9. Guide Posts to Winning

The harness races are fraught with more difficulties than any other form of horse racing except possibly steeplechases. The problems that crop up may range from a horse breaking into a gallop, being boxed in by other horses, or being caught on the outside, unable to tuck in at the rail. The reasons for these hazards are obvious. Some of these reasons might be quickly discussed for clarification.

A pacer who is being forced to maximum effort resorts to a natural tendency—he breaks into a gallop. Hence, the driver must know how far he can push his horse, for when he "breaks" he generally loses the race. The possibility of being boxed in should be apparent to all who watch harness races. The fact of pulling a sulky produces this danger, as it makes it impossible for a driver to go through narrow open­ings and causes much greater immobility than thoroughbred races.

Another danger is that a driver may find himself caught on the outside, possibly three or four wide. The shortest dis­tance around the track is at the rail and if the horse must go a distance on the outside, he rarely has enough left to win. Running on the outside makes the turns more difficult and generally forces an undesired move on the drivers part.

The most important point here is the fact that harness racing is fraught with dangers that are varied and difficult to overcome. If any of these dangers can be eliminated we will be one step closer to picking the winning horse.

This chapter is concerned with eliminating as many of these difficulties as possible.

I have seen people play horses because of every reason under the sun. If it's your 25th anniversary, you play two and five in the daily double. If it's your son's eleventh birth­day then your double is one and one. If your father's name is Alphonse and a horse appears by the name of Alphonse the Great, then suddenly your father becomes the progenitor of a bet. There is no thought of what you will do when Alphonse loses by 20 lengths.

The reason that the general public doesn't win at the har­ness races is that there are too few persons with the ability, will power and knowledge to do it. It is not that the horses can't be beaten, but rather that you can't beat yourself.

The following incident really happened. I will never for­get it, and it will illustrate a point here. One evening about two years ago, I was in a group which was headed to one of New York's harness tracks. One of this group, to pass the time, used to play license plate poker. As we rode along on our way, a car passed with the New Jersey license plate 808. My friend remarked that he should wager on an eight and eight double. Everyone in the car chuckled. About five min­utes later (and this was a million-to-1 shot), a New York car passed with the plate number 808. This almost caused a heart attack. My friend remarked that he would play the eight and eight double, as he had received the "message."

Not being in the habit of suggesting betting technique to others, I sat silently, but couldn't help from scoffing at this extreme foolishness. My laughter turned to amazement when the eight horse won the first race and paid over 25.00 to win. The eight and eight daily double possibility was over 500.00, and my friend had a 10.00 ticket. This shut me up, and almost caused a riot in the group.

However, the 8 horse in the second race ran like he didn't know that he was in a race, and finished about 6th or 7th. The second half of the daily double was #1, and this paid about 108.00. This story illustrates nothing more than an amazing coincidence! Amazing, yes. Millions of dollars are poured into the mutuel machines annually on pure, unadul­terated foolishness.

If you are a harness racing fan, and are interested in pick­ing winning horses, then you must look at the situation seri­ously. It is no place for tomfoolery. You will be successful if you remember that the one thing you must beat in order to win is you. If you have done this, half the battle is won. The other half is picking the right horse.

It is better, if in doubt, not to cast your ballot. Unless you feel that your choice is logical, sit in your seat, and wait 25 minutes until the next race. Try to remember that there are more races. If you must bet every race on a particular pro­gram, then please close this book, and return it to the book­store. There is no way in the world whereby you can stay ahead in the short or long run, if you play all the races. Convince yourself of this fact. If you seriously wish to be successful at this enterprise, then limit yourself to few bets per program. Make these best bets on the program, and if there is nothing which seems to fit into a good bet category, sit back and watch the proceedings.

The player who is interested in winning follows nothing but his eyes and good common sense. This combination will outlast all others, and will raise him above the public. As soon as he falls prey to foolishness, he is hooked—hooked to losing and nothing else.

Tips, emotionalism, and the fellow sitting next to you must be taken with a grain of salt. You must learn to rely on your own selections. Take the problem of the public handi-capper as an example.

The public handicappers are beset by several difficulties. Hence, in the long run, your own selections will be more reliable. Even though the "printed word" looks so authorita­tive, and the desire to buy "winning tip sheets" is so great, you must learn that the only person who can produce success is yourself. I have acquaintances who regularly purchase three of the handicappers sold at the track, and try to make some sort of a hodge-podge combination winner, by compar­ing the three selectors. This not only drives them nuts, but anyone who has the bad luck to be sitting next to them will go nuts too.

Have you ever thought of the fact that in many cases the public handicappers must pick winners in every race at possibly two or three tracks on the same day? As if this isn't enough, imagine trying to also come up with the second and third place horses in addition. To put the icing on the cake, do these handicappers care if their two selections pay 3.00 to win? They are interested in winners per se. Next day, they can shout that yesterday "we had three winners." They don't mention that two of these would have been impossible to play due to the short price. There is no such thing as the handicapper's knowing more than you know, except as a re­sult of experience and skill, which you can develop yourself.

One day I was stopped by a hawker, who had a mimeo­graphed sheet guaranteed to pick the winners, and the daily double, for the bargain price of $1.00. I was stopped by this man, and when I expressed dismay at purchasing this bargain, I was shown a license which was ostensibly a trainer-driver license for this particular state. I was then told that he had inside information from the stables. My answer was, "If you have inside information from the stables, why tell me for $1.00? Why aren't the stable boys rich?" I walked away. Hundreds of people each day are sucked in by this baloney. Your attitude to tipsters, touts, tips and information boys should be, "Keep it."

Remember that even an owner can feel in his own mind that his horse is as "ready" as he will ever be today, and should win. But what happens if five other horses in the same race are also thought by their owners and trainers to be "ready" for this one. Only one can win. Yet five owners think that their horse will win! How about "how the race will be run"? Is this race made up of stretch runners, front runners, or what? In short, believe only what you see, not what you hear at the race track. Let your common sense be your guide. Don't be influenced by owners, trainers or people claiming to have information from the stables. Use your own judgment. You can develop into as good a handicapper as the best of them.

What follows is a listing of "do's and don'ts" that should aid you in your handicapping. It is a list of aids, which if kept in the back of one's mind, will be very helpful in his handicapping endeavors. Some are original; some are not. In any case, if you give them some thought, and add your own good common sense you will find that your chances will be greatly improved to "win at the harness races."

1. Don't be influenced by the horse's name.

No comment should be necessary here, and yet each year even experienced handicappers can't resist that one chance to bet such and such because of his name or number. Handi­cap your horses by number. Forget their names. Some horses are named after their sires, and this alone can affect your judgment. If one realizes through this that X's sire was a great horse, then he is liable to place too much emphasis on this factor and will be unduly influenced by name. Re­member, that the most important point in harness racing is not the horse's name or number, but how he will fit into the race.

2. Don't bet on slow, sloppy or muddy tracks.

If one looks at the prices paid at the track on days when it is classed as slow, sloppy or muddy, he will find some amazing paradoxes. The morning line favorites are some­times long shots and the long shots are favorites. Not only does the betting become confused, but actual factors in the running of the race become different.

On a really sloppy track it is physically easier for a horse and driver to stay up front and not get splashed by mud from the hoofs of the horses in front of them. It is interesting (for the spectators) to watch the riders returning after a race on a muddy or sloppy track. You will find that the horses who were challenging or behind the leader are a mess, while the leader or horse close up is much cleaner. If you don't think that this has a great deal to do with the actual running of the race, then you should go on a rainy day just to observe this. In many cases the old phrase, "here's mud in your eye," will fit perfectly. Horses, like people, are sometimes reluctant in the rain and on a muddy track. Some horses love it, and others refuse to run.

Making the turns on a muddy track are much harder, especially due to the sulky, and it is not uncommon to see a sulky "slide" around the turn. At the same time, danger is increased twofold—in respect to the horse and driver. One cannot really blame a driver for not trying to "kill" himself— whereas on a fast and dry track, he might be a racing fool.

I am trying to alert the reader to the futility of making the already difficult odds (against winning) greater by foolishly making "hope" bets. What happens on an "off" track is anybody's guess and in many cases the races which should figure become absurd in their running. I cannot make the case too strong against betting on "off" tracks. Generally, "good" tracks are not bad enough to affect the running of most races markedly. To avoid pitfall 1, don't bet on "off" tracks.

3. Don't bet on 2-year-olds or horses which have run fewer than 10 races in their lifetime.

Wagering on a 2-year-old is like throwing money away. In many cases, even the owners have no idea where these horses will fit in the racing game. Great animals out of Rod­ney, Adios, Good Time, etc., can have miserable freshman and sophomore seasons but eventually become as great as their famed sires. Form cannot usually be established on a horse which has run less than 10 races. In most cases a young horse is placed in some races to see how he reacts against the others in this class, and to see how he performs in run­ning race. This is not to say that neither the owner nor driver is trying to win with the animal, but if neither knows exactly what to expect in the way of performance, you can hardly criticize them for not winning.

A young horse is many times put in a race with the idea of winning if possible. But if winning takes every last bit out of the animal to do it, the driver settles for a lesser place­ment. This is not to be criticized. One must realize that a young horse like a young child can either be made or broken in his formative years. Remember that buying yearlings is the most speculative business in the world; and before a horse gets to the track a small fortune can be spent in training and keeping the animal. Who is going to throw this away?

Simply because of the age of these animals, their form is apt to be of an in-and-out variety. Hence, it is foolish to expect last week's performance to be similar to this week's. More pronounced than a 2-year-old pace, is a 2-year-old trot. Here, betting can be plain foolishness. Anyone whose idea is successful wagering should never bet 2- or 3-year-old trotters. Here is a case of poor form plus the always-present threat of the horse "breaking" (going off stride). If you are interested in profitable wagering, don't bet 2-year-old races.

4. Don t bet on breeding.

One of the most important rules in playing thoroughbred maiden races (at the flat tracks) is to watch breeding. This is because in a maiden race it is so difficult to get a good line on a horse's past performance that a player goes to the nearest thing that can be used to obtain a good line on the horse. In most cases, this is breeding. However, it is doubt­ful whether this same thing is true in pacing and trotting races. Pacing and trotting races, as I have tried to show, are a combination of factors which differ from thoroughbred races. It does not necessarily manifest itself by breeding, but by past performances and by the way in which a horse will work as compared to the other horses in the field.

Breeding can only come in handy, in my opinion, where there is very little other information with which to handicap a horse. In this case one simply does not play the race. Where the factors cannot add up to giving the player a good line on the horse, then playing the race is nothing more than wishing and hoping.

I know a player who has a list of every "good" sire of pacers and trotters in the United States. He will look at a horse and remark, "He comes from great stock." He will be right, but it stops there. In the actual running of the race, it may or may not show. If it shows, then this same information could have been picked up by the past performance data on the same horse. If it didn't show last week and the week before and the month before that, then it probably won't show today.

While it certainly is interesting to know that Good Time, Adios, Rodney and Widower were great progenitors of equally great horses, this information will not solve today's problem on how the race will be run, or who the winner will be. A player generally does not need information on the great sires of pacers and trotters. Therefore, as a general rule, "Don't bet on breeding."

5. Never bet on a losing driver.

As we have stated in the chapter on drivers, it is far more intelligent to attempt to go on winning drivers over losing drivers. But in this section I would suggest carrying this further. In the long run you will be better off as a handi-capper if you forget about playing all horses which are being driven by "losing drivers."

In terms of our driver ratings this would excuse from play all horses whose drivers have less than:

15% wins

or

25% in-the-money's.

This rule will greatly enhance your overall chances and will help in reducing another of the difficulties found in harness racing.

Not only will the law of averages be on your side, but you will be confirming your wagers to the winning drivers, and should be experiencing a certain minimum of good quality rides. In the long run then, concentrate your wagers on winning drivers, and never bet on a losing driver.

6. Dont use qualifying races as a guide.

The public favorite is many times the horse who has won his last race handily. In many cases this can lead to the public's choosing a "phony" favorite—"phony" only in the sense that the reasoning used to make such an animal the favorite is not sound, and can be disproved prior to the running of the race. Many times a favorite is installed after winning his last race, which was a qualifying race. The pub­lic, either doesn't realize what a qualifying race signifies, or they think that it is run under the same conditions as any other race in the class. Generally, a horse who has won a qualifying race, the last time out, and whose only excellent showing recently is this race, is one to be avoided.

A qualifying race can be spotted on your program by the abbreviation (found where the class of the race usually is indicated), Qual.; this can be confirmed by the letters N.B. under the odds column. N.B. indicates that there was No Betting on that race. There are several reasons for the use of qualifying races by the racing officials at the track. Some of these are as follows:

1. A horse goes from a minor circuit to a major circuit; for example, Ocean Downs to Roosevelt Raceway, where he has been running in Class C. At Roosevelt Raceway, the competition in Class C is tougher than that at Ocean Downs; times are in most cases faster at R.R. and the driving is sharper. Hence, when this hypothetical animal is moved up to R.R., there must be some way to be sure that he will fit into the "C" Class there. The method used to accomplish this is a qualifying race.

2. A horse which has been running very poorly, for example, in his last four races has finished off the pace by 8,

10, 11, 7 lengths respectively, must generally qualify. If this horse was running in Class C at the major circuit, if he couldn't qualify to run in this class, he would have to move somewhere else. Because at the major tracks there isn't any pacing under Class C, while at the minor tracks Class D is quite prominent.

3. A trotter who has "broken" stride several times in a row may be put on the "Steward's List" and be forced to qualify or prove that he can run a race staying on stride. Hence he will be required to run in a qualifying race.

Qualifying races, then, by their very nature are not com­petitive matches, as are regular races. They are run for the express purpose of qualifying a horse in a particular class or for a particular reason, and that is all. It can be seen clearly that a qualifying race is not necessarily run to "win." This implies no slur on either the drivers or the officials. It simply states the purpose behind such a race. To use this kind of a race as a handicapping guide is to fool yourself, for the true picture is very often not shown. I would say that a qualifying race, if accepted as just another race in the same class, can more than any other pitfall snare the unwary handicapper.

Qualifying races are run on the defensive to prove a point, not to win purse money or prestige. They are at the bottom of the ladder in any particular class, as it is the last step to "out." Hence, they are completely unreliable and undesirable as handicapping tools. Therefore, Rule 6 is "Don't use quali­fying races as a guide."

7. Don't be influenced by price.

A unique pitfall in handicapping and wagering on horse races is the psychological impasse sometimes found in bet­ting. This may sound like double talk but what is actually meant here can be shown by a real-life example. About a year ago, some friends and myself were at the track and one of these friends had picked a selection in the fifth race, which he felt was his "best bet of the night." The horse was listed at 9 to 5 on the morning line, but for some unexplained reason he went off at 3 to 1 and another horse was the odds-on favorite.

My friend, who is decidedly slanted towards the “chalk,” switched his selection and played the odds-on favorite. When I asked him why he had changed his choice after picking "his best bet of the night," his answer went some­what as follows: "The horse was 9 to 5 on the morning line. Now he is 3 to 1, whereas this other horse was not picked as the favorite but is going off odds-on; there must be a rea­son for this. Someone must know something." Lest you think that this is a foolish answer, ask yourself how many times you have picked a selection and then gone to another for the reason that the odds were either too long or too short?

In the case of a "chalk player," human nature works to defeat him. A chalk player might pick a legitimate number of winners at prices above 3 to 1—but play them, no! Why? Because he ponders over the fact that the public is not with him. He is alone. He is not playing what the others are playing. "How can I win on a long shot?" he asks.

Take the long shot player who passes up horses under 2 to 1 because the price is not right. He wants to break the "bank." Whether or not he loses ten bets in a row to win the eleventh is not the question. He wants to bet animals at long prices.

Somewhere in the middle of these two extremes is the intelligent bettor. I classify the intelligent bettor as one who bets horses, not odds. He handicaps by himself, picks his own horse, and seldom worries about the odds board. I would suggest the following as reasonable guides: Never bet a horse under even money and never bet over 10 to 1. The reasons for this should be obvious. In the case of odds-on favorites it is impossible to make money over the long pull when you have to put up more money than you will win. This requires handicapping skill of better than 60% winners and no one that I know is capable of that. The percentage of winning favorites at most harness tracks is between 30 and 40%, hence, it is easily seen that one must lose if betting these horses. In another sense, betting horses over 10 to 1 must be "if' and "hope" bets. They cannot usually be based on sound handicapping principles. If betting long shots could be generally credited to "sound" or "form" handicap­ping, then you could be sure that these horses would never be going off at these prices.

Generally, then, the intelligent bettor will bet the horse and not the odds. He will confine himself to his own selec­tions and will be able to stand alone while paying a 3 to 1 shot against a 3 to 5 shot. Remember that the favorites lose 65% of the time. The public is wrong more often than right. This will put the attitude of an intelligent bettor on the right side initially—let him listen to himself, not to others. The intelligent bettor should not be influenced by price. This is Rule 7.

8. Don t play drivers.

As the 1958 Roosevelt Raceway season came to a close, the next meeting place in the metropolitan area was Yonkers Raceway. A friend of mine had an idea late in the Roosevelt season and had followed it through. It was nothing new. Indeed, it is probably the oldest form of "suckerdom" in the racing business. He had found a driver who was "hot." He was right, as this driver poured it on at R.R. and was in the top 10 drivers at the meet. He was noted for his stretch drives and could never be counted out of the race, even if he trailed the field at the stretch turn. I have seen him take a horse from eighth on the rail at the stretch turn and wind up winning by a nose or a neck, provided the rail opened up, down the long Roosevelt stretch. Whenever my friend went to the track, he would throw caution to the wind and place all his bets on this driver. The trouble with the entire situa­tion was that he was winning. For, by chance, he had caught this driver on a hot streak.

The scene changed—to Yonkers. Yonkers Raceway has a shorter (by a 100 feet) stretch than Roosevelt and in many cases the races are run differently than at R.R. Whatever the reason, the driver in this example went 60 races before coming up with a winner. The reason for this seemed to be that he constantly misgauged the stretch.

Until he got his judgment back in focus, the driver cost this unwary bettor considerable money. It is the oldest maxim in racing that anyone who follows one or two par­ticular "drivers" must lose. It is the most foolish of all wager­ing systems.

The best of drivers win less than 25% of the races in which they appear. Unless one can demonstrate that the average prices which these wins pay are over 8.00 (which they are not), then it is easy to see why over the long pull it is im­possible to play one driver, even the best, and show a profit. If this will not convince you, then examine the possibility of an extended losing streak—which even the best drivers un­dergo—and see what happens to bets at this time. No matter how one wagers, if he bets on particular drivers and not on horses, he must lose. Rule 8 is: Do not play a favorite driver —play the horse!

9. Bet either straight place or win, but not show.

This is one of those safeguards that will keep your losses to a minimum. A show bettor is sometimes called a "bridge jumper" by his fellows. The meaning of this may be appar­ent. If not, picture the show bettor who settles for 2.50 as a pay-off price and wins three races in a row; if he loses the fourth, he will lose more money than he started with. The fallacy of show betting is that one has to pick in-the-money horses over 70% of the time, and this kind of picking is down­right impossible.

Straight place or win betting is favorable because the pay-off is more—acknowledging, of course, that so is the risk. In the case of place betting you have the safety of the 1-2 finish being profitable. Also, in place betting, if one is care­ful he may average a 4.00 mutuel which is equal to an even-money horse on the win side.

In the case of win betting, one will receive the best return, but he also assumes the greatest risks. If one can develop good handicapping senses then he deserves to put his money on the nose, and see what the results of his judgment are.

Some bettors who bet across the board, win-place com­binations, etc., are only fooling themselves. They are train­ing themselves to "hope" and "wish" because by backing a horse (win, place and show) you are saying that "if" he doesn't win I will get my money back, etc. Is the idea to get your money back—or to stay ahead? No one can keep his speculations profitable if he resorts to combined betting. Rule 9, then, is: Bet only straight win or straight place—not show, and not combinations.

10. Be wary of horses who have been out of their regular running cycle.

Horses generally run in rather fixed cycles during the racing season—say every ten or fourteen days. At the minor tracks, the horses generally race at closer intervals, say five to seven days. Where there are better class horses, there generally is more consideration of a rest period. Horses are quite susceptible to diseases and because of their size and weight and other considerations, some illnesses are difficult to cure.

A horse can injure a leg, go lame for a period or just lose his fine edge. In any case, our concern is not with what hap­pened but what will occur after they recover.

I have seen many occasions where a fine pacer or trotter, will come back to racing after a lay-off of one or two months, and will be made the favorite from his record of two months ago. Just as often, he is a losing favorite. Generally, when a horse returns after a long lay-off from his normal running cycle, he is a good bet to be out of the money.

The reasons for this should be obvious. First, he may have been ill, and this might have taken some of his speed away from him. Secondly, the driver may be out with the idea not to force the pace in such a way as to re-injure the animal. Thirdly, he may be out to break into the regular cycle of racing again, and with no idea of winning the race if he must be fully extended to do it.

Remember, a horse can't read timetables and past per­formances. These are your guides only! They will not re­peat themselves in the manner that the general public thinks that they will. Unless you simply want to get a line on "how a horse runs," be wary of old form and horses return­ing after long lay-offs.

11. Take present form from the last three or four races only.

Some horses will be consistent all year, but these are exceptions rather than the rule. Most horses will run two or three good races, and then inexplicably lose their sharp­ness. This especially happens towards the end of a racing season when the animals are wearying of their racing efforts.

Generally, when trying to ascertain how good an animal will be today, it is impossible to go back more than three or four races unless you are looking for confirmation of how a horse runs, that is, stretch, front, ¾ ½ etc.

However, in pacing and trotting races, it is logical to "throw out" races which were not current, unless the animal is an exceptionally consistent one, in which case this doesn't hold true.

12. Do not bet every race. Make only two or three bets per
racing card or program.

It is impossible to wager profitably if you bet every race. If you must wager on every race, then put yourself in the "sucker" category and be content to lose your shirt. A racing card is made up of eight or nine races, and these will vary from D or C to FFA in class. Aside from the class variance one will find 2-year-old races, trots, paces, stakes, invitations, etc. In many cases it will become obvious by the terms of a race why one shouldn't attempt to ascertain the winner.

A good example can be found in the following condition: "For non-winners of a race in Class B this season."

It should be obvious when betting on non-winners that anything can happen. There are several reasons that come to mind as to why one should refrain from certain races. Some of these are as follows:

1. "cheap" trots.

Trotters are most inclined to "break" or go off stride. The lower the class a trotter is in, generally, the greater the chance of his "breaking." If you analyze FFA or AA trots as opposed to the lower class designations, you will find that these horses are much more stable in "staying flat" (not breaking), than counterparts in B, C or D classes. When one has to pick the best horse and then must depend on "racing luck," by hoping that his horse doesn't break, he is not wag­ering wisely. Remember that even though your horse might be a steady animal, the fact that one horse "breaks" may cause one or two others to do the same thing. Picking win­ners is hard enough without also having to buck the un­knowns in a race.

2. STAKE AND INVITATION RACES.

Races in which all contenders must be considered as possible winners are rather foolish to speculate on. In stake and invitation races and other highly competitive features, there are usually top quality contenders, all of whom are capable of winning. In this type of race you are generally referring to the top pacers or trotters in a given area, and they are competing for gross purses of $10,000-$50,000 and up. In this type of race, it is safe to say that everyone and every horse is out to win. In these situations it is quite common for owners, drivers, and trainers to be at a loss as to whether their horse can beat some other in the field. It is best for the average fan or handicapper to refrain from wagering on such competition.

3. RACES IN WHICH A "CHAMP" IS RUNNING.

In many cases it is human nature to think as follows: "111 have to concede the race to A, but B might win, and at that fantastic price you have to go with him, because you can't bet A at 3 to 5." But price doesn't win the race, and this can only be considered a "stab" or an "if* bet. I have seen races, and I am sure that you have too, where there was no contest involved.

Many times a "champ" or a public favorite goes off at 2 to 5 or even money, and some handicappers always at­tempt to pick a horse to beat the champ. This is very un­sound reasoning. When a race looms up as an overwhelm­ingly one-sided affair, either go with the horse you think will win or don't bet the race.

4. BE CAUTIOUS OF IMPORT HORSES.

This is a particularly important item around the end of a racing season when tracks are closing and horses from all over the country are moving in and out of tracks, so that they can continue to run. Due to the variation of track con­ditions, competition, weather and other items, many times a horse racing in a particular class at one track will not be able to cope with the same class at another track. You will find this particularly pronounced when a horse moves from a minor to a major circuit. When you come across a race where two or three horses were racing at a different track prior to this race and they can be regarded as competition, it is better to pass up the race and look at another. It is one thing to handicap races in which most of the horses can be considered on an equal footing, but where real unknown variations exist, it is wiser to skip over the race.

13. Other considerations.

There are many other reasons for not betting a race. Too much competition is one and too little is another. Some races have unanswerable problems and are better off being run without your money. As a general rule one should be mentally set to bet no more than a prescribed number of races on a particular program. I would suggest that one set a limit of three, and under no circumstances more than four. Many reasons have been given for this earlier in the book.

Your bets should come under the heading of "best" bets or quality bets, and limiting the number of them is one way to insure this. In setting a limit you should school yourself to recognize basically unbettable situations, and not be afraid to walk away from these.

A list of rules for the harness racing fan could be endless. I have tried to set down the most logical of these, and the list is far from complete. If one utilizes his own good judg­ment, and has enough character to refrain from wagering when an unbettable situation exists, he will come out far better than the average player.

Remember that the more hazards you eliminate—the better off you must be. If you can logically ascertain when not to bet, you can only be making your wagers more suc­cessful, and hence more profitable.

It is as important to be aware of when not to bet, as when to do so. If one can spot the races in which hazards exist to the point of making a play impossible, then he has learned much from this analysis and has improved his chances.

The fault with the public and the average handicapper is that they generally make too many wagers, and are unable to pass up "just one more wager." If one can steel himself to the idea of strongly limiting the number of plays then he has beaten a major difficulty inherent here. It has been em­phasized—but should be mentioned again—that 50% of the difficulty in handicapping lies within oneself and 50% with the handicapping itself.

It is the total number of plays viewed over a long period of time which will tell you whether you're successful or not. The mere fact of winning today and losing tomorrow is un­important over the long pull. Actually, if one can improve those factors that increase your chances in the long pull, then the battle is much closer to being won.

If we can keep firmly implanted in our mind that the only reason we are interested in handicapping harness races is to win, we will have solved part of our problem. If your approach becomes serious and your handicapping becomes self-reliant, and purposeful, then your chances must become better. The public generally speaking, makes its selections in a half-hearted, poorly thought-out manner; and the public is the first to act dismayed upon losing. You will make the right moves if your attitude can be summed up as follows: Bet to win—not to lose!

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