Newsletter of January 1st

        Newsletter of January 2nd

        Newsletter of January 8th

        Newsletter of January 15th

        Newsletter of January 22nd

        Newsletter of January 29nd

        Home

As I say, the internal fraction advantage horses have been popping at a high rate, with some at remarkable payoffs. I'm attaching a copy of the Daily Racing Form past performances for such a payoff, which to this day still amazes me. It was race 9 at Calder Race Course on Monday December 27th. I didn't even look at this race too carefully at first due to it being a maiden race that didn't look too enticing when I looked at it originally. But a little quick calculating brought out a strong advantage horse. To look at the file Click Here

You will need an Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the past performances I've included. To download a free copy Click Here.

Originally a field of 14, it was reduced to 11 with the late scratches of #'s 4, 7 and 14. Here are the final fractions of all the entries, from #1 through #13:

  1. - (first-time starter)
  2. - (lost too much ground to have a competitive figure)
  3. 28.1
  5. 29.4
  6. - (lost too much ground to have a competitive figure)
  8. 27.3
  9. 27.2
10. 27.2
11. - (lost too much ground to have a competitive figure)
12. 26.2
13. - (lost too much ground to have a competitive figure)

As you can see, #12 had a standout advantage in final fraction comparison. She was a full 5 fifths or one second faster than the next best figure. In addition, you can see that in her last race, she ran a credible second-place finish to a runaway horse. How she could go to the post at odds of 13 to 1 is somewhat of a mystery, but she won the race going away by more than 5 lengths and paid $28.20, $11.00 and $8.00 across the board.

When I see a horse with this kind of advantage, the first thing I want to know is what kind of value it may present. Upon seeing the odds on her, I immediately decided that I must play her alone before thinking about any exotic wagers. As a matter of fact, I only played her to win and place. Had I really had my thinking cap on, I may have decided that since there was such a discrepancy between the winner, Everynameinthebook and the rest of the field, an exacta with the unproven horse who may or may not be as bad as the rest, the first-time starter, could be worth a flyer. As it turns out, the 12-1 exacta did come in and paid $412.80. For such an advantage and value horse, some players would opt for a $2 or $1 exacta wheel of 12/all at a cost of $20 or $10 respectively. Again, the point is that if we focus on value and horses with odds of more than we think they should be, we can stay ahead and maintain a positive ROI.

I know I'm being redundant, but I'm stressing the importance of having a handicapping plan that is consistent. Those of you who have purchased my book, "Calibration Handicapping" know that such a plan is a major part of the book. I try to "calibrate" and assimilate all the information given to me about a particular race and come up with a value advantage for that race. If I can't do so, I'll pass and go on to the next one.

I'll use yesterday, Thursday 12/30/99 as an example. Fairly late on Wednesday evening I opened my Daily Racing Form to check out the races for Thursday to see if I could quickly locate any plays to post under Free Selections on my website. After scanning pretty quickly, I decided that races 5 and 7 may present some value and I could fairly easily tell that the first part of my 3-step wagering plan could be met.....is there an edge?

As it turns out, on Thursday at about 12:40 p.m. I tuned in on my computer to the live broadcast from Aqueduct. I had a little over 10 minutes remaining until race 2, which I had pretty quickly skimmed past the night before due to time constraints. Upon my initial review of this race now, I pretty much confirmed to myself that it wasn't a particularly good race to play. But I decided to check it out more closely using the 3 primary handicapping tools I've come to depend on.

The pace shape of this match up was E-E. The running styles for the field of 8, which included an entry of 1 and 1A were in post position order: EP, P, EP, EP, E, EP, EP and E. This is called a Fast race shape and as you can see, there is an abundance of early speed types. With only a few minutes remaining to get a wager in on my telephone account, I tried to determine if there was a dominant speed horse from the group. With the answer to that question being no, I then quickly figured the final fractions and again found no great advantage, but I could see that #'s 1A, 3 and 6 had the best such figures.

The final primary indicator is moves-within-a-race so I carefully checked each entry to see if it had made such a move in its last race. The 1A, 3 and 4 horses had run their last races as Profiles and then I spotted my horse. #6 had run his last as a Wide Out. I had not seen this until about 2 minutes until post time.

With such little time remaining, I could only look at the odds to see if there was any value in #6 and when I saw 5-1, I quickly placed a win wager on him, getting it in just before the closing bell. #6 Oro Bandito stalked the leaders, made a big move on the turn and opened up a 5-length lead in midstretch. As I was gleefully counting my money while noticing that his odds had gone up to 6 to 1 in the final flash, there was a sudden late move by the favorite, #4 and Oro Bandito just barely made it to the wire in time paying a generous $14.20.

The moral to the story? There are two. First of all, we should allot the proper amount of time to handicapping a race. Had I done so, I probably would have constructed a few exactas around Oro Bandito also, likely using the three Profile horses with him. 2 of those 3 ran 2nd and 3rd with the 6-4 exacta paying $36.20. Secondly, in a good portion of races, this Primary Indicator 3-step process works enough of the time to make some decent money at this game. After collecting on race 2 at Aqueduct, I followed my original plan, which was to go to the track for races 5, 7 and 8.

I had posted picks for races 5 and 7 and came up with race 8 as a potential value race in the morning. Race 5 was an absolute classic race in that it showed the power of moves-within-a-race. During my quick review on Wednesday night, I spotted that #3 Lyre was a Wide Out horse and it wouldn't hurt that he was also a Profile play. As such, he was the only move-within-a-race horse, other than a borderline Profile play, #4, who was also a maiden going up against winners and seemed hopelessly outgunned in this matchup.

Turn times and final fractions pointed me to a race in which 3 of this group of 9 had competed 19 days earlier. And here is where the beauty of the Profile/Wide Out comes into play. The 3 horses exiting the common race were #3, Lyre, #7 Vodka and #8 Prefect. Vodka had superior overall Beyer speed figures. This coupled with his finishes of 1st, 2nd and 2nd in his 3 lifetime outings made the crowd establish him as an overwhelming favorite. While he and Prefect had finished heads apart showing true grit, Lyre had faded way out of it after battling with both. He finished a dismal 5th, beaten over 5 lengths while the other two just missed a head and a neck behind the winner.

After examining this race, I knew 2 things. First of all, Lyre was my horse because he was a Profile/Wide Out and I knew the public who know nothing about such labels would let him go off a nice price. Secondly, using running style and pace shape comparisons I also knew that I would not use Prefect, an E horse from the outside who did not project to get and maintain an easy lead. Bascially, my only worry was the horse with the big numbers, Vodka, who also had a great ( 1 of 115 ) workout staring everyone in the face.

I went with a good sized win bet on Lyre and used him heavily in an exacta box with Vodka and used him smaller with 1A, Forever Man. The race unfolded pretty much the way I expected and as the running styles said it would and I was content with Lyre's early postioning of 4th on the rail. As they approached the far turn, however, I was ready to reach into my pocket and tear up my tickets which represented a fairly large sum of money as Lyre was checked hard and dropped back a length or two while losing any momentum he was generating for the all-important move around the turn.

I couldn't believe that racing luck had taken me out of the game so early and I would never know how Lyre would have done as a Profile/ Wide Out play. But then I did find out. Dale Beckner, who had gone winless in his first 37 tries at the meet, but had broken that schneid with a win in race 4, got Lyre into gear on the turn and began picking up horses. By the time he straightened away in the stretch, Lyre was showing the signs I had hoped for, a good dose of energy provided by his last out move-within-a-race and did he ever kick in! He flew by the field, including Vodka like they were standing still and lit up the board at $27.20! Vodka, at 4-5 held the place spot safe and completed an exacta payoff of $61.00.

As it happened, due to a fair playing field, my picks for races 7 and 8 also won with exacta payoffs of $22.80 and $40.60 respectively so it certainly was a good day for my 1-2-3 method of handicapping. Will I have that kind of success every day? No way possible, due to many factors out of my control, and even some in my control, but I believe that using these primary indicators, I'll have enough value payoffs to stay ahead of the game.

Until next week, I wish you clear skies and fast tracks; knock 'em dead!

Jim

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To get an additional unique and valuable slant on handicapping the thoroughbreds, see what my friend the Guru has to say at:

A1 Handicapping & Little Joe's "Secrets of Handicapping"        

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Horseracing Handicappers' Website**
Wagering on a horse race without knowing which are the true
contenders is like running under water...you will get nowhere
fast. Order "Calibration Handicapping" TODAY... increase your
ROI (Return On Investment) TOMORROW!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Web site:

Email: Jim Lehane    fax: (603) 676-1216

Back to Top         Home

Email: Jim Lehane   fax: (603) 676-1216

Back to Top         Home

As per usual you will need an Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the past performances I've included. If you don't have one Click Here

To get the pdf file for today Click Here.

Race 1 at Aqueduct on Saturday, the first day of the new millennium, was a 6F sprint for 4-yr-olds & up with a claiming tag of $14,000 down to $12,000. Since I label running styles myself, they may differ slightly from the way BRIS programs have them. This was a short field of 8 with the following running styles: S, EP, P, S, EP, S, P, and EP. It was therefore an EP-EP pace shape and an Honest race shape. The first thing that stood out to me was that there were no E running styles and only 3 of the 8 were EP types. When I encounter a match up like this, the first thing I will do is check to see if there is a dominant early speed horse that shows by its turn times and speed-of-the-speed calculations that it is a strong threat to go wire-to-wire.

The 2 actual speed horses are #2, Ultimate Sanction and #5, D'Bungee. Although D'Bungee may appear to have dominant speed, those of us with local knowledge have a different opinion. Horses that have raced exclusively at Finger Lakes in upstate New York tend not to do well at NYRA tracks. There are of course exceptions, but as a rule, they do not. That is why, in spite of D'Bungee's apparent early speed advantage and also apparent superior Beyer speed figure advantage, I threw him out pretty quickly. It's important to note that the betting public did not throw him out, but quite the opposite made him the the close 2nd choice! 2.20 to 1 versus the favorite being 1.85 to 1.

The way I saw it, there was almost certainly going to be an early battle between the 2 and 5 horses, which would neutralize both of them. Since in an EP-EP match up or pace shape, the likeliest running style to do well is an EP horse, I had to take a good look at the remaining EP horse, #8 Torgan. Before I talk about him, though, let's check out some of the other horses. #1, Jolie's Secret, although possessing a good final fraction, had the deep closer running style of S and projected to be far back as the field turned for home. The same exact thing could be said for #4 Jaded Money. Both of these horses had a pretty dull series of recent races, so I didn't feel that either had a solid chance of catching the other horse with the top final fraction who would be much closer to the pace.

As a side note, a similar scenario was to be found in race 9 on Sunday's card, meaning a horse who had the best final fraction but had a series of dull races preceeding Sunday's race. This horse, Doctor Ed, however, did indeed fire and won going away at a win mutual of $107.00. That race was also an EP-EP pace shape with only 2 horses having EP running styles. Since neither had proven recently on an NYRA track that they were capable of going the distance on top, in 20-20 hindsight I could have and probably should have listed Doctor Ed in my top 3 picks for that race as he did indeed have the best final fraction of the bunch and I had that number underlined in red on my Daily Racing Form.

In our race, though, there was not a lack of what appeared to be horses with pretty clear shots at the win. I quickly eliminated #6 Kissena Park, another S horse, for not only being dull, but also for being stale, having not run a race in over 4 months. After eliminating the 3 S horses and the 2 projected early speeds that figured to duel themselves into submission, I had three contenders. #3 Touch of Honey was a P horse with the best final fraction, which was achieved while being only 2 lengths off the lead at the top of the stretch. I projected that he would be in good position at that point in this match up to pass the tiring pacesetters and take over.

Of the remaining 2 horses, #7 Skeaping was a mystery. Here was a horse that in 1998 had run in a Grade I race, the Santa Anita Derby. Now, after not having run since February, he was entered to be claimed for $14,000. Was this a signal that the connections were trying to get rid of him or grab a quick purse? Sometimes the anwsers to questions like these can be given to us by the toteboard. When I saw 11-1 on Skeaping, it told me that the stable was not betting him and as such, I would use him only very sparingly as a saver exacta bet underneath my other 2 choices.

Now I was left with #8, Torgan. When I first handicapped this race on Friday evening before going out for a quiet New Year's Eve dinner, by the process of elimination I just covered, he would have to be my second pick behind the horse with the best fraction, #3. But on the day of the race, Saturday, when I closely looked at this race again with the odds in front of me, I began to like and then love Torgan. To begin with, all of his good points were hidden from the public, which saw this race as a simple case of dominant speed, #5, and best closer, #3. They couldn't see the things we can see, because they don't know about them. First of all, in his 3rd race back, Torgan raced as a Profile/Wide Out play in a strong internal fractions race. I picked him to win in his next outing and he disappointed when he ran 3rd at 5-2. I was really shocked when he didn't win that one while taking a drop in claiming price.

He then ran what most would call a clunker in his last. But those among us who have read "Calibration Handicapping" looked at that last race in somewhat of a different light than did John Q. Public. According to the DRF results chart, Torgan was a Wide Out Play. Because of the definite clues in his past performance lines and his generous post time odds of 6-1, Torgan became a strong value play for a win wager and to be boxed in an exacta with Touch of Honey. There are those that may say that the stable was waiting for such a match up to make a score with this horse and looking at his last 2 races, I may not be able to disagree with them. That would explain his less than expected performances in his last 2 races at lesser prices. In this match up, being one of 3 EP horses and having made a last out move-within-a-race, he had a pretty good advantage and the price was right this time.

Torgan was obviously full of run as he was only a half length off the lead in 2nd as they turned for home. He then accelerated and won easily and eliminated any chance of Touch of Honey catching him, while that horse easily held 2nd by over 2 lengths. The mutuals were $15.00 for the win and $42.40 for the exacta. Other than the question of what to expect from Skeaping, which the tote board pretty well answered for us, this was a real logical play before the race and a very logical one now.

It also shows that anyone following my plays should take a good look at all of the picks, not just the starred ones. Due to the lack of wins by the starred picks, I may drop that feature after this weekend if they don't do better. The final result of this race was win and exacta payoffs that were very predictable by using my 3-component method as all 3 parts, running style matchup, moves-within-a-race and internal fractions comparison brought out the clear winning plays.

As we all know by now, value is the name of the game. When I took a more in-depth look at race 1 last Saturday and saw the odds of my two choices at 9-5 and 6-1, it was a no brainer for me to bet Torgan to win. In race 7 that day I had listed as my top picks, #8 Go To The Ink and #1 Grenda. Since the two of them were value plays at almost 9-1 and 12-1 respectively, I dutched both to win in addition to playing the 3-horse exacta box, thereby collecting not only the $199 exacta, but also the $26.00 win payoff. This is an example of how we can maintain a positive ROI by sticking to value plays.

Although we will lose more of these than we will win, we can stay ahead by cashing on the big prices when they do win. I think you can tell by some of the payoffs of my listed selections in the past month or so that this 3-component process does work enough of the time to keep us in the black. And again, the most interesting part of it is that the wagering public doesn't see things the same way. They see the fabulous speed figures of horses like D'Bungee and pound them at the windows without being able to read between the lines.

If they attempt to look between the lines at a horse like Torgan, they see a horse that not only had a poor record of 2 for 17 at the distance, but also a horse that had been shut out of an exacta finish for the entire year of 1999, and one that showed a last-race finish of 8th in a field of 10. What did we see in Torgan? By race time, an absolute standout play. Quite a difference I would say and again, proof that most players are not looking at the same indicators we are.

Until next week, I wish you clear skies and fast tracks; knock 'em dead!

Jim

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To get an additional unique and valuable slant on handicapping the thoroughbreds, see what my friend the Guru has to say at:

A1 Handicapping & Little Joe's "Secrets of Handicapping"        

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you wish to subscribe to this Newsletter, simply send an email with the word "subscribe" in the subject line to: [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Horseracing Handicappers' Website** Wagering on a horse race without knowing which are the true contenders is like running under water...you will get nowhere fast. Order "Calibration Handicapping" TODAY... increase your ROI (Return On Investment) TOMORROW!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Web site:
Email: Jim Lehane   fax: (603) 676-1216

Back to Top         Home

Now on to a race from last Saturday. It was the 9th at Aqueduct, a 6 furlong sprint for 3-year-olds which had not won a race other than maiden or claiming or that had never won two races, which is also known as non-winners of one other than or NW1X. As per usual you will need an Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the past performances I've included. To download a copy Click Here. To get todays file Click Here.

Originally a field of 13, it was narrowed down to 10 with the late scratches of #1 Rich Emotions, #3 Angel's Sing and #13 Live Wire Lil. This left the following running styles from #2 through #12: P, E, E, EP, E, EP, EP, EP, EP, and P. As can be easily seen, this pace shape of EEE is greatly tilted toward early speed. The way I had it figured was that the true speeds were #8 Tranquility Jane and #6 Southern Sandra, based on their common race of 11/5/99 and gave those two the preliminary advantage based only on pace shape.

#2 was an SRE horse but since she had run her 2 lifetime races at the Meadowlands I downgraded her chances and dismissed her based on that and the fact that she had not run in 7 weeks with no great workout pattern.

#4 Crescent Coast was coming off a good-looking wire-to-wire win in her only race lifetime.

#5 South City Missy had done the same but at an inferior track and in slower time.

#6 Southern Sandra was a Profile/Wide Out play who was getting blinkers back on. Right away she had two things going for her, pace advantage and a last-out move-within-a race.

#7 Twilightinthe City was another who had just broken her maiden wire-to-wire in her first and only start. She had done so in the maiden claiming ranks. #8 Tranquility Jane was a Profile horse adding blinkers and had enough early zip to be a contender. #9 Book Smart had shown early speed in Canada but did not match up with some of these in the internal fractions comparison.

#10 Annie's Honor was another with some early presence but her outside post would hinder her chances. #11 Cherokee Racer was outrun in her last and her lone win was on a sloppy track. She and #12 Starship Kimberly, who had raced at Calder were also compromised by their outside post positions.

So what was I left with for contenders using my 3-component method? As I said earlier, #6 Southern Sandra fit two of the 3 components - favorable running style in relation to the pace shape of the race and the fact that she is a Profile/Wide Out horse. I kept Tranquility Jane as a contender because of her running style and also because she too had a last-out move- within-a-race being a Profile horse. The 3rd element of internal fractions comparison would bring out my top or co-choice. Here are the final fractions for each horse, listing the raw fraction first and then the horse's actual fraction:

  2.) 26.1 / 24.4
  4.)24.2 / 24.2
  5.)27.0 / 27.0
  6.)24.2 / 25.1
  7.)25.4 / 25.4
  8.)25.0 / 27.0
  9.)26.1 / 27.1
10.) 24.3 / 25.1
11.) 24.4 / 25.4
12.) 26.2 / 27.0

You can see that other than #2 Cinnaminson, who I threw out (correctly as it turns out as she finished dead last), the standout final fraction horse was #4 Crescent Coast. You can also see that the raw time of the race #6 Southern Sandra was exiting was the same strong 24.2 and all the raw internal fractions of that race were superior. I went back and forth between the 4 and 6 before listing the 4 on top due to her final fraction advantage. My comment for #6 was "dangerous Profile/W.O. w/hood back on" because I knew she looked pretty good in this match up also.

My 3 picks (after #13 was scratched) then in order were 4-6-8 and the results were 6 ($11.40), 4 (6-4 ex. paid $35.60), 7, 8. We'll never know how #4 would have done had she not taken a bad step on the backstretch while approaching the far turn, but she did a remarkable job to get 2nd after that mishap. I also collected $63 on the late D/D because my 2nd choice won race 8.

Hopefully this will help you to see how comparing running styles and internal fractions and using horses that show advantages in those areas along with any horses with last-out moves-within-a-race can help us in our quest for maintaining a positive ROI.

Until next week, I wish you clear skies and fast tracks; knock 'em dead!

Jim

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To get an additional unique and valuable slant on handicapping the thoroughbreds, see what my friend the Guru has to say at:

A1 Handicapping & Little Joe's "Secrets of Handicapping"        

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Horseracing Handicappers' Website**
Wagering on a horse race without knowing which are the true contenders is like running under water...you will get nowhere fast. Order "Calibration Handicapping" TODAY... increase your ROI (Return On Investment) TOMORROW!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Web site:  
Email: Jim    fax: (603) 676-1216

Back to Top         Home

Attached are the Daily Racing Form past performances for this race, which was an allowance NW1X for fillies & mares 4-years-old and upward going 6 furlongs. You'll need a copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader to view these past performances and if you don't have one, you can download a free copy Here. To get the file for today Click Here.

I assigned this field of 7 the following running styles beginning with #1: EP, P, EP, EP, EP, P and EP. Right away it was clear that there was a lot of early speed in this EP-EP pace shape, with 5 early speed types and 2 pressers. If you have access to the charts of the race, you will see that after the 1st quarter, 5 horses were within about a length and a half of the lead, which confirmed the amount of early speed.

The first thing we want to do in such a match up is to determine if there is a dominant early speed horse from among the group of 5 early speed types. Here are the last-race turn times of the 5 EP horses, who were #'s 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7; the turn times will be followed by the track variant for the day of their last race: 23.2-10, 23.4-18, 24.0-18, 23.4-18 and 24.2-16. Going by turn time and early fractions in general, it appeared as though #1 Stealth would be out for the early lead, but with so much potential for a battle, she did not have the look of a horse that would survive a multi-horse duel and then pull away to a wire-to-wire win.

The only last-out move-within-a-race was made by #7, Glitter Space who was a Profile horse. Since she was one of the EP runners as well, she was immediately put on the short list of contenders if the price was right and as it turned out her post time odds of better than 47-1 made her quite an overlay in a 7-horse field.

Having covered the first 2 steps of running style comparison and pace shape examination along with moves-within-a-race, the remaining comparison I had to make was final fractions to see if there was an advantage horse. Actually, with a quick perusal of the entries, it was easy to spot that there was a horse exiting a race with much stronger fractions than the others. So seeing that apparent advantage, I would declare this as a race to handicap and look for potential value.

As I said, in sprints I compare final fractions, or more specifically 3rd quarter fractions. Since this field had 3 horses exiting 5F races, a projection of the last furlong time was necessary for those. That estimate for the final furlong is 13 seconds, so for the 3 horses that ran at 5F I added 13 seconds to the final times of their races.

Here's how I figured the final fraction for each horse. #1 - 45.2 from 111.3 equals a raw time of 26.1. Since she gained more than a half length during that segment, her time is 26.0.

#2 was away from the races for more than 7 months and as such was what I call stale. Generally such a horse, unless it has shown speed figures superior to the rest of the field in most if not all of it's races before the layoff, should be given a race before being considered as a contender. For the purposes of this exercise I'll figure the final fraction of it's last race anyway: 45.3 from 110.3 equals a raw time of 25.0 plus 6 5ths for losing 6 1/2 lengths for a time of 26.1.

For #3 after adding 13 seconds to the final time of 58.3 we get 111.3, less the half mile time of 46.0 equals a raw final fraction of 25.3. Subtract 3 5ths of a second for the gain of 3 1/4 lenths and her final fraction time is 25.0.

For #4 we add 13 seconds to the final time of 59.1 and get 112.1 as a projected 6F time. Since she lost less than a length, the raw time is her time: 112.1 less 47.0 equals 25.1.

For #5 we add 13 seconds to the raw final time of 58.3 and get 111.3. From that we subtract the half-mile time of 46.0 and get 25.3. Since she neither gained nor lost a length or more, her time is the same as the raw time of 25.3.

For #6, we subtract the half-mile time of 46.2 from the 6F time of 110.3 and get a raw time of 24.2. Since during that 3rd quarter she gained a only half length, the raw time of 24.2 is her actual time.

And for the final horse, #7, we subtract the half-mile time of 46.2 from the final time of 112.4 and get a raw time of 26.2. Since she lost 12 lengths during the final quarter, we add 12 5ths and get her final fraction time of 28.4.

Here then is a list of the horses with the raw times and the actual times, each of which I put next to each entry's p.p.'s on the far right side of my Daily Racing Form to compare:

1.) 26.1 / 26.0
2.) 25.0 / 26.1
3.) 25.3 / 25.0
4.) 25.1 / 25.1
5.) 25.3 / 25.3
6.) 24.1 / 24.1
7.) 26.2 / 28.4

Like I said, by simply skimming over the entries and doing some quick subtraction of the fractions, it quickly becomes evident that there is a standout in this group. A difference of 2 points, or fifths of a second, is significant, so 4 points is a big internal final fraction advantage and should get our attention immediately. In this case, like I said, #6 Hello Bertie earned a big Beyer Speed number in her race prior, which enamored the betting public as well as the public handicappers and reduced her odds
to 8-5.

Many times, however, you will come across significant advantage horses who will not have any recent Beyer speed figure advantage, and those will be value plays in and of themselves. For instance, in last Saturday's newsletter selections at the Big A, I made the following comments next to my top picks for races 1 and 5 respectively, "big internal fraction advantage" and "clear edge in fractions." They each won, paying $10.60 and $7.20.

Another horse with a clear final fraction advantage also won that day and that was #4 Spunoutacontrol in race 7 who paid $19.80. My comment on her was "broke maiden at Laurel with 24.3 final split." The only reason why I listed her 3rd was that she had run at Laurel and I downgraded her race. Obviously I shouldn't have and this is an example of what I referred to earlier; a horse that won and is stepping up in class with a clear final fraction advantage.

So what horses did I use in exactas in place of a win bet with the clear standout horse, #6? I had to use the Profile horse at 47-1, but to be honest about it, those odds were mighty high in a 7-horse field and I flinched a little bit and put in a smaller exacta with her. The next-best final fraction horses were in order, #3, #4 and #5. The odds for those horses were 3-1, 4-1 and 19-1.

Although I put in a part-wheel exacta of 6/3-4-5-7, I focused more on the 2 longshots for second and put a little more on the 6-7 combo and then most on the 6-5 combo, which if successful would pay around $50 and would certainly leave me with a nice profit for the day.

As it turned out #6 Hello Bertie stalked from a 4-wide position and went on to win fairly handily. 19 to 1 shot #5 Petite's Dowery, who cut out all the fractions, held up for 2nd to complete the exacta in a remarkably strong effort, holding the place spot safe by more than 11 lengths. After seeing on my computer screen that #7 Glitter Space got 3rd, (Gulfstream Park permits a live video stream through Broadcast.com) I wished that I had gone with the trifecta also.

The payoffs were $5.20 to win on #6, a 6-5 exacta of $53.20 and a 6-5-7 trifecta of $582.20. It seems as though everytime I look at a trifecta payoff its a Guru TBC combination, as this one was. I usually opt for exactas but I guess I'll have to seriously consider trifectas in the future, especially if the plays have the kind of potential value these did if things clicked. As the Guru says in his TBC play, the odds of any 3-horse box should equal at least 20-1 to be a prime play.

I hope that this exercise has helped you to see the power of internal fractions comparison and hopefully it will help your bottom line in the future. When I spot such plays on the days I give selections, I'll continue to mention them.

Until next week, I wish you clear skies and fast tracks; knock 'em dead!

Jim

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To get an additional unique and valuable slant on handicapping the thoroughbreds, see what my friend the Guru has to say at:

A1 Handicapping & Little Joe's "Secrets of Handicapping"        

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Horseracing Handicappers' Website**
Wagering on a horse race without knowing which are the true contenders is like running under water...you will get nowhere fast. Order "Calibration Handicapping" TODAY... increase your ROI (Return On Investment) TOMORROW!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Web site:  
Email: Jim    fax: (603) 676-1216

Back to Top         Home

The race I would like to review this week is the 4th at Aqueduct last Sunday, 1/23/00. It was a 6-furlong race for fillies and mares with a claiming tag of $35,000 down to $30,000. Attached are the Daily Racing Form® past performances for this race. You can get the PDF file Here. You'll need a copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader to view these past performances and if you don't have one, you can download a free copy Here.

I chose this race not simply because I had the winner ($23.60) listed as my top pick, but because it is a good example of a value race that with a little "reading between the lines" could result in a nice payoff. When I handicap the day before the races, I try to spend extra time trying to spot value plays. But this does not include how to bet the races. I've previously given a simple wagering plan that hopefully has produced some profit, but it does not cover all the bases by any means. That plan included playing the top two (or three) picks to win if the odds warranted it as well as playing all three in an exacta box.

When I look at the current odds of a horse I feel is the most likely to win and see 12-1 or so, which the winner of this race was until the odds dropped to 10-1 at post time, I realize that this is the time to check out all the wagering options because if I'm right and this horse wins or runs second, I can be pretty certain that the exotic wagers will pay well also. In other words, if the horse I like to win a race is 9-5 or 2-1, I may not want to consider keying that horse in the first 2 slots of a trifecta. But anything 5-1 or better should get my attention to at least check out such a wager. I usually don't focus on trifectas unless my top choice is a longshot overlay.

By check out a trifecta wager I mean to see how many contenders I feel there are for each position of the wager. How many horses do I feel have the most realistic shot of winning the race? How many have a shot to be there for second or third but not to win? How many are periphery plays who have a shot at getting 3rd money but in my opinion not all that great of a chance at the win or even 2nd? Well, these are the questions I asked myself here in front of my computer last Sunday as I was preparing to play race 4 at Aqueduct.

A few months ago, I gave the website address from which you could download a real handy exotic wagering calculator that can be kept right on your desktop. This FREE calculator can instantly tell you the cost of just about any exotic wager you want to construct. For anyone who wants it, you can log onto the following website, which happens to be a harness racing site, but you can download it within minutes to your desktop or anywhere else you want it. I have it on my desktop and I can assure you that there are no viruses attached. To get a copy Click Here. Once at the site, in the left-hand column click on Tools and Utilities and then click on download the wager calculator and within a minute or so you will possess this neat handicapping aide.

Now let's take a look at race 4 from last Sunday. I assigned the following running styles to horses 1 through 11: P, S, EP, EP, P, EP, P, EP, EP, P and P. This was an EP-EP pace shape and an honest race shape. With 5 of the field of 11 being EP runners, it's always wise to try to determine the speed of the speed and also if that horse has a good shot at going all the way. Of the 5 EP horses, one had run last at Mnr, wherever that is, and another had last run at Woodbine in Canada 15 months ago and right away due to that layoff was tossed by me. I also discounted the early speed of the horse from Mnr due to not having remembered any horses doing well in New York on their first try from there.

I was down to 3 EP horses, and from that group #8 Flag On the Gate sure seemed to be the likeliest front runner. #3 Is A Doll had the potential to go to the lead as did #9 Latifah, but Flag On the Gate showed an absolute preference to be on top. Could she go wire to wire? In my opinion no. As a matter of fact, when I made the selections for this race, I figured that she would face some pressure early and I didn't even list her 2nd or 3rd.

There were two horses that had made a last-out move-within-a-race and they were both Profile horses. #1 Maggie May's Sword and #11 Swift Sword. Since I only list 3 horses, I left out Maggie May's Sword in spite of being a Profile play. I went with the horses with the best final fractions and also a horse who was taking a significant drop in class and had run as a Wide Out in her prior two races, #3 Is A Doll. But Maggie May's Sword certainly had the look of a periphery player for a trifecta wager.

Here is the breakdown of the field with the final fractions next to each, the raw time followed by the actual time for the horse. To the right is the last-race Beyer speed figure:

  1.) 25.4 / 27.0   57
  2.) 25.4 / 25.3   66
  3.) 26.3 / 26.4   66
  4.) 25.3 / 26.0   67
  5.) 25.4 / 26.3   53
  6.) 25.2 / 25.2   76 STALE
  7.) 25.1 / 27.0   50 STALE
  8.) 25.4 / 26.0   66
  9.) 25.4 / 26.0   70
10.) 25.0 / 24.4   73
11.) 24.0 / 25.0   58

Two things are immediately evident here. First, the best last race final fraction horse is also the best last race Beyer speed figure horse other than the stale entry, #6, whom I threw out. It doesn't hurt to underline in red in each race the highest last-race Beyer speed figure. I underline the highest Beyer showing for EACH horse in the race to get an idea what its top number is and how its last race or 2 compare to that. In the case of #10, Fast And Fortunate, her best of the bunch last Beyer of 73 was not her lifetime top; 83 was and she had run 79 twice in her last 12 races. This means that she was not a likely bounce candidate based on that alone.

It's a pretty nice scenario when you come up with a horse that has won her last race at the same track and distance and who also had won before at the track. With the best last-race final fraction, the highest last-race Beyer speed figure and odds of 10-1, what more could one ask for? Why the overlay? Probably because she was stepping up in claiming price and also because she was going from the outside. If she was a plodding closer I would be more leery of playing an outside horse on Aqueduct's inner, but she usually ran fairly close up and I could have even labeled her an EP runner.

As it turned out Fast And Fortunate broke 10th and made a huge late run to get the win, not the kind of trip I would have predicted for her, but she managed to get up by a comfortable length and a quarter at the end. In hindsight, which as I say is always 20-20, and I know that it's real easy to redboard a race after it's finished, I probably should not have listed as my 2nd choice #11 Swift Sword. I did so because she had the 2nd best final fraction, but as Larry S. pointed out to me before the race, she had not run in 50 days and had one lone average workout since.

My picks were in order, #10, #11 and #3. Here is how I played the race. The first thing I wrote down was a win wager on #10 Fast And Fortunate. I then decided to use the exotic calculator and see what the cost of a trifecta would be keying #10. Who would I use on top? After looking the field over closely again and agreeing with Larry that #11 Swift Sword was a periphery play, I decided to go with only #10 in the win slot. For second, I had to use my other two selections #3 and #11, but were there any others who could get the place money? What about the speed?

I figured I HAD to put in the speed for 2nd and 3rd also. In addition, I had to use the other Profile horse, #1 for the place and show spots. Were there any other periphery horses who could get 3rd? I thought that #2 Clear Margins ran a real nice race in her last, but being an S horse/closer on the inside, her chances would be compromised. I threw her in for a chance at the show money. Here then is the trifecta wager I constructed using the exotic calculator on my desktop:

10 / 1-3-8-11 / 1-2-3-8-11

The cost for this $1 trifecta using 6 members of the 11-horse field was instantly shown to me as $16.00. Obviously, for a $2 wager the cost was $32.00. I don't know how many of you can quickly calculate yourself the cost of trifecta plays, but I know I can't for all combos, without the help of a calculator. This particular wager is not too difficult to calculate as it's not that complicated. We can simply multiply the number of horses in the win slot times the number of horses in the place slot times the number of horses in the show slot (minus one). In other words, 1 X 4 X 4 times the dollar amount of $1 equals $16. But what if we added another horse to the win slot? What would be the cost of this $1 wager?

3-10 / 1-3-8-11 / 1-2-3-8-11

Is it $32? No, it's actually only $25 and I don't know how to calculate that without a computer of some kind. How about if I wanted to put my top choice in the second slot also since I added another to the win slot? What would this wager cost?

3-10 / 1-3-8-10-11 / 1-2-3-8-11

This would cost $29. Anyway, as you can see, it's pretty handy to know that the cost of covering this many horses behind a key horse or two to win is only $16, $25 or $29.

The results of the race were as follows: #10 won at $23.60, the exacta of 10-8 paid $175.50 and the trifecta of 10-8-1 paid $3,413.00! Was I surprised at that payoff! Here is an imaginary parlay of the first 3 finishers: $23.60 times one-half of what the place horse would have paid to win ($14.40; 7.20 X $23.60 = $169.92) times one-half of what the show horse would have paid to win ($23.00; 11.50 X $169.92 = $1,954.08).

In essence, this trifecta paid over $1,400 more than it should have. Forrest Gump's declaration that "life is like a box of chocolates" because you never know what you're going to get, can be applied to trifecta wagering also. In many cases, when keying on a longshot, the results are a plesant surprise. While the hit rate on these plays may not be extremely high, an occasional investment of $16 or so with a return of $1,700 or so can make up for quite a few losses. Just some food for thought.

Until next week, I wish you clear skies and fast tracks; knock 'em dead!

Jim

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To get an additional unique and valuable slant on handicapping the thoroughbreds, see what my friend the Guru has to say at:

A1 Handicapping & Little Joe's "Secrets of Handicapping"        

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Horseracing Handicappers' Website**
Wagering on a horse race without knowing which are the true contenders is like running under water...you will get nowhere fast. Order "Calibration Handicapping" TODAY... increase your ROI (Return On Investment) TOMORROW!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Web site:  
Email: Jim    fax: (603) 676-1216

Back to Top         Home