Mark Cramer
C & X Report

C&X 39
CONTENTS
Editorial: Is there such a thing as recreational horse betting?
On Keeping it Simple: Your Samples Please!
A Special Awareness: the Backwheel and Other Considerations
The Most Potent Factor in Racing: It’s a speed, it’s a pace, it’s a class, it’s a form, it’s …
Also-Eligible Vacations: On Hippodrome Energy
A Lesson from Claiming Crown 2007
Scratching for an Edge
Postscript: Bias

EDITORIAL: IS THERE SUCH A THING AS RECREATIONAL HORSE BETTING?
Recently I took an American friend to the races at Saint-Cloud. I had a good day, but he outdid me by far. I hit one winner at 12-1. But he collected on nearly every race, including a couple of quinellas in what I considered unplayable races. This man is a good handicapper, so we cannot dismiss this as beginner’s luck. He takes his racing seriously, and he has a winning ledger. In fact, he’s an accountant, and treats his betting as he does his profession.
Going into the day, he had remarked that he was there for purely recreational reasons. He didn’t have time, he explained, to master the nuances of French racing. He would stick to the basics.
My question is: could this be considered recreational handicapping?
When the dust had settled, I asked my good friend to show me the reasons behind his wagers. In each and every case, there were legitimate arguments. Not a single hunch bet. Recreation for him did not mean using the shit hits the fan method.
I recall that James Quinn would often tell me that he reserved professional wagering for the Santa Anita meet, and beyond that would engage in recreational play. I have been with him occasionally on recreational outings, and could clearly observe that Quinn was dead serious about what he was doing. Even if he had added a dose of intuition, it was intuitive reasoning and not pure, hunch-like intuition.
Both of these players have realized that there’s a difference between daily in-the-trenches betting and excursions to the race track that do not involve a complete awareness of the meet or the track. For the second scenario, adjustments needed to be made, both in the boldness of investment and the complexity of expectation. A newcomer to a track would not have the same chances in a complex pick 4 situation as the locals, whereas he might be able to outsmart the public in a single race.
In the end, a recreational day at the track does not mean casino-style betting, nor should it be the rationale for swinging wildly for the fences. Too often, the word “recreational” is an excuse for not taking things seriously, and an alibi for squandering money. When professional players decide to hang loose and play for fun, part of the meaning of the word “fun” is still winning. Yes, there is a thing we can call recreational betting, but it has nothing to do with a lottery mentality.
By all means, have a good time. This publication is not Calvinistic. But don’t engage in unprotected wrecks.

ON KEEPING IT SIMPLE:
YOUR SAMPLES PLEASE!

Is this the breakthrough? Is it the ultimate in sustainable automatic betting? Let me share this initial research with you, and call for you to send in independent samples.
Introduction
Since Thoroughbred Cycles in 1990, I have been writing about trainer determinism. Only recently have skeptics like Andrew Beyer come around to declare that the trainer is the most important factor in handicapping. Extensive C&X research of the past has shown convincingly that high percentage trainers get more than their fair share of longshot winners while low percentage trainers get less than their fair share. The higher the trainer’s win percentage, the better the roi. Rather than betting on low percentage trainers, you’d do better by playing pin the tail on the program.
With this heightened awareness of the depth of the trainer factor, it seems as if we are at the border of a new flat-bet profit situation and we only need the right passport to get in. The right passport is a set of simple rules. The DRF provides a superb program, the Formulator, for getting more targeted information on trainer specialties, but that opens Pandora’s Box to the information overload. With the Formulator, you can filter, and filter again, but where does one stop? A trainer who has a flat bet profit in dirt routes, for example, can be considered a broad-brush stat. We are seduced into looking for a more specific subset, say claiming races. And after that we might compare subsets of the subsets, say, droppers versus class risers. And after that, still another subset: a mile and a sixteenth versus a mile and an eighth. It can become nonsensical after awhile.
And by pure chance, you might come up with the subset of the subset of the subset saying that trainer Joe Go has a flat-bet profit with 3 wins in 8 races in mile and an eighth route races on fast tracks while he shows a flat-bet loss in mile and a sixteenth route races with only 2 wins in 11 races.
If you carry the insanity to the extreme, you might opine that Joe Go is a specialist at 1 1/8 at Del Mar in August while being a specialist at 1 1/16 at Santa Anita in February.
Some researchers do such things. They are groping for unreasonable complexity. They carry complexity to such an extreme that it becomes simplistic and even inane. I’ve already been there and I’m looking to keep it elegantly simple. So I search on.
Some good discoveries need a Petri dish situation to germinate. My Petri dish is the race track. My latest visit seems to have been nourishing in this sense.
As you know, I often do my betting from afar, whether it be from home or from an OTB. But you also know that I function better in person. I was at Saratoga for the Whitney and decided to take advantage of my on-site intensity to search for The Ultimate Answer. I will present this on-site research, using four tracks, with Saratoga as the trigger for it all.
Please understand that this potential system may seem to have suddenly struck me, but it is the product of years, even decades of reflection about the trainer factor.
Rules
(1) The horse must have at least one set of DRF trainer stats (listed underneath pps) which show (a) a return on investment of at least $2.00 for $2.00 invested, and (b) with at least 15% winners within that subset.
(2) Bet all qualifiers to win. (Exactas may also be considered, and more research will be forthcoming.)
Please note: the reason for demanding at least 15% winners within the flat-bet-profit category is to avoid the distorting phenomenon where one fluke longshot makes a low-percentage trainer seem more dangerous than he really is. The criteria cover different logical bases. For example, we have some trainers who excel in broad categories, such as sprint, route, dirt, turf, etc. But the system also incorporates truly specialty stats. For some hyperspecific specialties, a minimum of 20 races can almost qualify as a large sample.
Colonial
Race 1
Plymouth Rock ------------- 3rd at 3-1
Race 2
Absquatulate 6.40 (Gaston Sandoval: profitable under Turf and Sprint)
Race 3
Mr. Madison -------------
Flying Peace ------------- 3rd at 5-1
Race 4
Silicide ------------ out at 45-1
Race 5
Polish Dynamite ------------
Royal Rascal ----------- 6-1
Yankee Spirit 14.40 (Flint Stites: profitable under Won Last Start)
Race 6
My Manhattan -----------
Yield to No One 30.80 (Carlos Garcia: profitable under Turf)
Race 7
Matt Blanc ---------- 2nd at 7.9 – 1
Roi de Violette 7.40 (Gaston Sandoval: profitable under Turf)
Skip Silver ----------
Race 8
Sea Charter --------- out at 3/10 ugh!
My Little Josie --------- 2nd at 6.7 – 1
Grand Obsession --------- 12-1
Race 9
No trainer qualified

Total horses played: 16
Number of winners: 4 (25%)
Returned: 59.00
Invested: 32.00
Profit: $27.00

Del Mar
It gets a little messy here, as there were so many trainers/horses qualifying.
Race 1
Topper’s Smiling 7.40 (Eric Guillot: Synthetic. Also had profits in 2 other
Categories, but with less than 15% wins)
Run Right Thru ------- 2nd ($2 exacta paid $20.80)
Foxy Miss -------- out
Race 2
Blue Torpedo -------- 2nd at 2-1
Pair of Kings ------- out
Westerly Magic ------- out at 12-1
Race 3
Gary John ------- 3rd at odds-on
Scoonerwharfbardog ------ out at 6-1
Race 4
Hunsley Bunsley 9.80 (Eric Guillot: Maiden, Synthetic, plus two others with
profit but with less than 15% wins)
Atzimba ------- out
Angelina’s Ace ------- out at 6.8 – 1
Truckee Fad ------- out at 48-1
Stingin’ in the Rain ------- out
Race 5
Desert Sea 17.00 (Cody Autrey: 61-80 Days, Synthetic)
Careless Candidate ------ 2nd at 7-2, $2 exacta paid $98.40
L’il Mitch ------ out at 11-1
Race 6
Drill Down 4.60 (Michael Machowsky: Md. Sp. Wt)
($1 Pick 3 paid 176.70)
Dixie Mon ------- 3rd at 33-1
Guns On The Table ------- out
Winning Yield ------- out at 24-1
Big Mahogany ------- out at 18-1
Dreamed Day ------- out at 48-1
Race 7
Excessive Obsession 10.80 (Brian Koriner: Sprint and Allowance)
($1 Pick 3 paid 124.50)
Time Tosay Goodbye ------- 2nd at 10-1, $2 exacta paid 82.80
Cotton Bay ------- 3rd at 14-1, $1 trifecta paid 677.10
Mighty Clever ------- out at 12-1
Race 8
Fly Dorcego 66.60 (Paulo Lobo: synthetic surface; all other categories
profitable as well, but with samples of less than 20 races)
($1 Pick 3 paid 563.20)
Black Spot ------- out at 19-1
Race 9
Fleet Caroline ------- 2nd at 9.7 – 1
Spenditallbaby ------- 3rd at 7.8 – 1
Mostbeautifulstorm ------- 4th at 15-1
La Tee ------- out
Race 10
Chocolate Lava ------- 3rd at 7-1
Ancient Tale -------- out at 18-1
Illybilly -------- out at 56-1
Ma Ka Bet ------- out at 19-1
Andarlyn Cat ------- out at 34-1

Total horses played: 37
Number of winners: 6 (16%)
Returned: 116.00
Invested: 74.00
Profit: $42.00

Saratoga
Race 1
Private Lap 11.00 (Steve Klesaris: Dirt)
Sir Jackie -------- 3rd
Race 2
War Pass 15.80 (Nick Zito: Md Sp Wt)
West Express -------- out at 24-1
($2 Daily Double paid $100)
Race 3
Thorn Song 31.80 (Dale Romans: Won Last Start, Allowance)
Mister White Socks ------- 3rd at 6-1
Perrycarditius ------- out at 22-1
Chief Running Bear ------ out at 9/2
Johannesburg Star ------ out at 17-1
Race 4
Fresh Episode 97.00 (Debra Divitto: Dirt, Sprint, Claim)
Need the Write Off ------- 2nd at 7/2: exacta paid $635.00
($2 Pick 3 paid $14.282)
Race 5
Bujagall ------- out
Forest of Dreams -------- out as fave
Mike’s Dream Team ------- out at 6-1
Dr. Warren -------- out at 19-1
Holla Bend -------- 2nd at 24-1
Red Hot Poker -------- out at 19-1
Race 6
Everblazing -------- out at 18-1
It’s Magical -------- out at 15-1
Defrereoftheheart -------- 3rd
Full of Rage -------- out at 50-1
Race 7
My Typhoon 8.10 (Mott: Graded Stake)
Argentina ------- 2nd at 9-1 (exacta paid $59)
Makderah ------- 3rd ($2 trifecta paid $133)
Magnificent Song ------- out at
Danzon ------- out at
Race 8
Diabolical 7.00 (Steve Klesaris: Dirt, Sprint, Graded Stake)
Abraaj ------- out at 23-1
Benny the Bull ------- 3rd
Cougar Cat ------- out at 10-1
Race 9
No horse qualified.
Race 10
Lawyer Ron 13.00 (Pletcher: 31-60 Days)
Flashy Bull ------- out at 6-1
Brass Hat ------- out at 11-1
Magna Graduate ------- out
Dry Martini -------- out at 17-1
Awesome Twist -------- out at 24-1
Race 11
Any Way Which 23.00 (Gary Gullo: Md Sp Wt)
Saratoga Kaz ------- 2nd at 8-1 (exacta paid $256)
Royal Livingston ------- 3rd at 5-1 (trifecta paid $1,546)
Another Hades ------- out at 25-1
($2 Daily Double paid $153)

Total horses played: 40
Number of winners: 8 (20%)
Returned: 206.70
Invested: 80.00
Profit: $126.70

Monmouth
Race 1
Boca Mary -------- 2nd
Smart Halory -------- 3rd
Lovely Fire -------- out
Race 2
Dixie Two Thousand ------- out
Race 3
Touched By Madness ------- 2nd
Too Many Toyz -------- 3rd
Sleek John -------- out
Race 4
Freedom’s Honor -------- 3rd
Legal Control -------- out
Little Genius -------- out
Race 5
No horse qualified
Race 6
Boss Tiffany 5.00 ( Bruce Levine: First Claim)
Tease -------- out
Race 7
Wild Babe 9.00 (Juan Carlos Guerrero: Turf, Sprint, Claim)
Loushe -------- out
Race 8
No horse qualified
Race 9
Spanky Fischbein -------- 2nd
Run Sully Run -------- 3rd
Race 10
Earthen Vow 19.40 (Jane Cibelli: Turf, Routes)
It’s My Turn Now -------- out

Total horses played: 18
Number of winners: 3 (17%)
Returned: 33.40
Invested: 36.00
Loss: ($2.60)

Note that this was a day of low payoffs at Monmouth. The Dominant Trainer Method picked the highest paying horse of the day, at 19.40, and in three different races, this method finished second/third. Of the four tracks studied, only Monmouth had a losing day, but the method still performed better than could be expected under the circumstances.

Now it comes time to tally this whole sample, combining all four tracks.

Total horses played: 111
Number of winners: 21 (19%)
Races Played: 36 (so we would collect in 21 of 36 races)
Returned: 415.10
Invested: 222.00
Profit: $193.10 (87% positive return on investment)

Needless to say, we’re looking at some mighty fine results. However, we are in need of truly independent samples. Please contact me if you’ve done such a sample. But don’t try to make me feel good by fudging toward a positive number. C&X does not punish the messenger of bad news.
In fact, we should be just as interested in bad samples as in good ones. I’m serious about this simple method which required me to pass through numerous complex obstacles. I’d like to start playing it in earnest. But as you know, we always require second and third opinions for there must be independent validation.
Please note that we’re not interested in bottom level tracks because we’d expect the most dominant trainers from the bush league tracks to seek higher purses at the big tracks, and this is what usually happens.
I’m not entirely convinced about the small tracks, but I have just preferred to target my research in the most logical direction. You can test smaller tracks if you wish and all of us would be willing to consider these samples within a total context.

P.S. Validations
I sent this system ahead to Dr. Billy M., C&X’s most faithful fact checker. Here’s his first response:
hit 8/10 races at Saratoga today. Bet $80 got $88. I wonder if it is more important in revealing trainer intention (maiden races with little pp info) than trainer ability. Will keep track.

A SPECIAL AWARENESS: THE BACKWHEEL AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
For years now I have not been able to figure how it is that the backwheel, one of the strangest and wackiest of all bets, has been my most consistent all-time play. It made no sense.
But now I know.
Please follow this argument. For years I have suggested that we should only play when we have some special awareness. I’ve written: “No insight, no bet.”
My hit rate on exacta backwheels has been well above 50%. But I only do about one a month, and sometimes less. This is, by far, my most selective bet. I only act when I have a very special awareness about a horse and the field it is entered in. In other words, precisely because the backwheel is a wacky bet, I’ve exercised the most extreme restraint.
Let’s consider the case for the Grade I Diana at Saratoga on 28 July. Here was a race in which none of the fillies or mares could be eliminated, with the exception of Mauralakana’s rabbit, Countess Scala. A win bet was out of the question because making any semblance of an odds line is impossible if you cannot eliminate any of the horses in a field.
One of the least likely winners in this particular race was Robert Frankel mare, Argentina. Argentina was a substitute entry after another of Frankel’s horses had to be scratched from the race. Frankel declared with his usual frankness in a DRF interview that he would have wanted to put a race into Argentina. The suggestion was that Argentina would need the race.
But then there was the Frankel stat. For horses with +180 day layoffs, Frankel had 26 wins in 100 tries yielding $2.19 for every $2 invested. Certainly Argentina was well-meant, even if she might come up a little short.
The positive trainer stat was partly blurred by the fact that other trainers in the race (Pletcher, McLaughlin, Mott, and Biancone) also had strong specialty stats with positive returns on investment.
My special knowledge on the Frankel mare went back to France, where I had seen her finish second to the unbeatable Divine Proportions, beating another horse, Vadawina. Argentina had finished second behind the very same Vadawina in the previous race. I remember remarking at the time that Argentina was a highly competitive runner who nevertheless liked to have another competitor in front of her. I KNEW this because she had found so many different reasons for finishing second or very close up.
(1) Against Divine Proportions, she had raced toward the rear, too far back to make up all the ground;
(2) In another race she had taken the lead with more than a furlong to go but at the eighth pole she had allowed herself to be headed by the eventual winner, and eventually lost by 2.
(3) In last year’s version of the Grade I Diana, she had gotten into traffic, split rivals, and finished a very close up third, which for me amounted to a place since the other two horses finished in a photo. No way she could have split them.
(4) She had also been a beaten favorite on six occasions, suggesting that she was both talented and slightly disappointing (I say “slightly” because she was usually right there at the moment of truth, and she was a money earner.)
I had also read Dave Litfin’s DRF commentary: “Don’t cry for Argentina…”, and I even felt moved to tell Mr. Litfin in person that I applauded his style.
I did not want to cry for Argentina and felt that the best way to rejoice for her was by betting her in the back position of the exacta.
It was a beautiful race. She was well placed, in a little tight, but no complaints. She was able to make her move, and good enough to hold off the favorite, but she lost to the second fave. The exacta came back at $59.
I cannot help but consider that if I were so knowledge conscious and information aware in all my wagering, then I would be just as rigorously selective as I am with the backwheel.
PS. There was another pattern match for this race, a very poetic one, which I chose not to use. Argentina had finished second in a race on another continent with the same name as this particular Saratoga event, for the Chantilly race, often labeled as the French Oaks, is really called the Prix Diane.

THE MOST POTENT FACTOR IN RACING: It’s a speed, it’s a pace, it’s a class, it’s a form, it’s Super …
None of the above listed factors show a flat-bet profit in the long term. They’ve been tested by all the numbers crunchers. The problem is not only these factors themselves, it’s the archaic way in which we define a factor. It seems as if, after years of horse race analysis, that no one has ever considered that a handicapping factor can be a conceptual thing and not only a mechanical piece of a puzzle.
Based on years of observation, I have come to believe that if you had to handicap a race without using the trainer factor, then the best conceptual factor becomes the pattern match. The pattern match is not antithetical to the trainer factor as it often incorporates trainer intention. Furthermore, at a more subtle level, the pattern match may also have the other famous factors embedded within it.
The problem with speed, class, pace and form is that they are found in the past performances of every horse in every race. In any given race, the form factor alone is like a maze of varying up and down escalators flowing at different speeds and at different angles. The speed factor, linked to form, can bounce one way and bounce the other, and C&X research has regularly shown that the average winning Beyer speed rating is about 8 points better than the horse’s speed figure in its previous race.
The pace is even hazier since bias and form affect it, and the horse that charts to be a front runner is not always the one that gets out there from the gate. And class? Well, this factor, which I often favor, makes a difference only when form is also predictable. The exception is that sometimes a class drop will trigger a form awakening, a revival of spirits. Trainers have told me that they are dropping a horse to help him recover his spirit of courage.
Continuity versus change
Speed, pace, and class try to predict continuity, with only the form factor referring to changing cycles.
The pattern match predicts change. The pattern match occurs much less frequently than the above factors, but as we learn from life experience, the best things in life arrive less frequently than what is mundane and trivial.
So let’s look at a few winning pattern matches (take my word for it that there are enough losing ones as well) in order to get a feel for the dynamics.
On 26May07, Pimlico, the 4-year-old gelding Polish Dynamite was coming back for his second race following a long layoff. His other victory, in a turf maiden route, was also the second race after a significant layoff. Now, he was switching to Napravnik, and his first victory was also with a rider switch to Napravnik. In other words, a double pattern match.
The class factor was embedded in this positive trainer intention. Going into the race, Polish Dynamite was zero for 5 at the allowance non-winners-of-1 level, and going nowhere, so trainer Michael Trombetta was dropping him to a softer spot: claiming 25,000, non-winners of 2 lifetime.
The pace factor was also embedded in this pattern match. Polish Dynamite’s layoff comebacker was a short five furlongs on the turf (his only win was at the much longer 1 1/16). In the short prep, he trailed the field by 22 lengths at the half mile. He closed the gap to 15 lengths in the stretch and ended up defeated by 9 lengths, while still trailing the field. It was what you might call a tightener, and with the added distance, he figured to be much closer to the pace early on.
The pattern match was culminated when Polish Dynamite triumphed, paying $8.60. Not a huge price but try getting 3-1 in the stock market!
Each of these pattern matches are comprised of different combinations. Juxtaposed in these pages they resemble a Matisse painting. On 5Jan07, at Laurel, the 6-1 Call Me Clash had three things changing. He was dropping in class/purse from 42,000 to 32,000 overnight stakes to entry-level allowance. Then, he was shortening up from 6 ½ furlongs to 5 ½. Finally, he was coming on to a muddy track after having been on a fast strip in his previous outing.
Sometimes the trainer is out of the loop for at least part of the pattern match: in this case, it was unlikely that the trainer had anticipated the weather, though you never know. I’ve spoken with trainers who have actually entered a horse in anticipation of a particular weather trend. In summary, Call Me Clash’s previous win came with (1) a drop (in maiden claiming class level), (2) a shortening up (6 to 5 ½ furlongs) and (3) the encounter with a muddy track after having raced on fast tracks in previous races. He won by 5 lengths, relishing the mud as his grand-dad Conquistador Cielo had done.
For Midnight Duel, the pattern match involved (1) a comeback race following a layoff and (2) a drop from 16,000/15,000 to 8,000. He’d already won with this pattern at 5-1, and this time, 21May07 at Delaware, you were getting 10-1. He circled the field and pulled off by more than 2 lengths, causing many of the bettors to scratch their heads and wonder what was wrong with their speed and pace figures.
For Mostbeautifulstorm, the intentions of Dale Romans, one of the deterministic trainers, probably played a key role in the pattern match. The filly’s previous win came with a switch to Keeneland, polytrack and 7 furlong. Now we found a switch to the same scene of an easy 6-1 theft. Now, on 6April07, the odds went up to a hard 7-1 and the theft was not quite as easy, with Mostbeautifulstorm going 7 wide into the lane and ultimately prevailing by a neck, yielding $17.40 to her pattern followers. Her Beyer fig went up 15 points from her prep race fig, but that is within the normal range for pattern matchers.
From the four above examples, you can see that there exists a vast variety of pattern matches.
The Win Fresh Pattern
Almost by definitive, pattern matches are intrinsic to the horse itself. This means that each pattern has its own traits. I suppose we could map out universal patterns, but in practice, each case needs to be weighed on its own merits.
If there were one particular pattern that could lend itself to a universal explanation, it is what I call the “win fresh” pattern. In the prototype of this pattern, you have a horse that wins first time out, usually as a two year old. He loses his next race(s) and is laid off. His following race in essence repeats the pattern of his first win. A debut win means a win off works alone. A lay-1 win is parallel in logic.
An example of this classic pattern is a 3-year-old gelding named Exceleration. This guy won as a first-time starter at Tampa Bay in December of 2006. He was wheeled back to chase the tails of horses in an allowance nw1. Then, he got his vacation. It was growing time, and during this period, Tbreds usually gain in physical maturity and the speed that comes with it.
On 25March07, Exceleration came back to the races in a 30,000 claiming race at Gulfstream. Normally we like to see them come back in an allowance race, but since the debut win came at the lower level track of Tampa, the claiming race was a logical spot at classier GP. Exceleration completed the match, paying $14.80.
This is certainly a frequent pattern, but the pattern match is a theme with variations, and the variations outnumber the strict thematic repetitions. One such variation occurred with another 3-year-old gelding, Smokin Lu. This guy won his debut race at Belmont in July of 2006, and was immediately laid off. But he lost his comeback race on the Aqueduct inner dirt track. After reeling off five straight losses on the same Big A inner dirt, he was laid off once again. His next comeback race came at Belmont, the same scene of his win-fresh debut victory. Unfortunately, this pattern match occurred in a 5-horse field, so you only got a $6.00 payoff for this win-fresh/preferred track pattern patch.
Picking out patterns involves a certain degree of creativity, but in essence, it’s a way of thinking that can be easily acquired. The skill involves open-minded scanning of the pps. Thinking in pattern matches is intrinsic to our character. Babies learn to speak through pattern matches. But then this abililty for both critical and creative thinking wears off for so many of us.
But pattern matches are an important component in many professions. Doctors, for example, discover treatments through pattern matches, and that’s the reason for their studying the medical history of a patient, which is the equivalent of the past performances. (Some of you may ask how it’s possible to compare the pps of flawed human beings to those of magnificent thoroughbreds.)
The pattern match must not be forced. It should be a discovery that rings clear and crisp, and it should not be found too frequently since it is a moment of sensible clarity within an ongoing flow of routine chaos.
Finally, a pattern match should not be entirely mechanical. Consider the win-fresh pattern of a four-year-old filly, Sherunsforbilly. She triumphed in her debut race, a 20,000 maiden claimer, returning $15.60. She then went up into allowance non-winners of 1, and at 9-1, she finished second, thus establishing firm credentials as an overachiever. Both of her races were run at The Meadowlands. (Overachievers are horses that consistently run better than their odds.)
She was then laid off and came back fresh on 14July2007 at Monmouth. Here was the essence of the win-fresh pattern. But her Beyer figs were so low comparative to the rest of the field that she went to post at 18-1. It is in such circumstances that the pattern-match player finds himself at a crossroads. Turn right and you follow the pattern. Turn left and you follow the speed-pace-class players. Doubters usually turn the wrong way and later regret it.
The word “but” often takes over when a pattern match really contradicts prevailing speed/pace/class/form factors. But the pattern for Sherunsforbilly was so strikingly clear. She had achieved a 59 Beyer fig as a 3yo. Now, mid-way through her fourth year of life, she must have matured physically. She ran the race of her life and her Beyer zoomed up to 86. She toyed with the field and pulled off by seven lengths, fulfilling the win-fresh pattern match. She returned a very generous $39.40.
(Please understand that the lack of space prevents us from illustrating losing horses. We all know that with virtually every method of racing, there are more losers than winners. Payoffs like $39.40 pay for lots of losers.)

THE RACE TRACK TOUR DE FRANCE:
ON HIPPODROME ENERGY
This article is part of the occasional column called Also-Eligible Vacations
Before and after my trip to Saratoga, I have been engaging in what I term the “Race Track Tour de France”. In essence I am participating in a stage by stage procedure that involves two-day bicycle excursions of about 100 miles. The first day involves an arrival, and the second day is taken up by exploring the region.
By connecting the great arrival to a race track, I am energized to carry on, even though timing of the trip usually does not allow me to actually attend the races. It’s pretty difficult to cycle 65 miles and get there for first post time, and most rural tracks in France do not have many racing dates.
But for this man who is 62 years old, anything that is energizing is okay, and for me, just the pure sight of a stunningly beautiful race course is enough to get me rolling easy for an extra 20 miles.
The first leg of our Race Track Tour de France took us from the edge of the north Paris suburbs north to Dieppe on the beautiful Normandy coast, on a beach between imposing palisades. (I must admit that my friend and I cheat by taking our bikes on a suburban train to get out of the urban Paris area; I cycle every day in Paris and this Tour de France is supposed to be a rural treat.)
French race tracks are like green cathedrals, and each one is different, in contour and atmosphere. The track at Dieppe is on a high plain about a mile from the beach. One arrives at the track and cycles parallel to the long back stretch.
I made sure we went slowly, in order to appreciate every detail, including a stop that allowed for a few sighs and some great deep breaths in order to pay humble reverence to the great green monument for man and beast.
At Dieppe they race some cards with Tbreds on the flat, others with the jumpers (both hedges and steeplechase), and yet other cards with harness horses trotting on the grass. It’s a long track with tight turns. This is one of the tracks that they keep open just for historical and aesthetic reasons, at considerable financial loss. Only a profound respect for history prevents such tracks from being demolished for housing developments or shopping centers.
The next leg of our Tour, just completed, was from a south Paris suburb to the Loire River castle region. The Loire is the only major river in Europe that has remained wild and undeveloped. The “Eiffel Tower” of the Loire, in my deranged opinion, is a twin-towered nuclear power plant, which can be seen from miles away, sort of the way San Onofre interacts with the SoCal coast. People live in the shadow of the menacing towers, without the slightest concern. We were invited for coffee at one of the ancient dwellings, a stone house dating back to the 1700s, and we could see the nuclear towers spuming their white mist. Strangely, none of the tourist brochures even mention this monument to modern culture. They do highlight the many magnificent castles, however.
To get from Paris to this castle region, one passes through the city of Orleans, of Joan of Arc fame, with its immense and intricate gothic cathedral. Yes, we stopped to see this cathedral, and it was awesome indeed, but the energizing moment was seeing the other cathedral, the race track, on a south cliff of the Loire. We strayed from the normal bicycle route in order to wheel over a raised dirt path above and parallel to the backstretch of the Orleans race track. Look down to your left and you see a magnificent green race course with a small grandstand that looks like what you’d see at a little league baseball field. Within the backstretch are various athletic facilities, since there are very few racing days at Orleans and they can’t leave it inactive. Just as with Dieppe, the Orleans race course features cards with all three racing disciplines but only a few times per year.
Look down to your left and see the manicured race course. Look down to your right and you view the wild islands in the middle of the Loire.
Yes, we eventually arrived at the beautiful medieval castle town of Beaugency, in time for a fine dinner accompanied by the great Loire region wine, Mennetou-Salon, which dates all the way back to the tenth century. My bicycle partner and wine connoisseur gave me the ok to choose a red wine with my order of perch in an exotic tarragon sauce. We wondered if the perch came from the fishermen hanging out over the stone bridges above the Loire or whether it was flown in from Tanzania.
The best rest stops in the world
For any red-blooded horseplayer, in order to do trips like these, there must be one more required ingredient: a place to make a bet. Most French towns have OTBs, called PMU (pari-mutuel urbain). The PMUs provide ample excuse for “rest stops”. That’s why I call these Tours de France “ride-and-play journeys”. I suppose you can do the same thing using New York State OTBs, in towns like New Paltz, Hudson, and Glens Falls. Upstate New York is an underrated overlay, and I’d love to do a New York cycling trip with C&X cyclers. We could call it a “seminar on wheels”. We could hit places like Monticello, Batavia Downs, Finger Lakes, and Saratoga.
For France, I have my special “rest stop system”. It has shown a modest profit over the years.
Since one cannot study the past performances while one is pedaling through brooding forests and ancient villages, I have devised an automatic bet for such rest stops.
On the TV race monitor in the PMU you will see two odds columns. The first says PMU and represents the odds of all off-track wagers on the particular race to be run. The second says PMH and refers to current on-track odds, which incorporate the morning off-track action into the on-track pool. Traditionally in France, most smart action or insider betting comes at the track. Thus, when late action comes in under the PMH column, creating a significant odds differential, it is usually well-intended action, and often smart action as well. The later the action surges in, the better.
Wheeling into Orleans, I spotted a PMU Bar called “To the Beautiful Cyclist” (A la belle cicliste), with outdoor seating and a race monitor inside. My cycling comrade Philippe knows that when there’s a PMU, we take a rest stop even when we’re not tired.
It was the fifth race, a 15 horse event. On the board, only two horses were getting smart late action. One of them had been 6-1 at the PMU but was 7-2 when the at-the-track action was averaged in. The other action horse had been 12-1 in the morning off-track portion of the pool, and was now being bet down to 7-1. The on-track odds on every other horse remained relatively near to their early PMU betting odds. I boxed the quinella, without even seeing past performances, without even knowing the name of the horses or trainers. There is a feeling of power when one can make a logical choice without even studing the paper.
The Q came in. I collected enough for my hotel expense.
We savored the rich coffee from an outdoor table of A La Belle Cicliste and then rolled off in search of the next overlay.

LESSON FROM CLAIMING CROWN 2007
I had to miss this year’s Claiming Crown from Ellis Park, but studying the results will help illustrate a valuable lesson. It has to do with home field advantage.
In Canterbury Claiming Crowns, each year there were surprise longshot victories by local horses, horses that seemed outclassed according to their past performances. I picked one of them, Steve Fierro picked another, and we also missed a couple of toteblasters and regretted it. I had no idea whether this was a particularity of Canterbury Park or if there were some universal handicapping lesson.
The results from Ellis suggest that the home field advantage is alive and well and probably a universal factor. Of the seven Claiming Crown winners, all but one had some Kentucky connection, either through pedigree or most recent race. Five of the seven showed the previous running line from Kentucky. Of those, two had most recently raced over the same Ellis Park strip: Neverbeendancin ($11.60 in the Rapid Transit) and One Eyed Joker ($44.90 in Emerald for the dames on the grass). There were other Ellis Park horses that also overachieved. Western Revenge finished third at 15-1 in the Iron Horse, Cool Lover finished third at a whopping 68-1 in the Express, and King’s Challenge showed at 9-1 in the Jewel.
Canterbury names seemed to pop up as well, suggesting a more distant or vague connection between experience with the event and the displaced event itself. One of my favorite small-track riders, Paul Nolan, often among the Canterbury leaders and a longshot turf specialist, rode the longest-priced winner of the day, Adore You, who paid $100.60 to win in the Glass Slipper. Then there was the Cby horse Habaneros, who finished second in the Emerald at huge odds of 31-1 with the talented Seth Martinez aboard.
Many of the usual Claiming Crown trainer personalities did not show up, and Michael Maker filled the void by saddling three winners, equalling the absent Scott Lake’s record in that category.
The ultimate lesson here, it seems, is that the been-there/done-that factor is alive and well. Go tell that to the horse.

SCRATCHING FOR AN EDGE
In looking around for an edge, I came upon a race at Delaware in which four of the eight horses entered had been scratched out of what would have been their previous race. Two of them were vet’s scratches. The other two had been removed from the race by their trainers. Such scratches are often a bad sign, though we also know, to the contrary, that a horse can be lame and then become fit within a few days.
Prior to observing this Delaware scenario, I had irregularly noted that betting scratched horses their next time out leads to a horrendous flat-bet loss, even though some of the scratchees end up winning next time they prance onto the track. What I did notice from my unscientific samples is that the in-the-money record of horses coming back after having been scratched is poorer than the ITM record of general horsedom. Not enough info to go on, but enough to ponder.
So I saw this race at Delaware with half the field coming back after having been scratched, and I said to myself, “If I were as kinky today as I used to be, I’d box the other four horses”, the ones that had not been scratches. But I also reminded myself that I do not really have a legitimately scientific sample, so I decided to just watch for the result, and then dutifully note it, which I shall do right now.
In that race, the four eliminated horses finished off the board. A $2 box of the four remaining sound horses resulted in an exacta payoff of $78.80. A $2 trifecta box of the same for healthy ones paid a handsome $448.00.
Am I on to something? Well, it’s certainly worth following up. In the search for an edge in an increasingly tough game, we should leave no stone unturned. Now that the lottery players have moved away from the race track to the slots and keno, we really need to think beyond the classical nine dots in order to make a profit.
(Now, if I had thought that there was such a thing as recreational horse betting, once free from the constraints of scientific rigor, it would have been easier to make this bet.)

POSTSCRIPT: A NOTE ON BIAS
This, the most elusive factor in racing, is sometimes an illusion and other times a deterministic force. There are occasions when bias develops in the collective consciousness of riders, who overreact to each pace trend wave and thus create an opposite wave based on changing jockey strategies. In other words, jockey mass psychology may turn most riders into waiters after they’ve seen too many early speed horses burn out. Then when the early speed begins to win, the waiters start hustling their horses out of the gate. I refer to this as a jockey-induced bias, and it usually has nothing to do with the surface of the track. It’s closer to the difference between a bull and bear market.
But on July 28 at Saratoga, a real surface bias definitely existed. Take the charts from this afternoon and demote easy winners and ITM horses from the front end while adding points to well-meant closers that tried to make up ground on the dirt. The day culminated with a Whitney Stakes in which early runners pretty much stayed, even if a presser won the race.
The first race on the card set the tone, with evenly matched horses Sir Jackie and Private Lap. The track had been sealed because of a prediction of continuing showers after a night of occasional downpours. But the Saturday rains never came.
I gave an edge to Sir Jackie, a closer. Private Lap, the front runner, prevailed. Sir Jackie could not get untracked sufficiently to charge past the leader. He looked as if he were carrying a heavy backpack instead of a light rider. If Private Lap had been 4/5, it might have been a simple case of the best horse winning. But He was a generous 9/2.
In the fourth race, a sprint, the 47-1 Fresh Episode carried them all the way through the backstretch and around the turn. Everyone expected this unlikely horse to fold before arrival. The much-lower-odds presser Need the Write Off was in perfect stalking position. But he could not catch the leader no matter how much he dug in..
Other indications of a speed favoring track ensued, and we arrived at the AG Vanderbilt Handicap, a Grade II affair. In my line, it was clearly a co-favorite race. The public handicappers had noted that the field was clogged with early speed. My contender Diabolical was a close-up presser and my other choice, Benny the Bull, was the closer. Both of these sprinters were capable of 111 Beyers. They were both 5/2. If there had been no bias, these odds would have been entirely objective.
However, true believers in the bias could have played Diabolical to win. I did a one-way exacta, trying to be cool: Diabolical, the early class, on top of Benny the Bull, the late class. Diabolical did win. But one of the two speed duel horses, Attila’s Storm, held off Benny easily for the place. If you watched Benny the Bull trying to make up ground, and if you visualized Attila’s Storm hanging on, you’d be a believer in occasional track biases.
I lost the race, having tried to finesse it.
The two co-choices were both 5/2, but if you had factored in the bias, Diabolical should have been 7/5 and Benny the Bull 5-1.
Bias is a messy subject. In the Vanderbilt there was a race between the race, with the classier front runner putting away the cheaper one who had the lower odds thanks to the publicity factor. Cheaper speed still folded.
Bias is never crisp and clear. I was able to spot it but I was not hip enough to take advantage.