Separating the handicapping wheat from the handicapping chaff

I was a big Buddy Hackett fan. Maybe I am biased because we both served our formative years at New Utrecht High School in the Bensonhurst section of Brooklyn, New York. Albeit he was long gone from those hallowed halls before my first year there. I loved this gambling joke he told because it applies to my handicapping philosophy.

“I’m walking towards my room on the eighth floor of a Las Vegas hotel, and I hear a husband screaming at his wife in one of the rooms I pass. “How could you lose fifty dollars in those stupid slot machines. Do you know how hard I worked for those fifty dollars?” I had to linger by the door to hear more. This harangue goes on and on until he runs out of breath and his wife seizes on that opportunity to come back with, “Didn’t you lose a thousand dollars at the tables?” “Yeah,” he replied, “but I know how to gamble.”

The horseplayer would have substituted handicap for gamble in his response. The form that provides the past performances of each horse in every race holds a wealth of information. I can honestly say that every scrap of information has been used in my final wagering decision from time to time. Yes, I have made wagers based on the owner on occasion. How about the name of the horse? Yup, and they were valid handicapping angles.  In some races, key elements in handicapping might have been irrelevant angles in a previous race.

Two statistics that many handicappers focus on are most earnings as a huge positive angle, and an inability to win races as a huge negative angle. Those are two angles I almost never consider. Those are statistics from the horse’s past. I am a ‘what have you done for me lately’ handicapper. If a horse is zero for fifty and showed me something in his last race to make me believe the horse has turned the corner, I will ignore his history. Same goes for earnings. I don’t care who he raced against and beat six months ago. What have you done for me lately. We are always looking for horses doing something they have never done before to encourage a wager.

But there are no absolutes in handicapping. Based on specific circumstances, I have considered earnings or a poor win record in past wagering decisions. While those instances are on the bottom of the totem pole, they do happen. How do you decide what is relevant to one race, and not another race?

I have been writing a series of columns with a subjective scoring system based on form hidden from the past performances. Sometimes these scores are critical in deciding to play a horse in its next races, and sometimes these scores mean nothing. We publish scored horses who win, because hidden form is frequently the key decision-making factor before wagering and we want the handicapper to have the relevant information in deciding how much weight to apply to said hidden form. Followers know that scored horses win more than their fair share in their following races. On the same token, it is important to analyze why scored horses lose, and if they are worth following after that.

While the scores are subjective, here is the reasoning behind the values. Horses with a +1 score were impeded, blocked or over-extended during the race. We do not know if a blocked horse would have gone on if it had clearance, but there is an excellent chance that the odds the horse goes off at in its next race will be greater due to the lack of information on the form. Remember that a blocked horse that looks like it had pace may be no better than a blocked horse that does not indicate it had more pace. Many horses will not show extra pace when they have no place to go.

Horses with a +2 score showed evidence that it was a probable winner if racing luck had not impacted the journey. A score of +3 is all about extraordinary circumstances, and those horses should probably be played next time they race. I have been tempted to go higher than +3 on occasion (e.g., BEERTHIRTY K), but since there has never been a sure thing, and never will be, let’s leave the highest score at +3. Of course, exceptions to ‘never been a sure thing’ occur after every race when you hear, “I knew that horse couldn’t lose” from a happy braggart. We always enjoy those bon mots.

Then there are the -1 scores. These scores happen when the form is misleading because what looks like a big move is distorted because of a lucky trip or breaking competitors. Breakers are sometimes given scores because the break does not always indicate events that are apparent. Horses who were clearly tiring before the break are given a -1. Finishing a non-competitive third when the field behind has gone off stride is also worthy of a negative score. Horses on the move, or running over horses when they break, are given a positive score. The past performances only print ix when another horse causes the break. No interference is noted when the breaker, itself, is the cause of the interference.

Sometimes the fault of the break is clearly due to the driver, or close proximity with other horses. Sometimes we see what appears to be a sympathy break with young horses. One horse goes off stride and a nearby youngster sees the event and thinks, ‘that looks life fun’ and joins in. Maybe that is all silly, but it seems to happen too often to be a coincidence. I wonder what some drivers who have sat behind youngsters who seem to break for no reason think about that.

Some breaks on turns should be ignored if the horse’s next race is on a bigger track. Speaking of turns, horse who struggle on turns, then go forward on the straightaways are noted with a positive score with the notation that the positive score applies when the horse moves to a bigger track. This angle has produced many high-priced winners.

Analyzing breaking horses is a big part of handicapping the harness races. I frequently bet on horses, with confidence, who broke in their last starts if I believe I know why they broke and believe there is little chance of them breaking again. PERICULUM, on 5-24 at The Meadowlands, was a perfect example. He received a score in his previous race despite breaking. He paid $5.20 in a small field against much weaker competition and won by open lengths. That race was also the first leg of a $1,800 pick-4. I’m just sayin’.

Now let’s examine some of the reasons when scores should be ignored. Last summer FIZZING N returned to racing after a 3-month hiatus. His form before the layoff left something to be desired. After seeing his qualifier, he received the highest score at +3. I was confident his next race would be many seconds faster than his qualifier, and it was. His qualifier was paced north of 1:59. He went off at 19-1 in his first race back and closed stoutly in 1:56:2. But that was only good enough for 4th as the race was won in 1:55:3. You need to check out the competition.

I was very high on ROCKFORD PEACH off of her last start at Freehold. She received a +2 score in a race that included a barn change for her. There was significant hidden form. Her next start was on 5-28 at Yonkers, a track I do not follow. I saw that she had the 2-hole with a morning line of 20-1 while the morning line favorite was 6-5 from the rail. At that morning line, I’m guessing that the favorite is a down the road candidate, and with Jimmy Marohn, Jr. picking up the drive on ROCKFORD PEACH, I should expect her to stay close. This is definitely going to be a step-out bet. Or is it?

The race in which ROCKFORD PEACH earned a +2 score was a Trackmaster nw72 group which shared the race with $7,500 claimers. This race was a $20,000 claimer. Even at 30-1, I had no interest. She raced two full seconds faster than she had at Freehold, but a 6th place finish in that 7-horse field was to be expected. Players must be able to avoid FOMO (fear of missing out) when wagering on races. I have witnessed crazier things than a horse moving up from a $7500 claimer to beat a $20000 claimer through the years, but you cannot let FOMO cause you to make bets if you want to be successful. I promise that ignoring FOMO will result in losing a bet from time to time, but you need to stay the course to be successful.

Here is an opposite example. I had assigned GHIBLI a -1 score based on a misleading chart at Freehold. It looked as if he made a great move to come from 7th to third from the quarter to the stretch, then was too far back to gain on the leaders. Based on my observation, he would never have beaten the top two finishers, but the chart indicated that he might beat them with a better trip.

GHIBLI was a definite toss in his next race. Or was he? Neither of the two horses he could ‘never beat’ were in his next race, and the field was significantly weaker. While he benefitted with his last quarter move in his last race, GHIBLI’s last quarter fraction appeared superior to every other horse in the race, so I bet on the -1 horse and cashed a nice ticket.

Separating the handicapping wheat from the handicapping chaff is part art and part science, and every race is a different story. I strongly recommend adding my analysis to your handicapping menu of factors, because it has resulted in many winners you may have not considered. But no angle is absolute in handicapping. More angles will be addressed in future articles.

Power to the punter.

by Gil Winston, for Harnesslink