You can pick winners! Handicapping the harness races is an art, one which is acquired by study, effort and the application of common sense. Many racing fans are of the opinion that thoroughbred horses (flat racing) are more true to form and more easily handicapped than pacers and trotters (standard breds). I believe that the reverse of this is true. Pacers and trotters run more closely to form if one knows what to look for in spotting this form. The mere fact that horse "A" won a race last week doesn't indicate that he is in present form.

Most fans are incorrect in their analysis of pacing and trotting races. What the public needs is a greater under­standing of exactly what is taking place before their eyes. This may sound unkind in its inference, but if one realizes that two out of three favorites lose, you will be able to im­mediately see the public's batting average.

This book is not concerned with systems, mechanics or time-worn approaches, which lead nowhere. I have studied my own mistakes, and those of others, and have attempted to see how they could be turned into advantages. I believe that what is herein advocated is both fresh and vibrant in its ap­proach to the handicapping problem. More than that one can see the situation as it really is, and avoid the pitfalls which many handicappers fall into. This pitfall stated broadly is the grasping of the easiest and closest aid in helping to define the problem. In the case of harness racing, the public seems to grasp at three things, the drivers, time and post positions. While these items are important in figuring a par­ticular race, the average fan seems to prefer losing his money by being wrong to saving it by doing some further investi­gating.

One thing should be apparent to every handicapping fan, and that is: Every race is not only different but is a par­ticular problem within itself. If you apply a set of fixed rules to every race, you have to lose in the long run.

No mechanical system in the world can pick winners in every race.

Yet people will try every year to figure the problem in this way. The only way any handicapper can even hope to be successful is to consider each race as a separate entity. Every race is individual in its problems, and must be analyzed on the basis of its peculiarities. This book deals with how the individual race can be thought through so as to ascertain which races should and can be bet, and which horses to bet in those races!

This book does not advocate a system, mechanical or other­wise, for all such things are doomed to failure. One part of the problem does revolve around applying common sense in ascertaining how the race will be run. This, then, is one principle on which this book is based. The reasoning is simple—the problem is complex. The judging of the problem through this thread of meaning will solve about ⅓ of the complex problem. The other parts of the problem consist of the following:

⅓ driver

⅓ post position, the individual horse, and speed

You can quickly see that "speed" is not given as much em­phasis by this writer as the public in general gives it.

This book will not be a rehash of things that you might already know. The primary and most basic essential is to read the past performances and to get the most out of this as is possible. This chapter deals primarily with getting the most out of the program. I would suggest that you read over this part carefully to see if there are things which you might add to your harness racing repertoire.

Generally speaking, harness racing is not at all like thoroughbred racing. The famous yell of "coming through" often heard at Hialeah, Belmont, Aqueduct and Monmouth, is not heard at Roosevelt, Yonkers, or Freehold. One must view these basic differences between the two sports if he is to succeed at handicapping harness races. Probably it is best to completely forget any background that one might have in thoroughbred racing. If you consider that Pacers, for ex­ample, travel at half the speed, and half or a quarter of the distance, of thoroughbreds, you will quickly see that the same values are not applicable. Then consider that a pacer carries a two-wheel cart (or sulky) behind him, and you will see that the only similarities which exist between the two sports is the famous cry, "It's a horse race."

To return to the problem at hand, a primary distinction will have to be made between trotters and pacers. These words should not be used interchangeably. One may cor­rectly refer to "harness racing" or "harness races" but not "trotting" races. It is common to say, "Let's go to the trot­ters." This is incorrect, as pacing is the far more popular gait; it would be more correct to say, "Let's go to the pacers." Rather than argue semantics, an actual distinction must be made for the handicapper. Pacing races are generally much more reliable than trotting races in so far as the handicapper is concerned, and the distinction here becomes a real one.

In pacing, both of the legs on the right side of a horse move forward, while both of the legs on the left side move backward. This is then alternated with both of the legs on the left side moving forward and the right side backward, so on and so on, etc. In trotting, however, the legs of the right would be both extended, while the legs on the left would be moving together; the front one moving backward, and the rear one moving forward etc. A trotter is much more prone to break into a gallop than is a pacer and this is one reason why trotting races are less popular than pacing races. The public at large generally lumps both forms of harness racing together under the term trotters, which is incorrect, as indicated above.

It is imperative, then, that the handicapper examine the type of race he is about to consider. Since the surer gait generally is pacing, one might stop to consider only pacing races in his handicapping. This is generally a good rule although it is not ironclad.

In trotting races of top class, the element of a "break" is not pronounced, hence this "rule" might be incorrectly applied here. Generally, stick to the consideration of pacing races, unless the circumstances warrant otherwise.

As this book progresses, the reader will be aware that most of the examples are drawn from the major circuit of harness racing found at Roosevelt and Yonkers Raceways. This is due to the fact that all-round conditions are better for ex­ample purposes at these "major league" tracks. This is in no way a slur on the other fine harness tracks in our land; from the atmospheric Ocean Downs, to the most interesting "State Fair" of the Midwest.

The first and foremost problem in any horse race is to be able to ascertain a horse's past performance record from the program. To do this correctly and easily is essential to any handicapper. In harness racing, particularly, it is absolutely essential that one understands fully the program and all that it says.

PACE

TROT

GALLOP

All official programs generally carry a full explanation on the first or second page explaining the various marks and abbreviations found in them. Anyone can familiarize him­self with how to correctly read the program by reading the instruction page and then applying several racing examples to see if what has been read is thoroughly understood.

For clarification and to feel sure we are speaking of the same things, the "How to Read the Program" section of the M. I. Robins program is herein reprinted. This is added for reference purposes. Because getting the most out of the programs is necessary to good handicapping, it is desirable to become skillful at it. It is also necessary that we agree on the amount of importance which should be given to the various items found in a program. The program will show a wealth of miscellaneous information, but the only person who can place the value of these items and segregate them as to real importance is you, the handicapper. In short, in­terpretation is what we are seeking—proper interpretation of those factors which make up much of the difference be­tween being right or wrong in your analysis.

Starting from left to right, we will try to place some sort of value on each of the items found in a typical past per­formance of an individual horse. We will try to establish some sort of criteria for our next step, that of actually figur­ing out the potential winner of a race.

1. Name of Horse: Obviously one should discount the name of the horse in his handicapping. Even experienced handicappers can be enthralled by names of horses! For ex­ample, let's assume a handicapper knows that one of the greatest pacers of all time was Adios, and maybe a son of Adios, named Adios Jerry, is running in a race. This fact alone shouldn't affect the handicapping selection. Believe it or not, in many cases this becomes a problem. Often the name of a horse suggests his sire's name, and this can in­fluence a fan to speculate on whether or not the horse in question is as good as his sire. This type of consideration shouldn't enter into the handicapping of a race, as there are too many other factors to be considered. Hence, try to forget the name completely.

The presence of a round black circle, to the right of the horse's name indicates that the animal in question has won on "off" tracks. Or, in the parlance of the fans, he is a good "mudder." The absence of the black circle should indicate that he generally favors fast tracks. If our goal is to wager profitably, we shouldn't bet on tracks where being a good "mudder" is a factor. In other words, don't attempt to analyze races on slow, sloppy or muddy tracks. The element of risk present in every horse race becomes doubled or trebled in the rain, or on "off" tracks. A horse can go off stride, slip, make a wide turn, not want to run, etc., in this kind of weather.

It is foolhardy on the part of the fan to further compli­cate his already difficult task, by trying to figure out races in rainy or bad weather. You then have to be concerned with the horses, drivers, and Mother Nature, instead of just horses and drivers.

2. Hobbles: To the left of the name of the horse is a double dagger which indicates that the horse has raced with­out hobbles. Hobbles are the leather straps which go between a pacer's legs to help him stay on gait. An animal which can race without hobbles may be less sure of breaking, but not any closer to being a winner than one with hobbles. Hobbles, in my opinion, are not the valid concern of a handicapper, but of the horses' trainer.

3.Age and Breeding Information: Age, (found next to color) means a great deal. Horses, like people, are steadier in their middle years than in their younger years. Age in a horse race may mean a great deal to the handicapper. For example, one should not bet on two-year-olds! First, because they are still uncertain anddo not run as true to form as a four- or five-year-old. Secondly, a two-year-old with excellent breeding may not show anything until he is three or four years old. Reason: A trainer may not want to push a young horse; in other words, a trainer will not force a horse to win a race at the cost of his next six years of racing life.

Young horses, like young babies, are unpredictable, be­cause they are young. So, with the odds stacked against you, why wager on a young horse with erratic form, when for the same price you can wager on an older, more mature and formful animal: a surer bet with less risk.

Next to age is shown breeding—the horse's sire, dam, and dam's sire in that sequence. To an average handicapper breeding is something to view, but not something to be con­cerned about. Breeding is most important in two- (and some three-) year-old races where there is little information found in the past performances. But since we are not interested in wagering on two-year-old races, we must pass up breeding information as not necessary for our handicapping purposes.

4.Trainer: (Indicated on top line, to the right.) This can be important, as a good trainer is certainly better than a mediocre one and you are generally on safer ground to wager on a winning trainer (driver) than on a losing one. In har­ness racing the trainer is invariably the driver also, so a good line can be established as to how a trainer rates by simply looking at the list of drivers and noting their records. A driver-trainer with a poor "in the money" percentage is a poor bet, even on a good horse. However, this is not to say that a poor driver can't be a good trainer and vice versa.

However, you have a much better chance with a driver-trainer who has a good record. There is a vast psychological difference between a driver who wins and one who can't or doesn't win; the former is confident; the latter isn't. The best advice I ever received at the races was from an old man who had been a racing fan for forty years. He said "1 never bet on a losing driver; the least I want for my money is a good ride." I pass this advice along to you, for what it's worth.

5. Winnings: Winnings can mean a great deal in some cases; in others, they indicate nothing. A "has-been" who has won a great deal of money, but who is no longer capable of winning races may be stepped down among horses which have won only % or & as much. Looking at the winnings, then, one would judge that the "has-been" is the "class" of the race.

Very often a horse comes to a major track from a smaller track with a phenomenal "in the money percentage" and goes off the favorite. Examining more closely, however, you note that this horse has made little money. At small tracks, generally, the purses are small and in many cases the class of horses is equally poor—even though the lettered classes (A,B,C,FFA) are the same. To show an example, look at "Rivertown" who was racing at Sportsman's Park and then moved to Roosevelt Raceway on September 12, 1959. His record was pretty good, as follows: (50% in the money)

Starts         wins            Places         Shows     Earnings

36                 5                  9              4 $6,365.00

If this same horse ran at Roosevelt Raceway for these same 36 starts his record would have been:

36                  5                  9             4  $10,460.00

Winnings would have been almost double. Class "C" at Sportsman's Park would rate between Class "C" and "D" (or about ½ a class lower rating) at Roosevelt, hence while his record looks good; his earnings tip off what is really the crux of the situation: He has been racing against "cheaper horses" and for cheaper purses.

6.Date of Last Race: (Found to the extreme left under horse's name.) This can be a very worthwhile tool as most horses run in a steady cycle of racing. Pacers, for example, run about every seven to fourteen days. The fact that a horse hasn't been out in a month or two months should make you stop and check! For a trainer not to race a horse in a month or two means, generally, that something is wrong with the horse.

7.Track Conditions: This will be indicated prior to the class designation, and will be shown as a single letter such as F, G, S, H, SY, or M. These abbreviations mean respectively: fast, good, slow, heavy, sloppy, and muddy. Most handicappers find that the "actual time" of the race will be in a ratio to how bad the track is at the time of the race. On a track officially classed as "slow" or worse, the handicapper takes his chances. There is no real form which can be determined under these circumstances. My advice: be only interested in tracks classified as fast or good.

On a sunny day on which a slight drizzle develops, the following would be the progressive deterioration of track conditions: 1) fast, 2) good, 3) sloppy, 4) slow, 5) heavy, and 6) muddy. The actual definitions of these items are listed as follows:

1. Fast—Excellent footing. Clear, no rain, times of races being run about average.
   
   
2. Good—Footing is slightly unsure. Track is wet and is either getting worse or better. If getting worse, it will be raining and puddles may begin to appear. If getting better, track is drying out from a rain, and will be fast possibly in a matter of hours.
   
   
3. Sloppy—Puddles of water have formed on the track and the horses are kicking up water and mud with their hoofs. In many cases a quick, hard rain will cause this track condi­tion.
   
   
4. Slow—The water is sinking in after a rain, and while the track is still better than a mud bath, it is softer than it should be and hence is classified as slow.
   
   
5. Muddy—Track is now muddy, probably after a long rain. It is actually soft and footing is very poor. This type of track will cause very slow "times." In harness racing under these conditions the sulky will actually make tracks in the surface, as if it were snow.
   
   
6. Heavy—This is the worst classification that can be applied to a harness track. The "times" will be very bad. Sulky wheels will leave tracks in the ground. This classifica­tion will appear after a long rain which has soaked well into the ground and it will take about two days before the track can be classified as fast or good.
   

Harness tracks are made so as to be firmer than thorough­bred strips. While a thoroughbred track is flat and loamy, the earth in a harness track is more compact, and the turns banked. Hence, in many cases a thoroughbred track will re-classify its track in adverse weather faster than will a harness strip. Water tends to roll off the latter, and tends to sink in on the former. But do not overlook the fact that the sulkies can slip and skid. Harness racing in bad weather is hazard­ous.

On a particularly bad track the horses running in the rear are spattered with mud and water while the front runner is generally racing unbothered. In many cases this will not only obscure vision but will make it impossible for a horse to win coming from behind. Because of the generally unpre­dictable conditions prevalent on "off" tracks, it is safer to pass up races on tracks not classified fast or good.

8. Class: There is a lettered designation found next to the track condition, such as FFA, JFA, AA, A, B, C, D, etc. This can further be broken down into A-l, A-2, A-3, as it was at Yonkers Raceway during the 1959 Racing Season. Class, in itself, is important, and this is something which the public generally watches closely.

In many cases a horse will be brought in from a minor circuit where he has been running, for example, in "B" class, and will be placed in a "C" race at a major track, and in­stalled as a favorite! What the handicapper does not realize is that the racing secretary is in essence saying that this horse has been running in class "B" at X track, but that "B" there is only on a par with class "C" on a major track. Hence the concept of class in this case is reduced to a relative fac­tor. To put the entire concept differently—"B" at track X may not be equal to "B" at track Y!

Lest this be interpreted as ignoring class designations, let me clarify: A horse stepped down in class is normally stepped down by the racing secretary because he hasn't been performing well in his class. Whether or not he will perform well in the subsequent class is anyone's guess.

On the other hand, if a horse has been having bad racing luck—for example, drawing post positions 7 or 8 and thus being unable to get to the front in time to win—and there­fore is stepped down in class, make note of this, and if con­ditions are favorable, take advantage of this class reduction.

Class, as such, is an important factor, but it is only one of several factors, although it is definitely worth noting whether horse X is running with better horses today. This should be kept in mind. I cannot emphasize enough that a horse should not be chosen simply because he is either "stepped up" or "stepped down" in class.

9. Distance and Time: Next to the class information you will find a designation such as ¾, 1 1/16 , 1 ⅛ or, more com­monly, MI. This refers to the length of the race and in trot­ting and pacing races, distance is quite important. However, since, in harness races nine out of ten races are run at the distance of one mile, it would be a waste of time to dwell on the merits of shorter or longer races.

To go on record, however, I would state the following as a rule of thumb: Generally, a shorter race may be analyzed from one-mile form! Longer races are extremely difficult to figure because few harness horses, if any, ever run three or four longer races in succession. Thus, you are unable to get a good line on their performance at this distance.

Next to the distance will be found times listed as follows (for example):

3:2.3    1:37.3   2:07.4

These are the ¼, ¾ and winning times respectively of a particular race. Times will be discussed more thoroughly in Chapter Two.

10. Positions During Race: Next to the time will be found figures as follows (an example):

7     3°          1          1/1          1/1

These are the positions during the race and from left to right mean: Post position (starting), position at \ position at &, position at %y stretch position-lengths ahead (or behind), win­ning position (or losing position) and lengths.

This is one of the basic tools, necessary to the understand­ing of this book and harness racing in general. Positions dur­ing the race, noted in the last four or five races will generally tell you exactly how the horse runs. Does he run up front? Near the front? Does he close? etc. It will be very helpful to you if you can determine how a particular horse runs and how this will mix in a given race. This is about a third of the problem of ascertaining the winner. It is an art which you can learn with practice.

But it is not as easy as it sounds, and requires study. Chapter Three of this book deals directly with the develop­ing of this skill, and its use in figuring winners.

Once you acquire this skill, you will readily see at a glance if a race is figurable or is to be disregarded. For example, few players realize that a race with four front runners in it may very well result in none of them coming in the money, while a long shot comes from behind to ride in the winner. It is an important tool to ascertain how a race will he run! The only way one can do this is to see how each horse runs and his relative position today, as related to the other horses in the race. What will he be expected to do today?

Here is a hypothetical situation:

1. There are seven horses in a race.
   
   
2. The first three horses are front runners and win when they can keep the lead.
   
   
3. The fourth horse is a finisher and never or seldom runs for the lead.
   
   
4. Numbers 5, 6, and 7 can be counted out of the race.
   
   
5. Horse number 1 having performed well last week from the 4 slot, and running from the one slot today is the favorite.
   

Horse number 1 can be expected to take the lead—and try to hold it. However, if numbers 2 and 3 also try to get the lead, it is logical that number 1 will either have to work harder to keep the lead or will have to give it up. Due to this battle for the lead it is possible that the number 4 horse could win the race coming down the stretch, because the three front runners have tired badly. In the above situation, to prove a point, nothing was considered about time, class, drivers, etc. It was simply a matter of how the race will be run. This is only a third of the basic problem confronting you, but it is an important part.

Perhaps this thought now occurs to you! How does one figure out a race before it is run? It is not only possible but workable, and will assist you in making profitable handi­capping calculations.

This method of handicapping will aid in determining the following:

1. Which races not to bet.
   
   
2. Which races are "bettable," but too close to be profitable.
   
   
3. Which races are "bettable" and playable.
   
   
4. Which horse has the best chance to win or place in the race.
   

11. Time, Odds, and Drivers: The time in which a horse ran his last race is found to the left of the driver's name (in that race), and will appear on the right side of the past per­formance. This time and the winner's time will be the same only when the horse under consideration has won the race. Otherwise, time will be a few seconds or fractions of a second slower than the winner's time. The winner's time is found to the left, after the ¼, ¾, times.

"Times" have long been used by the public to use in pro­ducing favorites. Most fans find "time" a usable aid in select­ing prospective horses. However, this can be a very poor de­vice, as winning "time" doesn't always show what occurred in the running of a race. Assuming that a different horse set the time of the ¼, ¾, and mile, and further assuming that the time for each of these was exceptionally fast, what then can be said about the winner, who only set one of these marks? Assume further that he was off the pace, running eighth for ¾ of a mile, and as the leaders began to tire he raced down the stretch and caught the front horses. Noting this race a week later, the bettor assumes that this horse ran a terrific race. But did he in reality? He may have been lucky, having been able to catch the leaders, after they tired.

It can be seen then that "time" can be generally unreliable as an indicator of what will happen in today's race. Time can be helpful, however, when broken down into ¼, ½, ¾, and mile time, because this will show what happened in last week's race. While time may be a good handicapping tool in this sense, it is worthless to assume that because horse A ran in 2:06.4 and horse B ran in 2:05.2-that horse B will win. This would be true only if horse A and B were running down parallel railroad tracks on a straight line distance from a given start to a given finish.

12. Odds are found immediately to the right of the win­ning horse's time and will be represented as odds to a dollar —not pay off money. Hence 5.65 will be 5.6 to one, and 3.00 will be 3 to 1. Odds are of paramount importance and are in some cases the only real determination of class, or of the ac­tual mixture which the race contained. Due to this impor­tance, "odds" will be discussed in detail in a later chapter.

13. The driver's name is found immediately to the right of the odds and will appear as the first initial and last name of the driver, such as H. Smith. I will never forget the first time I went to the harness races (having some knowledge of the flat races but little of the trotters and pacers). I noted that the first horse on the program had the same trainer, driver and owner. Being somewhat overcome by this (this doesn't occur at the flat tracks), I put a token bet down based on this factor alone, checking no further.

The horse won, but afterwards I felt pretty stupid! I found that most horses had at least the same trainer and driver, making this an insignificant factor. This showed rather pointedly that a horse being driven, trained and owned by the same person is not an unusual thing in harness racing. It is something to remember if ever tempted to bet because the same person owns and drives the horse. While this may be significant and does have implications, it nevertheless is quite common at harness races and should be ignored.

Many people bet on the driver. They have a favorite driver and continually bet on him. Others play the driver only if certain conditions suit them. This is one of the surest ways to the poor house! Think of what can happen on a long losing streak!

In 1959 at Yonkers Raceway one of the top ten drivers went about 75 races before winning. He racked up a good in the money percentage, but just couldn't win. Imagine going 75 races without a win! Whether playing an even amount to win or a mild progression, this could wreck most players financially.

It is true that a driver counts considerably in the figuring of a race. I consider a driver to be worth about ⅓ of the three major factors (⅓ post position and speed; ⅓ "How the race will be run"). A race is a combination of factors, and the horse with the best combination of factors in his favor will win. Hence, consider the importance of the driver, but do not concentrate your play around this factor alone.

Are You Ready To Move Onto The Next Lesson? Click Here...