should bet, and not some internal combustion mechanism within the handicapper. Not to shy away from a good longshot but not to go fishing for one. That�s called balance. In betting psychology, it means staying level headed.
If it were possible to magnify silence, then that was what you experienced on the bus ride back from Bowie. On normal bus rides from Aqueduct or Belmont, the passengers could think that there was a tomorrow. But most of us had neither the time nor the money to invest in a daily bus ride from New York to Maryland, and the typical passenger, considerably older than I was, was thinking he�d have to wait �til �next week� unstead of �til tomorrow. The typical passenger was thinking how he could round up a bankroll and steal some time for next week.
My thoughts were different. My plans were for another trip out of town with Alice, and if she dumped me because I didn�t hit a three horse round robin, then with another chick. I could read Jack Kerouac and Ray Taulbot and maybe try to discover a way to the two combine those two very different worlds.
It was my first chance to consider ways to prevent the erosion of profits. Decades later I�m still dealing with the same dilemma. Meanwhile, no one remembers Jean Shepherd and The Five Spot Caf� has disappeared from the face of the earth, and the Bowery has gentrified and lost its grittiness.
Nothing lasts in life, except the eternal dilemmas of horse betting.

THE RIGHT QUESTIONS:
PUTTING ALL OUR EXTRANEOUS KNOWLEDGE INTO SOME SEMBMANCE OF ORDER
It�s been awhile since C&X has synthesized the contrarian handicapping process into some sort of order with at least a sketchy hierarchy of factors. Of course, every race has its own quirks, and the handicapper cannot be so reductionist as to use the exact same procedure every time. However, there are certain questions that need to be asked of most races. Here�s my view.
one. Is there a different horse? Is there a pattern match? Two questions, simultaneously. Identify the different horse and try to figure why he�s in the field. If there is no different horse. A different horse might be a confirmed early-speed sprinter entered in a route against route closers, a confirmed dirt horse entered on the grass with great turf pedigree, a horse that races for the first time for a new stable (low% stable to high% stable), a horse that seems totally outclassed and is inexplicably entered in this field, a layoff comebacker facing a field of over-raced horses, a Euro horse entered on the dirt, an early-speed route horse shortening up versus a field of confirmed sprint come-from-behinders. And a pattern match: a horse with apparently poor form returning to the same scenario as it�s last victory (distance/surface/track/rider/re-claim). Draw a line under the running line of the horse�s last victory, from date of race through odds in that race. Now look at today�s race conditions and see if anything matches. A pattern match horse may or may not be a different horse, but the pattern-match process is best done simultaneously to the different-horse process, in order to establish a contrarian point of departure. And above all, in order to find that rare and beautiful moment when the different horse is also the pattern match horse.
Once you have identified a different horse or a pattern-match horse, it does not mean that this is the bet, and you must not subconsciously rationalize in favor of this horse, but by all means, see if any of the other steps will point to other assets of the horse you�ve identified. However, if the pattern-match horse is ALSO the different horse, then you should focus on this horse throughout the other handicapping steps, as if he were already a prime contender.
two. Which horse figures to start best (start call), and will that same horse have the lead at the first quarter? We are looking for the shape of the race. Can you identify a reasonable probable pace scenario? If not, you may have identified a shapeless race (my terminology for a race that can not be projected pacewise). All races have a shape after they�ve been run, but in most cases, the shape is not evident, or based on chaos. If it�s a shapeless race, waste no more time and move on to the next step. Read Huey Mahl�s The Race is Pace if you need to do homework on the pace factor, or Tom Brohamer�s Modern Pace Handicapping. (Of course, C&X has dealt with and will periodically deal with the pace factor.)
three. For each horse, what is that specific class level at which he/she is competitive enough to win? Note it next to each horse in the pps. Does a picture develop in which one or two horses pop out as dominating in the class factor? If so, it doesn�t mean these horses are engraved as your contenders, but they deserve serious consideration. Step four is integrally related to three. But before you move on to four, do you have any reason to believe that a horse that�s competitive at a lower level has the right to move up on the improve? If so, place an asterisk next to his competitive class level, to indicate that he�s a potential contender.
four. Current class. Do the horses with the highest competitive class capacity have current class? Or have they declined since they earned their rating in step three? Are they sharp now or have they become dull? If all the highest-competitive-capacity horses are dull now, you will have identified a lesser-of-evils race. Otherwise, one of the higher-class horses will win.
five. Are there any supertrainers (20%-plus winning trainers) entering horses in this race? On the other side of the coin, how many can�t-win trainer-jockey combinations are there? These are usually automatic eliminations. If the combined win percentage of trainer + jockey is 18 or less, then the horse loses handicapping points (such as 11% trainer with 7% rider, or 8% trainer with 10% rider). The lower this combined stat is, the more automatic is the elimination.
six. Which horse is most likely to improve? Can you identify a dynamic in which one or two lightly-raced horses are facing a field where all the other horses have been racing regularly for quite some time? In most situations, a lightly-raced horse is more likely to improve than one that his been appearing for work regularly over a long period of time. C&X research has shown clearly that the typical winner of a race improves its Beyer fig by an average of approximately 8 points. That�s why we do not compare speed ratings and prefer to compare potential performance ability.
Those are the six main steps. At this point you may ask, �should I first look for assets of horses in a field or first do eliminations. There�s no simple answer and sometimes the two processes are simultaneous, but I have found that it is better first to look at assets, for two reasons.
First of all, what would happen if you have done your eliminations but the horses that remain are nothing to write home about? Well, then you will have wasted your time. In the worst case, you�ll end up betting on a mediocre horse.
Second, what if you end up doing premature eliminations, because you�ve not gone over the above six steps?
Beginning with eliminations is the easy way, and sometimes it works. But beware of the above to two pitfalls. The short-form method of eliminating no-win trainer-rider combos and proven losers at the class level can function rather well, but it should always be followed by the above six steps. The short-form method allows the handicapper a way to scan four or five entire cards in order to zoom in on races with a potential advantage (when you are able to eliminate half the field), but then, the zoom-in process begins with step one.
(An alternative way to zip through the pps of various tracks is to begin ONLY with the two-pronged process of step one (different-horse/pattern-match), and then only go to the next steps if you find step one double qualifiers. Such a process insures selective betting, but has its own limitations since you reduce the dimension of your handicapping.)
But what about speed?
You may be surprised, but I do think that the speed factor is of fundamental importance. I also believe that the speed factor is often disguised. The handicapper who goes through the above six steps will have confronted the speed factor without naming it. Most players pick up their form and immediately go through the Beyer figs. That means that we would do best to do something different. Let them find speed by going through the front door. Let us sneak through the back door and get a better view of the total picture. If you read any contradiction in the above, it is for good reason. Most races have their own quirks, and C&X does not advocate bureaucratic handicapping, for the pp analyst must always be flexible and adaptable. You want a structure, yes, but a structure that fosters creativity, not one that inhibits creativity.
Of course, this represnts the thought process of yours truly. I�m sure readers would be interested in hearing from their peers on any other flexible structures. The idea is to not fumble of pps wasting precious time trying to discover where to begin.

ENDNOTES
Purchasers of the Harness Race Profit Portfolio are advised that you can now find free periodic updates on my website: www.altiplanopublications.com
The updates will refer to specific information in the portfolio, so those who have read the portfolio will be able to identify what I�m talking about. I�ll try to steer clear of things like, �the Portfolio had a $66 winner at Balmoral� and concentrate only on insights I�ve gained since the publication of the booklet. Updates will be short and sweet, and hopefully on a monthly basis, thought I cannot promise. The first update is now posted. Click on the C&X icon.
In the upcoming months and years, I will try to find other humble ways to thank loyal readers and subscribers. By business standards, C&X has not been a money maker, and I could make a good deal more income cleaning tables at the OTB across the street. However, C&X is a money maker in that it affords me a pleasurable way to improve my own handicapping; this publication obligates me to be a lifelong learner, to reflect on my handicapping, to structure my thought, to never stop researching, and to engage in lively exchange with challenging readers. Putting it down on paper is a way of clarifying thought and action. And for me it�s fun.