The science of handicapping scratches

The USTA lists 49 reasons why a harness racing horse can be scratched. to see the 49 reasons.

Click here to see the 49 reasons.

45 of the reasons on the list are versions of “scratched – judges.” From my experience, few of the items on the list are ever used on the program. For the most part, if a horse is scratched by the judges, it is prudent to think that there is nothing wrong with the horse and you should consider the horse’s previous form as a reliable indicator of its performance in the next race.

There are a few exceptions, and they will be addressed in a future article on handicapping factors based on racing mishaps. It is the other 4 reasons which are vet related (injured, lame, not reported, sick) that affect your handicapping decisions.

Obviously “not reported” is a mystery and it leaves the handicapper unable to decipher the meaning. From a handicapping perspective, I treat injured and lame the same. If the trainer brings the horse back to the races within two weeks, I consider the horse recovered and ready to go. Longer layoffs from those reasons for scratching is usually a reason to pass on the horse.

That brings us to scratched sick which is a core factor in handicapping decisions. First the outliers. If a horse is scratched-sick from the 8-post on a half-mile track, I usually assume the horse was not sick. Then there is the phenomenon that has become a regular feature of the racing program in the past few years. If a horse is scratched-sick, and the next race is in a new barn, with or without a new owner, assume the horse was not sick. We can understand a scratch when a horse changes hands, but why is it always scratched-sick? This is an industry-wide problem that needs to be addressed.

Now for my personal history how I learned the criticality of scratched-sick on the program. Interestingly, the incident did not result in a scratch. But it was the jumping off point when I first understood what it means from a handicapping perspective, when a horse is sick. The first time I owned a horse that got sick, he was already entered to race. Should we scratch him? It seemed silly to do so. The race is 3-days away. Let’s see if he recovers. And recover he did.

The day before the race he acted perfectly. Ok, but let’s see how he warms up before the race. Again, perfectly. Handicappers watching him on the track would not have rejected him on his appearance. But the warmup is not race speed. In the race, he raced perfectly until the stretch, and then failed to finish the mile with any real pace that would have matched his current form.

Apparently, the sickness lingered. Apparently, sickness lingers with most racehorses. That was a significant moment it time for me. From that point on, I started making two things critical in my handicapping analysis. Avoid playing horses that were coming off a scratched-sick and assume that horses that have a gap in their lines, missed time because they were sick. Neither of those assumptions are foolproof, and it has caused me to miss winners over the years. But those misses are a small fraction of the times that I was able to avoid playing short-priced losers and was able to deduce more favorable odds winners.

Let us address “time gaps in their lines” which could have many reasons. Unless there is a strong reason to think otherwise, I pay no attention to horses that miss only week. But if they are not racing within 14 days, I consider that “over the line” and are usually excluded from consideration when they race.

There are exceptions that require further study. It is possible the connections could not find a race for that horse within two weeks. Sometimes you can figure that out. Sometimes you cannot. Barn changes frequently cause over-the-line gaps and should be ignored. In fact, if you believe the new barn is a stronger barn, it is a reason to play the horse. Sometimes class changes or racing series replacing when the horse should have raced causes a gap. Of course, the horse might be short because of the extra layoff, but if I can deduce why the horse missed time, I tend to give the horse the benefit of the doubt and expect the horse to race to form.

There are always exceptions to every rule in handicapping. Here is a big one. If a horse is scratched-sick and the trainer chooses to not race back the following week, there are two possibilities which unfortunately are the opposite of each other. The horse missed the extra time because he had not recovered, or he missed the extra time because the trainer did not want the horse to come up short his first time back. My usual assumption is that the horse will race short. The general rule is to avoid playing “over the line” horses.

Now let’s discuss meaningful betting angles. Here is a common portrait that frequently produces great betting opportunities. After a string of consistent performances, a horse puts in a poor line. The next week, he is scratched sick. The week after that, he races poorly. The week after that? Boom-shaka-locka-locka! Make the assumption that the race before the scratch sick, he started coming down with something.

The trainer entered the horse the following week hoping he would recover, but he did not. Scratch. The following start, the horse will probably be short. Then the next start, assume the horse will revert to the form previous to that first poor line. With the lack of earnings for three consecutive starts, the horse is probably down in class from his previous good line. I frequently hear, “but how do you know?” The answer, of course, I don’t. But it sure rewards me more often than not. Much more often than not.

Here is some more fun. Stakes horses are frequently given extra time between races and are likely to keep their form despite the time off. You are allowed to skip wagering on races where questions outweigh logical assumptions. Really, you can.

Making assumptions from scratches is a key part of the handicapping experience. It is not uncommon for one of the scratched-sick angles to be the driving force in how you bet a race.

Power to the punter.

by Gil Winston, for Harnesslink