Mark Cramer
C & X Report

C&X 17

CONTENT

Editorial: On being selective
Report from France: Opportunities for American Players
How important is the takeout?
Musique Sheets
Fiscal Responsibility
Meet shapes
Handicapping Lessons from the Sunshine Millions Turf,
with a reader comment
Player Profile
C&X Staff Psychologist
Afterword: �If I were marketing racing� and �Bukowski�

EDITORIAL:

ON BEING SELECTIVE

The player profile in this issue relates to an exceptionally selective professional bettor. Not all profiled players in C&X have been selective players, but there seems to be a general evolution in that direction. Brad Free and Ed Bain are examples of players who learned little by little to identify those truly meaningful betting opportunities while bypassing races of lesser insight, and Dave Litfin has told me similar. It�s a matter of knowing when you know and when you don�t. This is what I would call horseplayer maturity.
I concede that the opposite logic can be true at times. Steve Fierro, a true pro, plays lots of races, but at least he does so with his instructions right in front of him: his personal odds lines. If none of his contenders are going off at above his break-even line odds, he passes. So in a way, even Steve has found a way to be rigorously selective, though he finds more races where he perceives a betting advantage than, say, Ed Bain, who will not play more than four races on a given day (not on a card, but on a whole day�s menu of races).
�Be selective� should be the mantra of any racing publication that does not wish to be a frontman for the legal bookmaker: the racing industry. I have nothing against a thriving racing industry, but everything for seeing my readers establish control over their betting, even if that means less handle for the industry. (Given the number of C&X subscribers, if we all stop betting tomorrow, we�d be a mere blip on the screen of that industry.)
The typical argument I receive when promoting selectivity, is, �Come on, Cramer, we�re doing this for fun. Don�t be a puritan.�
I have an answer for this. There are two levels of having fun. One is betting lots of races, getting lots of thrills, winning a few, and ending the week with less money than you started, overwhelmed by general desperation. That�s like having sex with a whore who then steals your wallet.
Another level of having fun is winning. That sounds rather obvious, doesn�t it, but the world is full of pop psychologists who analyze us and come to the conclusion that, deep down inside, we want to lose. I think that analysis is bullshit in most cases. We may �behave� as if we want to lose, but that comes from seeking a thrill every 10 minutes instead of standing back, foregoing the need for immediate gratification, and waiting for those truly profound opportunities.
I�ve seen smart handicappers (who are not smart players) collect on a huge score early in the day, acquire a feeling of invincibility, and then go through the rest of the day squandering their winnings on races where they knew nothing more than the betting public, and maybe a little less. They could not even savor their big score when driving home, because they were left with only enough to fill up the gas tank.
I�m not saying to stop betting after a score. Not at all. But to only bet on races where another score is possible. Yes, it�s okay to make an educated guess, but not a guess based on pure hope.
Hope and expectation
We, speakers of English, should have an advantage over speakers of other languages that do not differentiate between the meanings of to hope and to expect. In both French and Spanish, for example, there�s only one word for those two concepts, and the user of the language has to provide a context to make the meaning more precise. We have no such excuse. Our language makes a clear distinction. We are permitted to hope that it will go above 50 degrees in Minnesota in the winter, but none of us will expect such a thing to happen.
Betting on horses should be based on some definable expectation, and not on mere hope.
Rationalizing
Even the best of handicappers are very capable of rationalizing that they have a true positive expectation in a given race, when in fact, it�s a crap shoot. I enjoy going racing with such people (and of course, I become one of them on numerous occasions, failing to distinguish between objective analysis and rationalizing). But in my sane moments, I play a game in order to knock out the rationalizing factor. It�s called �Horse attorney�. In this game, I make a convincing argument for each and every horse in a race. You can do that with numerous races.
�Number 7 finished last by more than 10 lengths in each of his last five races, but he showed brief early speed for the first time in his last race and today drops one class level. He will get brave.�
�Number 3 dropped back to last in his last three races, but this time he doesn�t face a pace duel. He could steal the race.�
Etc.
Rationalizing is not all bad. It allows us to make potential discoveries. But once we come up with the hypothesis based on rationalizing, we need to back it up with concrete reasons.
Reason handicapping
I�ve practiced this art for some time. I write out the reasons in favor or against each horse. Writing it out forces you to think at a deeper level. If my pen has lots of good things to say about a horse, then I�ve gotten beyond the rationalizing stage. If it the words sing to me, I write them in red pen. Getting from rationalizing to reasoning is a huge step on the road to becoming a selective player.
Here�s another typical question I receive:
�But when I try to become selective, I end up betting on losers and passing on winners.�
One path toward resolving this dilemma is reason handicapping. You�d be surprised how many races you would pass when you realize that you cannot write a coherent argument in favor of the horse you supposedly �like�.
In conclusion, I have tried to offer a few solid perspectives rather than simply restating the platitude �be selective�. But this two-word phrase deserves to be the mantra of those horseplayers who value winning above pure action.

REPORT FROM FRANCE:
OPPORTUNITIES FOR AMERICAN PLAYERS
With the globalization of horse betting, including off-shore bookmakers and foreign accounts, it is increasingly possible for a player to track down the best investments around the world. Consider that in international business, entrepreneurs are constantly looking for the best deal, and are willing to travel to get it.
There is no reason to believe that outsourcing of wagering could not be a wave of the future for smart players who wish to invest in betting pools where they have a superior advantage. Too often, the action that goes into a pool is so smart that we can honestly say that we know nothing exceptionally different from the public. When I say �public� I�m talking about the collective reasoning of smart players, as well as the well-informed high rollers within.
The smart entrepreneur looks for places where he or she will have less competition.
Regular readers will recall from last year that I wrote an article about a particular angle for French racing that has not been picked up by any other racing journalist, and therefore retains its value. I had concluded in that piece that, with the advent of winter dirt racing in France, American breds would be expected to make sharp improvements when shipping from turf to dirt. I also suggested that sooner or later, the French betting public would catch on. Until now, that has not happened. The overlay continues to function. For a second straight year, I am assured of a flat-bet profit.
Such an angle may also work well in any country where American breds are switching from turf to dirt, and thus, places like Hong Kong, Australia, England, and Japan could be worthy venues. I will pursue these other places in future studies.
In the meantime, let�s look at the French situation. Little by little, an experiment with winter dirt racing is becoming institutionalized. The first track to do it, Cagnes-Sur-Mer (with a beautiful view of the Mediterranean Sea from the grandstand), was successful. It was then extended to a special all-weather track at Deauville, on the coast of Normandie. Now Deauville has a short winter dirt meet to back up its August turf season.
Yet another track, in a beautiful garden city called Pau at the foot of the Pyrenees Mountains, has instituted dirt racing to complement its jump races, and sometimes has mixed cards where jumpers go in some events and thoroughbreds on the dirt in others.
All of these races are covered at any French OTB, called PMU (pari-mutuel urbain). In fact, we should call our OTBs �PMU�s because the concept of �pari-mutuel� was invented in France. (Rumors have it that simulcasting of French races is about to become widespread, with the signal going out to Britain, Australia and off-shore locations.)
There are two forms of my automatic bet on French dirt races. The first form, with a lower percentage of winners, includes all American breds, including those that have obvious turf breeding. Though I have not bet this first form, it has shown a flat-bet profit. In fact, the same Riverman horse that triggered a huge all-American quinella last year did the same this year; but that horse was bred for turf and I missed the play for that reason.
On the other hand, I�ve been collecting at a 75 percent hit rate, betting win/show (there�s no place bets in France, though the show bet is called �plac��). I back up my win bets because show prices can be quite fine, given the large fields in chaos events. I look for horses that are:
--bred in the USA by any sire that is not strictly a turf specialist
--going from turf to dirt after poor form on the turf, or second time on dirt if the odds are still generous.
--racing at a relatively short distance. For example, the mile-and-a-half distance partly nullifies the dirt advantage, since Euro breds are primed for long distances, and American breds do better in sprints.
Getting an American bred in France on dirt and in a sprint is a double advantage!
Some of the winners this winter season include:
A horse named CRAFTY CALLING, sired by Crafty Prospector. He was entered at Deauville on 27 December at 7 ? furlongs. His odds: 53-1. That�s because he had had mediocre turf form back in England. This winner alone maent a flat-bet profit for the winter season.
CRAFTY CALLING came back to win again on the dirt at Cagnes-Sur-Mer at 9-1.
On 17 January at Cagnes-sur-Mer, an American-bred by the name of Summer Shrill was switching to dirt in a sprint race. You�ll recognize his sire: Summer Squall. He beat out the heavy favorite to win at 8-1. The odds-on heavy fave finished second, and the quinella paid 24-1.
On 2 January, at Pau, another American bred named Louva was switching from turf to dirt at 7 ? furlongs. Louva was an 0-for-10 maiden, having finished twelth, ninth and eighth in his previous three races. The dirt made the difference and he won at 97/10 odds.
On 11 January, Agua de Mayo, sired by none other than Mister Greeley, was entered in a 6 ? furlong dirt race. I figured that Mr. Greeley deserved extra points for his sprint history, beyond the fact that he also figured as a dirt sire. Agua de Mayo was an 0-for-3 maiden at the time, all three losses having been on grass. He did improve in his most recent, closing ground to finish fourth.
Nevertheless, he went off at 26-1. He finished third. Unfortunately, the first two places were occupied by low-odds horses, so Agua de Mayo only paid off at 4.9 -1 to show. Considering that he had both the dirt and the distance edge from his American breeding, I would have been thrilled with a hard 9-2 for the win odds, so you can�t laugh at those odds for show. (If the payoff for show is as much as you would have taken for win, then why not. No pool should be excluded from consideration.)
My point in this article, above and beyond the French dirt angle, is that horseplayers who really want to make a profit would do will to shop around for that special advantage.
For my writing I�ve had the opportunity to interview a number of business people from different countries. There was a general consensus that they were obligated to go global in order to stay in business. The competition was simply too fierce at home. That did not mean they could not continue to operate in their home countries. On the contrary, their homegrown business did better when it could concentrate on its strong points while it invested abroad where it was more vulnerable.
Why should this be different with horse betting, which after all is part of the economy? In any case, the method of betting American breds in foreign dirt races, though based entirely on objective logic, also allows for a dose of subjective sentimentality.

HOW IMPORTANT IS THE TAKEOUT?
Longtime readers know that I�ve raised this question before. But now I�ve found a new wrinkle in the question. The original issue was:
If guys like Beyer and Crist rail so much about the track take, why would they bet into a 25 percent track take in wagers like the pick 6 when they could get a 15 percent takeout in straight wagers? Ten percent is a huge difference. If the takeout were so vitally important, these guys should refrain from playing those exotics with the highest takeout.
Now, two new questions arise, the second of which I should have considered a long time ago.
First, some tracks now raise the pick 6 takeout on carryover days. Every pro I know has advised:
Only play when the carryover is high enough to give you the extra return you need to have an overlay.
I ask, however, if the big smartass players and syndicates are in the pool on carryover days and if the takeout is higher on those days, then why not play when there�s no carryover which would mean playing against no serious competition?
My second question arises after having collected on a couple of exotic wagers that paid off at above 600-1. Normally I would have had to sign, and 20 percent would have been deducted from the payout, skimmed right off the top. Furthermore, I�d still be responsible for state taxes. In the end, adding more than 20 percentage points, the real takeout would be closer to 45 percent!
My belated discover emerged because my payoffs were in a foreign country where the concept of a signer is unknown. You collect exactly what the payout is. Even though the original takeout is somewhat higher than in an American exotic bet, the fact that no tax is paid means that the real takeout is lower (when you get over 300-1).
In the end, my opinion is that takeout does indeed need to be considered. However, by far the more important factor is the level of my competition. I could certainly play roulette at a casino and only be subject to a 5.2 percent takeout. However, I would be guaranteed of losing because my competion would be the casino and not the other players.
What would you prefer: a poker game against the toughest pros where there�s no commision to the house, or a game against struggling amateurs where the commission is 10 percent?
Clearly, the most important choice in pari-mutuel wagering does not concern the takeout but rather, the venue or the pool. We want to be betting against lesser competition.
Do you disagree? Write us and we�ll print your opinion.

MUSIQUE SHEETS:
DID YOU HAVE MUSIQUE TOUJOURS? I DIDN�T
I looked long and hard at the pps of Musique Toujours in the Sunshine Million Classic at Gulfstream, Saturday January 29. Why? Because I had mentioned him on the C&X website, last summer at the Claiming Crown, as the most likely winner of the featured Jewel. All too often a stakes horse I like one day when he loses, comes back the next time and scores BIG.
If you still have the pps from 29Jan, check �em out. Ultimately I passed the race because I couldn�t eliminate half the field, and I had identified several longshots with a chance. It seemed like a race to bet against the stretching out Midas Eyes, the overbet 2-1 favorite. But I just could not get a latch on it. I even gave a shot to the 99-1 Royal Place, who ended up badly beaten. I also liked the eventual place horse at 27-1, Zako City, as a horse-for-course/distance.
From the original interview with Sadler�s assistant trainer, I knew that the Sadler barn used the Ragozin Sheers to program their horses. Back at Canterbury, they explained that they had given Musique Tourjours a layoff because he had peaked in his prior race before the Claiming Crown, and they wanted to avoid the bounce.
In any case, in my job as racing journalist, following the $142.20 victory of Musique Toujours at Gulfstream, I contacted a regular Sheets user and expert player, asking him if there was anything in the Sheets that could have pointed to this horse�s victory?
Here�s his explanation, with my commentary in brackets:
The horse was fast enough to win, if you looked three races back when he ran a 2.5. [In the Sheets, the lower the number, the faster the race.] He then ran a 7 [that was his second-place finish in the Claiming Crown Jewel], and then a 10.25. Isolated, the 2.5 was one of the fastest numbers in the race!
Now here�s the post-race hypothesis:
The more sudden the improvement/peak effort, the more time needed for the next peak. But if a horse is capable of running one monster number, then we can expect another monster number somewhere down the line. The question, of course, is when?
With that logic, we might be able to find another Musique Toujours down the line. It makes sense based on Sheets logic.
I used to have regrets for missing such a payoff. But no regrets this time. I have learned to be objective on Monday morning. The only �reason� I could have chosen Musique Toujours over other valid price horses such as Classic Endeavor or Zako City would have been the sentimental link with the Claiming Crown interview.
The good folks at Claiming Crown should use Musique Toujours� victory as an emblem that some mighty fine horses line up every year to compete at their grand event.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY:
YEARLY AUDIT
At least once a year I revisit my �book of why� ledger and try to learn something. The procedure involves comparing the six months of betting just completed with my overall records going years back in order to decide which factors in the past are still working today, which ones are not, and which new reasons for a bet have become the most promising.
(For new readers, the �Book of Why� involves a betting ledger where the reason for each bet is listed. You accumulate written reasons and then you can go back and discover which reasons really work and which ones were a figment of your handicapping imagination.) You�ll be surprised how often we think some factor works, because of a past score, when in fact it fails in the long run.
Each of us must find his own way, but I hope that baring my records will have some positive pedagogical effect. It�s worth repeating that the best book on horse race betting is the horseplayer�s own ledger.
Before beginning, let me be truthful. Though I have shown a profit for the year, only one of the 12 months provided the type of income that would be comparable to having an honest job.
In my records, I was particularly interested in the functioning of the C&X �short-form�, where I exclude (a) low-percentage trainer-rider combos, and (b) proven losers at today�s class level, requiring the exclusion of at least half a field after such exclusions, or I would otherwise pass the race.
In these updated records, the short form method turns out to be a structural asset, in that it keeps me level headed and prevents stray betting. Though the short form did not lead regularly to big scores, it did provide the structure within which my creative mind was able to function unfettered, or at least with fewer logistic impediments. There were enough happy endings for the short form to get a good grade.
I was especially interested in seeing what resulted when I adjusted the short form (in other words, included horses that should have been tossed, because of some �excuse�). I collected a few time when the excused horse made it into the winning combination, but in the long run, excused horses were not profitable. My decision for 2005 is to continue to allow for an occasional excused horse, but only under very restrictive situations.
The factors that helped my bankroll the most were as follows:
(1) Insider trainer information. I am not referring to tips. I mean when I learn from a trainer his or her true feelings about the horse. Such info comes from direct interviews with trainers, but also by reading the article pages of the DRF. The player has to learn to distinguish between a trainer�s wishful thinking and objective information about his horses. We don�t care who the trainer likes, but why he likes it.
(2) Overachiever factor plus shipper factor plus horse-for-course. Without my records I�d have never discovered that these three factors have worked so well for me when they are combined. In other words, the horse is shipping to a track where he won and/or finished in the money at high odds. (I was well aware of that all of these factors were worthy, but the combination is new a pattern match in my betting, or at least, newly uncovered.)
(3) Longshot trainer research. This goes back to previous C&X research and the C&X Crib Sheet. Our research says that the higher the overall trainer win percentage the more profitable he is with longshot horses. (And the converse: the lower the trainer hit-rate, the less likely this trainer will hit with a longshot, and the more likely he will show a dismal return on investment with all his longshot horses.) This seems obvious now, but in the past, I believed that any longshot from the stable of a high-percentage trainer would definitely be overbet. How wrong I was! Glad to have this factor participating in my bankroll.
(4) Form cycle projection. I�ve been catching good prices with horses that showed �moves� in their previous races, without really awakening. It�s at the very beginning of the wake-up. I learned in the past (and this is corroborated in my recent records) that such projected wake-ups often finish second or third at high odds, much more than they win, so I�ve been using them in exotics. (This factor is new on my hit parade, and is enhanced when the trainer contributes a positive opinion of the same horse in question.)
(5) Maiden return. Lightly-race maiden special weight (no more than two races) is coming back after a layoff and stays at the maiden special weight level. Trainer must have 12 percent or higher win rate. This is especially powerful in early and mid spring, so this is of seasonal importance as of right now..
Factors that have been successful in the past but have not worked out for me lately are as follows.
Turf pedigree in maiden turf races. This used to be my number one factor for signers. Now, I�ve lost the handle on it. It may be my timing. There are simply too many races which contain too many horses that are going from dirt to turf and qualify by Tomlinson or Helm pedigree standards. First of all, it seems as if fewer trainers are entering poorly-bred-for-turf horses on the turf: fewer automatic eliminations; fewer field fillers. But then there�s the second deadly reality: that the word has been out for a long time, the Tomlinson ratings are published in the DRF, and public handicappers mention the turf breeding too often. I say that my timing may be off because I get frustrated scanning through maiden turf races on a daily basis and ending up without a play. It�s time consuming because I look up the dam as well, when the Closer Look guy doesn�t comment on the dam. I�m still not giving up on this one and suspect that at places like Louisiana and Illinois, you might still get a fair price.
Early speed class drop and lone front runners. Too many players have latched on to this one, at least in sprint races. The value is rarely there, though a lone front runner at classic or marathon distance is still worthy (in my records).
Other �reasons� in my records remain too neutral to decipher any upward or downward trend.

MEET SHAPES
When horseplayers enter an OTB and look up at monitors from all around the country, it feels great to be able to be in many places simultaneously. However, to really be in other places than our own, we need to relate place to time. Specifically, if we�re playing a out-of-town track, we should know how long its meet is, and whether its meet is constituted as a particularly unit that can be separated from meets that led up to it and meets that follow it.
Well-defined race meets have a shape. They can be divided into three. Part 1 is when horses arrive from different places and the surprise element can be taken advantage of by the wagerer who knows about the history of the meet and its idiosyncrasies, as well as the local history of the horses and trainers that have arrived for the meet with shippers. In part 1, shippers and horse-for-courses from the previous year�s meeting have an edge.
Part 2 is the middle of the meet, when a number of horses and stables have finally settled in and are beginning to show improvement. Horses whose form is improving can be said to be a acclimating. If they�re going to win, it has to be now. If they continue to perform at a mediocre level, then they end of the meet will hold nothing in store for them.
Part 3 is the third trimester of the meeting, when the public pretty much knows what is going on and it�s tougher to find an overlay. Current form is the primary factor and it�s harder to discover something that the crowd doesn�t already know. At this time, low-odds horses are more likely to deserve the action, and longshot players should be cautious about opposing the chalk without a solid argument for doing so. One of the best opportunities during this period concerns the stale horse. If you can detect an imminent decline in form and thus bet against a horse that has been doing well all meet, you will have a positive expectation. We�re looking for subtle indicators of decline in form, not something obvious such as a drop from 90 to 70 in Beyer fig. One of the best hidden indicators is a decline in early speed. A horse may have even won its last race, but in doing so, showed slower early fractions than in its previous wins. The public thinks that the horse will continue its winning ways, when in fact, it had gone to the well one last time.
This makes Part 3 of the meet an especially fertile period for horses coming back from a layoff, and lightly-raced horses in general. Horses that were simply not ready earlier will be facing ones that have become stale.
Naturally, different meets have different shapes and the above is a general view. The meet-oriented player would do well to observe the evolution of his own specialty meets.
I learned this lesson the hard way. One summer, a few years ago, a colleague of mine at Canterbury, Al, noted that a particular trainer usually has one longshot winner at the end of each meet. He had entered a lightly-raced horse in a claiming race. The horse had no form, and poor credentials at the class level. Al told me he had arrived at the races for one purpose: to play this horse.
I pride myself on not allowing subjective impressions of other players to influence me. The only problem was that Al�s impression was not subjective. He was referring to a detail that was based on the shape of the meet, as he�d experienced it over the years. All I saw was what I call a �no-win� trainer. I was able to realize that most of the horses in the field were suffering from end-of-meet staleness. That should have been a contextual clue that would make Al�s horse look a little more palatable. But I passed.
The horse paid something like $66.00.
Not much has been written about meet shapes. Even publications that specialize in certain meets do not give this subject much attention. In an era when the slots have seduced all those poor players who used to bet into our pools because racing was the only game in town, when high rollers can use electronic methods to dutch bets from rebate shops, when so much information we researchers once had for ourselves is not readily available in the DRF pps, we need to search for new edges. Few players are attuned to meet shapes. It�s a worthy void in the betting market. Readers who are specialists in particular meets are invited to send comments on the shape of their meet.

HANDICAPPING LESSONS FROM THE SUNSHINE MILLIONS TURF
I came up with the same horses as Brad Free. It was comforting in a way, because I know that Brad Free is a thorough and creative handicapper. But as expected, my three horses were the lowest three shots on the board.
A TO Z at 2-1
SILVER STREAK at 5-2
STAR OVER THE BAY at 9-2
These three horses, plus one other, had by far the best turf Beyers in the race, and C&X has often noted that turf Beyer figs are less mechanical in how they are generated, and thus more dynamic. (I�ve said this to a Beyer guy, who insisted that both turf and dirt are generated in the same way, but I�ve gotta believe that with far fewer turf races carded, the Beyer boys have to depend more on the class values of the horses from a race result in order to put the final times in perspective and derive a variant.)
Whatever the reason, turf Beyers are more useful to yours truly.
The DRF speed rating plus track variant is often useful as well, but in this particular race, there was no convincing pattern. Silver Tree had earned a 101 but the variant was less than 5 and therefore the rating was less dependable.
In the performance box, Silver Tree had the best turf win rate, with 6 for 15, compared to 9 for 38 for Star Over the Bay and 1 for 5 for A TO Z, the latter horse holding a 1 for 1 record on the SA turf compared to 2 for 3 for Star Over the Bay.
Past C&Xs have argued that, in most circumstances, when you have three contenders, you should key the highest odds horse of the three, which was Star Over the Bay (a horse we had liked in the BC). He was coming back after a layoff for Mitchell.
Star won it, paying 11.80. The buck exacta, with Star on top of A TO Z paid 21.40. The dollar tri, with Silver Tree in third paid 53.10. Ho hum. You could win this one, playing the most bet horses, but you could also lose it when a longshot picks up the pieces and makes it into the place or show. Boxing three favorites is predetermined to fail in the long run.
In the same field there was a horse in there named Continental Red. We�ve all heard of this guy. He�s been around a long time. His record was 4 for 43 on the grass, but he had an interesting pattern on the SA turf: 16 1-6-3.
This looked like a Susan Sweeney horse, one that could be played in the backholes. The performance box is a major factor for Susan. By her method, she�d have used the two win types on top (Star and Silver), with the 1 for 5 ATO Z and Continental Red in the backup holes (along with the top two). The superfecta for a buck, with Continental Red in fourth, paid 553.10.
What I�ve learned from Susan�s book is that picking the three favorites can be done by many, but that the real discovery of this race was Continental Red. Figuring third place in tris and fourth in supers is not the same as picking the best contenders. One best horse could knock another best horse out, leaving a backhole finish for an inferior longshot. We couldn�t like Continental Red for his win record. But the way Susan does it, the back-up holes are decided on their own merits. Once the handicapping has been done, Susan uses only win-types in the top spot and fills the backup spots with her contenders as well as with non-contenders like Continental Red.

LETTER ON SUNSHINE MILLIONS
Mark, How've you been? Did you happen to notice how well the outside horses did all day in the "Sunshine Millions", both at Gulfstream and Santa Anita? It wasn't track(s) bias. And the horses who won had much weaker Beyer figs than almost all others in their respective fields.And, of course, they were longshots.
"Hot Storm" was #12 in a 12 horse field and paid $44.00. "Alix M." was #5 in a 6 horse field ($11.40). "Red Warrior", a seemingly hopeless horse broke from the #9 post in an 11 horse field (2 scratches) and paid $97.00. (and the #8 post ran second) And "Sweet Lips", whose Beyers were anywhere from 10 - 20 points lower than her competition, was #9 in a 10 horse field and paid $28.00 (and the #10 ran second). I'm not even counting the 2 turf races which were won by the #'s 12 and 9.
My question for you and my fellow C&X readers is this: "In highly competitive Stakes races where every trainer's horse is primed to try to win and all jockeys are focused and hustling (especially on a day like Breeder's Cup or Sunshine Millions), do outside horses have an advantage because they're not caught up in the fray, not being pressured from all sides; even if their figs and form appear weak?"
I'd like to ask if you or a C&Xer would do a research study on "Outside Horses (the outside 2 or 3 posts) in dirt stakes races." It's interesting to note that outside posts have done very well in the last 20 years in the Kentucky Derby, starting with Gato Del Sol (#18), Swale (#15), Thunder Gulch (#16), Grindstone (#15), Charismatic (#16), Fusaichi Pegasus (#15) and Monarchos (#16).
Morty
CRAMER RESPONDS:
Is it a coindicence? Strangely, your e-mail came in at the exact moment I was recapping the Star Over the Bay victory, also from the outside. It�s crazy but I�ve been considering your idea, though in less defined terms, after having observed the recent results of the BC-Mile. I was embarrassed to bring it up, fearing that I�d be seen as a kook. But now that you�ve opened the can of worms, consider recent results of the BC-Mile. I mention this race because it�s always supposed that the outside at the mile is the worst place to be. Look at recent winners:
2004. Singletary, post 10
2003. Six Perfections, post 12 of 13, 12.60
2002. Domedriver, post 5 of 14, 54.00
2001. Val Royal, post 11 of 12, 12.20
2000. War Chant, post 11 of 14, 9.00
1999. Silic, post 12 of 14, 16.40
You could argue that a concidence is the most likely reason for this pattern, since inside posts dominated in earlier BC-Miles. However, I�ve been at post position drawings where trainers have chosen outside posts. I�ve interviewed riders who have told me they preferred the outside. If you recall the Preakness on the C&X website, I suggested keying Rock Hard Ten (a successful move, as he came in second to the favorite, Smarty Jones) and one of my reasons was that I liked both the horse and the rider on the outside.
By all means, let�s explore this further. Great letter, Morty.

PLAYER PROFILE
Here�s a profile on one professional player who prefers to remain anonymous. We don�t have to be like him (it is a him), but we can learn from him. One thing we can learn is that it helps to be structured.
He only makes about 300 wagers per year, but those wagers are big, averaging nearly a thousand bucks, so he ends up betting about $250,000 per year. That�s way above my league.
His hit rate hovers around 20 percent.
When he has tried to make more wagers (be less selective), his hit rate goes down and so does his percentage of profit. So he needs to establish a balance between being selective and betting enough to make a living.
He has had some years in which he�s reached nearly 40 percent profit, but he also has an occasional losing year. When you balance the best and worst years, he says he can expect as a minimum a 10 percent return on investment. One characteristic of a professional is knowing That means he makes at least $25,000 a year. Now those of you who are expecting hype can turn the page, for there is no hype. This guy is happy doing what he likes, and he accomplishes what few human beings have ever done. He makes more than a McDonalds employee but less than a California school teacher. If you realize how very difficult it is to make even a 2% profit, then you gotta respect this guy.
He does not offer much advice, except to say that if you want to make a living, you have to have supreme self-confidence, be obsessed with racing (for it demands more than any other profession) and be willing to put in the work, compiling stats and keeping records.
What he means by obsession is never finding yourself preferring to take the family to Disneyland instead of going to the track. However, he also believes in taking time off for replenishment and he takes two well-timed vacations during the year, when his favorite meets are not running.
His last demand includes the psychological stamina required for structured selectivity. For this guy, it�s not easy to be selective just like that, so he sets up rules. Don�t play certain types of races, depending on your strong or weak points. For him, the races he automatically passes are the cheap ones, for he believes that in most cases, low-level horses are simply not dependable. He also passes races if he can give himself an objective reason for doubting, or if he�s not getting a fair price. Whether overlay or underlay, he knows that he cannot make a profit betting horses at less than 2-1. His hit rate simply cannot improve enough to make up for the lower payoffs.
He believes in looking for value (an overlay) but recognizes that very different successful handicappers would not have the same perception of value. He has his own way, but he�s not dogmatic about it.
As for inside information, he does not believe in it. He has owned horses himself, and yet he has not felt himself enough the �insider� to be able to give a tip. A horse can look great in the morning, but that�s not enough.
He began playing as a pro much earlier than he expected. He would have preferred to wait a few yedjob. But the opportunity knocked when it was not expected: when he was fired. Still, he insists that a professional player in his mode would need a large bankroll so as to not feel panic during a losing period. Otherwise, he says, your reasoning would be tainted by the fear factor.
This guy would be the first to tell you that his is not the only way to win. So he would not get into debates if we were to contrast his approach with other players profiled in previous issues of C&X.
I am impressed by this man�s steely discipline. I could never emulate his approach, but I get energy from hearing how discipline and structure are needed in order to win. No matter what your philosophy, establishing a businesslike approach is necessary for professional betting.
As Steve Fierro once noted in this publication, being professional is the way you go about handicapping, betting and record keeping and not how much or how often you bet.

INNER AND OTHER DIRECTED
By Sig Fraud, C&X Staff Psychologist
Here we go again. A chunky envelope arrived at the C&X desk. Inside were five systems. The reader who sent us these systems asked for a review. Essentially what I have in front of me are point systems. There are so many rules and enhancements that the purchaser of these systems would spend more time applying them than he would spend handicapping comprehensively. A system is supposed to be like fast food. You walk in, and within a minute and 11 seconds you�re taking the first bite. If you go into a fast food place and there are 23 people ahead of you in the line, what for? Might as well go to a decent restaurant and order real food.
But that�s only the form. The content of such systems includes numerous handicapping concepts, jumbled together with no statistical foundation. How does the system writer know that recency should be �within 23 days�? Why not 24 days or 22? What conceptual foundation lies in the number 23? Such rules should be a tipoff...that the system seller has probably never done a day�s research, and never even bet on his own system. There will be examples of winners from the past performances, but these will have been extracted out of any longterm context.
This is not to say that a system would not help some players. C&X has occasionally written articles based on systems that the system seller himself bets on regularly. But these are not the banal point systems that float about, seducing people who are prone to believing hype.
In the end, the player who is tempted to buy these systems must decide whether he or she wants to do his own thinking or wants to depend on someone else. Cramer has sometimes participated in a pick 6 group, in which he had little or no role as a decision maker. This was done for social reasons, and only after he had handicapped the participating handicappers. The concept made sense. It�s better to have a small slice of a $10,000 ticket with fair handicapping behind it, than to do one�s own $48 ticket with brilliant handicapping, for a $48 investment cannot cover the �if� horses, and in any given pick six, at least one of the �if� horses will win. You got a $48-ticket and you want to make a single into a double, then the one �if� horse you add costs the same as all the other horses combined.
Sorry for going off on a tangent, but I had to make a point that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with enjoying the races on someone else�s decisions. I just think that it�s more fun for the player to make his own decisions, and he probably won�t do any worse than what he�d do when depending on a tipster.
In other words, it�s a more enriching experience to be inner directed than other directed. If this were one of my therapy sessions, the typical patient would answer:
�It�s better to win than to lose.�
Now we come to the real soul searching. The question is: do you really want to win at the races. That�s an important question, since you could invest your money in a solid mutual fund and be a winner. To win at the races, you have to work at it. To win in a mutual fund, there�s only a little preliminary work involved, just checking the �track� record of the fund.
Okay, so you agree to do the work. But even after you�ve made the commitment, there�s no guarantee that you�ll make a profit.
Cramer has often written that the number one reason why good handicappers get bad results is from playing too many races. I would say that this is the number two reason. The number one reason is that the handicapper approaches the past performances like an engineer, when he should be reading them like an artist. In the end, profits come from intuitive reasoning involving a balance between management of objective information and subjective inspiration (like being able to project whether the move a horse made in its last was a sign of improvement or a last-ditch effort that failed).
This is the joy of handicapping. What joy can there be in betting someone else�s selections? What thrill can there be in tout dependency? Any dependency is the opposite of joy. Joy comes from freedom, and freedom comes from making your own choices.

AFTERWORD I:
IF I WERE MARKETING RACING
First it was DeclG Decl
an�s Moon, and now it�s Lost in the Fog. Young horses thrill racing enthusiasts with very special performances. In the Sunshine Millions Dash, Lost in the Fog won by 4 ? lengths in a field that included a horse that had lost be only 2 lengths to Declan�s Moon. So now all the talk is on Lost in the Fog.
His sire, Lost Soldier, stands for only $7,500 with a best distance of a mile, so Triple Crown capability is yet to be proved. Yet here we have a horse that�s getting all the print. Rightfully so since his owner could have sold the horse for 2 million following his second victory at Turf Paradise where he earned a 109 Beyer.
I watch these stories with interest but lament that even if such horses develop into a Smarty Jones, they will soon disappear from the horizon and the general public that knows nothing about racing will be no nearer to appreciating our great game.
For me the great marketing possibility resides not in the upcoming 3-year-old but the older horse that will be back for more. Consider Ghostzapper. He�s got a name that the general non-racing public can identify with. He will be racing around the country and can become to racing what Tiger W became to golf. If I were marketing racing I�d get in touch with Frankel and get a potential itinerary of Ghostzapper�s program. Then I�d do everything possible to get this great horse into markets like the nightly news and into news magazine programs. I�d convince Frankel to be interviewed on late-night TV, ESPN, etc. I�d supply pilot spots for CNN.
What do I know about marketing? Not much, as you can probably tell. But I do know that an older horse who figures to stick around and is capable of breaking records is a greater marketing took than a younger horse that may disappear after the Triple Crown.
AFTERWORD II:
SEASONAL BET
Watch for lightly-raced maiden special weight winners (they won their first or second career race as two-year-olds) coming back as three-year-olds after a relatively long layoff, entered in fields in which they are the only horse that�s not a proven loser at allowance non-winners of 1. Not only to they have the lightly-raced factor in their favor, but from a wager value standpoint, their Beyer figs from when they were 2yos will be lower than the current batch of proven losers. That�s because the biggest leap in speed comes between year 2 and 3 of the life of a Tbred. These horses were growing and filling out as they rested. They project to improve their Beyers by more than 10, while the proven losers can be expected to stay at the same level.
AFTERWORD III:
BUKOWSKI, THE MOVIE
Great film about a guy who will be seen as one of the greatest American writers of the twentiety century. The film shows live footage of Bukowski, often when he was drunk and doing embarrassing things. That was his persona, and he knew deep down inside that it sold books.
But the Bukowski I knew, very briefly, was an avid horseplayer. I�d see him at Santa Anita, Hollywood, and even at the Los Al harness races, exchanging a few words, getting an autograph. I never saw him chugging beers. He was too busy reading the racing form. He was a real player, and the long hours he spent playing the horses were hours away from the bars. You could say that the race track was a safe have for Henry Charles Bukowski.
And yet, Bukowski the film, admittedly a crafty and telling biography of great artistic merit, did not get into his horse betting, even though Bulowski said things like the best way to develop creativity in a budding writer was to send him to the track and make him bet every race.
This shows us how poorly established racing is in the cultural psyche of America (or most other countries for that matter). Here we have what I believe to be the most artistic writer of the twentieth century, a faithful horseplayer, and yet his film biography fails to show the supreme importance of horse betting in his life.
By all means, go see the film. I saw it twice and will go a third time. But part of the real Bukowski was missing.
Just look how the beginning of the poem, �A Last Shot on Two Good Horses�, and you�ll want to read Bukowski:

it was 10 years ago at Hollywood Park-
I had a shackjob, 2 cars, a house, a dog as big as Nero drunk,
and I was making it at the horses, or I thought I was,
but going into the 7 th race I was down to my last $50
and I put the $50 on Determine and then I wanted a cup of coffee
but I only had a dime left and coffee was 15 cents.

I went into the crapper and wanted to flush myself away,
they had me, all I had was that piece of paper in my wallet,
and I would have been willing to sell that back f or $40
but I was ashamed ...


amed ...�l�