As I have noted, an acquaintance of mine once remarked that he "never bets on losing drivers." He said that it wouldn't matter to him if the horse appeared to be a 'shoo-in" or a "steal" at the price. He simply would never bet on a driver who fails to win a fair amount of the time.

To further this point, one can learn an interesting fact by taking a sample number of races run at Roosevelt Raceway (using the Roosevelt Raceway Program of October 30, 1959); there were 632 trotting and pacing races to that point. Now look at the distribution of wins among the drivers. At that point, of the 632 races, 396 wins were by 21 drivers. There were about 90 drivers running at the track, at the time. Con­sider the following distribution of wins among these drivers:

A.23% of the drivers won 63% of the races.

B.67% of the drivers won only 27% of the races.

Does it pay to bet on the other 67% of the drivers running at Roosevelt Raceway? The obvious answer is no. I am not for one minute suggesting a method of wagering by betting on drivers or by drivers names. I am very definitely sug­gesting that there is something that these 21 drivers have which is not shared by the remaining 69. The difference is that one group is winning and the other is losing. I am not suggesting that each time you figure a race you take along an adding machine and try to figure out which drivers are in the upper 23% and which are in the lower 67%.

A general comparative rating can be obtained accurately by looking in the back of the program. There you will find a listing of drivers' standings. If you like a particular horse and you find that the driver has had much difficulty in winning and has been doing poorly this year, I would suggest that you eliminate him as a bet. As a general rule, I would confine my wagering to winning drivers. A race can be lost by poor judgment or by a driver who just doesn't have the ability to win races. It is as simple as that. You will have a much better chance of success if you confine your wagering to winning drivers rather than those who can't seem to win.

As a rule of thumb I would say that the following holds true:

Category                        Percentage of Time

Excellent Driver     wins       20% (1 out of 5) or above

Good Driver          wins       15% (1 out of 6)

Fair Driver            wins       10% (1 out of 10)

Poor Driver           wins       less than 10%

This can be stated another way as a flat in-the-money per­centage. As a rule of thumb, the in-the-money percentages figure as follows:

Category                  Percentage of Time

Excellent Driver          in the money       40% or above (2 out of 5)

Good Driver               in the money       30% (3 out of 10)

Fair Driver                  in the money       25% (1 out of 4)

Poor Driver                 in the money       less than 25% (1 out of 4)

If one uses the above as approximate criteria to judge quality of riding then he will be amazed at the number of "poor" drivers running on the harness ovals. One will find that there is a multitude of drivers who just don't seem to win or come in the money. Whether this is poor judgment, poor horses, bad racing luck, etc., I don't know. The facts, however, are plain—you stand a better chance of winning when you wager on a driver who can be rated as "good" or better than when you bet on one rated less than "good." This is simply a statistical fact. It is proved year in and year out.

If one were to investigate the scene at the metropolitan New York City tracks, he would find that year in and year out the same drivers head the top of the list. During the period 1955-1960, I would venture to say that the list of the top 15 drivers didn't include more than one or two new­comers per year.

New owners tend to concentrate their horses in the hands of the best drivers. This is common sense on their part. Gen­erally, one can see a trend towards the concentration of the best horses in the hands of the most capable drivers. The best drivers continue to draw the best horses and in this sense perpetuate their status as the leaders.

When you bet on a winning driver, you are going with experience, proven performance and an acknowledged level of riding ability. You can see that due to the importance of a good driver over a poor one we should use this factor some­where in our handicapping considerations. We can then state the following as a review of our sequence of handicap­ping considerations, including the new importance of the driver:

1. Figure a particular race using the “how the race will be run” technique. Attempt to come up with the logically placed horse for the type of race expected.

2. After the above check with the drivers standings and determine the capabilities of the driver. If he is a good or excellent driver than confirm your analysis as in point 1 above. If he is rated as a poor or winless driver, then forget the race, and proceed to the next one. The rule here should be never to bet on a losing driver.

3. Then check your selection as to post position and com­parative speed for a final decision.

You will notice that I make the statement in point 2, that "you should never bet on a losing driver." If one considers this closely, he will see an intelligent proposal. If a driver continually proves that he can only win one out of ten times, or less, what is the sense of wagering on him? You are im­mediately going against formidable odds. In the long run you will be much better situated confining your bets to driv­ers who win regularly. In this way, the least you will get for your money is a good ride. This is ⅓ of the battle.

The running of a trotting or pacing race is fraught with difficulties. Many of the difficulties can be kept to a mini­mum by the better drivers. On one hand, because of the sulky, there are more driving violations which can be made in harness racing than in thoroughbred racing. A horse can bear into another causing him to "break," or he can lock wheels, break his hobbles, bend a wheel, etc. Serious ac­cidents have been caused by horses stepping into a sulky wheel, resulting in a pile-up.

The point of these considerations simply is that one should be careful to confine his wagering to proven and veteran drivers. Some accidents are the result of careless driving and the drivers are subsequently suspended for a period of time because of "careless, or inconsistent, driving." In many cases, the more experienced drivers can avert these accidents simply by their experience and ability.

You would give more consideration to the value of good driving if you were at Roosevelt Raceway on April 23, 1960. In the feature race, a $25,000 Invitation Trot "Open to the World," some of the finest trotters in the United States were assembled. Among these were Camas B, Trader Horn, Tyson Scott and Senator Frost. Senator Frost at the time had just arrived in the East from a stint at Santa Anita (M) where he had won several F.F.A. races in 1:58.4, 2:00 and 2:01.4. He was the class of the race and won it easily. Into the stretch he had a four-length lead, according to the official track announcer. But this win will only be recorded in the official records; not as a parimutuel victory. Coming into the stretch turn, Senator Frost bore into the number 1 horse causing him to break and swerve into the rest of the field.

The judges, after a ten-minute consideration of the "ob­jection," placed Senator Frost last for causing the number 1 horse to break. Senator Frost was on the outside almost all the way, and a better-judged ride might have made the dif­ference in the race.

Whether the above was due to "careless driving," an error of judgment or an accident, I could not be definite in saying. It is true though that generally the "better" drivers will at the very least give you a well-judged ride for your money. This is precisely the point. To be sure, I have used an ex­treme example to prove a point. But we are attempting to eliminate every possible hazard in your calculations and in doing so we must search every angle.

In terms of this thinking, the rule still holds: you will gen­erally get a better ride when you confine your wagers to the "top" drivers. At the very least you are assured of:

a.) experience

b.) a definite plan

c.) an all-out try

d.) the use of good judgment

e.) and the confidence that is present in the mind of a continual winner

I should clarify the fact that there is no intention here of suggesting that you play a "favorite" driver or the same drivers continually. This is financial suicide, and blinds one to the problem at hand. The point is that you must be sure that your selection is being handled by a successful driver rather than an unsuccessful one.

Handicapping has been referred to as a reduction of the risks to a point where profitable bets can be made. If this be true, we can reduce the risks by using "knowns" as op­posed to "unknowns." In this sense, a substantial risk reduc­tion is gained when you go with an acknowledged good driver, over a bad one. This, then, becomes the entire point of the chapter: If you can reduce enough of the risks in wagering, you will produce winners, and selection of an able driver should solve at least ⅓ of your handicapping problem.

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