6. Subjective Judgment in Handicapping

Much of handicapping can be summed up under the general heading of "subjective judgment." While there are mechani­cal devices which will aid this judgment, these will seldom work. One of the most important aids to handicapping that I have found, is attempting to analyze the race on the basis of "how the race will be run." There are many instances where this can be assisted by other factors. In many cases, it will be difficult to ascertain exactly how a race will be run, but at the same time the apparent preponderance of one ex­ceptional horse can make you decide that the race is not only bettable but a good play. One such situation that will further exemplify this point, can be shown in the following ex­ample. Examine the past performances of the horses and ob­serve the following points:

1. Champ Volo has successfully beaten top company (FFA).
   
   
2. Culver Pick has beaten AA horses.
   
   
3. Adios Claire has been running good seconds, but has been winning infrequently. A horse that places and shows, but can't seem to win regularly.
   
   
4. Victory Dynamic won over Champ Volo last time out but this was on a sloppy track, and the time of the race was very slow.
   
   
5. The race seems to be between Champ Volo and Culver Pick. Of these two horses, which is the better? Observe that Champ Volo can win going away in a race which is a full two seconds faster than Culver Pick. Further note that Culver Pick has been an AA horse, who has run in a few AA-JFA handicaps. Champ Volo on the other hand has been a confirmed FFA horse, and has beaten the finest horses in the country, whereas Culver Pick has only beaten "good" horses.
   

Note that in the analysis we have said little in regard to the factor of "how the race will be run" but only about the various qualities of the horses. If one were to figure this race on the basis of how the race would be run, he would come up with the following data:

1. Adios Claire—good stretch runner.
   
   
2. Clever Braden—front runner who fades.
   
   
3. Culver Pick—¾ to stretch runner.
   
   
4. Champ Volo—¾ to stretch runner.
   
   
5. Victory Dinamic—stretch runner.
   

In figuring this race on the basis of "how the race will be run/' one quickly finds that he comes up against a thorny problem. He finds that the front-running horse, Clever Braden, can quickly be discounted because of the terrific stretch punch found in the four other horses, any one of which will be able to overtake Clever Braden, should he get out there. Now we are left with four stretch horses (¾ to stretch), Adios Claire, Culver Pick, Champ Volo and Victory Dinamic. How do you pick between them? Well, by using our handicapping basis we find that we can immediately dis­count the number 2 horse, Clever Braden. As we have noted, he will not be able to hold the lead. However, our basis of handicapping generally assumes that the horses in a particular race are all of the same quality or class, but in this case this is not so. Clearly visible is the fact that Champ Volo has handily beaten FFA horses and in his last outing ran on a very sloppy track on the outside, evidently disliking the footing. That race can be discounted because of its very slow time. Further, one can see that the track was "off" more than just slightly. Champ Volo is easily the class of the race and should be able to win against this calibre of competition.

It is here that "subjective judgment" comes into play. This race, because of the tremendous capabilities of one horse, Champ Volo, doesn't seem to be a contest. He should run away with it, and he did. The mutuel pay-off to win was about $4.00, and you can see that here was an instance where the public and the winner agreed. This example can be taken in one of two ways. Either you have the sense to re­frain from betting because the race would be unprofitable in price versus risks, or you pick a horse to try and beat him. If the second alternative is used, then you had better turn to growing flowers or driving a cab, because it is a part of intelligent betting to destroy that perennial desire of try­ing to beat an acknowledged top contender, when inwardly you concede him the race. When you have found the ap­parent winner in a particular race, you should do one of two things: Either bet straight win or place, or don't bet at all (presumably because of the short price). The surest way to lose at the mutuel windows is to try and beat acknowledged winners because you don't like the price.

Here is another example which can prove itself to be dis­couraging, if one is not capable of seeing through the prob­lem and hence avoiding the pitfall. Here is a race which figures to be a good bet by our "how the race will be run" reasoning. If one examines the past performances of these horses, he will readily be able to ascertain the following qualities:

1.A.C. Havens: He is a good stretch runner, who is able to pick up several lengths from the far turn to the stretch, and has done it quite successfully in four out of his last six races. His last race showed that if given a good position when coming into the stretch he easily wins the race. In the race in question going from the one slot, he is a dangerous contender. Because it is almost a certainty that he will be no worse than 3rd all the way around, and should be at this position at the head of the stretch.

2. Newport Duke: This horse will probably go for the lead from  the 2 slot in this case. He shows a tendency to  run near the front in his last races and closes  fairly well. He doesn't appear to be as good a closer as A. C. Havens but his post position this time will help.

3. Eastern Star: Here is a horse that markedly tries to reach  the front. This can be seen in three of his last four races. One of these will be obscure be  cause of the (X) break in that race. It can be  seen that Eastern Star has been running on  the minor circuit at Rockingham and his one race at Roosevelt Raceway against Class A horses seemed to show that he is not of their calibre. This doesn't mean that he should be     counted out, but it does tend to show that he is outclassed. Although he is a front runner, he does fade, and this will make it difficult for him to appear as a factor in this one.

4. Santa Chief: Here is the trouble. How good is Santa Chief in relation to the other horses? This is hard to judge. Santa Chief is a 9-year-old horse who has stepped down to oppose these horses. If one further examines the past performances he will see that the numbers 1, 2, and 3 horses could be actually A-2, so that Santa

 Chief apparently has these three horses well outclassed, if "class" will win this race. But Santa Chief is stepping down and this could well mean that he is unable to win any more. However, in his last two races at A-l, he made a fine stretch showing. As a matter of fact, if one checks more thoroughly, he will find that Santa Chief has made some wonderful stretch drives in AA company, being able to get within 1¾ lengths of the winner, after being 5& lengths (10/24/59) back at the head of the stretch. He made up 4 lengths in the stretch that time. Check the races on 10/2/59, and observe the same thing. It could be that Santa Chiefs inability to win is due to his failure to get racing luck rather than his turning bad. This tends to show in 2 races at A-l company —his last two races. One then can see a stretch duel shaping up. However, the par­tially unsolved question still remains: namely, how good is Santa Chief?

5. Pilot Zoom: This horse has been running in A company and has been doing only fairly well. While his "in-the-money" record is good, his last Poor four or five races will not put him in the contention for this race. Rather, he is only a fair or poor stretch contender, and will be unable to stand against the other stretch competition herein shaping up. He must be counted out of any competition in this one.

6. Chief's Dream: After a terrific splash in B company, and a subsequent win in A, Chiefs Dream has settled down to where he needs a front posi­tion to be considered as contention. Rather Front or ¾  he will have to take the lead, and hold it against these horses. This appears quite un­likely because of his post position, and the fine stretch horses in this race. Chiefs Dream must be counted out of this race.

7. Highland Laird: This horse, while he has been with better company, doesn't seem to have what it takes to win. He has placed five times and showed seven times for a total of 12 "in-the-money" times out of 25 outs. While this is a good percentage one must see that this horse hasn't won a race. He seems to be a cliff-hanger, he places and shows but can't win. He runs an even race, with no great move either to the front or in the stretch. If you consider this, you will readily see that if he runs an even race this time he will probably run out of the money.

8. Mighty Gold:

Fair Stretch

Mighty Gold, a fair stretch horse, may be counted on to make a move, but is too far back to affect this one. The 8 slot will mean that she will be at an enormous disadvantage coming into the stretch, and hence will be un­able to compete with the horses found in posts 1, 2 and 4.

In analyzing this race, we have found that all but three horses can be eliminated. The three remaining contenders are A. C. Havens, Newport Duke and Santa Chief. The prob­lem now takes a different twist, as Newport Duke, who is a front runner, doesn't figure to win if a stretch drive develops between A. C. Havens and Santa Chief. This appears as a logical possibility from our analysis, hence we might elimi­nate Newport Duke from our considerations.

How capable is Santa Chief when compared to A. C. Havens, both being good stretch runners? Is the problem of separating these two too difficult to concern ourselves with, and should we forget the race? Not if some legitimate reason can be found which will place one contender well over the other. Santa Chief has run well in the stretch against better horses, but A. C. Havens has done a better stretch job against a slightly lower class of horses. If the stretch battle develops between these two, who will win?

To be quite honest, the winner of this race is impossible to determine beforehand. I would have leaned to A. C. Havens because of the post position. It is here where you can readily see the pitfalls of handicapping. We have been able to logically eliminate six out of eight horses from conten­tion, but we are now left with an inseparable two. A possi­bility could have been a win bet on both contenders, but this type of wagering cannot generally show a profit over the long pull. The example shows one important thing, that is that when your analysis comes down to the wire in this way, forget it. Go on to another situation. To force a wager simply for the sake of betting is to insure losses.

The result of the race is interesting. A. C. Havens began a strong drive at the ¾ mark, and was leading into the stretch. It was Santa Chief on the outside and Newport Duke on the inside. Santa Chiefs class won out for he overtook A. C. Havens in the stretch and officially won by less than a neck, with Newport Duke finishing a strong third on the inside. Here is a case where a neck made the difference, and where two—and only two—horses figured to win the race. If one had bet straight place, the mutuel would have been 3.60 and 3.10 respectively, the winning price on Santa Chief being 8.60.

We can now see that while the ability of figuring the apparent running of the race will enhance and improve your handicapping techniques; then the application of cool, subjective judgment will increase this power and embellish on it. If one comes down to the decision of deciding which of two horses, who are both better than the field, will win and he can't separate them, he should do one of two things:

a.) Bet the one that he feels will win straight place. b.) Not bet the race at all.

There are no other profitable alternatives. Notice that I am not suggesting that you try to beat the best (or better) horse and therefore bet to place conceding him the win. Rather, I am suggesting that in this case you bet straight place or not at all, for the simple reason that either one can win and therefore both or one should place. When place bet­ting, always take advantage of your two chances. Only bet the horse that you feel will win and bet him to place. Do not fall prey to the reasoning that A will probably win, but B should place. If this is the actual case, either bet A to place or do not bet at all.

Handicapping becomes a difficult business when one con­siders that aside from "how the race will be run" there is also the problem of deciding which horse is slightly classier and whether or not post positions will compensate for or increase this problem.

In the long run, a bettor who can refrain from monetary involvement in tight handicapping problems will probably come out with a better record than one who must make a bet on every program, regardless of the availability of good bets. In racing, the fewer races that you wager on, the more profitable your chances become.

Racing luck being what it is, it will only be with you when you figure on riding with it. If you must concentrate your figurations around your getting your share of racing luck, you will be a weak handicapper. I have seen players bet on the basis of "if the rail opens up, then my horse will win." Unless, for some extraordinary reason, this figures to occur, the idea of betting on an assumption of this nature is financial suicide. Do not try to figure that you will get the breaks; rather, you must consider that the breaks will go against you, and if you can still believe that your horse will win, then play the selection without further delay.

Remember when handicapping that your prime purpose is to pick the winner, not to pick the best horse for the price, or the best underlay, or best overlay, or what have you. You want to play the winner. If the winning horse doesn't appear to be a reasonable wager (pricewise) then don't bet. But don't try to beat the horse that should win. This invites "stabbing" and a deflated pocketbook!

Another exercise in analysis can be drawn from Roosevelt Raceway on November 28, 1959. In the sixth race, a co-fea­ture, there was an AA/A-1 handicap. The past performances of the eight horses running in this race will be found below.

As usual in analyzing a race we will begin by asking our­selves, "How will the race be run?*' In doing so, the following would be correct:

2. Evens Jet: Good Stretch

1. Senator Byrd: Even horse, some stretch ability when up front. Even-Stretch

Strong stretch kick. Note last three races in which this horse came from far off the pace to finish close up. Further back at Blue Bonnets this is obscure, although on 10/25 and 10/17, he made a ¾ to stretch move. Mark "stretch."

3. Frisco Rebel:

Fair Stretch

Fair stretch move. Not consistently a stretch runner, although the last two outings would tend to confirm the fact that he can move down the stretch if the opportunity is there. He can­not be considered as good a stretch runner as Even's Jet in the 2 slot.

Flying Time can be counted on to make a move at the 1st quarter and if he reaches the front, will probably stay up there for at least the half. If he does this effortlessly he will be trouble to overtake in the stretch. However, this is doubtful, and if he gets the lead, it will be after a strong move for it, with little left for the finish.

If then, we try to answer the question as to "how the race will be run," the results would be graphically illustrated as follows:

PP	Name	Front ¼	¾	Stretch
1.	Senator Byrd			mild, fair
2.	Even's Jet			very good
3.	Frisco Rebel			fair
4.	Noble Dream	lead		should fade
5.	Speers Direct		fair	fair (slow starter)
6.	Adie Rainbow		good	good
7.	Flying Time	lead		should fade
	Josedale Hasty Hal	even		poor—fair

If one looks at the chart shown above, he will graphically see that this race is not shaping up as a battle of front run­ners. If Flying Time and Noble Dream try for the lead, they are almost sure to be caught in the stretch or at the ¾ by the other horses. The ¾ seems to be in doubt, as Speers Di­rect and Adie Rainbow might be sufficiently off the pace to be at a position disadvantage. By far in the best position to take this race are the first three horses, all of which are stretch runners who will be close to the pace and able to overtake one of the others in the stretch.

The best stretch runner in the race by far is Even's Jet and he has the best post position that a stretch runner could have in this race, namely the 2 post. He will be off the pace and at the same time will be able to stay at striking distance. Another advantage in going from the 2 position is that he will be able to stay out of a "box" which could develop if he were going from the 4 or 5 slot.

If one examines the past performances closely, he will see one major disparity in what had been said. While times are generally not important, there are cases where this and other factors become critical in explaining some hard-to-under-stand factor. To the casual observer (i.e., the general public), Even's Jet looks outclassed time-wise. Since the general pub­lic puts great stock in the time factor, this would be enough to exclude the horse from their minds. The other horses in the field are much faster. Furthermore, if you look at Even's Jet's last race, you will note that it was run on a fast track in 2:09.3. This is a full 6 seconds slower than some of the competition. Of course, this type of disparity can't be over­looked by saying that time is unimportant.
Then why is Even's Jet in this race? There must be an answer to this absurdity. There is. It comes under the head­ing of subjective judgment, the desire to examine more closely and not dismiss at face value such disparities. Any cautious handicapper will ask why, and will try to arrive at a conclusion or forget the race.

One then must seriously analyze the last race run by Even's Jet. In doing this, the most logical method would be to ask ourselves the question "how was that race run?" This could be answered graphically as follows:

race on 11/25/59

Head of Finish

Start ¼ ½ ¾ Stretch  w/lengths

Position 3 5 5 4° 4/1X             2 ¾Time 30.4 1:37.2    2:09.3

If you take the above and compare it with Even's Jet's last race before that one (on 11/18) you will immediately note the disparity.

¼  ¾ Finish

Race on 11/25  30.4 1:37.2 2:09.2

Race on 11/18  30.1 1:32.3 2:05.1

The first quarters are almost identical, but the % mark slowed down greatly and this resulted in a slow time for the mile. If one examines still further he will see that the last quarter in which Even's Jet picked up a full length on the winner was actually faster in the slower race on 11/25 than on the faster race on 11/18. The following will illustrate this point:

RACE ON 11/25        RACE ON 11/18

Mi.-2:09.2 = 129.2 seconds Mi.-2:05.1 = 125.1 seconds
¾-l: 37.2 = 97.2 seconds   ¾-l: 32.3 = 92.3 seconds

Final Quarter is 32 seconds       Final Quarter is 32.3 seconds

In other words, the slower race on 11/25 had a faster final quarter by ¾ of a second than the faster race on 11/18. Even's Jet was able to close in during that faster final quarter and came within ¾ of a length of winning.

There is a mighty good reason as to why the race in question on 11/25 was so slow at the ¾ mark. If one were at Roosevelt Raceway on the day that this past performance was in the program, he would have noted by a superficial scanning of the program, that Mr. Budlong, the horse which beat Even's Jet on 11/25 was running in the 7th race. Hence his complete past performance record would have shed much light on our problem, and would have tipped off the alert handicapper to a fine horse at a fine price—Even's Jet.

Look at Mr. Budlong's present form and his winnings per­centage. On 11/25, Mr. Budlong obviously took the lead from the 1 post position and easily scared away challengers. Since no one challenged at the ½ or ¾, the driver simply slowed him down and gave the horse a six-second breather; if another horse had come out to challenge at this point, Mr. Budlong would simply have speeded up the pace. However, coming down the stretch Mr. Budlong would need reserve power, so the ¾ mark was slowed down to give the horse the finishing advantage. As the stretch was approached, Mr. Budlong stepped up the pace to stave off the challenge of Even's Jet, but he had been saved by smart driving and the slow pace of the 3rd quarter, and was then able to meet the finishing challenge. Hence we can easily discover what happened on 11/25 between Mr. Budlong and Even's Jet.

However, the public as usual made a favorite not out of the probable winner but out of the horse who showed greatest current form, Speers Direct. They once again re­fused to check further than a cursory glance and the result was another dashed favorite. Even's Jet was the logical horse, by any reasoning, once the slow race on 11/25 was answered. He stayed third down the stretch and moved smartly to the outside, to win at the wire.

By a simple glance at the times, Even's Jet was 5 or 6 seconds slower than the other horses. So the average fan simply accepted that and looked no further. Hence, the average fan had a losing favorite and the smart handicapper has a winning medium-priced horse. If the race were ana­lyzed by the "how the race will be run" technique, then you would have to see the definite edge accorded to Even's Jet. The only question which still had to be answered was the 11/25 slow race, and this should have been seen in a few minutes. The only reason that the public didn't establish Even's Jet as the probable winner was the fact that they com­pletely misunderstood the character of the slow race on 11/25 between Mr. Budlong and Even's Jet, and also because without further investigation they took the 2:09.2 time as the true time of the race, when in reality it didn't show what had actually occurred. Here then is a typical example of the pit­falls encountered when one thinks that time will solve all of the handicapping problem. Here then was a prime example of how one could have picked a lucrative winner by our two queries:

1. How will this race be run?
   
   
2. How was the race run last week?
   

Following is the mutuel reward the clever handicapper would have collected:

Win                             Place      Show

Evens Jet 11.90             5.90        3.80

Flying Time                    5.00        3.50

Speers Direct                                2.80

Here then was the case of picking the logical horse in a good spot; a stretch runner in the front post and confirming what no one would bother to look at by a little application of common sense. In figuring "how last week's race was run," times can be of primary importance in the analysis because they tell graphically what the lead horse was doing at the ¼, ½, ¾ and finish. In other words, "times" might indicate "why" something happened—and to what extent another horse had to move to catch the leader. It would be obvious then, that if a 29.2 first quarter were set by two horses, one on the inside and one on the outside, and the outside horse faded to fifth, that this was due to the fact that he was tired by his challenge, at a torrid pace. Any horse on the outside challenging in this manner and hard pressed can be ex­pected to fade. In analyzing this hypothetical race when it was over, one could not say then that B faded, and therefore is a weak front runner. Rather one would have to say that B, hard pressed for the lead, couldn't reach the front and hence tucked in exhausted.

You can see then that there is more to handicapping than just answering three questions or finding the faster horse! You have to be continually awake, and you have to be will­ing to be flexible in your outlook. You should, however, maintain a certain minimum measure of standards. Keep yourself aware of the "should nots" but always be willing to look a little further than the public in order to pick a win­ner. Be curious and ask for answers; if none can be found, disregard the race as a bad risk, but keep your eyes open.

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