Mark Cramer
C & X Report

EDITORIAL

In looking back for lessons from Arlington Million day, I have come up with a few observations. Let’s go one by one:

He who lives by the theft, dies by the theft. Presious Passion’s cards were on the table, and collectively, the other riders in the Arlington Million sensed that they could not let the bandit get away with it again. This altered the pace of the race, not only destroying the chances of PP (a soft turf course may have also had a negative impact) but also obliterating the chances for the pressers, including Gloria de Campeao, whose role ended up as hurried front runner (with respect to the rest of the field), in other words, serving as a rabbit for the legit fave and eventual winner, Gio Ponti.

Powerful stables can dictate. I am thinking of the Aga Khan and his trainer Royer Dupré. Their horse, Alnadana, in the Beverly D, was coming from a win in a very mediocre Grade 3 field in which the other front runner scratched and she was able to dictate the pace. The race itself was not any particular indicator of talent. But the Aga Khan rarely ships for the sport. He means business. There was one point in the stretch when Alnadana lost her momentum in a crowd and had to shift lanes. By the time she regained momentum, it was too late for the win, but she nailed the place.

Who’s the smart money? When I saw the tote for the Beverly D, Alnadana was 2-1 in France and 7-1 in the States. On the other hand, the Dermot Weld horse, Mad About You, was 5-1 at Arlington and 25-1 in France. I sensed that the French public was the dumb money, and in the end it was me who was dumb. In fact, the French public had learned to respect the Aga Khan, and they were right.

This was the first Arlington Million day in years where I had lost money. Either I was losing my touch or it was just a question the law of averages leading to a day of bad judgment. As horseplayers we try to find the right wave and ride it. Waves eventually alter and we need to make adjustments.

At the end of the day, my first reaction was to tell my wife she should pack me in ice. But on further reflection, I came to the conclusion that all knowledge in horse race handicapping is temporary and that it was simply a time for me to reweigh my the hierarchy of specialties.

It remains to be seen whether this represents a type of end of the road, as when I had lost my big edge in using the Tomlinson figures and specializing in turf maiden races. Am I going out of one era and entering another, or is it simply one day when I couldn’t put things together?

It’s always good to take time out and reflect, try to look at one’s handicapping self from an objective distance.

SHORT FORM WORKSHOP:

Dialogue with reader

First, study the past performances of this race, using the bare-bones rules of the short form as we have published them in previous issues.

Exclude horse:

(1) that is a proven loser at today’s level (two losses or more);

(2) whose trainer has lower than a 12% hit rate

You can check back to previous issues regarding other possible rules that we have been researching. For example, the presence of various “quality eliminations” (horses eliminated on both rules, for example) would allow us to go deeper into the race. Or: the presence of a trainer specialty stat for today’s race that is significantly better than the broad stats above the pps.

I received a test race from reader Bill, asking me for my analysis based on the Short Form. He had already played the race and wanted to compare my interpretation of the SF with his.

Insert PPs.

My response to Bill,
Regarding the FE race, here are the mechanics:
1 TOSS proven loser and no-win trainer
2 TOSS 3 1/2 percent trainer and never made move vs better (merry-go-round horse)
3 TOSS 0% trainer
4 USE Living for Life: USE class drop, first time this level, trainer above 12%
5 TOSS proven loser no-win trainer
6 TOSS 5% trainer, and one loss this level
7 USE Jenpeg 12 1/2% trainer, horse never lost this level
8 Borderline case, possibly use: Southern Stride, technically an elimination since the trainer is 8% overall and 8% in maiden claiming, but he is recently a hot trainer.
9 TOSS proven loser 0% trainer
10 TOSS 5% trainer lost twice this level
11 USE 15% trainer never lost this level with extra plus, hot rider
12 TOSS but this is a judgmental call. Technically the horse qualifies, and in fact, the trainer is profitable in three specialty categories, where his win percentage is higher than his overall percentage. However, the horse made a move vs better (merry-go-round horse) and has zero% rider, so even though this is not a proven loser at the level and its trainer is better than 12%, I am tempted to throw this one out. The merry-go-round factor (never made a move in lifetime) and the 0% rider are two really bad signs
So everything was entirely mechanical except for one judgment call on the 12.
Most of these eliminations could be classified as "quality eliminations" which means that I could play this race even with four qualifiers. They are quality eliminations either because they are both proven loser AND no-win trainer, which is the case for horses 1, 5, 6 (with one loss this level and no-win trainer), 9 and 10. In other words, five of the twelve horses, nearly half the field, are quality eliminations.
Now what's your opinion?
Mark

Bill’s response to me:

Thanks Mark! This is what I mean by learning by example. It's how I've ever learned to do anything.

You used 7, I tossed b/c 11% trainer year.
You considered using 8, I tossed b/c 9% trainer year.

I did not know to average trainer win% year and win% meet to come up with 12.5% for the #7 and 19% for the #8. Is that something you added recently, because it wasn't part of the original method you sent me?

You tossed 12 on a judgmental call, but I used b/c technically he qualified.

I had only 3 contenders with many quality eliminations.
#4 14-1
#11 4-1
#12 99-1

This is how I bet the race:
$10 EXA 11-4 ($10 returned $648)
$10 EXA BOX 4-11 ($20 returned $648)
$2 EXA 11-12 ($2 loss)
$1 EXA 4,11 w/12 ($2 loss)
$2 EXA BOX 4-11-12 ($12 returned $129.60)
$2 TRI 4,11 w/4,11 w/12 ($4 loss)
$1 TRI 4,11 w/ALL w/12 ($18 loss)
$1 TRI BOX 4-11-12 ($6 loss)

Total bet= $74
Total return= $1,425.60
Rebate= $5.92
Profit (loss)= $1,357.52

Good day, right?

Unfortunately, I passed on the following $0.50 SFCs because my book does not accept wagers less than $1 even if the track does:
$0.50 SFC 4,11 w/4,11 w/ALL w/12 ($9 returned $19,735.75)
$0.50 SFC 4,11 w/ALL w/4,11 w/12 ($9 loss)

INSERT results chart

Bill

Mark responds:

Glad to see once more that a reader has profited from the Short Form method.

First, here was a case where the letter of the law eclipsed the spirit of the law.

Second, we need more help in deciding whether or not to keep in merry-go-round losers versus better when they are class droppers in the maiden claiming ranks. The 12 horse, Astonishing, at 106-1, definitely did qualify by the rules but had shown not a single move in his two losses versus better. Now, his fourth place finish triggered a $39,000 superfecta for a buck. Your comments are invited as to the issue of the merry-go-round horse (one that made absolutely no moves versus better maidens and is dropping today).

Third, Bill used the previous year’s trainer stats because they represented the large and long-term sample. My feeling is that we add this year’s and last year’s stats, just in case we have a hot trainer who has greatly improved.

Bill’s correspondence represents numerous responses from readers about their success in using the Short Form method. However, I am not over-impressed by unanimity in the positive responses, because there may be some reluctance among readers who have negative findings to send them to me. Please do not be bashful. We are on to something good, and critical comments can only help us to do the very best refinements.

NOTE ON TROPICAL DOWNS AND OUR PERSONAL TOUR DE FRANCE

It took me two whole years to write this novel. From the beginning, I set the bar high. How could it be possible to tell a good story and integrate handicapping research within the story? No writer had ever attempted such a feat.

There were other obstacles. In my heart I know that fiction can be more authentic than non-fiction; we know this from great historical novels that give us a better picture of the times and a dry history. But I also knew that fewer people are willing to read fiction than non-fiction.

By including the racing theme, I was isolating myself from much of the mainstream, since, as we all know, horse racing has now become a subculture and only becomes a vibrant part of daily life in places like Kentucky, or upstate New York during the Saratoga meet.

By having emphasized the racing theme, I risked being given the cold shoulder by non-racing reviewers but by having strayed into themes involving crime, corruption and call-girl caprices, I also risked being snubbed by racing publications.

Thus far, Tropical Downs has received six glowing reviews. The ones that appeared in the Pace Advantage website and in Horseplayer Magazine (July-August issue) were particularly uplifting.

As a result of the good vibes, I have decided to make my next book available for free. It’s called Our Personal Tour de France (“our” because my horseplayer friend Alan Kennedy participated as the pace setter) and deals with a 6-day/5-racetrack bicycle tour, covering 300 kilometers. Like Tropical Downs, it has both a travel theme and handicapping woven in: real race betting situations.

By the time you read this, at least three of the six chapters will have been posted, at:

www.altiplanopublications.com

UPDATE ON THE “INFORMED MINORITY”

For years, the “Informed Minority” method has yielded a profit at the Claiming Crown. That is, when only one handicapper (lone wolf) on the grid has picked a particular horse. The method is based on theories of groupthink. In most cases, the collective intelligence of the broad market (betting, Wall Street, etc.) outperforms any particular “expert”. No way that one man or woman can incorporate all the nuances involved in a complex set of variables.

With one exception: sometimes groupthink takes over and the whole market goes the wrong way (such as the derivatives from sub-prime mortgages).

In such cases, a minority of one can outperform that “wisdom of the crowd” (See The Wisdom of Crowds by Surowiecki).

This year in the Claiming Crown grid, the informed minority fell short. There were 13 plays and 2 wins. Total invested was $26 and total return was $19.60.

In reviewing my tallies I discovered that for a second time at Claiming Crown, one particular handicapper was the successful informed minority in two races. In three of the CC races, Steve Fierro was the informed minority. He won two of those, with Gran Estreno ($9.20) and Happiness Is ($10.40). I have not tallied all the Claiming Crowns, but I do know that at least on one other occasion, it was the same Steve Fierro to have the two IM picks, at much higher odds.

Thus, in an attempt to iron out the wrinkles of the Informed Minority Method, I have once again decided that we could eventually develop a pool of public handicappers who have shown multiple successes as the informed minority, and restrict our plays to those particular handicappers.

I asked Steve Fierro about his secret. I discovered something that could be of benefit to all of us. I asked Steve if my observation of his handicapping was on the right path. I told him:

“In observing you, Steve, it seems to me that when approaching a particularly complex cluster of handicapping situations, such as Claiming Crown, you often “scan” for that particular "slice" of reality or information that can provide a structure for the whole day. It seems like an inspired creative process that asks, Of all this information, what is really essential?”

Fierro responded:

“You nailed it. When I do my short form handicapping it generally works out
that one key factor stands out. It could be a new claim by a trainer. A common race where I find a solid stranger danger. In maiden races a solid breezing workout from the gate with a debut runner, etc. Most races lend themsleves to solid key factor handicapping. When they don't, it winds up usually as a four contedner race with a line of
3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1, etc., on my odds-line template.”
In the case of the Claiming Crown, Steve explained that his one salient factor was discovered after he had noted that a number of top riders were arriving at Canterbury for the CC, and they would have multiple mounts. He decided to uncover which trainers actually brought these top riders. It was a brilliant stroke, for it allowed him to give priority to those particular top-rider mounts that were embedded in trainer intention.

In other words, when facing a situation of complexity, rather than a preconceived universal formula, the creative handicapper scans for the now-factor, the one that makes most sense today.

Fierro ended up with five winners on top in the eight-race grid.

Long-term C&X readers know that I have been following up on handicappers who have been successful with Informed Minority picks in order to decide whether their picks were random moments or represent approaches that we can follow.

Among those who seem to me to be the real long-term IM are Nick Kling (Capital Cities OTB and Troy Record) and Steve Klein (DRF). I am following up on others.

Remember that the IM picks the brain of top handicappers only in their most brilliant moments. The method declines in performance when the IM is a flailing handicapper who is picking a longshot in every race.

THE LAST WORD: DRUGS AND RACING

By Ed Bain

This month C&X gives the last word to Ed Bain. These comments originally appeared in his newsletter, but in the interest of saving this game we love, airing criticism is the only way to open the door to positive change, so we need to spread the word. I am the last person to look for Puritanical solutions but in the case of drugs in racing and sports, our money is invested and we deserve to have adequate policing. Here in France, where all drugs are banned in racing, when a trainer is caught cheating, he is banned for life.

Why are there drugs in racing? The obvious reason is to fix a race. That means cheating you and me out of money.
Some trainers, vets and owners drug horses and they get away with it and fix another race then another race and another race and keep fixing races day after day year after year. The criminal connections get away with fixing races because there are no real penalties for drugging a horse and fixing races and I’m talking about no real penalties. There are no penalties on the owner who is at least guilty of being complacent. Most drug positives result in a fine in the $1000 area and a “severe” penalty is a fine of $3,000 along with a 5 day suspension.

If it is a class A drug then it's a 30 days suspension and the owner and the trainer have to return the purse. These penalties are not going to scare away trainers like Richard Dutrow Jr. from fixing races with drugs. There are no penalties for veterinarians. There are no penalties for owners.

Dutrow's rap sheet contains at least 72 entries, including fines and suspensions in Maryland, California, New York, Florida, Delaware and New Jersey. Recently he received 30 days for drugging another horse. Dutrow has about a 120 horses in his barn. He still gets his day rate for each of his horses even though he is not allowed on the grounds during a drug suspension. Let's assume its $50 bucks per day per horse if they were all in a training rotation. That’s about $6,000 a day, about $180,000 a month plus Dutrow gets a percentage of the purse, generally 10%. He can take less in day rate but will take a higher percentage from the purse.

Dutrow is also a big bettor on the horses he trains. Dutrow has stated he bet $160,000 on Saint Liam to win in one of his races, pocketing more than $380,000 bucks when he won the race. I have never made a bet that big and I have never seen a sure thing that I could bet large on.

A few years ago I had a really bad day betting on the stock market and I lost $19,000 that day. I felt like I was drugged, but not to win. If I knew that Saint Liam had the winning drug mixture, I would have bet that $19,000 I lost in the stock market on him instead and get 6/5 on my investment. By the way I no longer do the stock market gamble.

Dutrow has said his normal bet size is $2,000 across the board when he bets.

In California from 2000 through the first six months of 2006, $268 million was bet on California races in which horses failed a drug test. Only 14% of all California drug violations since 2000 resulted in disqualification. That means that 86% of those trainers of horses that tested positive got away with it, even when they got caught! Now we know why the smiley face was invented.

Horses have been drugged with methamphetamine, cocaine and anabolic steroids – drugs that are strictly performance-enhancing and should not be in a horse's system. Most of the horses caught with illegal doses of drugs finished first, second or third – in the money. My bet is that the in-the-money stat holds true for all drugged horses at all tracks. However, if in-the-money horses are tested more than the others, we cannot know this for sure.

No one has said Dutrow is stupid by betting across the board on his runners. I would also bet if I hit a bunch of Dutrow’s chemically treated horses with my betting statistics: the 4+30 or an automatic. But I would also bet I was cheated out of more money than I won because of those trainers who drugged their horses.

Part of the penalty when a trainer is caught doping is that he has to give back the purse money. That money is then redistributed to the owner and trainer who was next in line. My $400 win ticket that I had on the next-in-line horse is not returned to me, yet if I voice a complaint about being cheated or that the race was fixed, no one and I mean no will listen or even acknowledge that a crime was committed against me or all of us. The Track will not refund my bet or give me the winnings that I deserve on the winning mutuel even if I had the mutual ticket in my hand. The ones that get screwed are the players. The industry does take care of the new winner’s owner and trainer. They do slap the drug positive trainer on the wrist but they make sure it doesn’t sting.

Dutrow has been fined or suspended at least once every year since 2000 for doping issues. Dutrow tattoos my Automatic’s and the 4+30 lists where all my bets are derived from.

It’s not just Dutrow who cheats me out of money. Steve Asmussen has 22 drug positives and is still racing. I cannot understand how he still has a trainer's license with 22 drug positives.

Asmussen came off a drug suspension to run third in the Derby with Curlin and then win the Preakness with him; I once saw an interview with Asmussen on TV. As he walked away from the paddock he was asked about a drug positive. Asmussen replied that the fact that the horse was 750 times over the allowable limit proved that he did not administer drugs to that horse. He acted perplexed that anyone would believe he would make such huge mistake because you will inevitably get caught giving a horse that big of a dose. He shrugged his shoulders and walked of.

Todd Pletcher has served a suspension for drugged horses as well.

Patrick Biancone, second in the 2004 Derby with Lion Heart, served a one-year suspension after racing authorities found cobra venom -- which is used to numb horses' feet -- in his Kentucky barn. During the suspension, the penalty was reduced to 9 months. I guess only 3 of that horse’s legs went numb, or racing must have felt he was being over penalized. I think he should have received a permanent suspension for using such a dangerous drug. Biancone had drug positives in France where they have a no tolerance law for drugs. No drugs of any kind are allowed. Only hay and oats. He left France for Hong Kong and he was suspended for drugging horses there, and then on to the U.S. to repeat the same behavior.

D Wayne Lucas had a drug positive a few years ago when one of his hoses came up with an opiate positive. He explained that it could have been that one of his employees had a poppy seed bagel and he dropped it, the horse ate it and came up a drug positive. The lab's equipment is so sensitive, it measures positive drug tests by picogram, one part per trillion. How small is a picogram? The equivalent is one-half teaspoon of water in 1,000 Olympic-size pools or about half a bagel with crème cheese.

Every track has the same drug problem except they change the language of medication. There are 92 different drugs that they try to catch; some are allowed for training but not for race day. If the horse was over-medicated, they will state that he was just over the allowable limit by race day. If there is a positive, the trainer complains that he was told he would not come up a positive because he was told he had enough days since the drugs were administered. That is a really troubling part of the drug policy in racing. That’s like saying I should not go to prison for robbing a store with a gun because I bought the gun legally at a gun store and had to wait 3 cool down days to pick it up.

Because there is no central authority in racing (wink wink), the drug problem will never be resolved. The stewards of racing, The Jockey Club, which has managed to get an internet gambling exemption for horse racing, will not address the drug issue. They all own horses and employ a trainer and those owners want to win. I would call that a conflict of interest.

When you really look at the drug issue it is not just about betting. It’s also about the 1,000 horses that die on the track every year. It’s about the permanently paralyzed jockeys and exercise riders. Currently there are over 60 confined to a wheel chair and the track will not help them except for an occasional fund raiser to help pay the medical bills. But a couple of thousand dollars will do little for a lifetime in a wheelchair. It’s also about one jockey or exercise rider killed every year. The industry blames all of this on everything except drugs. They claim all the mayhem on the tracks is because of the surface. Many tracks were convinced into spending 10 to 12 million on synthetic tracks to reduce the injuries. My opinion is that it’s the drugs like cobra venom. They also go to pedigree as an excuse, saying we are breeding infirmities into the breed. My opinion is that it’s drugs sometimes administered 750 times over the allowable dose. If horses can’t feel pain, they can’t feel their legs and they go down. A horse is killed or euthanized, a jockey goes to the hospital. I say it’s drugs. Don’t blame it on a bagel.

[Editor’s note: If a horse becomes a champion because of drugs and then becomes a sire, then naturally he may pass on his drug-hidden infirmity. But this is not a question of pedigree. It is a result of drugs that inflated the value of an infirm pedigree. The French, by totally banning drugs, are not acting for moral reasons. Rather, they consider it self-interest, because they can thus protect their breeding industry. With a French-bred horse, you know that his dad’s and mom’s performance records were entirely legitimate.]

This a big issue: the effect drugs have on safety. The other big issue is the knowledge of the players that the races are being fixed and no one cares except us players. We seem to be the only people in racing who want drugs outlawed.
Perhaps that question should be presented to The Jockey Club board, the most influential and most powerful outfit in racing. Why are there drugs in racing? Do you think we would get an honest answer like, “Well, I invest big money in pedigree every year, I have a six-figure investment in this horse, and if he hits the Kentucky Derby, he goes to the breeding shed and I get a check for $35 million. So what’s the big deal about steroids?”

How about a small stable trainer racing in $10,000 claiming events? Why are there drugs in racing? Can we get an honest answer like, “It’s an expensive game with day rates and vet bills. It costs two sometimes three grand a month for every horse I have training. I need a score to stay in front of the track bills, not to mention my personal bills. Besides, I don’t get penalized for the drug positive so if I can afford it I’ll do it.”

That question should be asked of all veterinarians when the horse they just attended to comes up with a drug positive. Do you think you will ever here a vet say: “Well, when a trainer wants to win I give him options: $500 for this or $1000 for that drug, and the horse will feel like he is going on a date with Julia Roberts for the right price. I can give these options to big outfits or small stable trainers. They just have to have the money and be willing to take the risk of getting caught and paying the common five-day suspension plus $1,000 dollar fine, which is worth it in exchange for lighting up the tote board.”

Ask a trainer who has been suspended from racing with a drug positive. Why are there drugs in racing? Do you think a trainer would be honest and say that everyone does it and that there are no real penalties. If I give the horse an illegal drug and he wins and I get a positive, I get a few days off but I bet big and I don’t have to give the money I won back to the track, or to the players of the second-place finisher I burned. I still get my day rate even if I get suspended and there is a good chance the racing officials won’t suspend me for fixing a race even if I come up with a positive. Low risk, big and I mean big reward.

Ask me why are there drugs in racing and I will give you an honest answer. Some races are being fixed because there are no real penalties for the opportunity to cheat with drugs and no one except the trainer is suspended. Thus, drugs will be part of racing. If the stewards of racing, The Jockey Club, will not address this ugly part of our sport, there will be drugs in racing. If horses are killed on the track because of drugs and the trainer only gets 30 days, there will be drugs in racing. If a jockey gets killed or paralyzed from falling on a horse that only breaks down because it was too drugged to feel the pain and stop on time, the trainer will say he feels bad for the jockey and his family but it will not reduce the drugs in racing. If the insiders are betting big on pedigree and cashing large because of drugs and there are no penalties, there will be drugs in racing.

The reason there are drugs in racing is because of non-existent drug rules and penalties that are in place to protect the insiders at the expense of you and me the players, who love the sport and the handicapping and gambling. Drugs are allowed in racing because of selfishness and unreasonable greed.

UPDATE ON ED’S PAST PERFORMANCES:

WHY ARE ED AND SUSAN DOING THE PPS BY HAND?

Susan and Ed respond:

We do it by hand because we believe they attached viruses to the files we downloaded that destroyed 6 of our computers. Even though we are not doing anything against copyright law or legally wrong in any other way, if we bought files from a company and created our own product, the company would want everyone to believe that we are violating laws and they threaten everyone and scare everyone like us into going through companies like HDW so they can control you and what you can sell. They do this also to stop any competition and so that they are the only ones who will make money and so they can keep their monopoly. So destroying our Layoff and Claim's trainer business and even telling us that they were going to do it is the reason we have the drive to do whatever necessary to create our own PPs and go into competition with them: the very thing they do not want to happen. This drive includes working every waking hour to manually enter the data to create our PPs is the answer to: Why we are doing it this way?

We do have a program that creates the end results and calculates the stats from the data we enter and the reason it is taking a long time to get up tracks is because we along with people we've hired manually enter all the past data to create these PPs and these stats.

Susan and Ed

Mark responds:

Here in France I have access to a good data base. I have the legal right to do anything I want with that information. The information comes to me in raw form and I try to reprocess it.

My great obstacle is time. If I can create my own pps for three races a day, then I am doing superbly. I suppose I could create a program that would scan the data base and get the job done faster, but still, it would take too much time. This is why I remain in awe that Ed and Susan have been able to get the job done. You can link to their website through www.altiplanopublications.com

Within the protocol of full disclosure I now repeat what you already know: Ed and Susan are friends of mine. That said, before I got to know them well, I was able to watch them play the races, day in and day out, for several years, and I have witnessed that they put their money where their mouth is, and that they have had long-term success at the windows, even after their losing streaks are incorporated into the final bottom line.

PS. PROOF THAT DRUGS ARE NOT NECESSARY

mc adds

Trainer Wesley Ward has shown that drugs are not necessary. Until he shipped 6 horses to the summer Royal Ascot meet in England, no American horse had ever won a race there. American trainers have feared shipping to Europe. Ward knew that American bred sprinters could have a big edge against the long-winded Euro breeding.

In England, no drugs are permitted. It’s Draconian. Royal Ascot is arguably the classiest European race meeting.

Ward’s horses were entered in seven races (one was wheeled back in four days and finished second). In the end he had two wins and a place, with a huge flat-bet profit since one of his winners paid off at 33-1.

If Wesley Ward can race and win drug-free against the best Euro horses, then all of American racing can liberate itself from doping.