Mark Cramer
C & X Report

C&X #16 has been posted (see previous Jan. 6 post). The final section is virtually unreadable. My thinking is that Mark does the last part of the letter in a different format which our conversion program simply cannot understand. The vast majority of the letter is intact, though, and the hard copy will be in the mail @Jan 12. Thanks, Dave

C&X 16

CONTENTS

Editorial: Steroids

Turf handicapping: the Short Form

Three-Year-Old Trend

Malibu musing

More on the Informed Minority

Jim Kachulis: the Interview

New Year�s Resolution by Stan Gutkowski

Railbird


EDITORIAL: STEROIDS

Recently, while teaching an advanced English class at a prestigious company in Paris, I was treated to a cup of coffee. Once upon a time I avoided coffee, for the caffeine could affect my blood pressure. Since my pressure has been fine, I allow myself to indulge once in awhile. It�s a great drink when well-prepared. In France it has the richness of chocolate, and it�s packed with power.

Following the class, I cycled home. It�s about 7 miles. The last part is uphill. I used to have to change gears while gliding uphill, until one day I realized that I was in condition to do it without the gear change. But getting up that prolonged hill requires a very conscious effort, and I can hear it in my breathing and feel it in my legs. This time, I ended up home in record time. Once off the old bike, it dawned on me that I had not been conscious of the final uphill segment of my trip. It hadn�t occurred to me that I had pedaling harder. I had been whistling along and singing a song, ignoring any effort that I may have made.
I attribute the enhanced performance to the caffeine.

As often happens, my mind switched to the channel of horse racing, and by association, I found myself mulling about the subject of performance enhancing drugs. If an innocent cup of coffee would whip me up for a peak performance, it would be difficult for me to imagine that horse race trainers would not find a way to use drugs to their advantage.

It was then that I received a note from a reader. That note was the third reference I had read about a Thoroughbred Times article by Denise Steffanus, an article that seemed so unbelievable as to be a hoax. It was about steroids and thoroughbred racing, from the November 13 issue.

I checked Google and came up with references to the article from chatters, but not the article itself. I did come up with a different Steffanus article: �Use of anabolic steroids when prepping sale horses artificially bulks up muscle,� which warns buyers of Tbreds that �appearances may be deceiving�.
In that piece, John Kimmel makes the point that sale horses should be tested for steroids so that potential buyers can have an idea if the muscle they see is for real.
But the November 13 piece went further.
After getting some analysis from a southern California vet named Vince Baker (DVM), the article allegedly quoted Scott Lake on the treatment his horses. Is this a hoax or did Lake actually admit that his new horses begin a regimen of Equipoise, an anabolic steroid that he says enhances their appetite and attitude.

"We use Equipoise on just about every horse," Lake said. "I'll treat them about every 45 days or so. That's just my belief. They'll eat better, and they get more aggressive. I like a horse that's more aggressive and sharp."

Lake evidently became convinced of the value of Equipoise years ago when he saw a program about the East German women's Olympic swimming team, learning that their use of Equipoise in the 1970s and '80's had significantly moved them forward in performance.

I then checked the legality of steroids for race horses. There was a blurry line between medical use and performance enhancing use. You can legally use steroids on a sick horse that is losing weight and not eating, but a steroid is not a race day medication.

In humans, steroids have a role in treating wasting muscle in the elderly that would differ greatly from their use in someone like Mark McGwire or Barry Bonds. Steroids in younger sales horses may have a damaging effect on bones, by giving these growing horses too much weight upon yet to-be-fully-developed bones. If used on younger athletes, steroids could have a negative effect for later years of life. In France they jokingly refer to 30-year-old professional cycles as senior citizens.

In searching through the rules of racing, I also came upon a differentiation between the use of �race day medication� and drugs that may be used during training. To my unsophisticated legal mind, there seemed to be as many loopholes as in a piece of Gruyere cheese.

To illustrate the confusion, consider this quote from the Sales Integrity Task Force: �The Task Force is well aware that certain other practices are controversial within the industry and might, in fact, have a negative impact on the reputation of the industry. These include use of anabolic steroids. Overuse of anabolic steroids is undesirable, but the medication does also have legitimate therapeutic uses. Horses presented at sales after abuse of anabolic steroids will revert to normal after steroid withdrawal and suffer no long-term effects. Thus, this Code does not prohibit all steroid use, but the repeated use of anabolic steroids during sale preparation artificially alters the horse's appearance and is discouraged."�

Home on the range, where seldom is heard a discouraging word. The words of the Sales Integrity Task Force do not discourage the use steroids on horses during training periods.

One problem is that the industry continues to go crazy about raceday medications (rightfully so) and this distracts them from an area where substance use is more generalized: during training. In some states bute can be prohibited on race day, where it might be allowed during training periods. A secondary property or side effect of Clenbuterol is its fat-burning steroid effect. Even if the horse eventually races without it, its use during training will have strengthened the horse.�

Zooming in only on raceday drug use may be missing a bigger point. On the other hand, for some medical purposes, steroid supplementation could actually be appropriate.�But how can such things be regulated? And how could they be policed?

How does this affect handicapping?

Hypothesis I. The trend is for layoff comebackers to outrun horses with recency and during layoffs, horses can be given a regimen of steroids while recent runners cannot. The layoff period literally builds up a horse. Hmmm. How many of those successful lay-1 trainers have discovered the secrets of steroids?

Hypothesis II. Trainers who have had great success with such a method of literally building up horses will see their horses do relatively poorly at stud, not because the steroids impact the horses� performance in the studbarn but because the horses were racing better than their pedigree, and at stud, their real pedigree kicks in. Steroids can help performance but they cannot change genes.

I am following certain successful trainers, comparing the success of their horses at the races with the relative lack of success of those same horses at stud. Since this comparative study is based on circumstantial evidence, I cannot throw out any names.
I think we must assume that many trainers at least partially depend on having a vet who can provide substances during training that will enhance the horse�s race day performance, and that steroids may play a major role.

How can handicappers profit from steroids, with really knowing which trainers use them?
I used to write that we should simply assume that the past performances and trainer stats will show us enough for the �what� so that we do not really have to know the �why� and the �how�. But instinctively I�ve been going beyond this basic point of departure.

Why not keep a record of wake-up performances? It�s easy to do. Every time you see a horse wake up for no reason at all, jot down the name of the trainer and the circumstances of the wake-up. Once you accumulate two or more wake-ups under similar circumstances for the same trainer, then you have a worthy suspicion. Keep separate logs of layoff-comback wake-ups and wake-ups of horses that have recency.

Long-term research does not necessarily improve upon the short run, for trainers change vets. If performance enhancing drugs continue to cloud the racing scene, it may be necessary for the past performances to list the name of the vet for each horse, and then list vet changes. There has been a long-term pattern with many but not all supertrainers: in the beginning (perhaps when they begin to use steroids), betting on their horses shows a flat-bet profit, but after a certain period, the public adjusts and such a trainer gets bet down to a point where the edge is lost. Here�s a situation where a short-term gem of a trend is more valuable pari-mutually than a long-term stat.


TURF HANDICAPPING: THE SHORT FORM

Over the years it has become apparent that two non-primary handicapping factors stand out strategically for analyzing turf races.

Remember the C&X article on �short form handicapping�? Well now I�m adding a �short form� that works specifically with grass racing, where the surface itself becomes a primary factor.

First, the rules, and then an explanation.

Rule 1. Look at the performance box and isolate those horses in a field that have the highest win percentage on turf. We want to see (a) a better than 33% win rate; (b) a clear advantage in this turf-win-percentage category for less than half the field. For example, if you have an 8-horse field with five horses winning between 35 and 40 percent on grass, then we would have too many contenders. If you have two horses with 50 percent turf wins and the next best is 33 percent, then only the 50 percent horses are to be considered, since there�s big gap between the top level and second level.

Rule 2. If a tie-breaker is needed, then we look for a 100-or-more DRF speed rating on grass, with at least a 5 variant. (I�ve always seen Beyer figs as remarkably accurate for turf races, and could conceivably use the Beyers instead of the DRF ratings; however, the crowd tends to overuse the Beyers and underuse the DRF figs.) Either way, Rule 2 speed figs are not to be considered for infrequently distances such as a mile and 1/2 or a mile and 5/16.

In summary, we are looking for a horse who loves the grass and runs very fast on the grass. For both Rules 1 and 2, we want recent races. If a horse is 4 for 11 on the grass, but 1 for his last 7 grass races, then his good record is too far in the past. In other words, we want to avoid has-been horses.
If there are no qualifiers by both rules, we pass the race. If there are too many qualifiers, we pass the race. The short form allows the simulcast handicapper a way to quick-scan the pps, and cherry pick the best races.

Maiden turf races are excluded from the short form, since there�s no win record accumulated and pedigree analysis thus supersedes the above factors.

Race illustration: the WL McKnight Hcp, CRC, December 18

#1. 4 wins in 14 races, less than 33%. Toss.
#2. 2 for 10, less than 33%. Toss.
#3. 3 for 15, less than 33%. Toss.
#4. 4 for 10, 40%. Included. Horse�s name, Dreadnaught.
#5. 4 for 27, less than 33%. Toss.
#6. 5 for 30, less than 33%. Toss.
#7. 4 for 13, less than 33%. Toss.
#8. 2 for 5, 40%. Included. Horse�s name, Demeteor.
#9. 5 for 20, less than 33%. Toss.
#10. 6 for 16, above 35%. Horse�s name, Latino. On further inspection, the horse does not qualify. Five of his wins come from low-level racing in Peru. He�s only 1 for 6 in the USA, and that was in a claimer.
#11. 4 for 11, above 33%. Horse�s name, Puppeteer.

For Rule 2, no horse has earned 100 or better with a 5-or-more variant. However, several horses come close to the spirit of the law.

#4. Dreadnaught, 102-4
#5. eliminated by Rule 1, 102-4
#8. Demeteor, 100-03
#10. Latino, 101-04

Note that #11 is a French horse with a single U.S. race, in which he finished below a 100 DRF rating. This is his second race in the USA, usually a negative for Euro horses. This horse raced dull, so dull that the Euro-bounce factor is irrelevant.

I decide that there is no conclusive evidence under Rule 2, but to keep it in the back of my mind.
Dreadnaught was 3-1. Demeteor was 12-1. Puppeteer was an underlayed 9/2.

Following the short-form outline procedure: the handicapping process can now take place with fewer complications.

I have already downgraded Puppeteer, but I keep him in as the �maybe� horse.

Two races back, Dreadnaught lost by a neck to Macaw, the #5 non-qualifier. Looking at that race, Macaw, usually a hopeless come-from-behinder, was able to pick up pieces against a folding pace duel, while Dreadnaught was part of the early pace. Macaw only pops up occasionally while Dreadnaught always fires. Dreadnaught just won a Grade 2. I am not giving Macaw a new lease on life: just using him to help situate Dreadnaught.
That brings us to Demeteor.

Not only was he a short-form qualifier but he is an overachiever. In his most recent race, a Grade 3, he was third, only 3/4 from winning, at a huge 48-1. He won his previous at 18-1. And down aways in his pps, he won at 28-1. All these overachieving outcomes were on the grass.

Place betting

If you were betting the straight pools, you�d have to go with the overlay Demeteor at 12-1. Note that if there is a chance that the place price of your valid overlay will be higher than the win price of your other choice, then a win-place bet can be in order. (For example, if after you have appraised a horse�s probabilities, you end up requireing 4-1 win odds in order to make a bet, and if the horse is going off at 12-1, then he figures to pay at least 10.00 for the place. If you would take him to win at 4-1 then surely you can accept having place money and collecting the 4-1 at less risk.

Demeteor finished second. His place payoff, 13.40, was superior to the win payoff of Dreadnaught, who crossed the wire first and returned 8.20. A 35-1 outsider finished third.

Exacta keying

The other option would be to key the overlay in exactas with the other two contenders.

The exacta paid 140.80. Keying the highest odds horse of the three qualifiers (or even boxing the three qualifiers if you did not like the overachiever angle) yielded an exacta payoff.

This short-form turf method is not entirely mechanical. This race serves as a simple illustration ... the �short form� procedure is used to determine which turf races during the simulcast day are worth handicapping. Once you have a race worth analyzing, you would (a� designate the short-form contenders and (b) handicap the race from the point of view of the those contenders. Leave room for (c): occasions when a non-qualifier could be reconsidered. The point is:

We do not have time to do a good job handicapping each and every turf race of the day, horse by horse. The �short form� is a screening process that sorts out the few very worthy races to handicap.
Race Illustration: the Tropical Park Derby, CRC, January 1, 2005
In the 12-horse field of lightly-raced horses, four horses had either never been on the turf (with no specially high Tomlinson ratings) or had no wins on the grass. We were left with eight horses. No horses qualified by Rule 2, so Rule 1 became exclusive. We demanded a better-than 33 percent win rate. The best win percentages (with each horse�s best turf Beyer in parentheses) were:

Lord Robyn: 2 for 2 (83)
Exceptional Rule: 2 for 3 (84)
Turks Ransom: 2 for 3 (72)
Elusive Thunder: 1 for 2 (65)
Three other horses deserved a �mention�:

Crown Point, looked like an in-and-outer with 2 for 6, but had a high Beyer of (90).
Firepath, 0 for 1 on turf, had a (79) that was higher than the Beyers of the bottom two qualifierss.
Starship Zim, off the alsos, on the far outside, had finished a close second to Lord Robyn.
Elusive Thunder had low turf Beyers in the 60s, and could be excluded. One other horse figured to get some action and caught my attention as a bet-against horse. That was Medigating was coming in from France, had a low win percentage in the performance box, and had raced at the lowest bush league tracks of France. With Jerry Bailey aboard, it seemed like a good opportunity where I could eliminate a horse that would be getting action.

(In the case of a Euro horse, a low win percentage is not an automatic tossout if the horse has shown some Euro class when facing decent competition. But in the case of Medigating, it was quite the contrary. He was void of class.)
The two priority horses became Lord Robyn and Exceptional Ride, with Turk�s Ransom not too far behind. The three �mention� horses could have been included, that is, if you are a superfecta playe, which I am not.

On the mere basis of the �short form�, we could compare the two priority horses:

Exceptional Ride, was going off as the betting favorite;
Lord Robyn was flashing at 7-1.

If it were a question of pure value, you�d have to decide in favor of Lord Robyn.

For those or you who use superfecta grids, you could probably have hit this one using only short-form qualifiers in the top spot, and �mention� horses in other slots.
Lord Robyn won the race, paying 17.60.

The longshot Fire Path finished second, paying 11.00 to place and 8.00 to show, and telling us that, yes, Beyer turf figs are indeed worth considering.

Third was the high Beyer, Crown Point.
And fourth was the other Rule-1 horse (2-for-3 turf), Turk�s Ransom.
The Bailey horse finished fifth.

The super paid $11,899.80, mainly because the favorite was out of the money, finishing ninth.
Once more, the short form in turf races function well, though not mechanically. What it does is help the handicapper to focus in on a total picture, without getting bogged down in details.
But then, there is room for handicapper intervention. In the absence of 100-plus DRF speed ratings, the turf Beyers prove to function well.
The main contention of this thesis is that, in grass racing the surface itself becomes a major factor.

THREE-YEAR-OLD TREND

The victory of Declan�s Moon in the Hollywood Futurity on December 18 should help us ... not to project a Kentucky Derby winner ... but to learn how to watch the season unfold without getting caught in the hype.

I have a few observations. For the Triple Crown we are looking for horses that do not need to be babied, that are not fragile.

Prior to Declan�s Moon�s two last wins, he worked in 58.3 and 58.4 respectively. Those are fast works combined with two fast performances. It suggests that this horse does not need to be babied.

BC-Juvy winner Wilko came from the same race, finishing a close up third, even after having suffered a quarter crack prior to the race. Having raced quite frequently as a two-year old, and having raced competitively with a hindrance, we learn that Wilko is a hard-knocker who can do more than simply reach one peak performance. No BC-Juvy winner has ever won a Kentucky Derby, but few of those winners were ever as workmanlike as this guy.

That said, the filly Sweet Catomine raced faster than Wilko in the BC-Juvy Filly. We should pay special attention to all the details surrounding Sweet Catomine�s upcoming races. We should compare fractions and final times of Sweet Cs next race with that of Declan�s Moon and Wilko.
With previous Triple Crown trends tilting in favor of lightly-raced horses, perhaps it�s time for a reverse trend: a workmanlike horse.

Another possible trend

Between 1997 and 2000, California produced four straight Kentucky Derby winners. From 2001 to 2004, SoCal had four straight losing years.
The trend seems to be shifting back to Southern California. Richard Mandella, Ronald Ellis, Julio Canani: these trainers and so many other greats in SoCal are geared up for a series of peak performances versus Eastern horses. This could be a trend in its infancy, when it still has wager value.

MALIBU MUSING

C&X regulars already know that I have been high on Rock Hard Ten. We had keyed him in the Preakness, collecting the exacta. We also liked him in the Belmont, where he failed. As long-time readers also know, I am better at picking out the best stakes horses than I am at timing when they will reach a peak. So frequently, the horse I place on top doesn�t quite do it or has a bad day, but then comes back to win in a subsequent Grade I race.

Such is the case with Rock Hard Ten, who won the 7f Malibu on opening day at Santa Anita, December 26.

He only paid $6.80, but it is worthy to look at this race and try to project the future of this potentially great horse.

In the Malibu, there was a pattern match. He had won his debut race at 7f at SA. This time he was coming back fresh after a layoff, also SA, also 7f.

Back in the Preakness, I actually liked him on the outside, and liked Gary Stevens on the outside with him. RHT likes racing out of trouble. Gary Stevens likes staying out of traffic. Both these situations reproduced.

But the greatest indicator that this horse has a bright future is the fact that RHT is now in the Richard Mandella barn. Here was a chance for a rebirth. Doesn�t matter that the previous barn was good. Sometimes a new outfit makes the right changes.

Dampening the victory of RHT was the fact that the other horse I really liked, Dutrow�s Out Of Money, had a travel snag in Texas and never completed the ship to SoCal. Most of you will remember Out Of Money from his front running win in the Pha Derby. He would have had a tougher time in the Malibu, where the field was bursting with early speed.

In fact, the pace dynamics made it especially easy for RHT to come from behind and OOM would have had to duel.

Then there was Mass Media, who had raced a fluky 115 Beyer nearly 2 months prior to the Malibu. That had been a by-far-the-best performance of this horse, whose second best Beyer was 101. In Mass Media�s 115 race, he earned a 100-13 DRF speed rating/track variant, a number we really liked.

However, one peak does not make a horse. I suspect that Mass Media will have other peaks, but when? He was even money in the Malibu and finished fifth.

Essentially, RHT had a perfect scenario. Nevertheless, I feel that, in his new barn and with GS, he is on the way to a big season.

MORE ON THE INFORMED MINORITY

Hi Mark,

It took me a while, but here�s the second installment of the Breeder�s Cup Informed Minority, looking at the DRF Handicappers. Again, not a whole lot of insight because the data is pretty well distributed.

Here are the highlights:

1.����� Over 5 Years there were 83 IM qualifiers, selected by 34 different handicappers (31 of whom appear on the list of 37 DRF handicappers in 2004)

2.����� There were 2 handicappers with 6 qualifiers; 1 each with 4 and 5; 8 handicappers with 3; and 24 handicappers with 1 or 2 qualifiers

3.����� There were 25 qualifiers that ran in-the-money, selected by 19 different handicappers:

-������ 8 qualifiers finished 1st selected by 8 different handicappers
-������ 5 qualifiers ran 2nd selected by 5 different handicappers, only 1 of whom also had a winner
-������ 12 qualifiers ran 3rd selected by 11 different handicappers, only 4 of whom also had a qualifier that ran 2nd or 3rd

As you can see, it�s a real mixed bag, and hard to come up with any useful speculations, not to mention meaningful conclusions.

The table below summarizes the results for the 19 handicappers that had at least 1 qualifer run in-the-money:

Handicapper Starts 1st 2nd 3rd Net $WPS ROI
Andrew Beyer 2 1 0 1 74.00 6.17
Scott Ehlers 4 0 0 1 -19.40 -0.81
Brad Free 3 1 0 1 27.80 1.54
David Grening 2 1 0 0 16.00 1.33
Michael Hammersly 2 1 0 0 33.10 2.76
Vance Hanson 3 0 0 1 -13.20 -0.73
Marcus Hersh 3 0 1 0 33.20 1.84
Jay Hovdey 3 0 1 0 -8.60 -0.48
Karen M Johnson 2 1 0 0 116.20 9.68
Jim Kachulis 6 1 0 2 123.60 3.43
Dave Litfin 2 0 1 0 -0.40 -0.03
Paul Malecki 2 0 0 1 -4.80 -0.40
Kenny Peck 2 0 0 1 -4.60 -0.38
Brian Pochman 5 0 0 1 -15.00 -0.50
Jay Privman 2 1 1 0 84.80 7.07
Elliot Safdie 3 0 0 1 -12.40 -0.69
Alan Shuback 6 1 0 1 5.00 0.14
Lauren Stich 2 0 0 1 -5.40 -0.45
Bill Tallon 2 0 1 0 8.60 0.72

Total 83 8 5 12


I guess that I would be inclined to trust the �singles� offered up by Beyer, Kachulis (who, I think, you identified as a possible good bet), and Privman because each has had multiple qualifiers in-the-money with a decent overall return.

To complete the picture, here are the 15 �0-fers�:
Handicapper Starts
Steven Crist 1
Mike Farrell 2
Ron Gierkink 2
Art Gropper 3
Joe Hirsch 1
Bill Howard 2
Dan Illman 1
Byron King 2
Steve Klein 2
Marty McGee 1
Kim Nelson 2
John Piesen 1
Kristen Sadler 3
Mike Sherock 1
Dave Tuley 3
Thank you for your nice comments. Sometimes I think I enjoy the research as much (or more) than betting the races. I guess it�s like working on a huge puzzle � it�s a whole lot of fun to find a set of pieces that fit together.

Regards,

Mike

Mike,

I like the fact that Kachulis is most often an informed minority and at the same time, most often in the money with a bizarre pick. Also worthy of note is that Beyer and Privman, though not often �informed minorities�, are both 2-for-2 when they have gone way out on the limb. I think it�s time for us to ask Mr. Kachulis a few questions.
Mark

THE INTERVIEW: JIM KACHULIS

C&X thanks Jim Kachulis for squeezing this interview into a heavy racing period. Handicappers are public figures and their constituents have the right to monitor their picks. Without knowing Mr. Kachulis, we took that liberty, ultimately discovering (in BC selections) that he has been (a) the most likely to go totally against crowd and handicapping experts and (b) the most likely of those who do dare to go out on the limb, to pick out a live longshot.
Without knowing him personally, we could tell that his approach is just what pari-mutuel betting is all about: finding a �different� style. Here�s what he has to say.

mc. How did you get into horseplaying? Seems like most players had someone in their family who played the ponies. There were horseplayers in my family. Growing up in New York, for me, there was a gambling culture. We gambled on basketball, played poker in buses. Any of this have any influence on you?

JK. The roots of my horseplaying career are family oriented as well. My father was a lifelong student of the game and taught me much about its mathematical intricacies.

mc. The X in the C&X Report stands for X-rated handicappers: those who pick horses that no one else would pick. Our research shows that, among public handicappers, you're the most likely to go out on a limb. We call you "the informed minority". You've picked some good ones. There's an A and B to this question. A: do you use any against-the-grain handicapping methods? and/or B: are you simply less fearful about taking an educated risk?

JK. Going against the grain is the only way to handicap and wager because odds are based on public perception and the public is wrong more often than not. To find horses who ran deceptively well in their last start is one of the first steps on this journey, to wager on them in an unusual matrix is another. In essence, there is a physical winner in every race and a pari-mutuel one.� Sometimes they are one in the same. A horse winning at 3 to 5 by 5 lengths can be the physical winner but the 30-1 who finishes second is the true, and more important, pari-mutuel winner.

The only odds to fear when wagering are those that are underlays, pure and simple.

mc. The big dilemma that C&X is trying to solve is: why do so many good handicappers get bad results? What's your take on this?

JK. Most handicappers get bad results because the fall victim to their own egos, and they concentrate on the obvious horse. Perhaps they are under pressure to select� "physical winners." Since the average winning favorite pays approximately 8 to 5 (and they win only one third of the time), the return on investment (ROI) for most handicappers will never show a profit.� As a rule, I have far fewer physical winners than most handicappers but tend to have a much stronger ROI. The ego must be put aside before making your selection. The tendency toward selecting the obvious horse must be avoided.

mc. What changes do you see in the game? For example, in the time of Quirin, recency was a big factor. It seems that maybe stale horses with too much racing now have a disadvantage against layoff horses? Is this a trend? Any other trends you see?
JK. The game is becoming much more speed oriented and that is the obvious trend. Jockeys are more gung-ho out of the gate than ever. The most important revolution in handicapping in the near future will be something called "hyper-pace" and perhaps in the near future we can discuss this at length.

mc. When you're handicapping a card, maybe you know a favorite has a better chance to win than a live longshot. Which do you put on top? The most likely, or the most bettable?

JK. Invariably, I will try to beat the favorite when giving print selections. This does not mean I will not put a heavy favorite on top but that chalk must have every known angle in the book to be positioned so. To give a strong "true odds" selection is one of the jobs for a handicapper.

mc. What do you recommend when a good player is in a losing streak? Take a vacation? Bet less? Bet the same? Go back to the drawing board?

JK. When in a profound losing streak, I urge the good player to take a rest from the game or bet a nominal wager on each race and take notes. The purpose of this is strictly for future reference: horses who you can bet on or against with confidence next time. By wagering insignificant amounts during this period, the player is not losing any mental energy. Also a change of scenery is in order, anything that refreshes the mind and body.
mc. We all know that the takeout is higher for exotics than for win betting? If the takeout were all that important, why do so many successful players concentrate on exotics? Or maybe that's not the case.

JK. Takeout is a topic that simply is not discussed enough by both the casual and professional player. I follow the NYRA circuit for the sole reason that it offers the lowest takeout on straight wagering. If this were the case at a second-tier track, I would follow that with similar intensity.

mc. Surely I've missed the best question. Here's a chance for you to have a parting shot.�

JK. Racing remains alive despite reports to the contrary. The explosion in gambling nationwide, similar to what took place at the turn of the 20th century before a moral backlash barred gambling in many states, continues at a rapid rate.

When the dust setltes, there is one undeniable fact about this game: the payoff odds in horseracing are determined by the public, not the house. That is the main secret to its lure.


NEW YEAR�S RESULTION
Stan Gutkowski

������� New Year's Day stalks the yuletide season like a class-dropper waiting to move past a tiring pacesetter in the homestretch. In that event, we'll yield to the stalker, trtying to pacify him with some resolutions for the coming year.
�
������� The following list of resolutions, if embraced and employed next year, will guarantee an increase in profits. To that end, then, let us begin.
�
������� RESOLVE to wager more intelligently, whether it comes down to "burying the number" or passing the race because value does not exist. Whatever option you choose should not be dictated by emotion. Rather, reason should prevail.
�
������� RESOLVE to handicap an entire day's card. For discussion sake, let us posit a ten-race program. After you have made your selections, go back through the entire card and weight them, from best to least likely. Throw out the bottom five. Forget about them. Concentrate on your other five choices, and bet only three of them. Make your selections (wagers) entirely in terms of value.
�
������� RESOLVE never to chase money. That is, if your have foure plays on the day (evening) and none of them wins -- leave. Do not try to recover even part of your money with another wager. When one chases his money, no matter how intently, emotuion often subverts reason. Have a coffee, watch a race or two, then head home.
�
������� RESOLVE to learn more and more about handicapping. The most� successful handicappers never stop learning their craft.They read, they study, they embrace new strategies. Often modifying your approach, no matter how minutely, can spell the difference between profit and loss. Success breeds success just as failure (when we fail to learn from it) produces failure.
�
�������� RESOLVE never to lose sight of value when it comes time to make a decision. Many bettors can pick a bunch of winners. Only the smart ones know when to bet and when to pass. With the multitude of wagering options and opportunities available ona daily basis, it should mean that a bettor becomes more and more selctive, rather than vice-versa.
�
������� RESOLVE to keep impeccable records. Rtaher tha just marking down profit and loss numbers in your ledger, keep running notes about the "whys" and "wherefores" of the wagers. Yes, it takes time, but the rewards far exceed the commitment. All players who envision success keep records. If businesses do it, why not you?
�
������� RESOLVE to not listen to tips, insider information, or anything of the like. Once someone "suggests" a horse -- the the words of Damon Runyon, "a story goes with it" -- then it immediately clouds your judgment. Some"tips" win. Most don't. It's cheaper to lose money by yourself, rather than employ a helper. Only Santa needs helpers.
�
�������� RESOLVE to adapt and adopt. First, adopt wahetever new measures you find work for you, then adapt your play accordingly. Failure to change means you will continue to pursue the wrong course in all probability.
�
������� If any of these resolutions make sense, then adopt them. If they don't, then go have a cup of coffee and begin to pour over the PPs. A New Year has begun, and with it new opportunities. Good handicapping, good choices and good luck.

RAILBIRD

Decision making under pressure is a theme that challenges researchers in the disciplines of psychology and business. These researchers would do well to interview horseplayers.

I have my own opinions about the subject. In observing the calmest and coolest decision makers, I�ve found that many of them are place-oriented. They have gravitated to their best decision-making nest.

People tend to drift to their own perfect spot in a park, restaurant, livingroom, diningroom, classroom, where they feel most at ease and where their senses can function the best. Even at a dinner table, people chose their favorite seat or preferred angle and repeat each time. University students, allowed to sit anywhere they want in the lecture hall, stake out one preferred corner and stick to it throughout the semester.
Every human being is different, but we do have things in common, and my own personania.+Richard+Mandella%2C+Ronald+Ellis%2C+Julio+Canani%3A+these+trainers+and+so+many+other+greats+in+SoCal+are+geared+up+for+a+series+of+peak+performances+versus+Eastern+horses.+This+could+be+a+trend+in+its+infancy%2C+when+it+still+has+wager+value.++%0D%0A%0D%0AMALIBU+MUSING%0D%0A%0D%0AC%26X+regulars+already+know+that+I+have+been+high+on+Rock+Hard+Ten.+We+had+keyed+him+in+the+Preakness%2C+collecting+the+exacta.+We+also+liked+him+in+the+Belmont%2C+where+he+failed.+As+long-time+readers+also+know%2C+I+am+better+at+picking+out+the+best+stakes+horses+tquently+as+a+two-year+old%2C+and+having+raced+competitively+with+a+hindrance%2C+we+learn+that+Wilko+is+a+hard-knocker+who+can+do+more+than+simply+reach+one+peak+performance.+No+BC-Juvy+winner+has+ever+won+a+Kentucky+Derby%2C+but+few+of+those+winners+were+ever+as+workmanlike+as+this+guy.+%0D%0A%0D%0AThat+said%2C+the+filly+Sweet+Catomine+raced+faster+than+Wilko+in+the+BC-Juvy+Filly.+We+should+pay+special+attention+to+all+the+details+surrounding+Sweet+Catomine%D5s+upcoming+races.+We+should+compare+fractions+and+final+times+of+Sweet+Cs+next+race+with+that+of+Declan%D5s+Moon+and+Wilko.%0D%0AWith+previous+Triple+Crown+trends+tilting+in+favor+of+lightly-raced+horses%2C+perhaps+it%D5s+time+for+a+reverse+trend%3A+a+workmanlike+horse.+%0D%0A%0D%0AAnoth0ABut+then%2C+there+is+room+for+handicapper+intervention.+In+the+absence+of+100-plus+DRF+speed+ratings%2C+the+turf+Beyers+prove+to+function+well.%0D%0AThe+main+contention+of+this+thesis+is+that%2C+in+grass+racing+the+surface+itself+becomes+a+major+factor.%0D%0A%0D%0ATHREE-YEAR-OLD+TREND%0D%0A%0D%0AThe+victory+of+Declan%D5s+Moon+in+the+Hollywood+Futurity+on+December+18+should+help+us+...+not+to+project+a+Kentucky+Derby+winner+...+but+to+learn+how+to+watch+the+season+unfold+without+getting+caught+in+the+hype.%0D%0A%0D%0AI+have+a+few+observations.+For+the+Triple+Crown+we+are+looking+for+horses+that+do+not+need+to+be+babied%2C+that+are+not+fragile.+%0D%0A%0D%0APrior+to+Declan%D5s+Moon%D5s+two+last+wins%2C+he+worked+in+58.3+and+58.4+respectively.+Those+are+fast+works+combined+with+two+fast+performances.+It+suggests+that+this+horse+does+not+need+to+be+babied.+%0D%0A%0D%0ABC-Juvy+winner+Wilko+came+from+the+same+race%2C+finishing+a+close+up+third%2C+even+after+having+suffered+a+quarter+crack+prior+to+the+race.+Having+raced+quite+frequently+as+a+two-year+old%2C+and+having+raced+competitively+with+a+hindrance%2igating+was+coming+in+from+France%2C+had+a+low+win+percentage+in+the+performance+box%2C+and+had+raced+at+the+lowest+bush+league+tracks+of+France.+With+Jerry+Bailey+aboard%2C+it+seemed+like+a+good+opportunity+where+I+could+eliminate+a+horse+that+would+be+getting+action.+%0D%0A%0D%0A%28In+the+case+of+a+Euro+horse%2C+a+low+win+percentage+is+not+an+automatic+tossout+if+the+horse+has+shown+some+Euro+class+when+facing+decent+competition.+But+in+the+case+of+Medigating%2C+it+was+quite+the+contrary.+He+was+void+of+class.%29%0D%0AThe+two+priority+horses+became+Lord+Robyn+and+Exceptional+Ride%2C+with+Turk%D5s+Ransom+not+too+far+behind.+The+three+%D2mention%D3+horses+could+have+been+included%2C+that+is%2C+if+you+are+a+superfecta+playe%2C+which+I+am+not.%0D%0A%0D%0AOn+the+mere+basis+of+the+%D2short+form%D3%2C+we+could+compare+the+two+priority+horses%3A+%0D%0A%0D%0AExceptional+Ride%2C+was+going+off+as+the+betting+favorite%3B%0D%0ALord+Robyn+was+flashing+at+7-1.+%0D%0A%0D%0AIf+it+were+a+question+of+pure+valu