3. An Integral Part of the Problem

A basic problem most handicappers have is that they begin with a series of preconceived likes and dislikes. A common cry heard is "I don't like the driver" or "I don't like the post," etc. This type of misconception will immediately put one strike against anyone planning to make full use of this book.

Each race is different. Each track is different and each horse and driver feels somewhat different each time he races. Therefore, to be upset about the 8 post, for example, while basically good reasoning, doesn't hold true for each horse or each race. To explain: On a day on which the track is slow, the best spot can be the 8 position. Yet this same 8 post can be "poison" or excellence, depending on whether a horse is a front runner or a stretch runner. A front runner, running from the 8 post will be tired before he reaches the front; a slow starting stretch or % runner is sometimes best in the 8 post because he does not have to exert himself to get to the rail and there is no danger of being caught outside.

One of the most important points to remember in the en­tire realm of "handicapping the harness races" is that the best horse doesn't always win the race. The best horse poorly positioned, or poorly driven, could easily lose. This same "best" horse, assuming he is a front runner, could be run "into the ground" by a 50-1 shot and have nothing left for the finish. In other words, the best horse may or may not be the winning horse. If the race were being run on a straightaway, the winner and the best horse would be one and the same. The "best" horse or the horse with the fastest times would generally win, but this doesn't mean that he will win in any particular race on a modern harness racing oval.

This brings us to another important point: the fastest horse also may look good on paper, but if he has to run from the 7 post, to get to the front, or the 8 post, he may be "used up." His speed, energy and finishing ability will be down the drain. Speed alone doesn't, and never will, win a harness race.

I will never forget the occasion at Yonkers Raceway, when the horse I wagered on broke at the rail; all the other horses went up on the outside to avoid him, and he was now boxed in. He could not swing outside. The rail then opened up, and the horse that broke came back in stride, and just paced evenly while the other horses fought to gain an ad­vantage on the outside. As the stretch approached, the rail was still open, and the horse which had broken stride stayed on the rail and won the race. Normally, he should have been trailing the field. But he had less distance to make up. Had he been on the outside, he would have been forced wide, and would have pulled back into the race, after the other horses had passed. The reason that he won the race in question was not speed. Rather it was due to the position, to the fact that he saved ground all the way, while the others went wide-plus racing luck. Remember, a speedster, stalled three-wide on a turn, might as well throw in the towel at that point.

At this point, you may be asking yourself: "Is this a lec­ture on what not to do, or How to Win at the Harness Races?" This is certainly a valid query and I do not intend to stall your interest. However, I would like to tell you of something which changed my outlook on handicapping the harness races. For years, I was a loser; and in this sense I was no better in my handicapping technique than the gen­eral public was in theirs.

One evening, I took a friend who had never attended a harness race to Monticello Raceway. As the evening de­veloped, I became a lecturer, explaining everything that happened and finding myself a little annoyed with this novice, who was not allowing me to concentrate on what was going on. Until that night I was making the same mis­takes that any other person was making. I would "stab" when losing; I picked the "best" horse; the fastest horse; made a great deal of winning "times," but seldom had win­ning horses.

As the evening progressed, I continued explaining the proceedings to my friend in a "do as I say, not do as I do" manner. I wanted to tell him the right way to handicap. As a teacher, it was my obligation. This set me whirling through one of the most bizarre series of reconsiderations that I had ever gone through. I actually saw then and there, what I had been doing wrong for years. I saw why I couldn't win and why the public is wrong in their selections. Then and there I began to realize how the harness races could be handicapped in the future to produce winners.

What actually transpired encompassed more than the above, but the story as related brought the mistakes of the past graphically to the fore. I now say that the harness races can be "beaten" by the application of a little intelligence.

If a system could have been devised that could have beaten the races, it would have been public property a long time ago. But a system can't produce winners. Main reason: A system is inflexible, or it wouldn't be a system, hence it can't apply to the variations found in every race. Since every race is different, no arithmetical method can apply, either.

We are not speaking of betting systems, but rather of handi­capping systems.

Basically, what worked for me, and what will produce winners for any handicapper of average intelligence, is an "analytical method of handicapping"; nothing else.

We have said that the harness races can be handicapped around three principles:

1. ⅓ driver
   
   
2. ⅓ post position, the individual horse, and speed.
   
   
3. ⅓ "how the race will be run."
   

In these three items, one stands out as paramount. The most important tool, which most handicappers overlook, is "How will the race be run?" This one phrase will, if properly understood, vastly improve your handicapping technique.

Given the proposition that a handicapper can figure out in advance how a race will be run, I say that the winner can then be determined after a cursory inspection of the driver and post position. This then is the key. With patience, prac­tice and the application of common sense you can predict what will happen in most harness races. The best way to show what I mean by "How the race will be run* is to il­lustrate:

For example, then, let's review the second race at Roose­velt Raceway, on Friday, August 28, 1959. This race was a pace for five year olds, and up, class C, perfect for handi­capping in respect to class, fast track and a clear brisk night. The M. I. Robins program for this race is shown on pages 56 and 57.

The horses in the race were as follows:

1. Hatgrave Hal: A 7-year-old with fair winnings, an ex­cellent driver, and a fair record.
   
   
2. Claires Boy: A 6-year-old gelding with fair winnings, a good record and a fair driver.
   
   
3. Little River Pete: A 5-year-old gelding with a poor record this year, no wins, a fair driver and very poor earnings.
   
   
4. Top Admiral: A 5-year-old horse with fair winnings, a good driver, good record as far as "in-the-money" is concerned.
   
   
5. Scotch Mercury: A 6-year-old horse with poor earnings, although good in-the-money percentage, a fair driver.
   
   
6. Famous Dixie: A 5-year-old mare with poor earnings, a good in-the-money percentage, and a seasoned driver.
   
   
7. Donald Adams: A 6-year-old gelding with a fair earnings record, fair in-the-money percentage, and a fair, but seasoned, driver.
   
   
8. Mike's Counsel: A 5-year-old horse with a 50% in-themoney percentage but poor cash winnings; however, driven by a top-notch driver.
   

So far, we have a scrambled group of horses, which we will now go about separating as follows:

Step 1. Scan the horses, checking dollar winnings to get a line as to any vast disparities present here. This is generally a good indication in rating one horse against another in the same class.

Step 2. Check to see if every horse has been out at least three times this year, and that no horse is starting for the first time this season.

Step 3. Mark down on the program, or on a separate piece of paper, whether the horses fit into the following categories:

A.front runner—Dashes to the lead from almost any post position. If starting from far back, tries to get the lead, although possibly being "hung up" on the outside. The most important item here is the repeated attempt to go for the front. Mark "front" next to this horse.

B.¾ runner—A horse that continually goes outside at or about the ½ mark and either gets the lead, or is "hung up" outside trying to go up front for the lead. Mark this horse "½"

C.¾ runner—A horse that continually moves up at the ¾ mark, and tries to capture the lead going wide around the horse in front, either at the ¾ mark or near here. Some drivers are known for running their horses at this point. (William Haughton is one.) Mark this horse "¾."

D.stretch or finish—A horse which starts slow or even, and makes his move repeatedly from the far turn to the finish line, either on the outside or in­side. This horse continually picks up lengths in the stretch; unless for some reason this is impos­sible. Mark this horse "stretch or finish."

E.even—A horse that starts in a position and doesn't seem to gain or move out of this position either for a challenge, or stretch drive. An even horse in the 8 position can be generally counted out. The same horse in the 1 post can be looked upon as a threat. Normally, the even horse is not the horse to be watched, unless he's running up front. Mark this horse "even."

At this point we have five ways with which we can classify the horses in this race. If you choose to mark these classifica­tions directly on the program you would mark these horses as follows:

PP 1 Hargrave Hal stretch

(8/22) On a slow track from the 7th post position he ran on the outside, but didn't go anywhere. He picked up 15* lengths in the stretch for a mild close. This can be excused partially because he is not classified as a "mudder" (note absence of black circle after his name) and because he had a bad post to start with. A stretch drive through the mud is a difficult thing and the fact that a horse performed badly here is not significant. Under this handicap, though, he did close 1¾ lengths from 4¾ lengths back to 3 at the wire.

(8/4) On a fast track he ran from the 5 post on the outside for a distance and closed beautifully. After running on the outside for better than ½ mile, he won the race by a nose. Time for the race was above average for this class.

(7/25) At Yonkers Raceway, which is not particularly suited to stretch runners, he closed magnificently. Starting from the 6 post, he ran almost ¾ of a mile on the outside and yet had "finishing guts" left to win by a nose. This race was faster than the race on 8/4/59 and was truly a stretch drive as Hargrave Hal picked up 2½ lengths to win this race. This race is even more commendable because of the slow (.32) first quarter in which a horse running in the rear is at a dis­advantage because the front runner is setting such a slow pace that he will be able to hold the lead.

 (7/17) On a fast track at Yonkers Raceway, Hargrave Hal made his best effort while not winning. He finished 2nd, running almost ½ mile on the outside, going "nowhere" and then driving down the stretch to end up 2nd, only a nose be­hind the winner. An effort like this in a relatively fast race, (2:06.1) proves that Hargrave Hal will rush down the stretch if given a chance.

Summaiy: Hargrave Hal is a "strong" stretch runner, who has plenty of what it takes to win if he gets close to the front, and will be difficult to defeat. He is a slow starter, but in this race, running from the 1 position, he shouldn't be worse than 3rd at the & mark.

PP 2 Claires Boy front

(8/20) Claire's Boy on a fast track started from the 3rd post position and was 2nd all the way. He made a mild bid in the stretch but couldn't quite make it.

(8/11) On a fast track he went immediately for the lead and held on until the stretch, where he faded by 2 lengths to 2nd. In a moderately fast race (2:06.3) he showed a strong tendency to hold the lead, but couldn't hang on enough. No apparent excuse. He just didn't have it.

(7/28) On a fast track, from the 4 post he went immedi­ately to the lead and held on to it for about ½ amile. He then faded to second, and finished sixth over 4 lengths back. This cannot be held against him because the race was a very fast one for "C" class (2:04.4) and a front horse here would have needed "real stuff" to have won this one. This race did demonstrate that Claire's Boy will take the lead even against faster horses, which definitely places him in the front runner category.

(7/21) On a fast track from the 3 post, he didn't try for the lead although he stayed up front. This can be answered easily by looking at the odds. He was approximately 28 to one, which usually shows that a horse is well outclassed. It appears probable that he couldn't have obtained the lead and therefore had to be content with remaining third. This is further proven by the fact that this was a very fast race, and it must be seen from that point of view. It doesn't change his basic characteristic of being a "front" runner, however.

Summary: Claire's Boy is a front running horse who will go for the lead if given the opportunity, but will generally fade at the wire. Mark next to Claire's Boy, "front," and next to that "fade," as that will help you in your analysis.

PP3 Little River Pete (?) even

An explanatory note is necessary here. It should be obvious that not all horses will fit neatly and precisely into a cate­gory. Here is a case in point. Little River Pete as you will see below, runs either in the stretch, ¾ or at the front, de­pending on circumstances. It is here that a handicapper will use his initiative and want to know, "How will he fit into this race?" This question should not be difficult to answer, as Little River Pete should run an "even" race with a small stretch kick towards the wire. He is outclassed as a stretch runner by Hargrave Hal, and he can't get the lead against Claire's Boy, so it is logical that he will be content to make his move when the right time comes. He will probably go out around the ½ or ¾ and "stall" on the outside.

(8/20) On a fast track from the 5 post he did a commendable job in the stretch. But this is really less than it looks like on the form. From the 5 post he was lucky enough to immedi­ately "tuck" in on the rail to the 2 post. He stayed there all the way and gained about ¾ of a length in the stretch. This was hardly a stretch drive; it was a nice move on the rail, combined with some racing luck.

(8/10) On a fast track starting from the number 1 post position, Little River Pete stayed at the 4th position most of the way—made a move at the ½ mark on the outside but didn't go anywhere—saved ground, and bid again in the stretch picking up 1¾ lengths to be third by a neck. This was a nice stretch effort and while he didn't win, he showed that this horse can run in the stretch if handled properly, and not "used up" getting the lead, etc.

(8/1) This race on a fast track shows how Little River Pete will take the lead if desirable. Here starting from the 7 post he rushed up front on the outside, took the lead, and was "used up" in this move. From there he faded badly to seventh.

(7/24) On a good track he raced evenly all the way around, starting from the 2 post, he fell back 3rd, 4th, then 6th and finished 5th.

Summary: Little River Pete showed one good stretch drive, one fair finish, one front running effort in which he faded, and one even race. He must be marked as "? even." While not in contention to win, he could spoil the race for another horse. Again I must emphasize that the handicapper in this situation would use his own judgment and would classify Little River Pete as an "even" horse because he can't get the lead, and expect to win, even down the stretch. This horse could be eliminated from contention.

PP 4 Top Admiral stretch

(8/18) Top Admiral, on a fast track, started from the 1 post and won the race coming nicely in the stretch from 3rd to 1st. He is a slow starter but from the one post would have to be a terrible starter to be worse than 3rd or 4th at the ½ mile mark. He therefore held third and from this position was in a wonderful slot to make a stretch drive and win.

(8/7) In the 3 post, this time on a fast track, being a slow starter he was lucky to remain 3rd or 4th. He stayed even all the way until the head of the stretch, and picked up about a half length—and moved down the stretch nicely. What hap­pened (probably) was that there were other horses who could also run in the stretch and Top Admiral was not their equal. Note odds at 28 to one to confirm this theory.

(7/28) From the 6 post he stayed even for ¾ of the race and tried vainly to drive in the stretch. He only picked up ¾ of a length, and should have done better than that because he was not pushed at any time. This tends to prove that he is a stretch runner of only mild sorts. He doesn't measure up to the stretch running ability of Hargrave Hal, is also, by necessity, spotting 4-post positions, he being 4th and Har­grave Hal being first.

Summary: From these three races it is apparent that Top Admiral has definite stretch-running characteristics, but these are not of a strong nature. Look at this in the money percentage: 14 starts, 2 wins, 5 places, 2 shows. This shows definitely that he works fairly well in the stretch, not always having enough to win, but usually is in the money. As a stretch runner he can only be classified as fair.

PP 5 Scotch Mercury stretch

(8/20) From the 7 post he made a fine move in the stretch to come from 6th, 4¼ lengths back to 3rd, 1½ lengths back. He picked up almost three lengths. This was a good stretch move and classifies this horse as being dangerous when in striking position at the ¾ or head of the stretch marks.

(8/11) On a fast track Scotch Mercury, from the 7th posi­tion, again made a fair stretch drive finishing 4th and picking up ½ length from the head of the stretch to the finish. This was not a terrific move but a ready explanation can be found: This race was a 2:05.1 race, which for "C" company is rather good. Hence, a stretch runner of "C" stature would have trouble passing leading horses which are moving at this rate of speed. This is why Scotch Mercury only picked up ½ length.

(8/4) At the 6 post, this time on a fast track, Scotch Mer­cury tried to go out at the ½. He took the lead but lost it in the stretch, only giving up about ¼ length, hardly considered fading. This demonstrated that the horse had real finishing ability, as he battled all the way to hold that lead from the ¾ to the wire.

(7/21) Scotch Mercury started from the 1 post, which didn't help, as he fell back to 5th. He is a notoriously slow starter, and faded as far as 6th and picked up two lengths in the stretch to finish 3rd by a neck. Here was a fine stretch move which might have won the race had he not fallen back so far at the start.

Summary: Scotch Mercury is without a doubt a "stretch runner" of some stature. However, as a very slow starter, in this race he could be as far back as 7th for the first half mile. This will give him a long way to go for that "stretch" win, especially while spotting about 7 lengths (one length per post position can be used as a rule of thumb) to a stretch runner of the same stature—namely Hargrave Hal. Mark "stretch—slow starter."

PP 6 Famous Dixie front

(8/20) On a fast track, Famous Dixie immediately took the lead and, while fading at the wire, she held on gamely enough to win by a head. This was from the 1 post, and she didn't have to work for the lead, yet she faded and almost lost the race. This gives the indication that she can't grasp the lead and hold it much below the 1st, 2nd or 3rd PP.

(8/12) On a fast track from the 5 post, she took the lead immediately and held it nicely going down into the head of the stretch, then was caught and faded badly into the stretch. She faded 5 lengths, but because of an early lead, she came in no worse than 3rd, though beaten by 4& lengths.

(8/4) It is very difficult to assess the race on this date, as she broke stride and finished way out of the race—12 lengths back.

(7/21) At Yonkers Raceway, on a fast track, she took the lead again and held it, but faded from the head of the stretch to the wire. Yonkers is a track which generally favors Front Runners, and the fact that she faded to 3rd here shows much weakness in her front-running ability. To concede a point, however, this race was relatively fast for "C" horses (2:05.1), and she was not a powerful enough front runner to stay out there and win on a fast pace.

Summary: Famous Dixie is a front running horse who will probably go for the lead in this race, but who will fade at the finish for two reasons:

1. She cannot hold the lead from wire to wire, which is shown by past analysis.
   
   
2. She may have to work too hard to get the lead because she is starting from the 6 position and Claire's Boy, who is also a front runner, will have a much better chance to get the lead and hold it even if Famous Dixie makes a bid for it.
   

PP 7 Donald Adams stretch

(8/20) Running from the 2 spot, on a fast track, Donald Adams stayed even, but was passed in the stretch by three horses. He finished 5th while only losing 1¼ lengths from the head of the stretch to the finish.

(8/13) Here Donald Adams went from the 3 post, faded immediately to the 8th spot, and then made a mild bid in the stretch, picking up 1½ lengths. However, this was only a mild bid as he only picked up one position in the stretch.

(7/28) Donald Adams, running from the 2 post at Yonkers Raceway, ran a nice race here. He took the lead easily and held on, adding to his margin in the stretch. But this race was hardly as impressive as it looks from first glance, for two reasons:

1. He was in the 2 post position and didn't have to work for the lead. Also he was not challenged for it.
   
   
2. He went off under even money after having been 8 to 1 in the previous race. A sure bet that he was running against much cheaper horses, and stood out as the classiest horse of this race.
   

(7/17) Running again at Yonkers Raceway from the 8th PP, he tried to move early on the outside, but failed. He settled back on the rail and came down in the stretch, mak­ing a fine bid and finishing 2nd. A good finish, starting from the 8 spot to do it.

Summary: Donald Adams is a mild stretch runner who is capable of a stretch drive, but still is not to be rated as being an excellent finisher. He is a fair finisher, no better. He is doubly handicapped in this race. First, because he is in the 7th post; secondly, you will note he was the 4/5 favorite last time and is now listed as 10-1 on the morning line—an indi­cation he ran against cheaper horses last time out.

PP 8 Mikes Counsel stretch

(8/22) On a slow track at Roosevelt Raceway, Mike's Counsel started out from the 8 post and immediately rushed to 2nd. He then took first, faded to second, and won going away in the stretch. Mike's Counsel is a good finisher, but this race was on a slow track, time of the race being 2:10. In other words, the race was slow enough to allow a horse to move out of the 8 post, then take the lead, and win—es­pecially in this case a horse who favors the mud. Don't let this race influence your decision too much.

(8/13) Racing this time on a fast track from the 4 post, Mike's Counsel showed a good stretch kick, picking up ½ length in the stretch, although fading 2nd to 3rd, he kept gaining on the leader.

(8/6) On a fast track from the 5 post, he showed a good stretch drive to finish, losing out by a neck. He got to the front, stayed 2nd, and closed at the stretch. It now becomes more apparent that Mike's Counsel is a stretch runner who likes to run close to the front.
(7/27) Here Mike's Counsel started from the 7th post and tried to go up front but then tucked in 5th. He attempted to drive in the stretch, managed to stay even with the lead­ers. This race was exceptionally fast for "C" horses, time being 2:04.3. No stretch runner of this class could have made up lengths in the stretch against this fast pace.

Summary: Mike's Counsel is a good stretch runner. He closes well but prefers to run close to the front. He will be unable to do that in this race, as he will be forced by his bad post position (#8) to stay in the rear. His stretch drive will not be good enough to overtake these horses because he will be unable to make up 8 lengths and then win. His stretch "kick" is not as good as Hargrave Hal's, who has 8 lengths' advan­tage over him. As a point of interest it might be noted that Mike's Counsel races without hobbles, indicated by the "double dagger" to the left of his name.

As we have now seen each horse and his capabilities, it is possible for the reader to be slightly confused as to why it is necessary to go into such a long discussion of these items; just to classify each horse into a one- or two-word category. The point is that from a one-word category, such as "stretch," "front," etc., you can analyze the race in a few minutes. To show what we have gained by this classification, carefully inspect the following chart. This chart is being used solely to clarify and to indicate graphically what is gained by these classifications. I do not suggest that you use charts in your handicapping classifications. The use of charts or similar instruments becomes too precise, too mechanical and too systematized, and makes for confusion instead of intelligent analysis of a race. A system is not being suggested here and please bear this in mind! The intention is only to present a careful, intelligent analysis of a particular race.

The make-up of the above race is such that a strong stretch runner will probably win it. This can be ascertained as follows: At the beginning of the race, Claire's Boy should rush for the lead with Famous Dixie. Claire's Boy coming from the front post, would hold the lead for a while and famous Dixie coming from post 6, should fade. Hargrave Hal should be no worse than 3rd on the rail. The next major move will be made after the ¾ or stretch, as most of the other horses run this way. Of the stretch runners only Hargrave Hal and Scotch Mercury are considered "strong stretch" and of these two Hargrave Hal should have the edge. Reason:

1. He has the #1 post position, and should be no worse than 2nd or 3rd. He is not a particularly slow starter, although he is not fast enough to get the lead.
   
   
2. His major challenger, Scotch Mercury, will have to spot him at least 5 lengths, probably closer to 6 or 7. This is due to the fact that Scotch Mercury is a notoriously slow starter (which you can spot at a glance, reviewing his past performances). He will be passed by Famous Dixie, and many conceivably fade at the start to 7 or 8, because the horses in these positions are faster starters than he is. He is not a better stretch runner than Hargrave Hal, and will have to make up about 7 lengths to catch him.
   

If you are still not convinced that Hargrave Hal has the definite edge, examine this most important fact. The drivers of these two horses are decidedly unequal in their records. Howard Beissinger on #1, is one of the leading drivers in the east, while Gay Parker on #6 is not. The driver accounts for a good share of the factors that win a race. A winning driver on a winning horse is a good combination! A losing driver on a winning horse is a bad combination!

The final major factors of post positions and speed can be seen to favor Hargrave Hal. He has the 1 post position versus the 6 post position. The speed of both horses is about the same, and little can be said on this factor. In summary, then, one can see graphically:

1."How will the race be run" will favor a stretch runner, most probably the #1 horse, Har­grave Hal.

2. Post Position and Speed favor Hargrave Hal.

3. Driver

Howard Beissinger on Hargrave Hal rates the nod.

It should be noted that much extra information has been included for sake of explanation, and the length of time needed to handicap a particular race shouldn't be more than 10-15 minutes, once a person has familiarized himself with the handicapping method used here.

The race was run nearly as it figured to be run. Briefly the results were as follows: Hargrave Hal, came through in the stretch to win the race going away. The number two horse, Claire's Boy, hung on longer than expected and finished a tired second. Scotch Mercury, as figured, faded back at the start, and was too far in the rear to be much of a threat, although his stretch drive sent him to 3rd.

It is obvious that Hargrave Hal, who was the morning line favorite in this race, had a one in three chance of win­ning anyway. This is true because 1 out of 3 favorites win. Lest you get the idea that I am advocating playing favorites, remember that the "best horse" doesn't always win the race! The best horse is generally the favorite, but it is a fact that 2 out of 3 favorites lose. Playing favorites as a matter of policy, is financial suicide.

I advocate the figuring of a race in a manner which will help you to anticipate how the race will be run. Train your­self to look at the race through the eyes of a driver, not through the eyes of a bettor! If you can orient your handicap­ping towards the basis of how the horses will run and when their moves will be made, you will be more successful as a handicapper.

To further aid your handicapping techniques, you might note that the 5 categories of stretch, front, etc., which have been previously discussed, can be further broken down to prove more helpful, as follows:

1.Front Runner

a.good

b.fades

2.& Runner

a.good

b.fades

3.£ Runner

a.good

b.fades

4.Stretch Runner (or finish)

a.excellent

b.good

c.fair

After noting the above, carefully examine the following past performances and you will see another graphic example which demonstrates the "How the race will be run" tech­nique. I have checked each horse in the manner which I think he will fit in the race. Try to figure the race yourself on a piece of paper, and see how your choice corresponds with my choice. After carefully reading the analysis, note the winning horse and how the race was run. See if this tallies with your analysis, and then review carefully.

These facts are important! Don't be influenced unduly by the odds! Odds don't make a horse race! The horses can't read. The morning line favorites of this race is the morning line favorite because of his "times." This may or may not make him the winner. Because he has been running in fast races, his "times" may look relatively good. The horse in the 1 PP, Freight Forwarder, may fool you. For example, here are a few facts about his last races. In his last six races he hasn't been in the 1 or 2 post position; furthermore, he has been 4th or worse in every case but one! Yet he has shown the disposition every time but once to go for the lead, as follows:

Post Position at start    Position at ¼

4th                  to                    5th

4th                  to                    2nd

3rd                 to                    4th (here he was

on outside going for lead)

7th    to                    1st

11th    to                  4th

9th    to                    6th

Freight Forwarder is now in the first post position and he has always shown a disposition to go to the front. If one notes that there are no other front running threats in the first four post positions, then it is logical to assume that he will be able to get the lead without too much difficulty. The rest of the horses in the race are reasonably easy to analyze. Freight Forwarder looks like a stretch runner be­cause he was always forced to run from far back and hence he had to make a move at the ¾y or stretch mark, even though he has a marked "desire" to run up front. Hence, this was a type of racing enforced on him, and not necessarily a desired one. Note the following chart, a clearer method of showing these program markings.

analysis: Freight Forwarder (#1) for the lead and should get it easily. Potomac Wyn (#3) will challenge and should get the lead at the ½-¾ mark. However, if Freight Forwarder doesn't give up the lead easily, both should fade after fight­ing it out. Sandy's Knight (#5) should also move at the ½ or ¾ and will push any front-running horse, but should be un­able to get or hold the front and will probably fade. Skywell (#6) will push at the ¾ but will be unable to reach the front due to his 6 post and the various other horses moving at the ¾ mark. Jonsie Direct (#7) will go out earlier this time, presumably because of his bad post and the fact that he also runs at the ¾ mark. Golden Gallon (#8) is badly situated in this race, as he is running from too far back to be able to pass these other ¾ and ½ horses and still win. I have ignored, deliberately, the #4 horse, A. C. Havens. He is an even starter but a terrific stretch runner. With all these ½ and ¾ horses challenging for the lead, it appears that no front-run­ning horse will be capable of holding the lead, and resist these challenges—and still win! There is only one really strong stretch-running horse in this race. While the other horses who run at the ¾ will have to come from the 6, 7 and 8 post, A. C. Havens from the 4 slot should come out in front of them, and will have the advantage in the stretch. Since the best stretch runner in the race is unquestionably A. C. Havens (#4) and since the winner of this race will be decided after the ¾ mark, it is logical to deduce that A. C. Havens should win it. If you don't agree, recheck the past performances and see if the race should not be run in this way.

It is impossible to figure out prior to the running of the race exactly "how the race will be run/' But one can come close enough by examining past performances so as to figure approximately what will happen, and who the winner should be. Just such a circumstance occurred here. Go back and check for a moment. See how Potomac Wyn went immedi­ately for the lead, but lost it. Note where A. C. Havens made his move and the fact that he came out right in front of the other % runners, winning comfortably at a nice price.

In the example on page 73,1 have ignored referring to our three-part breakdown of driver, post position, etc. Indirectly, reference has been made to post position because of the number 4 post being excellent for a stretch runner. In so far as the drivers were concerned at least five of the eight drivers can be considered as excellent, and hence only hair­splitting and personal opinion could have been the result.

To recap, then, A. C. Havens had the definite edge in that his stretch-running ability fit well into the scheme of the race. He had an excellent driver guiding him and a good post position. Speed didn't enter into the consideration as all the horses in this race were about the same speed.

These examples show what can be done if one desires to intelligently analyze a race. It should be noted that once you become familiar enough with the reasoning inherent here, you can mark these characteristics quickly onto your program and thus get much more meaning from these one-word designations.

In many cases, the race becomes so tight in ascertaining a winner that the only thing left to do is to make an educated guess. Since our primary desire is to pick the winner, we can not afford to guess! Remember: The odds are definitely stacked against you. A race is complicated enough, since a "break," a bad start, or any one of a dozen mishaps can put you out of the race. This being the case, one must be intelli­gent enough to view his handicapping as an attempt to lessen the odds against him. The only way this can success­fully be done is if one makes up his mind to reduce those factors which will tend to defeat him.

If there are five good stretch runners in a particular race and the whole thing looks like a battle between them, wouldn't it be foolhardy to try to pick one of these? The answer may be a good guess! Our purpose is to gain an edge, to analyze and find races in which there is a combination of factors which by careful analysis will produce a winner.

This winner will be given to us by characteristics inherent in the particular race. To put it in the simplest terms, a race where there are seven horses which fade and one horse which comes on in the stretch would be shown dramatically when you begin your analysis. It is a necessary thing then to remember our single purpose: To pick the winning horse, and to do this by figuring how the race will be run, along with other factors—drivers, post positions and speed. Those factors, however, must take into consideration that speed, per se, will seldom win a harness race.

Once you become familiar with the analysis of a race in terms of "how the race will be run'* you will learn to do this in much less time and much less detail than has been neces­sary here, principally for example purposes. Post position, speed, and driver rating can be done quickly and easily by simply examining the program. Generally, a listing of top drivers is found in the back of the program and this will im­mediately give you the facts you are after. A more detailed discussion of drivers and precisely how they fit into a race will be found in the next chapter.

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