Mark Cramer
C & X Report

Late-Breaking NewsKITTENS JOY TO ARCOver the phone, Ken Ramsey, owner of Kittens Joy, has told me that his turf champion will definitely be going to the Arc de Triomphe, the first Sunday in October, as long as he remains fit. Ramsey owns the best turf horse in the USA, and believes that extenuous circumstances prevented his horse from winning the BC Turf.This is a huge story, as no American horse has ever won the prestigious Arc de Triomphe, and American horses do not even ship to France. Kittens Joy will probably face one of the best Arc fields in history. KJ's best turf Beyer rating was on a yielding course, and Ramsey is not at all concerned about the condition of the turf course. He's an experienced shipping owner, having won with Roses in May in Dubai. He won his July 4 prep, the Firecracker, and it wasn't even his best distance. He finished in 11 seconds.Ramsey is not at all concerned that lasix or any other medication is prohibited in France. He has the utmost confidence in his horse. With Saratoga coming up, let me say that Ramsey's horses will be alive at Saratoga as well.PS. Having talked to other owners and trainers about shipping to France, I was taken by surprise by Ramsey's decision, since his horse would be challenging the Europeans at their own special strength. My conversations about shipping to Europe had been directed at American sprinters, who would hold an edge against the Euros.Ramsey is also looking at the Melbourne Cup and the Japan Cup.

C&X REPORT 22

CONTENTS
EDITORIAL
ESSAY: A BAD DAY AND LESSONS LEARNED
Including From the Trenches, The Take, The Informed Minority,
QUICK PROFILE: KEVIN GORG
C&X CONTRIBUTOR WINS CONTEST: HOW DID HE DO IT?
HORSE HUMOR FROM BOB
C&X CAFE

EDITORIAL:
ON CHEATING
Prior to Claiming Crown, I had read numerous comments criticizing DRF journalists for not doing their job, for not plugging away at the trainers until they dig up the dirt. Having been a journalist in sensitive situations, I know that you cannot become an antagonist with people you see every day (in this case trainers). They’ll stop talking with you, and you’ll lose any chance to know them better. If you ask a trainer directly, “Did you cheat?”, you will have asked a dumb question, for you know that he will answer “no” and you would still be at square 1.
I had the chance to unwittingly pry into the business of a supertrainer, one who might be suspected of cheating. The name is not important. My intention was simply to share an idea.
My question was naive enough. I asked a trainer if he’d want to enter his horse in a big race in Europe, where the distance and surface fit his horse neatly. It was an intriguing possibility and I brought up the idea with no ulterior motives.
The trainer was intigued and told me he’d get back to me. Later, I realized that I had not informed him about the scenario of the race, including the fact that lasix, bute and all other medications were strictly forbidden in the country of the targeted race. Once I informed him, I fully expected to hear from him that he was no longer interested.
I later received an e-mail from his owner, and was totally surprised. The owner told me that his trainer believed the horse would win and was not at all dissuaded by the racing rules of the European country where the race would be run.
I learned two things from this exchange. First, that this supertrainer does not fear a drug free race scene. And second, that this trainer and others like him, probably race with lasix and bute just in case, and not because their horses really need it.
Wouldn’t you do the same? If you had a good horse and every other horse in the race had lasix and bute, wouldn’t you call the vet just in case, even though your horse was not a bleeder and not lame?
Things have gotten out of hand when medication becomes ubiquitous for no other reason than ritual. It would be like taking an anti-cholesterol drug just in case you might get cholesterol in the future. It makes no sense.
Those trainers who are cheaters are making it bad for all trainers, and people like me are not exempt from acquiring false suspicions of any trainer with a good record, just because of the ones who were cheating.
The fact that the trainer I talked with is very willing to race his horse with no medication suggests that there should be some way to wean most of our thoroughbreds away from lasix and bute. The ritual is so entrenched that it will be tough to turn back. But it is possible.

ESSAY:
A BAD DAY AND LESSONS LEARNED FROM IT
You’d think that writing about horse betting would be a dream gig, but not when you have to do an elaborate essay on a day of disaster, reliving every crushing moment. But there’s a lot to benefit from reliving the pain (no psychological analysis, please), from the perspective of horseplayer attitude, handicapping and money management.
By now, you folks know me well, and you are aware that I waver from handicapping to anti-handicapping, and that double figure hits usually come from some anti-handicapping angle, though handicapping still plays a strategic role in the long term.
Cesario and Anti-handicapping
I intended our previous stakes weekend as a prep for Claiming Crown. The lesson from that weekend was clear. I had lost two races where I’d done intense handicapping and I had won a race based on anti-handicapping analysis. I liked Cesario because of a Japanese shipping angle (horse from Japan finished second in the previous edition of the race) and information I had on the dam (who won long on the grass): both secondary factors. In anti-handicapping, secondary factors take precedence over primary factors, the most primary of which are speed figures. Cesario paid 10.80 and got us out with a nice profit. The only other horse I mentioned in that race completed the exacta.
Good prep for Claiming Crown. I could have concluded once again what I already knew: that anti-handicapping outperforms handicapping for the simple reason that 80 percent of the crowd engages in handicapping and the crowd’s complex analysis is generally ruined by the pari-mutuel system, which penalizes what is most commonplace in the collective wisdom.
But then, I stumbled into a situation that sent me a contrary message. On Thursday’s 14 July Canterbury card, I was asked to do a seminar where I would give out my picks in public. It was 95 degrees out by the paddock, where the TV dais was set up. The seminar was broadcast over selected TV monitors throughout the track, and my picks were again flashed on the monitors before each race, as well as the picks of the two handicappers who accompanies me. Knowing that I was being judged by percentage of winners and not return on investment, I used my short-form method, eliminated proven losers and low-percentage trainers, and ended up with 5 winners from 9 races.
That ephemeral success went to my head. I began to think that regular handicapping was not that bad, and that I speed figs and class analysis could boost my record. As a result, when it came to the Claiming Crown card, my final analysis relied too heavily on figures and not enough on the anti-handicapping that had largely contributed to whatever success I have had.
From the Trenches
Here is a blow-by-blow account of how I played the card. I do this not to punish myself but for the lessons contained within.
The best decision was made early on, when I found a corner of the clubhouse away the maddening crowd and press box festivities, in order to write out a worksheet that would serve as my plan of action. As I had often reconfirmed, a place of relative solitude is absolutely necessary for clear thinking.
Looking carefully at my contenders, I decided on the basic core of my play: win bets on the expected overlays, and then play those same horses as exacta-as-place bet and trifecta-as-show-bet. I decided that any pick 3 play would consist of smaller branches from this solid trunk.
I had already spent an excess of time on the handicapping process, and decided that I would have to devote as much time as possible to betting decisions. Normally the ratio should be
50 : 50 between handicapping and decision making. Before the first post time, I had written out a worksheet with all potential plays. The day unfolded with my worksheet as a brace against whims or temptation.
For the first leg of Claiming Crown, in the Iron Horse, my most likely winner, R Little Redhead, figured to be too low on the odds board for a win bet. My second choice had been scratched. I considered that this favorite might be compromised by a speed duel, but the other two speed horses were cheaper and slower than RLR when considering the fractional variants. How often do I map out a pace scenario only to watch the opposite pace configuation unfold. In this case, I thought, having done pace variants and not just final time figs, I decided to single this horse in pick threes.
RLR gave up too early for the problem to have been the pace, and I suspect that either something snapped or the extreme heat was too much for him. What’s better, to see your horse knocked out early or to prolong the agony to deep stretch? For me it’s more demoralizing to be eliminated in the early going.
In the second leg, the Express, Landler was my overlay among my three contenders. (I had eliminated Max’s Ace after seeing, on Friday’s card, that the horses he’d run against were not the brightest lights on the horizon.) At 9-2, Landler was not a huge bargain, but using this horse was the only way to get blood from a turnip. I must confess that I was impressed by the intelligence of the young trainer, and would wager that within a year, he becomes a star.
But the trainer himself had confided that he was going through a snakebit period and really needed the win for his owner, and I could see in the pps the type of low trainer win percentage that I usually do not play.
Result: the 4-5 favorite won (I lost my win bet), the 3-1 second favorite finished second (I lost the exacta bet), and Landler was third to complete my trifecta as show bet. I collected a platry 14-1 on the trifecta as show bet, but it got me out of the race unscathed.
Having seen the board for the Express and having assessed the potential odds of my contenders in the next two legs, I decided that the potential reward of a pick 3 was lower than what I’d need in relation to how deep I would have to go to cover the bet. No pick 3, I decided.
In the third leg, the Glass Slipper, I used my key horse, Bar Bailey, in exactly the way I’d mapped out: win, exacta as place bet, and trifecta as show bet. Bar Bailey’s race ended up like a carbon copy of R Little Redhead’s. (More on the eventual winner of this race in the section on the Informed Minority.) I had also played few three permutations, but went lightly considering the risk-reward ratio. When I Will Survive (9-2) was necked out by Ells Editor, my pick three was relegated to the trashbin of pari-mutuel history.
The Tiara
By now I was suspecting that the 95 degree heat was affecting some horses more than others, and that there was no good way to judge which ones were prejudiced by the merciless sun. The whole argument of Bar Bailey having come down from the altitude was mitigated by an opposite phenomenon. The fact that he came down from a fresh climate to a hot-and-humid one could have spelled doom. Even Bar Bailey’s New Mexico races were run in a climate that was low on humidity. Bar Bailey may have been hurt by the humid heat, or he may have simply been off form, as his pps suggested.
In any case, I was not feeling a whole lot of confidence going into the next race in which my top three contenders happened to be the top three most bet horses. I went to the paddock, convinced that I would pass on Runaway Martha if she looked bad. In fact, she looked good and I played her to win. I passed the exacta-as-place-bet and trifecta-as-show bet because RM (11 6-0-0 at the distance) would either win or finish off the board. I lowered my bet as RM’s odds dropped. After dropping below 7/2, she ran just as haplessly as Bar Bailey and R. Little Redhead. I could I be so wrong about three different horses on the same card? I had to get a hold of myself and stay firmly committed to my worksheet.
I was sorry to see Chantal Paquette’s Canadian horse, Out Of Pride, run off the board, and I suspect that the horse had been overwhelmed by the heat, though he may have been psyched out because of having been asked to race above her league against Grade 2 competition.
In the Rapid Transit, I took Scott Lake’s horse The Student to win when he was 5/2 on the board, and bet him in second under my second choice Procreate. I had soured on the local horse, my original third choice, and after the demise of Out Of Pride, I decided to not use the other Canadian horse, Whiskey Sez. I threw out anything from Canad and would have played a Panamanian or Iraqi horse instead.
On the other hand, I played a saver exacta-as-place-bet with Crafty Player on top of The Student, for the simple reason that CP was another Dutrow horse that had passed into a different barn with Dutrow under suspension. Procreate won it, the Student finished second, and the 23-1 exacta-as-place-bet payoff was generous. The Dutrow horse finished third.
(How I would love to blame my next and only misjudgment on the heat. I had totally forgotten to consider the pick three, and three races later, I would see that the mental lapse cost me a 70-1 pick three payoff. I would be pleasantly consoled if I were to learn that some C&X readers played this pick three. I had all three winners among our contenders, and the winner of the last race could have been singled if you’d read my arguments.)
The exacta provided me with renewed confidence as I went on to the Claiming Crown Emerald on the turf. I was behind, but not by a catastrophic amount thanks to the previous exacta. The Emerald was the toughest race on the card, but I felt I understood it. From the trainer interview with Jimmy Zook, I decided that Mr. Mabee was a most-likely winner, but I still preferred Scottago on top, as local horses often know this turf course better. Devine Wind was offering value as well, so I used him in the pick 3.
The worksheet
A worksheet is like the harmony for a jazz musician. You stick to it, but you a variation when the situation determines it. My variation in the Emerald was to not do the exactas and tris because RM’s performance box instructed me.
Just as was written on my Worksheet, I played Scottago to win (at 8-1) and used him in second slot as the exacta-as-place bet under Mr. Mabee and Devine Wind. But I did a variation for the trifecta-as-show bet, given the fact that there were so many proficient horses that did not like to win but could finish second. For this trifecta, I used Mr. Mabee and Devine Wind on top, with everything that could walk in the second hole, and Scottago in third.
A win or exacta could catch me up for the day, and the trifecta could actually give me a solid profit. Racing is a great game in that one single score can get you out and above for a whole day, and when this happens, all the other bad bets are mere preludes for the good one.
I look back upon this race and I am pleased that I did everything I was supposed to do. Mr. Mabee won it at 3-1. The horses I had eliminated from the second hole of the tri ended up finishing 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th, indicating that I had the race figured squarely. Sigfreto, one of the horses that “could walk” finished second. In the stretch, Scottago was moving up against Rockhurst in the battle for the show. Scottago had raced with an uncoupled rabbit, the front running Celtic Approval, both trained by Mac Robertson, and Celtic Approval had pressed Rockhurst for much of the way before declining. For a moment it looked as if Rockhurst had had enough.
In the end, the pace was not quite fast enough to do in Rockhurst, not quite fast enough to cause a backup, and Scottago hung, one half length away from the trifecta I needed.
This, my friends, is the race that summarizes Claiming Crown 2005. This was the most complex race, and the type of race that can make a difference.
The postscript is found in the Claiming Crown Jewel, where Desert Boom won it at 1.3 -1, the same odds as Lord of the Game, the second place finisher. Third was Habaneros. I have nothing to show for picking these three in order because I passed the race. I should have been looking upon a pick three going into this event, but I’m not going to lament that one lapse in reasoning.
For me it was an intense day with only one decision-making mistake. I had not lost; the races had beat me. I’ve felt much more troubled on winning days when I did not make the most of what I had.
The Take
Could I have played Desert Boom to win? Given the arguments, you could have considered him an overlay. But it’s not in me to play horses at this odds level, for I know that in the long run I don’t make a profit, and lots of energy is lost.
This race offers a workshop in another horseplayer issue. It is a laboratory case study of the takeout and how it may or may not affect the player. I’ve often railed against the notion that a point or two in the takeout is more vital to players than knowing something that the crowd does not know. You could have a 30 percent takeout and still win if you know why a 20-1 will wake up, and if no one else knows what you know.
Furthermore, a lowering of the takeout cannot produce overlays when the crowd knows everything. But theoretically, we should have had an edge in the Claiming Crown Jewel, for two reasons. First, Superman Can, a horse that should have been 99-1 was only 10-1 because of the local crowd’s emotionalism. Second, Desert Boom was a slightly better horse than the co-favorite and his odds should have been lower in relationship to that other horse. On these two facts alone, I could make the argument that Desert Boom should have been an overlay, even at the low odds. It is in such borderline scenarios where the takeout must be considered.
At Canterbury the take is 17 percent. Desert Boom paid $4.60. What would he have paid with the 14 percent takeout that you find in New York and California? If you know your math, please correct me if my rounded-off calculations are not accurate. The 3-point difference between 14 percent and 17 percent is approximately 20 percent. The Jewel win payoff was 1.30 to 1. Twenty percent more than $1.30 is approximately $1.56. Thus, the payoff would have been 1.50 -1 or $5.00.
Now this depends on the breakage of the original 1.30 – 1 payoff. Without the breakage, in fact, the $4.60 could have been anywhere from 4.60 to 4.79. With a 14 percent takeout, the maximum payout for Desert Boom with breakage considered, could have been $5.20.
For a $100 win bet, we’re looking at about a $20 higher payoff with the with the three point drop in takeout. That means a $40 difference for a $200 bet. For the player of low-priced overlays, the $5 payoff level might represent a psychological barrier that is greater than it’s dollar-and-cents value. Clearly, the takeout does make a difference when you are hovering near the overlay level.
The Informed Minority and Anti-handicapping
From James Quinn three decades ago to Brad Free today, many of the best minds in the handicapping field advise us that there are primary factors and secondary factors. I use Quinn and Free as examples because I consider both of them to be brilliant handicappers and smart players.
They advise us that speed figures, pace analysis, form cycle and class are the primary factors and that everything else is secondary. (Please note that the class factor has now been relegated to the fringe, having been maligned so much by speed handicappers that the reading public has been conditioned to scorn the class factor. In spite of the fact that class yields a better return than speed, class is still considered a primary factor by most experts.)
Knowing how to handicap using the primary factors will lead to picking lots of winners, that is, if you catch nuances and read between the lines. But even then, the collective wisdom of the public is usually one step ahead of us. The typical result is that the handicapper of primary factors becomes disappointed when his horses go off at low odds, and race after race, following excruciating handicapping, the player confronts the reality that he has not outsmarted the crowd. Then he goes back to the pps only to repeat another turn in the same frustrating cycle. Underlay after underlay.
Longshots, on the other hand, rarely come from primary factors. Barry Meadow has often insinuated that if you pick an $80 winner, it’s luck and not skill. I disagree. Among C&X readers we have some sharp analysts who know how to pick a double figure winner, and when I read or hear the reasons for their choice, I am convinced that they used a logical analytical process that excluded or diminished the four primary factors. At least two of our readers picked the winner of the 2005 Kentucky Derby, and they did so by using secondary factors. No speed handicapper I know was able to pick the Derby winner.
Ed Bain has been transforming “secondary” trainer factors into his primary factor for quite some time now, with a significant profit year after year, and yet he does not even look at speed figures when making a large bet. Ditto for Susan Sweeney, who has very valid reasons for picking horses that are neither the fastest, the classiest, the most recent runners nor the lone front runners.
There are many more secondary factors than primary ones. Some secondary factors include trainer specialty, post position when there’s a bias, pedigree (both sire and dam), body language, etc. The performance box contains several secondary factors, including horse for course and competitiveness (horse wins more than places and places more than wins).
One of the secondary factors that most often explodes the toteboard is what we’ve called in C&X “the informed minority”? The informed minority surfaces when a single public handicapper picks a horse that no one else within the consensus has chosen. The informed minority functions well when the group of public handicappers used by the player are known to be good thinkers. A more rigorous informed minority becomes apparent when we have too few public guys listed in our racing paper to create a valid minority situation. In such cases, the informed minority muct pick a horse on top that the other public boys do not pick anywhere in their top three.
The Claiming Crown program had seven public handicapppers, all of them knowledgable about Canterbury, and proven handicappers elsewhere. Steve Davidowitz, for example, was one of the seven public guys. So was Steve Fierro, a player we had profiled last year on the pages of C&X. I assure you that the other guys in the program were good, and I felt honored to be among them. (We’ll profile Kevin Gorg, one of the program handicappers, in later paragraphs.) I have such great respect for Steve Fierro that I published his Claiming Crown picks in our first Claiming Crown post.
In our last C&X Claiming Crown post, I published the informed minority choices, leaving them for last so they would not be forgotten.
Eleven horses appeared as informed minority picks. Of those, two won. (As usual, this factor does not pick a high percentage of winners, which does not bother me at all, since the bottom line is what counts.)
The two winners were Ells Editor (26.40) and Procreate (10.60). You’d have invested 22.00 if you put two bucks on each of the eleven qualifying horses, but the return was 37.00. That’s about a 40% return on investment. Ells Editor appeared twice in the C&X post, as a Steve Fierro pick in the first post and as part of the whole list of informed minority picks at the end of the last post.
The informed minority has often been written up in C&X, and always as an example of anti-handicapping. We are picking brains, but not the whole brains of handicappers, only the contrarian parts of the brain. This could be called cherry picking. Speed, pace, class and form are not factors in the informed minority method. It is as anti as you can get.
Had you applied the method in its more rigorous form, using only an informed minority pick when no other handicapper has the pick anywhere in his top three, you’d have ended up with Blues Away (off the board), Ells Editor (26.40) and Our Last Novel (off the board). This is a tiny sample. Normally, one would use the more rigorous standards when there are too few handicappers in the program. Seven handicappers is on the borderline between enough and too few.
The informed minority method will not work if the program handicappers are guys who play pin the tail on the program after coming home from the bar. You need a line-up of proven public handicappers.
The informed minority method is but one of many anti-handicapping methodologies. It serves as one more piece of evidence that anti-handicapping outperforms primary-factor handicapping.
One day I intend to make a total break with primary-factor handicapping. Occasional seductive successes with the primary factors have thus far dissuaded me from getting the final divorce.
Inside information
I must say that I seriously considered Ells Editor in the early going of the handicapping process ... until I talked with the trainer. The usually frank Percy Scherbenske was not at all optimistic about his horses’ chances in the Glass Slipper (Ells Editor and Xena Peach) and he left the impression that he was simply hoping for all the other horses to fold, and that, why not enter if he was already there on the grounds. Maybe he put one over on us, because a ton of money was dumped on Ells Editor during the post parade. Or maybe he was just as surprised as everyone else.
On the other hand, the positive Barn Note comments by Jimmy Zook on Mr. Mabee, John Zimmerman on Procreate, and Art Sherman on both of his horses seemed like straight-shooting information. In a more twisted sense, perhaps I should have believed assistant trainer Gerald Brooks when he asked me about Runaway Martha: “what do you see in that horse?” I thought that Brooks was simply joking around, as Scott Lake had done prior to a previous Claiming Crown race when I asked him how he could enter Spit Polish, with 73 route races and not a single sprint race, in a 6 furlong event. Lake had responded that “it’s just because Englander [the owner] wanted a horse in every race”. Spit Polish won. That same Englander was the owner of Runaway Martha.
In summary, inside information needs just as much interpretation as the past performances do. Sometimes you get a bum lead, but it gave us a $20 winner in last year’s Claiming Crown, so I guess it’s a question of interpretation, and this year my interpreting skills were off. The long run bottom line of insider trainer comments is positive, but anyone who likes non-volatile investments should shut out the trainer verbiage from their mix of handicapping factors.
Overhandicapping and the Steve Fierro antidote
On the airplane from Paris to Minnesota, I began handicapping with the pre-entries for the Claiming Crown. It was a long but uncomfortable ride but the pps got me through. Had I stopped handicapping then and there, I would not have had Desert Boom on top but I would have had Procreate and Mr. Mabee. With big racing events, many of us tend to overhandicap. For races like the Kentucky Derby we begin the process months in advance: so much foreplay for two minutes of action.
Fierro was one of the first to have his picks ready. Even with big races, he uses the short form method we’ve written about in C&X., but of course, with his own idiosyncrasies. If you were not yet a subscriber when this article was published, you can find it at my website: http://www.altiplanopublications.com/
After entering the site, click on C&X. This article appears prior to the harness race updates. We have to handicap because we love it. But how much is too much. If we graph the evolution of our thinking on handicapped races, each of us can determine when we’ve reached the point where we have to take it out of the over before it gets overcooked.
The best antidote for overhandicapping is anti-handicapping. It saves us from getting mired in speed figures. Speed figures pick winners but they do not pick longshots. Now all I have to do is get back to following my own advice.

Quick Profile:
Kevin Gorg
Kevin Gorg is the media man at Canterbury Park and picks races on the TV monitor as well as in other formats. Mr. Gorg has several separate bankrolls but one of them outperforms the others, and if we examine that one bankroll we can learn a simple lesson.
Some players show their guts by entering tournaments. Others are courageous by taking a stand against a heavy favorite. Still others show their fortitude by regularly backing valid longshots, thus showing a willingness to ride short-term losing streaks for higher long-term profits.
Each Canterbury meet, Gorg works with a $5,000 charity bankroll, sponsored by Bremer Bank. The proceeds of this bankroll go to a worthy charity chosen by Bremer. If disabled kids depended on my bankroll, I’m not sure I would retain my decision-making sanity. For me it would be “scared money” for I would think that each lost bet would be money taken away from medical research or disadvantaged children’s summer camps. Under such circumstances, I’d be pressing with underlays, wanting a win NOW, and would probably eliminate horses that I would have bet if it had only been my own money.
For the Bremer bankroll, Gorg chooses one and only one horse per night and bets it to win. Simple. One race per night, the one he thinks he understands best. This is a public bankroll. Everyone at the track knows what Gorg’s charity pick is.
In the 2003 meet, the $5,000 ended up as $6,000. In 2004, Gorg ended up with $4,500. In 2005, he’s at $6,200. That, my friends, is a healthy percentage of profit, better than most mutuel funds have done.
It is Gorg’s best bankroll, and the apparent reason is the fact that it is based on being selective.
Now let me make a proposal. To any C&X reader who has been losing money, why not stand back, take a deep breath, and reformulate. Make only one wager per day. Choose the horse that seems to be the best value. It could be a 3-1 who you think should be even money. It could be a 6-1 who you think should be the favorite. Or even a 3-2 who should be odds on according to your analysis. One bet per day.
This proposal goes out only to those of you who have been losing money at the races. If you don’t know if you are losing or winning, then you shouldn’t play at all. Gorg keeps a record, and everyone can see it. If you have not been able to keep records until now, then a one-bet-per-day-only strategy would make it easy for record keeping.
Gorg’s records speak well for this approach.

C&X Contributor Wins Contest
[Editor’s note. I heard that Stan Gutkowski, a great handicapper and sometimes contributor to C&X, won a handicapping contest. I asked him to explain in his own words how he did it. Here’s what he has to say.mc]

Mark,

Maintaining the ability to maneuver near the end of a handicapping contest, especially one that does not cap the amount on wnning a bet ($42 for the win, for example), remains the key to success.

At the most recent Hinsdale handicapping contest, we (because I played with a partner giving us more options than playing alone -- another key) had to make 10 mythical $200 bets from three tracks (Belmont, Churchill and Monmouth). You can split wagers in a race (bet $100 on two separate horses, for example), but you cannot bet more than $200 on a single race.

We handicap all three tracks selecting our choices for the day. Then, we take our 10 best plays and use them, if we have some success early. When we don't, that is when having bets left as the contest closes makes all the difference. If we had had winners early and used up our allotment of plays, then the results would not have beeen the same.

Suffice it to say, after our first seven plays, we had been blanked. Nothing on the board. At that point, with but three plays left, we had to maneuver. In the last race at Belmont, we had predetermined our selection, but when he was going off at 7-2, we had to make a choice. We then supported a 9-1 shot that won, getting us on the board to the tune of $2,080. At least we could be in striking distance of a top-5 money finish.

When our selection in the last race at Monmouth ran second at 9-1, we still had two plays left for the last race at Churchill (remember, I had one, my partner had one), a maiden event.

We realized that it would take approximately $4,000 to move us to the top-5. For that reason, we eliminated all horses less than 20-1. What that left were six of the 12 entrants. What we did was to handicap the race as if only those six horses were entered. The #2 horse was coming back off about a five-month layoff and was moving from turf to dirt. Having had only three lifetime starts, his turf form showed early speed that had lasted for six furlongs, the distance of today's race. We decided that he would have to be one of the plays. The other horse, the #4, had shown the ability to stalk, but not consummate the deal. Since he was also 20-1, he would be the other choice. Our original choice was 5-2, so, needless to say, we eliminated him.

After betting, with a minute to post, we discovered that the #2 horse had gone up to 42-1. He broke well from his inside position, made an easy lead, relaxed, then when they came to the head of the stetch, without much urging, moved away to win by six lengths. Would we have bet him normally? Excellent question. Would he have been used in exacta boxes with our top choice? Definitely. By the way our top choice finished second, and the #4 horse finished third. The trifecta came back over $7,000.

What did we learn from this contest? That maneuvering, the ability to make plays at the end, were responsible for our ability to win. Did handicapping figure in? Yes, sort of. Nonetheless, we did not bet the longest shot on the board for that reason. We bet him with an expectation (hope?) that he would give a good performance, a winning effort, which he did.

In contests where they do not cap the winning amount, you must maintain some plays at the end just for the above reasons. If the contest had been capped (say at $42), we would still have finished on the board, but we would not have won.

Luck does count, particularly in these contests.


HORSE HUMOR FROM BOB

A group of teachers decided it would be a good idea to take the 1st class on a field trip to
Laurel. They could visit the paddock and view the horses and then watch them run.
After a few hours the youngsters had to make a pit stop.

Some of the boys complained that the urinals were so high they could not reach them.
The teachers accompanied them inside the men's room and lifted each youngster to the
right height. Finally, after lifting a rather large boy the teacher noticed that he was quite
well endowed. She said, "My goodness, are you in the first?" He said, "No. I'm riding
Silver Streak in the third, but thanks for the Lift


C&X CAFE

Hi Mark,

I've been suscribing to C & X for awhile, and your prior newsletter with Bill Olmstead from its inception. I piled up enough thoughts to decide to email you, probably as a distraction from a memoir I'm writing.

Have you ever been to Norway, and if so, to the little racetrack outside of Oslo? One of my most memorable racing experiences. A long tram ride, then a walk to get there from downtown. There couldn't have been more than 200 people there that afternoon many dining on an outdoor patio as a fog covered a part of the track even as the sun was brightly shining. I arrived as a race was starting. The horses couldn't be seen at the starting gate and for the first furlong because of the fog. Suddenly, as in a beautiful movie, like House of The Flying Daggers or Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter....they emerged into the sunlight. After the race, when they removed their helmets, it became clear that almost half the jockeys were women. And in a gesture that I doubt I'd see in the States, they began to brush their long, blond, Viking hair. Mythmaking!

Couple of handicapping thoughts worth some research. I've long been drawn to turf races. Higher payoffs, exciting finishes, and the association with Europe. I wonder if it's possible that turf winners style changes some as the seasons progress. I cashed a big P6 at GGF in April 1991 (got the copies of the checks to prove it) by handicapping the last race along those lines. The meet then went from late January I believe until June.
As of early April, I believe there had not been a wire to wire winner on turf.
I went back a few years in the DRF and it seemed that front runners began to win late March, early April each year. So I threw in a 15-1 shot Pichy Nany along with two others, the favorite and second favorite. He won going away, and I collected on a $1200 ticket. I assume that the grass had been beaten down right around then to the point where it played more like dirt.

I think this might be a good angle at many tracks. Since bias is so easy to get these days, it would mean anticipating when the change might occur, as Andy Beyer was talking about looking at SuperTrainers just as they are emerging at the last Expo.

Caveats, I would think, are the number of races that had been run on the turf, and how the course is maintained. I don't know much about the latter, but would wonder if they are reseeding the course or not during the meet.

Another interesting thing is the approach I've had some scores on with the superfecta. I don't know if this is something you've already written about, but I think it is something Susan Sweeney commented on in general terms in an email exchange I had with her a year or two ago. I'm talking about trying to hone in on the show or number four horse in the super. The usual comment is these are hard to get horses because it can be a garbage picker passing tiring horses, or a speed horse backing up. True. But, if one 1)starts with the idea that these are price horse by definition--ie, the favorite and second favorite are most likely to finish first and second, then 2)looks hard at the horses finish pattern--eg, finishes third or fourth let's say 50% of the time, and finally 3)looks for races where there are only one or two of these horses a good bet can be brewed. Caveat here is that a horse who has seconditis can easily end up 3rd or 4th if the contention on top is very strong, so I will give those horses a good look as well.

The bet then is to single the horse third with all in the 4th position, and reverse=all in the 3rd and the horse in the 4th, with an exacta box or key in the win/place slots. Cost is $60 for 8 horse field, $108 for 12 horse field, though I will usually eliminate the longest shot in the race in the larger fields who almost never come in the top 4.

Best,

Alyosha Zim

Mark responds:
Alyosha Zim is a find handicapper and his ideas deserve attention. In particular, the superfecta concepts are worth experimenting. The 10 cent superfecta offers us a chance to do some cheap research with real money on it to keep us honest. I imagine that any superfecta structure of bet should be based on the content of the race. While in Canterbury, I did some research on the supers. Naturally I do not have a good sample. The research is time-consuming because the form of the ticket, depending on the content of the race, requires the research to handicap each race.
I have come up with a few possible forms. Boxing is usually a wrong strategy but a 5 horse superfecta box looks promising when your key horses are not expecially dominating. The 5-horse box could end up especially lucrative if your fifth choice finishes first at big odds. This seems like a good strategy for a contentious or lesser-of-evils race.
For two-contender races, the ticket would need more horses in the third slot than the second, and more horses in the fourth slot than the third.
The more live longshots you see in the race and the less you like the favorites, the more combinations can be played.
The 10-cent superfecta should not be abused, and should not be a fun bet. Otherwise, it becomes a piss-away-money method. It’s just like any other wager. The fact that it’s cheap allows the researcher to use real money when studying the bet, and it allows a low-cap investor the same leverage as a high roller.
As for the change in winner profile for a turf course during a season, I’ve seen this happens as the grass gets pounded down during the season. But I also believe that changes in win profile for a turf course may relate to changes in the collective consciousness of the rider colony. When a rider sees his horses fade regularly after front running trips, he makes adjustments and waits. If most riders make adjustments simultaneously, then the pace of the race slows down and suddenly the early speed horses have a better chance.

Mark,
i just now read your last 2 posts in July. So-i was happy to hear you analyzed Record Buster the way you did---that, too, was my choice. What saved me was the final odds. However, the big story is the $100 grand wager that the owner cashed from the Dutrow barn. It is not only discouraging--but to me, downright disgusting. I still think the Bergenstein column is more correct than I wish it to be. In viewing my records from the year like you suggested I came across the MCl claim ed horses you and a reader talked about. That is holding up for me and is much the best source of consistency and profit. Dirt and turf handicapping are still bringing a small profit but I also know that eliminating proven losers would make it much better in the ROI department. My thought on the proven loser angle is that when you race in condition races and can run 2nd (preferably) I don't think you can label those horses as proven losers---- simply because they defeated a vast majority of those eligible. I have serious research to do on that and at least i have the records now to check it out thoroughly. Am looking forward to the Canterbury races 16 july. thanks. ps. 2 time starters are in the red BUT i have only been betting to win and have had several place prices above $15 and 2 others at $20 and $30 to place. maybe there is hope. Also, I think i should mention that your stakes analyses are very helpful because it puts into practice what you write and helps to know that my own analyses is not far off from that of a profitable player. I think my personal improvement is slowly moving upwards because of things like that.
Don

Hi Don,
Well, no comment on Claiming Crown. All is said above. As for second time starters, this factor is alive and well. It just needs filters. Good point about horses that run second not necessarily being proven losers. It depends how they run second. If they hang at low odds, it’s no good. If they get the place at 10-1 then they have run better than their odds, and the place finish is a true improvement and a sign of sharp form.

From Susan Sweeney:
[I asked Susan to tell us what her new video was all about. Here’s her response.]
Mark,
Regarding the Exotic Wagering Strategies Video, here is what I can tell your. After I wrote my book SIGNERS, we received quite a few e-mails asking if and when we were going to have Seminars. Although Seminars are productive and we have had them, there is a lot to absorb and it is easy to forget many of the things discussed. Books are great for reference yet there is nothing compared to seeing first hand what you would like to know.
When Ed produced his Automatics Video, he also received a lot of mail. Most handicappers could not believe how easy it is to spot and bet these plays; some were giddy with how often they hit and the fact that they were making money. Others said, “You can make a living just betting the Automatics.” And this is true yet the next factor becomes bet sizing and how much you want to make.
My approach is different, yet profitable. I produced this Video so all can see how easy it is to bet exotics. The video is not about SIGNERS, though they will occur. It will walk you through several days of betting with me. It shows my routine; how I select races, determine if a race is playable and if so, what type of wager should be played. Then the issue becomes bet sizing but in a different way. You need to ask yourself two questions, “How much am I willing to or able to invest each day?” In addition, “Am I willing to invest all of this on a select number of races?”
I allot myself $250 a day. I may bet the whole $250 on one bet or perhaps three or four throughout the day. I do not know how I am going to invest this $250 until I scan through the day’s races; but, I do know that this is my investment, win, or lose. When I make my daily decisions, I will bet all the ones I have selected; when the results are in I take my winnings or accept my losses and wait until tomorrow to reinvest.
Perseverance and money management is my edge and that’s the reason I say this type of betting it is not for everyone.
Ed’s wagers and mine are similar because we both bet a set amount of plays, with a pre-determined daily investment, regardless of the results. We are statistical players in the game for the long haul and know that over time, we will turn a profit.
From Greg

Hi Mark, My name is Greg Forte. 54 years young. That's what losing can do.
Two years after reading and implementing all I could on " How to make a living" on horse racing I just about gave up. Then by chance I was listening to the early Saratoga show hosted by Nick Kling and Tom Amello. A caller asked something to do with winning players and at once I turned up the volume. I remembered that Tom said that he knew of a guy that does it and that it had nothing to do with the racing form-speed or anything like that. Something to do with TRAINERS!That was it for me. I told my wife that next yeat when we go up to Saratoga that I will find Nick and Tom and try to get more info. Could this be true ? Well next August came and I found myself talking to the security guard downstairs from the press box at Saratoga to see if I could speak to Mr.Kling. Sure enough,There came Nick down the stairs and I thanked him,made my introduction and we proceeded to talk for about 15 mimutes. He then told me where I could find Tom as Tom would have more knowledge of the info I was looking for. Sure enough.Tom was walking out of the radio area and that's where we spoke. Both fine gentlemen. My wife said later that it looked as though my eyes were coming out of my head that I was so excited to get this info. Well I came back home and within 1 day I contacted Ed Bain and on Sept 1--2004 I was a subscriber.
Long story--short---I chose 2 fellows to guide me along . Jon Wright and Mike Doran. They both told me to read your book on Kinky Handicapping .IMMENSELY helpful they were. Did not bet for months and months--just tried to learn.
Was and still not easy. No givaways as you know. I finally after some tutelage started to specialize in Maiden races--Something that before this I never touched in 30 years of losing. I started betting 4 months ago after the 1st 7 months were on paper. Yes--it does get me down more often than I would like but I can say that after a lifetime of almosts--Im finally winning. May was my worst month-21% ROI---June was 102% ROI and that was a month where I had 3 losing streaks of 9-12-and 8. My horses pay well. I have used EDs stats exclusively--but I have tweaked it a little with some of my own rules such as ODDS I must get at post time and other things I have learned from the two guys I have mentioned. Any extra advice you can give a perfect stranger would be nice--if not, no sweat--your book was cool!
Enjoy---Greg

Hi Greg,
It seems as if Ed Bain has provided you with the structure you lacked. Many a good handicapper loses because of lack of betting structure and discipline. The more rigorous the methodology, the less likely the good handicapper will succumb to bad impulses. I indend to work more on structure in upcoming issues. In the meantime, it’s always good to hear from readers who have made the quantum leap.
mark

Postscript: Belmont, July 13, Race 5
It was another ho-hum claiming race for 25,000, 6 ½ furlongs on teh dirt. Nothing looked good. When I took down the odds, it looked like this:
HOLIDAY RATES, 6-1, 5 percent trainer, 8 percent rider, winning races at Finger Lakes and Mountaineer.
SNOWS GONE, 7/2, won a statebred Md Sp Wt and now was in open company.
ELUSIVE TOGA, had won a maiden claiming route two races back coming from a 23 day break and now had a 7 week break. Had won a route race and now was in a sprint.
DEPUTOE’S NOTEBOOK, 5/2, 10 percent trainer, claimed horse with the trainer only 8 percent with such horses, Beyers 10 points slower than the other 5/2 horse.
ITS TRUE ITS TRUE, 10-1, one-time winner in eight races, a maiden claimer at Philadelphia in the slop.
MACKENZIE NICOLE, 5/2, both wins at Philly, best recent tries in turf routes, today back in a sprint, 13 percent overall trainer.
This was a race in which no horse deserved to win, what I call a “lesser of evils” race.
So why not chuck the handicapping and scan the pps for some statistic?
One stat stuck out, prominently. The trainer of ELUSIVE TOGA, 5-1, was Thomas Albertini, 10 for 26 this Belmont meet and 28 percent wins overall for the year. Albertini’s record for 31-60 day layoff was a $2.72 return for each $2 bet.
Why force round handicapping in a square hole? Why not go with the stat? Thatùs anti-handicapping. The Albertini horse won, easily.
That is simply another tiny piece of anecdotal evidence that anti-handicapping outperforms conventional handicapping.