Mark Cramer
C & X Report

C&X #21 below


CONTENTS

Editorial: No Woman Can Compare With a Monster Exacta
Anatomy of a Score
Primary vs. Secondary Factors
Report From France: BC notes
Claiming Crown
Matlow strikes again!
C&X Café
Money managemant?
Belmont Notes
Divine Proportions
Horse Humor from Bob
End Notes

NO WOMAN CAN COMPARE WITH A MONSTER EXACTA:
EDITORIAL
I sure wish I had invented that headline, but the phrase is attributed to a man named Andy Anderson, who invented the exacta-perfecta gauge, a product that has disappeared from the market. The product is gone but the phrase lives on, and sometimes I’ll requote the Andy Anderson dictum to my charming wife. It seems to have bolstered our relationship, but I can’t say exactly how.
My wife knows nothing about racing, but she does know my betting ledger, and respects the game. She also realizes that things get better around the house in the weeks following a monster score (or in the days following a healthy exotic score that does not earn the qualification as “monster”).
The exacta from the Kentucky Derby and other exotic payoffs that reach the stratosphere have a healthy affect on the horseplayer as a human being. The feeling lasts, as in the aftermath of the climb of a great mountain like Everest. How can that be, if a race only takes a minute and eleven second and climbing a tough mountain may take days?
There’s a simple reason: a big score, as you’ll read in the next article by a C&X subscriber, is the result of a long chain of events and reactions to those events. It’s the coming together of many pieces of information that may have seemed extraneous at the time they first popped into our consciousness.

ANATOMY OF A SCORE
[Following the Kentucky Derby, I asked Dr. Billy M to send us the process and history that led to his legendary exacta hit in the Kentucky Derby. Here’s what he sent.mc]
About 7 years ago, I ordered a video tape from the Daily Racing Form which featured Bob Neumeier as the host. I forget the title, but it was basic horseplaying strategy. I always liked Neumeier because I knew of his penchant for value, that he had made some big scores, and he was a regular guy who I chatted with once at Belmont Park. During the tape, Neumi interviewed my all time favorite jockey, Chris McCarron. The discussion centered around first time starters and trainer intentions. Chris mentioned that whenever John Shireffs asked him to ride a firster, it was definitely ready to perform well. Within a few days of viewing that tape, Shireffs had a first time filly named Lacquaria in at Santa Anita with McCarronup. I sent in a couple hundred in win and place wagers as well as exactas; she was 4-1 M/L and drifted up to go off at 8-1. On the rail, 6f race, last of 9 out of the gate, first by the time they got to the turn and won going away. Won her next start as well, but that was not part of the "pattern bet." Ever since then, via DRF Watch listings, I follow all of Shireffs entries. I have learned that he is always out to win, knows where to place horses, can win at any range of odds, and he is not a gambler at all, which helps the price. I have also noted how the Mosses have been owners like Bob and Beverly Lewis-good for the sport, classy, and deserving of its highest honors.So when I was observing Giacomo, especially in his runner-up finish to then highly touted Declan's Moon, I knew this could be the horse. I took him (and Closing Argument and Lost in the Fog) in the Derby Futures pool. For the Santa Anita Derby, I thought he would win then, but his 4th place finish was excusable. The first 3/4 was slow, they finished quickly, and Mike Smith noted how he went on after the finish, indicating he could go 1 1/4 miles despite his pedigree. Leading up to the Derby, Shireffs uncharacteristically vocalized his admiration for this horse-he is usually tight lipped. But his enthusiasm for how Giacomo was working was a positive sign. I honestly felt that at 30-1 or greater, the risk rewardon Giacomo was most favorable. As for Closing Argument, I was just lucky enough to have won on him in his maiden race and kept tabs on him. In his Derby prep race, he had the kind of trip that so often results in a much improved performance next time out (although the class rise to the KentuckyDerby was extraordinary). But he started out running between 2 other horses for at least a few furlongs, in the second tier, and had his edge taken away. This bad trip in the 2nd tier isn't as obvious as when there is an up front speed duel, but the consequencesare the same. My exacta and trifecta boxes used Giacomo, Closing Argument, Noble Causeway, and Bellamy road. Cramer and Beyer sucked me into using Bellamy Road with all the hype of being a possible super horse. I didn't have the guts to do what I know I should have-leaveout the chalk and use Afleet Alex instead. But I also thought Alex was overhyped and could regress to any type of form.I have no complaints. My biggest score ever, and I convinced several buddies to profit as well.PRIMARY VS. SECONDARY FACTORS:
PIMLICO LESSON
All the ingredients were there for a meaningful exacta. The favorite was not designated as vulnerable but was simply passed by as a key because other worthy horses had more generous odds. I mentioned two horses. The first was Closing Argument, and the reasons given in his favor were primary handicapping factors: pace, form cycle prototypes, tactical speed, etc.
(Had the odds been reversed and Afleet Alex been 7-1 versus Closing Argument at 3-1, the argument could have been inverted to favor Alex.)
The other horse was Scrappy T. Most of my arguments in favor of Scrappy T were based on secondary handicapping factors: stabled at and worked at Pimlico, trainer and rider were like the home team at Pimlico, and horse was always competitive, even if his speed figures looked generally slower than a couple of others.
When having to use primary factors, I have been able to sustain a reasonable long-term percentage of winners. However, when it comes to profit for the year, that is nearly always derived from secondary factors: trainer, bizarre pattern matches, researched factors that show a long-term profit, and other more situational factors.
So, back in the Derby, in picking Bellamy Road off entirely primary factors and ending up with the same horse as so many experts, I felt and expressed on our website a certain discomfort.
At this point, I’d like to ask C&X readers to go back to your own records and consider whether your major scores or long periods of consistent profits were due to nuts-and-bolts handicapping based on primary factors (speed, pace, form), or resulting from secondary factors.
I mention this because most handicapping experts continue to make the distinction between primary and secondary factors, notably Quinn and Free, but also Beyer and Crist if my reading of their columns has assimilated correctly their general tendency. Even the Sheets guys base their analysis on primary factors, the figs accompanying a nuanced approach to form cycle.
The two C&X readers I know of who landed on Giacomo, did so for secondary handicapping reasons, and they can afford to have a lower percentage of winners accompanied by a higher percentage of profit. Profiled handicappers in C&X, such as Ed Bain and Susan Sweeney are also practitioners of the secondary factor approach, though they would certainly disagree with the whole terminology of “primary” and “secondary” factors and would rejoice in knowing that so many experts continue to define such a difference.
Though a choice of Afleet Alex was largely based on primary factors, those of us who play the secondary factors can still cash in on the primary ones, by using such investment techniques as the “exacta as place bet”, a term I coined way back in the late 1980s and one which I have continued to highlight in C&X. If you have key horses or exotic inclusions, you can use them in second place under the favorite in the exactas, provided that you’ve not decided that the favorite is a throw-out. (See money management article in this issue.)
PS.
In retrospect. Regarding Afleet Alex in both Preakness and Kentucky Derby, we were looking at an atypical situation. Going back to the BC-Juvenile, Afleet Alex ran a better race than Wilko and even earned a better sheets fig out of that race. In essence, objectively, he could be considered the top-rated juvenile at the time.
We go back to all BC Juveniles and redicsover that no two-year-old champion has ever won the Kentucky Derby. There are reasons and there are excuses. I must confess that I downgraded Alex a notch or two precisely because he had been number one for me as a 2yo. The difference, which I should have seen earlier, was Mr. Tim Ritchey’s European training style. Alex was not pampered like a fragile flower. He was allowed to gallop miles and miles during his training sessions, the way horses like to do. (I will insist on this point in later lines.) The American training set-ups simply don’t allow for such training, at least for most horses, since there’s not enough room on the grounds for every stabled horse to be galloping at will. (At Pimlico they’d need a galloping course right through the city or Baltimore. Ditto for Aqueduct in Queens.) Euro horses are stabled in training centers and vanned into the track. So they have their chance to roam with freedom in country surroundings.
I suspect that Afleet Alex’s re-emergence as a three-year-old is the result of this toughening up. As one who engages in self-generated movement (earlier by running, in recent years increasingly by bicycle), I can testify that longer trips at slower speeds complement a few tough uphills or spirited sprints. Why should it not be so for equine athletes?

REPORT FROM FRANCE:
Including: BC notes, early pace in long routes, arbitrage, pedigree

Shamardal takes French Derby
This year’s French Derby, known as the Prix du Jockey Club, was shortened for the first time to a mile and 5/16 from a mile and a half, bringing it closer in line to the Kentucky Derby and thus attracting a faster breed of horse from the Epsom and Irish Derbies. This change has implications for the types of Euro horses we will be seeing in Breeders’ Cups and other North American races.
Consider Shamardal, for example. Even though he was the only grade I winner in the race (there were other Group II and III winners), he was a generous 6.8-1 in the final flash, thanks to the fact that the public doubted his distance capabilities. He was coming from a grade 1 mile victory at Longchamp.
Originally targeted for the Kentucky Derby, Shamardal had his only losing race in the Dubai Derby on the dirt, and evidently was not his usual self that day. He had defeated Wilko a couple of months before Wilko’s BC Juvenile win. He is oozing with class.
But for our interest as American players, it is important to understand that Shamardal’s sire Giant’s Causeway had plenty of speed, and Shamardal’s last two wins were both as the front runner. Euro horses who have early speed are especially dangerous when shipping to the USA. Godolphin representatives note that this horse can also close ground, which he might have to do when and if he’s shipped to the BC. He can handle both the mile and the mile and a quarter. The potent combination of Euro class and American speed makes this horse a worthy BC candidate.
Pace and the race
The heavy favorite at 7/10 in the French Derby was Hurricane Run, three for three including a grade II win at a mile and three eighths. That win was by a margin of 5 lengths (“big win”) and could have been by more given the ease of his win. Hurricane Run’s sire is Montjeu, a horse that was equally as dominant as Giant’s Causeway, but Montjeu was more of a plodder in the early stages of a race, before he would turn it on.
Lanfranco Dettori was ready to keep Shamardal off the pace if they were going to fast. But no one wanted to challenge Shamardal on the lead, and as this writer has often noted, the longer the distance, the more potent is a slow-pace lead.
What goes on in the mind of an intelligent rider. Dettori was thinking, well, the pace is slow so I’m taking the lead. Meanwhile, Soumillon was angry that none of his colleagues were willing to take on Shamardal on the front end. Yet, there was nothing Soumillon could do about it. Hurricane Run was a plodder like his daddy. As the horses made their way along the backstretch, past a magnificent stone castle, Shamardal was galloping with the utmost ease. The drop in distance from a mile and a half to 10 and a half furlongs looked like it would help Dettori's cause. The horse had had to labor somewhat to capture the lead from his 13 post.
Into the uphill stretch, Shamardal was able to extend his lead while the André Fabre horse Hurricane Run was just getting untracked and making a move.
Hurricane Run was streaming forward way outside and looked like he might blow past Shamardal. But he didn’t quite make it.
The competitiveness factor
One reason for my having played Shamardal was the “guts factor” he had shown in his previous win, digging in during the final fifty yards when it looked as if he would be passed.
Though it seemed to everyone that Hurricane Run was about to pass Shamardal, Dettori noted after the race that his horse rises to the occasion when the competition gets heavy, and that the fact that Hurricane Run was so wide meant that Shamardal did not have the horses beside him that he would have needed to trigger his competitive instinct.
Dettori explained: “We got a bit lost in front, but when Christophe [Soumillon] came he picked up again. He challenged very wide and I'm not sure my horse could see him, but I think he heard him and he gave his all to hold him off.”
Prior to the race, Dettori had let the players know that his horse was much more cranked up than he had been in his previous win, which came from the horse’s class more than his condition.
Lest American players stereotype Shamardal as a need-to-lead horse, his handlers note that he’s just as relaxed coming from behind, and they are convinced there will be no problem when such a scenario materializes. If Shamardal were in the BC mile, with American speed in the race, he’d have to be ready for an off-the-pace run.
Arbitrage
If you thought this was a two-horse race in a 17-horse field, as I did, and as the British bookies did, then there was a way you could bet without losing. The odds at the typical
British book:
Hurricane Run 6/5
Shamardal 4/1
French Pari-mutuel (10 minutes before post)
Hurricane Run 7/10
Shamardal 6.8/1
You could have taken Shamardal in France at 6.8/1 and Hurricane Run at 6/5, dutching with more money on Hurricane Run in order for there to be a profit either way. Or you could have simple hedged on Hurricane Run to break even if Shamardal lost.
My feeling was that, (1) as the only grade I winner in the race, (2) with proven guts, (3) not much speed in the field, (4) and the Dettori comments explaining that Shamardal was much more in shape than he’d been in his previous race, that Shamardal rated a slight edge and that arbitrage was not necessary in this case, given that the odds differential was so tilted to value Shamardal.
In fact, my wager went in when Shamardal was 8-1. Only in the final minutes of betting did his odds drop, and this happened because British bookies were hedging. They would have to pay off at 4-1 if Shamardal won, so they could afford to buy protection money by getting significantly higher odds for themselves. They pay less and collect more.
In Shamardal’s previous Longchamp race I was also victimized by the British bookies, when Shamardal went from 5/1 to 3/1 during the late action.
Arc Angle
American tracks simulcast the Arc de Triomphe on the first Sunday in October so it’s important to note that on six occasions, second-place French Derby finishers have gone on to win the Arc de Triomphe. It is unlikely that Shamardal will be in that race, but Hurricane Run can be expected to show up. You can get him at 7/1 in the futures book.
The bookmaker Cashmans makes Hurricane Run 9-4 to beat Motivator [winner of the Epsom Derby the day before the French Derby] and win the Irish Derby, with Motivator remaining 4/5 favourite. The showdown between these two Montjeu horses will be remarkable. Pedigree. Power sires are dominating the European classics and these three sires should be watched carefully in the USA. They are Giant’s Causeway, Montjeu, and Dubai Millenium. Montjeu is the sire of the first and second place finishers of the Epsom Derby and the place horse of the French Derby who may have been the best horse in that race. Montjeu offspring do not have to be plodders, as exemplified by Motivator, whose powerful Epsom win came after tracking in third place.
CLAMING CROWN: A RARE BETTING OPPORTUNITY
Claiming Crown is my Breeders’ Cup. As a player, I love to handicap unanswered questions. At Claiming Crown, horses from different circuits engage in a rare confrontation, where the usual handicapping factors are reduced to apples-and-oranges comparisons, and the player must zen it out in order to come up with new ways of establishing hierarchies of contenders. The betting public is weakest in such scenarios, which allows us a potentially profitable void in the market.
I will be attending this year’s Claiming Crown, July 16, with the eternal hope of encountering new and profitable puzzles. Thanks to the Canterbury management and staff, I have access to the barns and can talk to the trainers, riders, owners and grooms, in search of that one unusual tidbit of information that can make the difference between a score and a near miss. (Last year’s $20 winner came to C&X readers thanks to my trainer and stable interviews, and my willingness to not believe that the Sheets numbers for Canterbury horses were properly harmonized with other circuits.)
Part of the time, horses from major circuits outclass the minor leaguers. But in other races, the California and New York horses don’t know what hit them when they get defeated by hard-knockers from smaller tracks. The old starter allowance method is the basis for handicapping these races. The conditions state that a horse must have raced at a particular claiming level in order to qualify for a given Claiming Crown event. But what happened to the horse since his race at the qualifying level? Did he jump successfully to the allowance level? Was he a proven loser at that level before he got good? Or did he dip down to the bargain basement just once, win, and then get upstairs quickly? Was he reeling off easy wins when protected by “starter allowance” or “optional claiming” conditions with fields of dubious quality ... and what was the real quality of those protected fields? Did he miraculously escape from being claimed or was a he snatched by an increasing number of trainers and owners, as exemplified by Lake and Englander, who claim horses precisely as future Claiming Crown candidates?
Within this confusion of categories, we discover that over its short history, the Claiming Crown has become democratized and super trainers or superowners can no longer control the thing. Invariably a horse or two from a lesser circuit prepared by a homespun trainer outruns other horses from designer stables. The secret for uncovering the renegade outsider who will win at a price sometimes resides in remarkably conventional handicapping procedures. The exquisite confusion arises from the fact that we are looking at speed figures from different circuits. It has become apparent that there is no way that Beyer or Sheets figures can be fully harmonized from one circuit to another. I documented that small circuit horses, in particular from Canterbury itself, had been underestimated in figs by both the Beyer boys and the Sheets guys. The DRF speed rating plus track variant may sometimes become a better indicator than its more sophisticated figs offspring. DRF speed ratings would have helped the handicapper to land on winners from Canterbury and Mountaineer.
And thus, you have an event where the unthinkable is possible: a Mountaineer horse can defeat a New York or California horse. The “Third World” of racing has a chance of knocking out the elite. I recall once driving home from Laurel back in 1990 and listening to a quarter final game of the World Cup of soccer in which an exciting Camerouns squad was battling against England. To this day I believe Camerouns had a better team. I later had the chance to chat with the great Camerouns goalie, Nkono. The west Africans were holding their own and sometimes dominating, but then came a couple of questionable calls from the referees that changed the momentum to England’s side. It’s not that referees show overt favoritism, but within their subconscience is a quasi-political tugging toward the powerful soccer countries over the upstarts, and decisions are often subjective. In Claiming Crown, no judgmental power can get on the track and sway the outcome of a race in favor of a New York or California horse .
For this reason, Claiming Crown offers both dramatic human interest and an unbelievably textured handicapping experience. C&X readers will have a stakes weekend with inside Claiming Crown information, since I will be interviewing the trainers in the days leading up to the event. You’ll also get the odds line of Steve Fierro and a few other goodies. Should you decide to show up in person, you get a Saturday morning seminar with Fierro, Steve Davidowitz and myself, as well as the best possible handicapping ambiance thanks to Jeff Maday, who runs the player education program.
Other possibilities: there’s a Claiming Crown online handicapping contest on the entire day’s card, with the top 3 finishers qualifying for the national handicapping championship, and there’s no entry fee to this contest. Should you decide to enter, you can prepare in advance by getting live feed of Canterbury races each day at www.netjamstv.com
During the week, you’ll have access to my “barn notes” over www.canturburypark.com as well as my analysis over the C&X website. The track is trying to arrange for pre-entered Claiming Crown past performances to be on line on July 7. They were able to accomplish this feat last year, but the logistics are complicated, so it is a probability but not a certainty. These pps would be found on the Canturbury website in the “horsemen” section.
Owner Bob Bone, of Stage Player fame from last year’s CC, enjoyed the experience so much that he’s nominated two horses this year, including Lord of the Game for the featured Jewel, (claimed for $10,000 and then won a hundred grander at AP and is six for seven since being claimed).
Interactive project. The following is an alphabetical list of horses nominated for the Claiming Crown. Scan the list in case you come across a horse or two from your local circuit or betting experience that rings a bell: a horse you have some special knowledge about. If you have some unusual information, let me know. You can contact me through the website: www.altiplanopublications.com and I will incorporate this information into my overall analysis. If you have an unusual question about a horse’s performance or training, let me know and I will have a chance of asking your question to the trainer and then using the response on our Stakes Weekend website if it is of benefit to C&X readers.
A to Z, Adreality, Ajedrez (ARG), Al's Dearly Bred, American Quest, Angelic Morgan L., Atticus Kristy, Auntie Inda Attic, Awesome Alarm, Bar Bailey, Bartender, Bear On My Mind, Best Step Forward, Bet On Joe, Blades Hill, Blue Song, Blues Away, Boyum, Brian's Barbers, Brian’s Echo, Bully Bully, Bush, Butte City, Cambaco, Candle Stuffer, Cannon in G, Catlike Move, Celtic Approval, Charismatic Kid, Cheris' Dancer, Chisholm (the Cby horse we picked last year on the C&X website who won at $20), Christmas Away, Cicero Grimes, Cliff Notes, Cosmos Mariner, Cozzen Vinny, Crafty Player, Cree, Crowd Watcher, Culmen, Cyber Dawn, Dancing Gem, Dannysupermarket, Dark Intent, Darkly Noon, Desert Boom, Devine Wind, Dixie Colony, Double Intrigue, Dutchie, Dysfunctional Lady, Easy Million, El Merlot, Elite, Ells Editor, Exclusive Kid, Expressionator, Extra Fit, Fappadoon, Fight For Ally, Fitzroyal, Flintville, Flip Tour, Florida Transfer, Fred and Me, Fuego Maximo, Full Moon Madness, Fuzzy Abby, Galic Boy, Gato Bob, Gehrig, Gilded Touch, Gohalo, Golden Bonus, Golden Man, Golden Tangle, Gotta Ballado, Gram's Folly (who’s out for revenge after getting a horrible outside trip in last year’s CC), Grand Tam, Gray Justice, Great Plains, Habaneros, Haitian Hit, Hammerin, Hero's Pleasure, Hexawa, Hez Comin Thru, Hi Time Scott, Honeagle, Honor Me, Honorable Feelings, I Will Survive, Inhonorofjohnnie, Intern, Invisible Cat, Irish Sweep, J. R. Honor, Jimmy's Saber, July Child,
Karakorum Tuxedo, Kens Dancer, Kenta Kun, King of Chicago, Lanahan, Landler, Le Jester, Little Shon, Loco Tavares, Lord Albion, Lord Jones, Lord of the Game, Luckie May Breeze, Luckymata,
Major Mecke, Man of Conquest, Marlotta, Matched, Max's Ace, Meadow Soldier, Mean Kisser, Midwife
Military Academy, Miss Expectations, Miss New York, Mississippi Rain, Mix It Up, Mojodajo, Monstar,
Morine's Victory, Mount Everest, Mr. Mabee, Mr. Mississippi, Mr. Pleasantfar, Mr. Ron, Mt. Silver, Must Win Soon, My Extolled Honor, My Names Nicole, Mystic Appeal, Native Ice, Nature Star, Naughty Laura, Nauvoo, Neon Magic, Never Skip, No Toro, O.K. Corral, O'Malley, Onda Ray, Onlynurimagination, Opening Act, Opening Dance, Oswayo, Our Last Novel, Out of Pride, Outdone,
Ozilda's Ronny, Paladin Power, Pansy Garden, Paparazzi, Pasta, Peekaboo Cat, Pentavirate, Piconeach, Pirate Ship, Point Click, Pop the Latch, Prime Queen, Princess Birdeye, Prineville, Prison Boy, Private American, Private Aviator, Procreate, Quartez, R Maestro, Raise the Heat, Ran South,
Real Special, Rebel's Mission, Reito Peito, Relentless Red, Relentless Seller, Right to Run, Ringo's Cat, Roberto’s Pride, Rocket Royale, Rocky Plains, Rodeo's Castle, Roger E, Rosa P, Runaway Russy, Runaway Victor, Running Edition, Ryan's Partner, S. Cherry Legacy, Sacsahuaman, Sanky Panky, Saucy Secretary, Scottago, Sea To See, Secret Lies, Segovia, Senisha, Senor Cielo Two,
Seven Talents, Seventh Inning, Shadow Dance, Shakran, Shesasmokin, Ship Ahoy, Shorhouse,
Sigfreto, Silky Summer, Sir Ray, Sir Tyler T, Skary Karen, Slade, Slew‘em and Run, Snatch the Cash,
Sonoita Sunset, Spur Creek, Spurred On, Steersman, Stone King, Storm the Beach, Stormy Fellow,
Stormy Forever, Stormy's Back, Story Grinder, Strategically, Sugar Ray Silver, Superman Can, Suspicious Minds, Swamper, Sweet Go, Swen, Tambo, The Student, This Little Piggy, Thornwood,
Tizawinner, Toddler, Tonto Gusto, Torch The Halls, Tribute Express, Tricky Day, Twentythreejaybird,
Two Sharky Betty, Tygemini, Uncle Brother, Under Caution, Unforgettable Gal, Vaca City Flyer, Victor Slew, Vroom Hilda, Warbond, Watchman's Warning, Wavering Truth, West Coast Gee Gee, Wheaty,
Whiskey Grin, Whizbang, Wildcat Lady, Win The Crowd, Window B, Wine and Spirits, Wings On Springs, Xena Peach, Yankee Trick, Zealian

CAN SMALL SAMPLES BE MEANINGFUL?
(MATLOW STRIKES AGAIN!)
Back in 1988, I wrote about Richard Matlow first-time starters. It was published in Thoroughbred Cycles (now out of print) in 1990. To this date, the automatic bet on Matlow first-time starters remains profitable. Every year I receive letters from readers about scoring with Matlow. The most recent was his $15 debut winner, Castleonthehudson, May 11 at Hollywood Park.
But this article is not on Matlow. It is on the idea that small samples may be more valuable to the horse bettor than large samples.
Why?
If you read Barry Meadow on the subject, you’d learn that we need huge validating samples for a possible automatic bet, and even then, racing can change and what worked in the past for 11,000 races might no longer work for the next 11,000.
There is some wisdom in what Meadow argues. For example, I can no longer bet the Tomlinson numbers automatically, even though I once cashed regular signers by doing so. Why? First, the Tomlinson numbers are published for everyone to see. Second, trainers seeing that their horses have poor Tomlinsons are less likely to enter them on the grass, thereby reducing the number of automatic tossouts in maiden turf races. (I know this for a fact, by having talked about the issue with trainers themselves.) Third, the Closer Look columns often refer to turf pedigree. Public handicappers, with few exceptions, ignored the turf pedigree factor when I was playing it.
That’s one example of the changing game, and it adds fuel to Meadow’s general argument that any sample from the past can change its behavior in the future. However, I would respond by saying that a research sample of races is both quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative samples abound today because anyone can use Excel, and it’s easy to feed anything into a program and come out with a sample. Excel is dumb. It can conclude that post position 7 is profitable after a thousand race sample. That is possible, but in an entirely random way.
Qualitative samples scorn the random and are based on more profound truths, founded in past performance anomalies that arrive with pristine clarity from time to time and then disappear for many months. Comets, for example, are predictable even though they may show up only once a century. A once-a-century comet is more predictable that hundreds of yearly asteroid showers. A large sample of asteroid behavior is less dependable than a short sample of comet behavior. Our understanding of comet behavior is more qualitative than of asteroid behavior.
Should we ignore a trainer, like Matlow, who only arrives like a comet about six or seven times per year with first-time starters? If we are waiting for a thousand race Matlow sample, we’ll never get it.
I would argue that these rarely occurring trainer patterns have much more pari-mutuel value than a thousand race sample of Scott Lake claims. Lake, or any trainer, is susceptible to changes in the game, changes of owners and changes in sources of seed money, as well as changes in the stock available to him.
Mike Mitchell, whose claimed horses can add up to a large sample, runs hot and cold. When he’s hot, he hits with almost everything. You could graph Mitchell’s claiming fortunes over the past two decades and come up with possible periods to get on, or to get off. It reads like the graph of an aggressive mutual fund. Years of great profits but years of big losses. The profits more than pay for the losses, but what player can absorb a year of losses?
What I’m saying is that sample size is much less important than sample quality and sample analysis.
I’m not suddenly praising all short samples. A reappearing short sample may require to “timing the market”, a dangerous methodology. But other short samples are more dependable over the years. They are few, but in racing, it is better to invest on those few rare Matlow-like opportunities than to get caught in the many possible opportunities based on iffy large samples.
Of course, a large quality sample is something we can certainly use, so long as we remain attentive to changes in the game that might affect the quality of that sample.


C&X CAFE

From Dr. Nick:
I have noticed that horses with Early running styles are particularly likely to be dangerous on the dirt when they have excellent Tomlinson turf ratings. Is there a logical association and have you noticed this as well??

Hi Dr. Nick,
Interesting question:
My initial reaction:
It would be good if you could narrate for me (from pps) a few examples. In the meantime, let's try a couple of hypotheses:
(1) horses with high Tomlinson ratings tend to have high class ratings. So a high Tomlinson rating might mean a class advantage.
(2) since much of great turf performance is coming from off the pace, great turf pedigree of early speed talent may mean an unusually gifted equine athlete.
Looking forward to hearing more from you.
Mark

MONEY MANAGEMENT OR SOMETHING ELSE?
Money management is supposed to be a mechanical process. But betting psychology may be much more important in how the player manages his money.
Here is a money management note that would seem relatively mechanical, accompanied by betting psychology factors that interfere with mechanical follow-through.
You have handicapped a longshot as an overlay win bet. You should bet it to win and back up to place if you have also deemed the favorites to be out of the money. However, if the favorite is legit, then instead of a place backup, you back up the win bet with an “exacta-as-place bet”, such as Snappy T in the Preakness. If you have decided that you are exclusively an exotics player, then your live longshot becomes a key. Instead of boxing it with other horses you like less, you should key it in all positions, with other horses that you deem as contenders.
That’s all pretty clear. In a vulnerable favorite race, however, it makes lots of sense to back up the longshot win bet with a place bet (and sometimes even a show bet). If it’s an honest overlay, say, 14-1 and should be 4-1, then a “fair” win payoff would be $10. So if ten bucks is a fair win payoff, how could you not accept $10 to place with less risk, especially since, according to years of C&X research, live longshots finish place nearly twice as much as they win. If you do not back it up and the favorite is off the board, you’ll regret missing up on a significant place return.
In summary, as was the case with Snappy T in the Preakness, we picked Snappy T as a key horse because the favorites were still legit. There, it would have been better (in the long run) to play Snappy T under Afleet Alex and Giacomo as an exacta as place bet.
For years, I have argued that exotics players who have discovered a live longshot, they should back him up to win. (But inveterate exotics players argue back that you should simply single the live longshot in a serial bet or key it in exactas, tris and supers.)
My conventional argument was that you have around a 22 percent takeout in the exotics, anyway, and between 15 and 18 percent takeout in the win, depending on the track, so surely the win bet must have some place in the management scheme. Sensible as it seems, I have come to recognize that some players prefer to specialize in exotics for sound reasons based on the fact that they get more leverage, especially considering that in the long run, a big exotic payoff can make a whole season while no single win score can do so.
Recently I’ve found one particular wager in France where I never bet to win, for the simple reason that the leverage I get is so great in the exotic, that I am at peace with myself in excluding all other bets even if they win. Without getting into the nature of that particular exotic (off subject), I’ve learned from it how and why some players would want to specialize in superfectas or pick fours. It’s a way of focusing, and there’s less of a chance for that one lapse in concentration that could make the difference between collecting at 200-1 and a rock hard landing.
It is here where betting psychology enters the picture. In theory, all betting pools offer overlays at one time or another, but in practice, focused concentration on specialized pools leads to good betting decisions while lack of focus spells disaster. If a player is all over the place in the different pools, especially a player like me who cannot think about too many different things simultaneously, then focusing on only one or two pools may be a reasonable answer ... a way to reconcile money management and betting psychology.
With so many tracks and betting pools available, we players may think we are facing an unusual phenomenon that non-players are unaware of: so many decisions to make, and so much information needed to make those decisions. But in fact, this is a sociological phenomenon that extends beyond racing and is called “multi-tasking”.
Consider the context. Contemporary economy is based on two things: productivity and consuming. In most occupations, people are three or four times more productive than they were 30 years ago.
If level of production were the only factor, then we’d be producing so much that we could reduce the work week to 15 hours. But in an economy based on growth, and growth only, the only way to keep things growing to go along with the increased productivity is to increase consuming accordingly. Someone has to purchase those products and services we can provide so quickly. So we need to consume more. In racing this means multi-card simulcasting and exotics of every type in every race.
But if we increase consuming too much, we have no time left to use what we purchase: unless we engage in multi-tasking, both in producing and consuming. So we go jogging in the woods and listen to a walkman at the same time. We attend some form of entertainment and use our cell phones at the same time. We eat while we drive. We use a laptop while we fly. Etcetera.
We may end up as nervous wrecks, but we must engage in multi-tasking in order to keep the economy afloat.
Racing is just one piece of this economic structure. Our multi-tasking involves multiple tracks and multiple betting pools. The racing industry has had to turn us into multi-taskers in order for it to survive.
Soon this will become evolutionary, as people with genes who only allow for one thing at a time, like me, will reproduce less successfully, and eventually, Supertasker will be born and will reproduce superoffspring.
In order to urge this on, the economy unconsciously needs us to reduce our attention span. With less of an attention span, we develop a need to multitask. We can’t settle down and watch the toteboard of one track for a half hour.
So our attention span diminishes. For this reason, CNN can only hold a single image for 13 seconds, for fear that viewers will lose interest and zap to another channel. For me this is frustrating. I’d like to have the chance to absorb that image for a longer time before it fades away.
I am a reactionary. I long for the days when there were nine races on a card, and it was the only game in town, and there was a daily double and three exactas on the card. In the multi-tasking racing scenario, I have had to create my own single-tasking lifestyle, reducing betting pools and focusing on a few things where I do best.
With racing as an example, I ask myself whether such an economy is sustainable. Either human beings are altered into multi-producers and multi-consumers, or we all go crazy and some bubble eventually bursts.
Any money management scheme in this era has to take these new trends into consideration.

BELMONT NOTES
On the one hand I’m sorry that Afleet Alex did not win the Triple Crown, with a self-confident Rose accepting the blame for coming up short in the the Kentucky Derby. On the other hand, it’s more important to yours truly that a C&X reader collected that historic Derby exacta than that the world could have had a Triple Crown winner. Any score by a C&X reader is the real crowning achievement.
Tim Ritchey’s training methods for AA have shown us that horse athletes have the universal traits of all athletes. Horses should not rely on pedigree alone to get a distance, and horses love running anyway so why not let them. A horse jogging four miles is equivalant to a human jogging one mile. No big deal. And they love it. If we spoiled our kids as much as they spoil their Tbreds, we’d end up with __________ (you fill in the blank).
Reverberate never had a chance to get in the money, breaking in a tangle and then rushed up, before the inevitable fade.
As for Dr. Billy, he was not so far off at all in his prediction that Zito would finish one-two. With notably inferior horses, Zito finished 2-4.
On the website, we outlined the DRF speed ratings plus variants, excluding the Churchill Downs maiden race with the 33 variant in which Nolan’s Cat and A.P. Arrow earned 82-33 and 83-33 respectively: those translate to a 115 and 116, which would have given those two the highest last-race Speed Rating + Track Variant in the Belmont field. I decided not to use those figures for two reasons: the race had been run in the slop, and more important, there are too few 1 ¼ races available from which to create a variant. I now ask the question: just how significant was the DRF fig in the bizarre mix of factors that led to the surprising third place finish of the maiden Nolan’s Cat. This one race cannot give us a verdict, of course, but it makes sense that with everyone using the Beyer figs but hardly noting the DRF speed rating + variant, the latter figures are probably more valuable as a handicapping tool than the former.
As for Afleet Alex, I have long ago decided that I do not have it in me to grind out a profit betting 6/5 horses, even if they are low-priced overlays. I did make Afleet Alex the most likely winner in my website comments, bolstering my argument based on Ritchey’s training methods. Had I made an odds line and made him 1-2 (a 66.6% chance to win), would that have warranted a win bet? After all it was a “low-priced overlay”.
In theory, the answer is yes, but in practice, I know from my past experience that I simply cannot sustain a profitable betting ledger with win bets of horses under 2-1, and I know of no one who can. But some players out there could be selective enough to show a profit in the low odds range, and if you are one of them, then betting Afleet Alex at 6/5 would have been a reasonable strategy. I have no regrets whatsoever. I keep tidy records year after year, and such a strategy would mean a lot of wasted energy. (Smarty J. would have also been a low-priced overlay in last year’s Belmont.)
Dale Romans, the trainer of Nolan’s Cat, has a record of 25% winners in graded stakes races, with a flat bet profit. His name often pops up in discussions of supertrainers with suspicious results. In Andrew Beyer’s presentation on the “supertrainers”, he noted that most of the guys who clean up at lower levels have trouble making good in grade I races where security is so tight that no hanky panky is possible. In the case of Romans, the opposite is true. His horses peak at the upper class echelons, and so the Beyer method of “criminal investigation” should find Romans “Not Guilty!”
The other horse from that Churchill maiden race, AP Arrow, finished a creditable fifth, ahead of more highly touted horses like Giacomo. Hmm! The DRF-speed rating plus track variant may no longer be outmoded.
The Arkansas Derby, once an automatic throwout among Derby prep races has now produced two consecutive horses with 2 of 3 wins in the Triple Crown. Here we have evidence that the game of racing is ever changing. Nothing is sacred.

DIVINE PROPORTIONS
Nope, it’s not a centerfold playmate, but it is one beautiful filly. She’s trained by none other than Pascal Bary, who won the two consecutive BC Miles with Domedriver and Six Perfections. These are the same guys, with a different trainer, who won with Miesque in two consecutive BC miles.
Divine Proportions has looked like a champion miler. On May 15 she won her third consecutive Grade I mile in seven tenths of a second faster than the classy colt Shamardal the same day, same surface/distance at Longchamp. That made Divine Proportions 7 for 7. But on Sunday June 12 she was stretching from a flat mile to a mile and 5/16, and she faced a good field that included the 3-for-3 Vadawina, trained by Fabre, who had already won at the distance. Knowing they’d have to confront Divine Proportions, the English and Irish hopefuls stayed home.
This was the Prix de Diane, or French Oaks, and I describe the race so that you can understand how dominating Divine Proportions will be if he gets to the Breeders’ Cup (and knowing Bary’s track record, the BC will be in their plans).
Both Divine Proportions and Vadawina followed their leaders. Past the Chantilly castle and rounding into the long uphill stretch, the rail opened up for Vadawina while Divine Proportions had to take the scenic route.
It looked as if Vadawina was digging in well. But when Divine Proportions move to her side, Vadawina seemed to know that her position in the herding order was behind DP. Soumillon was whipping Vadawina while Cristophe Lemaire was merely caressing Divine Proportions.
So psyched out was Vadawina that she allowed two horses she should have easily beaten to pass her in the final 50 yards.
Divine Proportions can turn it on, for sure, but she also inspires fear in her rivals. In racing, that’s what we call class. Divine Proportions is now 8 for 8 and barring any problems, come October, Bary will be deciding whether it’s the BC Mile or the Filly & Mare.
Divine Proportions is a more dominant horse than Six Perfections, and the boys will be up against it if they have to face this tough by divinely proportioned filly.
We might as well reduce the BC pick six to a pick five.

HORSE HUMOR
by Bob (a longtime C&X reader)

I found a way to make my betting deductible. My bookie changed his name to Red Cross....

My grandson told his mother I had taken him to the zoo. My daughter couldn't believe it. " Your grandfather has never been to the zoo in his whole life."
My grandson said, "He really did take me. And one of the animals paid thirty dollars!"

To ward off Alzheimer's you should indulge in something mentally stimulating. (According to the Mayo Clinic) What could be more stimulating than the Racing Form! One morning I was glued to the Form and my wife asked me to do a chore. I glanced up and said, "Are you trying to give me Alzheimer's?"

The owner berates the jockey, "I told you to come out of the gate fast and take the lead."
The jockey says, "I know, but I didn't want to leave the horse behind."


END NOTES
Users of the Harness Race Profit Portfolio should check my website, www.altiplanopublications.com for free updates. Because of the language used therein, these updates will make much more sense for those who have already read the Portfolio than for those who try to decipher without having read it. I would suggest that Portfolio users clip these updates and attach them to the Portfolio.
The next C&X Stakes Weekend will be for July 2, with the Suburban at Belmont and the United Nations Handicap at Monmounth as possible grade I features. This will be my “prep” for Claiming Crown, which will be another Stakes Weekend taking place July 16. The next C&X will be appropriately issued in the days following the Claiming Crown, with our schedule determined by the racing calendar more than by the normal calendar that non-horseplayers follow. This is our attempt to make C&X a less abstract and more timely publication, even if it means waiting a little for an issue.