The Handicapping Life

On Sheiks, Handicapping Hiatuses, and the Dangerous Waters of Backwards Handicapping

2006-08-29T15:07:00.000-07:00

Watching the live coverage from Saratoga on Saturday, I had an epiphany: In my next life, I want to be an Arab sheik. And not just any Arab sheik -- no, I want to be part of the Maktoum family. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm very happy living the handicapping life, but come on! Buy the world's best horses, travel the world in style to watch them race, and make a habit of doing post-race interviews on ESPN -- now that's a life. And, best yet, you know he can afford that top-shelf scotch of which I can only dream.

Speaking of the Dubai Empire, it was an impressive weekend all around for their 3-year olds. I was thrilled to see an entry from Discreet Cat, who we last watching beating up on Classic division leader Invasor in Dubai in March. While a stakes horse entered in an allowance always raises some eyebrows (Wild Fit and Karen's Caper are two recent examples of the negative consequences), I hoped that it might not be a cautionary sign, but merely an inclusion in a big weekend of racing for the Maktoum family. And, I think his scintillating performance on Friday ended any speculation that he's not at the top of his game -- and that he is one of the best horses in the world. On Saturday, Henny Hughes survived ridiculous fractions to pull away and win the King's Bishop impressively and, of course, Bernardini showed that he's the top three year old by laughing at the challenge from Bluegrass Cat. Ah, yes...it's good to be a sheik.

Following the wonders of Travers weekend, The Handicapping Life began a self-imposed handicapping hiatus for the next week. During this brief absence, the wife and I will be permanently escaping the oddities of Burlington, Vermont and arriving in Washington D.C. for the next chapter of our lives. Yes, while moving unfortunately requires a large amount of attention, the hiatus is also driven by a desire to sit back, clear my mind, and attempt to free myself from a handicapping trap that I've fallen into recently -- the dangerous waters of backwards handicapping.

At its core, backwards handicapping involves an attempt to find, while handicapping a new race, a scenario that has previously brought you success. It could be a pace meltdown, an unseen class advantage, a hidden pedigree discovery, or any number of different circumstances you'd like to see occur again. But, when you're approaching a race from this method, it's no different than other situations in life in which you really want to believe that something is true. Like wanting to believe in the faithfulness of a wandering spouse or in the impending improvement of an unbearable work situation, you look for the little bits of information that support the conclusion that you so desperately want. And, when you terribly desire something to be true, you unfortunately tend to deceive yourself into believing that it is.

Over the past month, I've been consciously attempting to do just that in my handicapping. Through my own data-mining, I'd discovered certain wagers that tended to be very profitable over the past year -- place/show bets on particular horses, trifecta and superfecta races with a clear pace scenarios, and, especially, one-way exactas with a heavy favorite and unlikely second place horse. Naturally, I decided that I would only wager on these particular situations and thus improve my overall ROI dramatically. Armed with these scenarios, I began to put them in my mind before I handicapped a race, looking to find matches for these preconceived ideas. In contrast to a more straight-forward method -- which involves analyzing a race with a clear mind and letting the race intuitively reveal what potential it contains -- every decision while handicapping backwards is based on the data being argued into, or out of, some sort of previously successful conclusion. As a result, backwards handicapping carries a very strong potential for self-deception. And, when I'm handicapping like this, the overall results simply aren't close to the same, and it's time to clear my head and attempt to restore an untainted intuition.

For me, other than the above mentioned situation, backwards handicapping typically rears its head after picking a high-priced winner or worse yet, passing on such an opportunity. As an aside, the same thought phenomenon also occurs when analyzing horse appearance in the paddock. For me, when I go in looking for a horse to look sharp or look dull, I invariably find that I can make an argument to fit either of these profiles. And, you guessed it -- these conclusions are rarely correct. But, when I just look at the paddock and let the information come to me sans preconception, the information is much more reliable and not tainted by clever argument. And, after the information is gathered, then I can decide whether it fits any profile that leads to long term success.

Much like other things in life which you wish to be true, seeking a certain conclusion in your handicapping brings with it the potential of self-deception. And, when you've reached your conclusion through this biased method, the something that you've found typically isn't what you expected. When you notice this happening and your returns suffering accordingly, it's not a bad time to close the form, walk away, and maybe even daydream of being reincarnated as the heir to the throne of Dubai.

Goodbye, Foggy

2006-08-19T21:00:00.000-07:00

Like most horseplayers, I've developed affinities for certain horses while playing the races. But, among these special horses, not every horse is viewed with an equal level of fondness. Some horses merely appeal to the betting side of my soul, typically for their consistency in interesting ways. These horses are ones that, for whatever reason, are profitable, but not terribly inspiring to watch and certainly not awe-inducing. Contemporary examples from the New York circuit could include Naughty New Yorker, who, up until his last race where he showed some new tricks, was a classic consistent late plodding closer, or Freedom Isn't Free, a consistent board horse that has the speed, but not the personality, to win. I like these horses, but don't love them, accepting our relationships for what they are -- mere relationships of convenience to help the grinding out of a profit.

But, then there are the relationships that are deeper -- the ones with the horses that can do something special on the race track. We saw one of my favorites yesterday with Lava Man becoming the first horse to win the Big Cap, Hollywood Gold Cup, and Pacific Classic in the same year. And, in doing so, he fought off the demons of last year by maintaining his form late into the summer season. He now will seek to complete the ultimate rags to riches story -- moving from the claiming ranks to horse of the year by winning the Breeders' Cup Classic. Yet, despite this inspirational performance from a true champion, the weekend was left covered by a tremendous cloud with the news that Lost in the Fog -- another one of these special horses -- had terminal cancer.

I've written about Lost in the Fog before (see the June Archives) and most racing fans are familiar with the exploits of this horse. And, elsewhere this season, I've drank the anti-Kool Aid and become critical of this horse, and openly wondered whether I had been fooled and christened merely a fast developing horse as a great one way too soon. Looking at this performance this season, I had to admit it -- his critics have been right. He was simply beating up on weak horses and was exposed in his first real test during the Breeders' Cup, and he would continue to be exposed during the remainder of his career. But, upon receiving the terrible news, and thinking back about the past two years with the Fog, I finally realize what I've missed in accepting these arguments -- whether LITF was a great horse is absolutely and completely meaningless to his story. By focusing the light solely on this particular question, we are likely to miss a good part of what brings us to the racetrack in the first place.

From the beginning, he was a thrill to follow and observe and made for wondrous anticipation, intense drama, and, especially, great horse races. I remember vividly the first race I watched of him on Fountain of Youth day last year. I was blown away by his performance -- I don't recall ever seeing anything like it. I went home and signed up for a replay service so I could watch what I had seen again and again. And, I was thrilled when I returned to the OTB on Wood Memorial Day and saw him slated to run again -- I had been mesmerized by the sheer speed and intangible wonder that this horse brought to the races. And, when I originally planned a trip to NYC from Denver for the Belmont Stakes that year (the plans unfortunately fell through), I was most excited about being able to see the Fog in person. But, I told my friends to make sure to be there for his race, and sure enough, they came home talking non-stop about Foggy, instead of Afleet Alex.

Yes, on a one-dimensional hierarchical scale, LITF was not historically great, or possibly, even the best sprinter in his particular time and place. But, when looking at the intangibles of what makes a horse race great and what makes this sport thrilling to watch, he was as good as it gets. Even in defeat, he was the consummate race horse -- the type you rush home to see his race and wonder whether he'll wow you again. And that's what makes his story on the racetrack so wonderful and its ending off it so devastating. I'll miss him and what he brings to this sport terribly.

They're Alive!!!

2006-08-16T08:41:00.000-07:00

The Handicapping Life made a brief haj last week down to the mecca of horse racing. A nice ride on the Lake Champlain Ferry and an uncrowded journey down I-87 brought me down to Saratoga, where I met my parents for a wonderful day explaining and sharing the races. Yet, despite the beautiful surroundings, I usually have mixed feelings about going to the track. I never bet as clearly as I do at home and a strange need for action comes over me -- I find myself with a bet in almost every race...something that never happens when playing from home. And, yet, despite these temporary losses and annoyances and the obvious benefits of spending time and sharing the sport with others, I still go to the track for one primary reason: Like many horseplayers, I simply love seeing horses in person.

Upon arrival, a full parking lot forced me far away from the race course, but, much to my excitement, extremely close to the stable area. I'd wandered around the backside of tracks before -- most notably at an empty Keeneland during a visit last summer -- but I'd never been to one that was fully stocked with the best horses in the world. I walked past Corinthian, the spastic horse who caused the Fountain of Youth drama, and Artie Schiller, the defending Breeders' Cup Mile champion, who keeps finding ways to burn the public's money. And I saw tons of beautiful, active horses that I couldn't recognize. It was, hands down, one of the highlights of the summer.

I've always found these feelings quite surprising -- independent of my love of racing, I'd never be described by friends as a horse lover, and the suburban Cleveland home of my youth did not present much opportunity for horse keeping. And, because of Denver's lack of big time racing (where I first became deeply enamored with the sport), most of my early experience with playing the horses came through watching TV monitors and engaging in data analysis in the racing form. Yet despite my lack of tangible experience with horses, I always feel a special affinity towards these animals when I see them in person. I think, at the core, see in these animals reminds me of something that I occasionally forget -- that the entities that we're betting on are living creatures, with all the nuances, quirks, and intangible wonder that life brings.

And, in addition to this fuzzy feeling, I also find that seeing horses close up in person, at the backside or even just the paddock, really helps my bottom line. Sitting in my office and reviewing race after race, I unfortunately occasionally forget that horses exist independent of racing and are way more than just a collection of numbers. And, when I get into this mechanistic thinking, I find that my handicapping suffers -- I'm engaging in static, as opposed to dynamic analysis, and routinely find myself supporting the animals that look the best on the surface of the form. It's only when I'm truly aware that horses are living creatures with a tremendous amount of volatility in performance that my handicapping reaches the level for profit. And, so, even with short-term losses, I'm always willing to take a occasional day to go visit any track. Besides, I still haven't figured out how to get Saratoga chips, a BBQ pork sandwich, or tasty draft beer in my office.

Show me the money!

2006-08-06T17:52:00.001-07:00

This past Saturday, I originally decided to take a much-needed day away from the races. Yet, being the devoted horseplayer that I am, I nonetheless decided to take a late evening look, figuring I might find a minor stakes or a solid allowance race to capture my attention. Within minutes, I'd isolated a race that fit the profile: The Prairie Meadows Sprint. A quick analysis of the six-horse field revealed a heavy and legitimate favorite in Coach Jimi Lee, a winner of almost $800 thousand that, on paper, dominated a field of local allowance horses. It seemed like a lockdown bet for sure. As I searched the pools for value, my attention turned to the show pool, where I unsurprisingly discovered that the bridge jumpers had found another target. I didn’t write down the exact amounts, but, at post time, it was something like $97,000 bet on the Coach and only around $1000 bet on the others combined. Needless to say, Coach Jimi Lee dominated the field on the track, and the show bettors happily survived – taking the minimum payout ($2.20 in Iowa) and collectively forcing the track to pony over $9700 into their pockets.

Lately, I’ve become intrigued by these bridge jumping incidents. For those unfamiliar, the act of bridge jumping is a consequence of the mandatory minimum payouts for $2 bets, even if insufficient funds exist in the pari-mutuel pool to fund the payouts. Thus, a bettor could bet as much as he’d like into the pool and be guaranteed a 5% return ($2.10) or 10% ($2.20). While a bettor could always bet an inordinate amount of money into a pool and turn the payoff into the minimum, it usually only occurs in the show pool -- the only place where a bettor could theoretically determine that the reward is consummate with the risk. And, the consequences of failure, of course, are extreme – hence the term “bridge jumping.” Despite the small anticipated payoff, you’ll lose your entire investment if something goes awry.

Most handicappers I’ve met chastise this risky behavior – laughing loudly when one of these horses fails to hit the board. Yet, despite this public scorn, these incidents happen quite often, and typically, they’re successful – it only becomes a topic of conversation when they do fail. And, when failure occurs, it’s usually only due to catastrophe, such as breakdown or a thrown jockey – even a bad start usually allows a talented, dominant horse to get up for third. And, in the extremely rare cases where they do fail due to the competition of the race, such as Dubai Escapade in the Princess Rooney, it’s typically due to case of a miscalculated risk, such as the failure to consider that a horse was trying a new track (the tiring surface of Calder) and a new level (Grade I) or, in other cases, simply putting too much faith in the predictability of the unreliable non-stakes horse.

And, although hundreds of thousands tend to flow into these pools in the biggest races, I've never met this type of bettor, either on the track or in my conversations with handicappers across the country. And, yet, they clearly exist – throwing down their $5000 to win $250 week after week after week. At its core, it’s a strange sort of betting that goes against much of the current orthodoxy of wagering. It requires virtual perfection – a far cry from a long term philosophy encouraging overlay wagers that one expects to lose in the short term. One miss in 20 (at the common $2.10 minimum) renders any gains moot. And a second miss in 20 brings the losses to a level that would be very hard to catch. While it’s possible to balance these over time, the sheer loss of capital makes the long-term quite difficult to achieve without an immense bankroll. And, even with an massive bankroll, it’s hard to believe that profitability could result from these bets unless they were virtually fail safe – expected to hit over 95 times out of 100. And, in order to derive any substantial profit, a hit rate of 99% must be expected. Yet, these wagers happen and occur with great regularity – is it possible that some out there achieve this lofty goal? These wagers – when carefully chosen -- probably offer the closest thing to certainty in the entire world of racing. And, while the consequence of a loss is great, I often wonder whether the risk, when analyzed in terms of likelihood of happening, is really that large compared to other, more socially accepted wagers. Indeed, a precise show bet may be the least risky proposition – even when considered in terms of potential reward – in the entire game of racing.

But, even putting aside the mathematics of risk and the murky waters of assessment, these wagers fascinate me from the perspective of my favorite topic – the psychological side of the handicapping life. First, I can’t imagine that wagering like this is very fun. There’s no excitement in waiting for the expected to happen, the rewards are never very high, and the anxiety from the large potential consequences must be unnerving. And, despite the large size of the wager, it’s about as far from pure gambling as you can get. There’s no rush and no adrenaline boost from the big potential payday – a fact which inspires the playing of many of horseplayer. In addition, wagering like this goes against the short-term ego gratification that drives many horseplayers. There’s no feeling of outsmarting the crowd in an individual race when you merely echoed the crowd’s sentiments to an extreme. And, yet, with careful selection and not too much extreme bad luck, the bridge jumper can feel good at the end of the day – pocketing a profit – something that the typical horseplayer only does with a generous helping of luck.

So, what sort of picture are we left with of the supposed bridge jumper? To me, despite the moniker, the extreme show bettor is much less a risk taker than the typical horseplayer – an exceptionally careful individual, meticulously picking his spots to avoid the vagaries of luck and who is also free from the need to take risks for short term ego gratification. Indeed, in comparing this with the typical horseplayer, I’m left wondering who the real bridge jumpers are in this game.

Exotic Betting: A Reaction

2006-07-27T09:43:00.000-07:00

In my last entry, I cautioned against the over consumption of handicapping books and the importance of maintaining a critical skepticism towards experts. Yet, accompanying this warning, I carved out an exception for certain type of books, including books about bet structuring. However, as of this spring, the handicapping literature on bet structuring was quite thin – an appendix to Steve Davidowitz’s Betting Thoroughbreds, a few paragraphs in Andrew Beyer’s The Winning Horseplayer, and a couple of chapters in James Quinn’s The Best of Throughbred Handicapping constituted the entirety of the mainstream works. Based on this paucity of novel approaches, it was with much anticipation that I awaited the publication of Steven Crist’s Exotic Betting -- a book that I heard him first describe last fall during a Breeder’s Cup preview session at Belmont Park.

Even while my view of handicapping experts had soured as I developed as a horseplayer, my excitement for this book was still quite large. I anticipated its publication throughout the winter – I had great respect for Crist’s intellectual ability, his writing skill, and his success as a horseplayer, and I looked forward to him shedding some new insight into racing’s most challenging and rewarding bets. Yet, when the book finally arrived last Wednesday and I finished it the same day, I was left feeling a bit unsatisfied. Written on such a narrow topic and advertised as dealing solely with bet structuring (as opposed to selection), I expected the book to emphasize and detail strategies for maximizing potential return at appropriate levels of risk through the use of exotic wagering – the key principles of a disciplined and winning approach to the races. Simply put, I wanted to know when to add that extra horse to a trifecta ticket or when it made financial sense to leave off a vulnerable favorite in a leg of the Pick 4. In contrast, however, Exotic Betting is styled more as an introduction to exotic bet structuring for the absolute novice, and could be described as simply an extended and more in-depth version of a pamphlet handed out a track explaining simple horizontal and vertical strategies. This is, by no means, intended as an insult to the book or to Crist, and is more a warning to the veteran/professional player looking for advanced treatment of the subject. Indeed, the book is geared more toward the reader of Handicapping 101(which, incidentally, is a great introductory book) who routinely boxes trifectas and three-horse exactas than the reader looking to apply the principles of Fooled by Randomness or a hearty statistics tome to their wagering.

At its core, Exotic Betting contains a discussion of the basic strategies for both vertical (exacta, trifecta, and superfecta) and horizontal (daily double, pick three, pick four, and pick six) wagers. For the most part, the strategies are sound and provide a good, launching pad for deeper thinking about the exotics. In particular, Crist mentions the single, most important piece of advice for the exotics bettor: Exotics can not be used as a means to profit from an overall lack of clarity. This was a lesson that I learned in the early days of wagering, believing that I could use these bets as a replacement for difficult decision making. While you may occasionally reap the reward from this method, the bettor is typically not getting a return in accordance with the risk undertaken. And, at the core, that is what exotic betting is about -- finding ways to increase the return while managing risk -- all based upon your opinion and analysis of the race.

Unfortunately, Exotic Betting does not delve deeply into this fundamental dilemma – one in which the handicapping literature desperately needs more work. Indeed, one problem I have had in the past with other handicapping books was the failure of the authors to explore the rationales underlying certain decisions and attempt to discern general principles from specific examples – a key ingredient in the rigorous pursuit of knowledge. As an example, I’m reminded of Pedigree Handicapping by Lauren Stich, in which she never revealed any sort of guiding principles for interpreting pedigrees, instead trying to impart knowledge to the reader by example after example. While her observations were very useful, she never explained how or why she reached those conclusions, and she never gave the reader any theories for the reader to evaluate and possibly apply themselves. Unfortunately, although not to the degree of Stich’s book, Exotic Betting suffers from these same problems. And it’s only through the development of general principles that the handicapper can critically assess the theories for himself, and, as a result, continue to grow as a horseplayer.

While Exotic Betting serves an introduction to the subject, more guidance and detailed exploration of the relation between risk and reward is sorely needed in any future text dedicated to exotic bet structuring. In looking at Crist’s work, we can see the questions that need to be answered in an advanced treatment of the subject. For example, in devising his tickets for the Pick Four and Pick Six, he normally divides his horses into four groups – A’s (likely winners), B’s (horses that can win if the A’s fail), C’s (horses that could conceivably win, but are unlikely) and X’s (eliminations). Based on these classifications, he then creates tickets with various combinations of the non-eliminated horses to cover a vast range of possibilities. While Crist gives some examples of his “Chinese Menu” selection process (e.g. three from Group A with one from Group C), there is no discussion of the reasons why certain combinations are used. As a result, the reader is left wondering why he determined that financial rewards are best served by these combinations, and how to make these adjustments to their wagers. The same problem occurs in discussing the amounts to bet on certain combinations. In fashioning his tickets, Crist mentions that when he plays a Pick Four ticket with four A’s (the likeliest winners), he buys it four times to compensate for the lower payoff. Yet, much like the earlier discussion regarding the selection of combinations, no explanation is given on why or how these amounts were calculated. To the participant in the handicapping life, there is nothing worse than putting out capital at an undue amount of risk for the range and likelihoods of various returns, and, consequently, the horseplayer needs theoretical tools to help him assess when he has either overplayed or underplayed their capital.

Unlike the poker or chess player, whose shelves are filled with intellectual discussions of the finer points of the game, the advanced horse player looking for rigorous approaches to betting the game is still without much hope at the bookstore. Hopefully, in the coming years, an author – perhaps even Crist himself – will begin to develop the potential of the ideas in Exotic Betting, and bring much needed new insight to the advanced participant of the horse playing game. But, until that day, any player who finds himself boxing trifectas, baseballing exactas, or filling out a Pick 4 ticket with 2 horses in each leg, would be wise to pick up Exotic Betting to begin the process of deeper critical thinking.

The Generic Horseplayer

2006-07-16T06:45:00.000-07:00

Conformity is a curious thing. In many walks of life, it is a pathway to comfort; a means to attain a predetermined level of security. If you play along, do what you’re told, obey the rules, then you’ll be taken care of – an above-average, yet cookie cutter life will exist for you. There’s almost no risk in taking the safe path; while the non-conventional person may attain or acquire more or less, conformity brings safety, although perhaps not deep satisfaction. I don’t disdain or disrespect anyone for making such a choice for their life – it’s a dilemma that I struggle with often. However, if you lean towards conformity and its resulting safety, then I’m fairly positive that you shouldn’t be expecting to profit from the horses, whether recreationally or professionally. Because in playing the horses, it’s exactly the opposite of many other aspects of life. Thinking like everyone else will not create even an average level of success. As in any speculative activity, profit can only result from an opinion that is different from the norm, so long as the difference of opinion is based on something tangible, and not merely different for difference sake.

As a devoted horseplayer, I’ve had my own experiences with the pressures of conforming. When I began handicapping, I was wildly successful, despite only using incomplete bits of knowledge based on repeated observation to reach my selections. My first big winner (35-1) was selected on a drop in class combined with a last race decent close -- an analysis derived solely from watching several races mixed in with a good dose of common sense. Believing that I was probably just lucky and wishing to perpetually sustain this luck, I embarked on a journey to learn as much as I could about the game. In the following months, I read the classics of Ainsle, Beyer, Brohamer, and Quinn – and a host of other authors who all added something to the equation. In fact, as of this writing, I own and have read 47 books related to handicapping – all catalogued neatly in a veritable library of truth in my office.

After reading all these books, I was armed with an almost complete body of handicapping knowledge. However, after incorporating this information into my handicapping, I noticed a not-so-positive change in my thought processes and in my ultimate selections. I now routinely settled on favorites or other top horses, and I no longer found the less than obvious horse. I routinely supported the horses that met the proven, well-trodden angles learned from the books, such as best last race finish, top speed, top trainer and jockey, best class, and improving form cycle. At the same time, I was chanting to myself the mantras of value at every turn. Although I was acutely aware of the importance of the overlay, I would incorrectly support false overlays repeatedly. And then, one day, I realized what had happened. I had become nothing but an organization man – an unthinking disciple of a dominant ideology. Stripped down of my early individuality, I had become a generic horseplayer.

Aware of my now commonplace handicapping, I began to suspect that the success at the beginning was more than just beginner’s luck and that it contained seeds of an individualized method that I had abandoned to subscribe to the views of the orthodoxy. Determined to recapture some of the methods that had worked so well at the beginning, I began to disregard conclusions based solely on the surface of the form. In an effort not to be swayed, I would make my selections ignorant of the odds, and only bet when the public did not mirror my assessment. I tried to predict how the public would value the horses – using the knowledge that I gained in my exhaustive study of the literature – and tried to find less than obvious reasons why the public might be in error. But, mostly, I tried to unlearn what the books led me to believe – that the past performances completely reflect the possibilities of the race and that an individual race can predicted with accuracy. Indeed, I discovered that, in a speculative endeavor, the illusion of certainty can be fatal. By returning to a view that anything can happen, which I held at the beginning of my horse playing days, I recaptured the looseness of thought necessary to distinguish my thought process from the crowd.

These duel perils of extensive handicapping study – conformity and the illusion of certainty – present traps for the novice and experienced player alike. For the novice player, I would caution against too much early infusion of the technical handicapping techniques of others. Seek only to understand what a past performance means and only approach the technical works when you have the base of knowledge to critically assess them. However, anything dealing with the game that does not involve the technical part of picking winners, i.e. bet structuring, money management, or emotional control, is incredibly useful to the novice (and veteran) horseplayer. And, for the seasoned horseplayer who has read the classics and is familiar with all the established techniques, a consistent check to see if you have entered the realm of the generic is always useful. This game’s ups and downs can push all but the most emotionally disciplined handicapper into moments of doubt and towards more accepted approaches and a vain quest for certainty.

To everything, there is a season

2006-07-14T09:49:00.000-07:00

Ah, it's good to get back to the handicapping life. I apologize for the long delay in writing, but I think I have a fairly decent excuse -- I got married! Much like the best of handicapping decisions, this one was relatively spontaneous and felt absolutely right in my gut. Engaged last Wednesday evening, we bought rings on Thursday and were married Friday morning at the home of a local justice of the peace. A short jaunt up to Quebec City gave us a wonderful weekend honeymoon. We do, however, have visions of Ireland (and, of course, a visit to Curragh) for a longer honeymoon in the future.

So, needless to say, I missed watching Lava Man and his narrowest of triumphs in the Hollywood Gold Cup last Saturday. After watching the replay, however, I've developed some worries that he's slipping off form....although the Beyer did come back a strong 108. Based on last year, I'd still prefer to see Doug O'Neil rest him a bit, in order to freshen him for the race that will make his career -- the Breeders' Cup Classic.

In thinking about Lava Man's form cycle and the cliff he fell off last year, I'm reminded of a theory that I developed in my first few months of handicapping. In my first few trips to the OTB in Denver, I noticed that certain horses tended to excel at certain times of the year. In analyzing a race, I'd simply look at the calendar and see how a horse had performed in the current month in the past. I was very loose with these assessments -- looking generally at the particular season and see if I noticed a difference in performance. I evenutally abandoned this approach as unscientific, but eventually I took many of the concepts and transformed them into a quasi-form cycle assessment. And, while I'm still not sure that the seasonal theory has any validity, it doesn't really matter for the qualitiative handicapper. Because approaching a past performance from a different point of view than the basics can get you deeper into a qualitative assessment of how a horse has performed in the past and, most importantly, why he or she has performed in that fashion. And, so long as you're not married to the initial basis for the investigation, when using an approach such as this one, you are far more likely to reach novel conclusions about a race.

---

We've got exciting races all throughout the weekend. Lost in the Fog reappears in the Smile Sprint and faces a very tough field and has to carry 125 pounds. Speaking of LITF, was anyone else turned off by the news that Gilchrest and Aleo would have retired the Fog if he had lost 4 in a row, simply to protect the image that this horse was once a superhorse? Statements like that really make me wonder how much of the fog was really just mirrors...and a whole bunch of smoke. Also from Calder, personal favorite Too Much Bling looks to rebound from the loss in the Woody Stephens in the Carry Back. And, later this afternoon, TMB's half-sister, Littlebitofbling tries for the second time to break her maiden in Thistledown's 10th. I love her dam, Rose Colored Lady, and I'm beginning to believe (although unscientific) that we may have some large heart size (X-factor) being passed on from this dam. Combined with the two-year old filly prowess of the Carson City line, we could be looking at a fun horse here. And while on the subject of fun sprinters, it's worth noting that Fabulous Strike -- discussed below in the entries of June 9 and 10 -- has already come back to win a minor stake at Belmont -- a much-needed return to his proper level. As proven by his domination of the field, this was yet another wise move by the other Todd, the talented and successful Todd Bettie.

Enjoy the races.

S.A.

The Fundamental Theorem of Handicapping

2006-07-02T07:34:00.000-07:00

About a week ago, I closed with a question:

"What is the more important factor in being a successful horseplayer -- skill or luck? Or, more specifically, the ability to see a race as clearly as possible, or the ability to admit that most clarity is false?"

These questions directly relate to a line of thinking I've been exploring for quite some time. I've spent much of my adult professional life as a "truth seeker." I spent a good portion of time in academic pursuits where I'd research and think incessantly and seek the right answers to questions. And, after school, while working as an attorney for an appellate court, I was concerned with finding the right resolution to the intellectual problem posed by the case at hand. In both situations, there was one absolute truth to be found, and it was always a part of my job to find it. If I couldn't find an answer, it was always a question of looking harder or thinking deeper. I was perpetually optimistic about the eventual revelation of truth through effort.

However, as a handicapper, this optimism was misplaced; in a particular race, repeated effort or deeper thought after a certain point does not get any closer to truth. After a while, I discovered that the reason was simple: No truth is possible before a race is run, and no right answer can be found. I found that as a a handicapper, you must not be guided not by a desire for truth or knowledge or a right answer. Because no matter how deeply or skillfully you look at a particular race, you can never know what is going to happen. And, this, my friends, is the Fundamental Theorem of Handicapping.

It's almost ridiculous in its obviousness and begs for a response of "so what." But, from my own experience and development as a horseplayer, I've seen how powerfully misleading a belief in the existence of a right answer can be. In many races, it drove me to elevate secondary factors to separate contenders. And, as a result, I would reach a level of false certainty and bet with false confidence. But, unfortunately for the seeker of pure clarity, even with all the careful analysis and detailed research, you can never truly see what is going to happen. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.

Some knowledge is, of course, essential. I believe that there is a line -- http://www.trackchampion.com/abrams_balance.aspx -- which separates legitimate initial analysis from counterproductive right answer searching. After this point, when analyzing a particular race, making repeated efforts to reach a level of certainty will always be in vain. Indeed, finding the point where you realize that any additional clarity is false is a key to this game.

S.A.

The Little Track on the Prairie

2006-06-29T10:35:00.000-07:00

This weekend brings us the "Iowa Festival of Racing," a several day event of top-notch racing from Prairie Meadows, highlighted by the Iowa Derby and the Iowa Oaks on Friday night and the Cornhusker Handicap on Saturday. As a regular simulcast player at Prairie Meadows, I particularly enjoy the national spotlight being shown (at least in part) on the small track in Des Moines, Iowa.

I first played Prairie Meadows a while back on a Tuesday afternoon when no other tracks were running. Perhaps because I hit my first 3 bets ever placed there, I continued to return. The racing -- while obviously not at the level of top-tier tracks -- still was quite enjoyable. With this familiarity, I made sure to visit the track on a drive out East last summer -- arriving on a night of two minor stakes for 2-year old Iowa Breds. The facility was pleasant, the beer affordable, and its racino portion provided some nice diversions. I especially loved the Price is Right slot machine where I was able to play the Cliffhanger bonus game and win $20 (do-da-dee-dee-do-da-dee-dee-do-da-dee-dee-do!).

Prairie Meadows is a very handicappable track, and, unlike other small tracks, it is one that will bite you hard if you stray and let yourself be guided by greed -- http://www.trackchampion.com/abrams_axis.aspx. It's a track where being too clever is deadly to a bottom line -- I play my best there when I'm patient and willing to grind (albeit in the exotic pools). It is incumbent to stay with the top jockeys (Birzer, Doocy, Corbett) and stray if and only the horse figures on everything else -- at least on "normal" race days. And, it's a especially great track if you understand the concept of recent form mixed with a good helping of class and can apply it well in wheeled trifectas.

Enjoy the festival of racing!

S.A.

Delightfully British

2006-06-25T08:34:00.000-07:00

We've kept the house stocked with plenty of tea and a decent helping of biscuits this week as the Handicapping Life has developed a fairly British theme. Well, better qualify that a bit -- a British Commonwealth theme. As most of you know, this week was the Royal Ascot -- a collection of impressive stakes races from across the Atlantic. And, while I normally don't pay much attention to the European horses, it was a wonderful diversion from your typical non-winners of two 6,250 claimers that populate the random Tuesday afternoon.

It was great racing, but even better, is the sense that racing is something in England. I've always despised the seedy, low-life reputation of American racing in the general public, and long for it to capture a bit of the cache that its splendor deserves. Perhaps, a greater focus on the true horseplayer, and less on the degenerate gambler, will help the game:

http://www.trackchampion.com/abrams_things.aspx

And, in keeping with the British theme, today is the Queen's Plate from Woodbine. A solid field, but two "American" invaders -- Wanna Runner and Sterwins -- are probably the best of the bunch. Watch out for Pipers Thunder, however -- nice win over the course against many of these, and a pedigree to go the distance to boot. Plus, I have my hesitations against Wanna Runner, but I had those at Sunland and Lone Star, too. I also always had hesitations about Flower Alley, but stop trying to beat him, and cashed a nice (and ridiculously foreseeable) exacta yesterday.

And, speaking of forseeability, I leave you with a question to ponder for next time: What is the more important factor in being a successful horseplayer -- Skill or Luck? Or, more specifically, the ability to see a race as clearly as possible, or the ability to admit that most clarity is false?

S.A.

Over the river

2006-06-16T17:15:00.000-07:00

Well, it's a great weekend ahead for horseplayers. Unfortunately, I'm going to be on the road for almost the entire weekend. We're heading down to Connecticut for my girlfriend's grandmother's birthday extravaganza, and then swinging by my parents for a father's day celebration. But, don't worry, The Handicapping Life will return next week with its usual panache.

Yet, your visit to this blog doesn't have to be a total loss. Now's a great time to check out my column at Trackchampion. This week's entry, "The line, or Balance is not just a 3-year old filly," just appeared yesterday:

http://www.trackchampion.com/abrams_balance.aspx

And, if you haven't read it yet, here's the link to the previous week's article, "The Horseplayer's Axis of Evil":

http://www.trackchampion.com/abrams_axis.aspx

S.A.

Lava Man Revisited

2006-06-12T10:41:00.000-07:00

A couple of days have passed since Lava Man's triumph in a Grade I turf race. While I found myself awestruck (and one only need scroll down to see the magnitude of my feelings), I've been surprised by the negativity surrounding this win. Instead of recognizing the beauty of his performance, many are quick to detract from his victory. The criticisms range from the quality of his competition -- "The quality turf horses retired to breed long ago" --to the idiocy of the other jockeys in the race -- "How could they let him get that easy lead?". Unsurprisingly, the attacks are reminiscent of the attacks levied against Lost in the Fog for the bulk of last summer. But, instead, of revisiting those well-trodden arguments over the requirements for greatness, my curiosity is piqued as to the psychological importance of the concept of greatness in relation to horse racing's inevitable imperfections. Does holding to an ideal help with the disappointments of reality, or does it merely keep us from appreciating greatness in the present? While Secretariat may truly have been the racing fan's messiah, his coming need not prevent an enjoyment of the wonder that the sport provides us now.

I love Lava Man.

2006-06-10T16:49:00.000-07:00

After quite a day of racing, my jaw hit the floor about five minutes ago.

It was a great day for fans -- Songster won a great sprint race -- although I was quite impressed with the way Fabulous Strike took the lead. If he returns to a bit easier level, I think he'll dominate there for quite some time. Jazil was quite impressive in winning the Belmont. Not only was he more than I thought, but the ride by Fernando Jara was memorable. It will be fun to watch whether Jazil emerges as a star in the division. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised to hear a retirement announcement soon -- absent a win in the Classic, can his breeding value really improve? And, Bluegrass Cat, did exactly as expected -- a well-bred horse without the real desire to win. From a betting perspective, he's one of my favorite types of horses -- almost a "lock" for that second spot. An exacta wheel with contenders on top serves the purpose well.

But, the performance of the day was Lava Man's win in the Charlie Wittingham. This former claimer has done all that's been asked of him this year. He beat a very solid field in the Big Cap, and then returned to the turf, where he has had some mild success prior to the now legendary claim. He won impressively against state breds in late April, but today's entry seemed like a very ambitious step. And then, he won on the turf in a fashion rarely seen -- strong early, challenged middle, and unbeatable late. I'm so impressed that I'm going to print out his lifetime past performance and add it to my Champions book from DRF. Yes, he's that good. I guess the only remaining question is for his trainer, Doug O'Neil -- The Classic or The Turf?

Finally, in retrospect, the track was noticeably fast at Belmont, but I didn't notice any track bias. But, I did notice a trainer bias -- the big form improvements continued from Contessa in today's 1st and 12th races at Belmont. I'd keep my eye on his entries if I were playing the New York circuit. Of course, though, I don't follow my own advice. A last minute decision off of Taken Not Given -- a horse I've supported since February -- was my worst of the day.

S.A.

A New Ghostzapper Emerges?

2006-06-09T10:17:00.000-07:00

The race of the year is this Saturday, limited to three-year olds, and takes place at Belmont Park. And, it's not what you're thinking.

Belmont's 8th race on Saturday, the renamed Woody Stephens Breeder Cup's Stakes (formerly the Riva Ridge) contains just about every top three-year old sprinter in a year loaded with them (if only Lost in the Fog faced a class like this!). It's a remarkable race, and, for a handicapper who lives on the "throw out," it's a race without any real eliminations. Unlike most top races which contain filler or send out a five-horse field, every one of the nine horses entered has earned impressive Beyer figures, and has done so consistently.

Too Much Bling, the 19 1/2 length maiden clearing freak from Thistledown, leads the array of contenders. After some initial attempts to stretch him out, he found a nice home sprinting out in California (his San Miguel was simply awesome) and came back east on Wood Memorial day. There, he blew away Songster, a heavily-hyped horse that next out dominated a field on Preakness day. With that impressive race and its 107 Beyer under his belt, Songster returns to New York seeking revenge. The others are no less impressive:

Likely earned a 110 beyer in dispensing with Laptop Computer and others in a Keeneland sprint -- less bias than the route -- and coming from slightly off the pace.
Fabulous Strike came up from the minor leagues and won impressively in an ungraded stakes at Belmont, and his trainer wins 38% of the time -- simply remarkable. This is an additional big step, but he certainly can't be ignored.
Keyed Entry, a classy horse who came on the scene by beating First Samurai and was the favorite in the Wood Memorial, returns to distance which better suits his pedigree.
Noonmark, the favorite in the Derby Trial, returns to sprinting, where he lost a thriller to Florida Derby runner up, Sharp Humor, in the Swale.
And, the remaining entrants, Saint Daimon (who may scratch as he's entered to run on Friday), Dontfearthereaper, and Doc Cheney, all have impressive performances on their resumes.

In a sport where the top contenders tend to be kept separate until the end of the year (except for the 3-year old classics), this is an early summer treat. Yes, I know that the top sprinters don't get the love that the classic routers do, but don't forget, Ghostzapper began his career sprinting.

___

In thinking about the big race, I'm curious what the bias will be at Belmont on Saturday. I've got my eye on the races there today, but I was flat out shocked by the win by Storm Boot Gold in the Ormsby stakes yesterday. Despite tiring fractions and a heated speed duel, this former sprinter held off a classy Gold and Roses in the stretch. It could be a bias, or perhaps just a Contessa horse improving and showing a bit of extra staying power in the stretch -- something that occurred with frequency during the early days of the inner track meet at the Big A.

As much as I'm trying, though, I'm having real trouble getting terribly excited for the Belmont. We're not seeing the best of the division here, and the race has the strange aura of a consolation game. Maybe it's that Bluegrass Cat, a royally-bred horse who doesn't seem to possess that added umph in winning, is the most accomplished of the runners. Or that a really strong case can be made for Sunriver, another "potential" champion with a great pedigree, that hadn't shown much -- I supported him throughout the winter at Gulfstream -- until his win over the track in the Peter Pan Stakes. Or that Steppenwolfer and Jazil are merely above-average closers, who've consistently found the right place at the right time. And, sure, Bob and John won the Wood Memorial, but it was over a horse, Keyed Entry, who shouldn't have been there in the first place due to the aforementioned pedigree limitations. And, while I normally love West Coast horses coming east (Borrego!), that angle is now a bit stale with him. Perhaps, someone new will emerge from this group (Oh So Awesome?) and become a second-half of the year star or one of the inconsistent players will establish himself. But, I'm not holding my breath. Hmm...I wonder how Lawyer Ron's recovery is coming?

And, now, the big announcement:

I will have a weekly column appearing on www.trackchampion.com. The first installment, "The Horseplayer's Axis of Evil," is already up on the site.

Read often and enjoy!

S.A.

Postmortem: Foggy wins!

2006-06-05T08:42:00.000-07:00

Lost in the Fog won (barely) and, as expected, the message boards were filled with naysayers protecting the concept of greatness. Noticeably missing, however, were the diehard fans of this horse. I've yet to see more than a handful -- and wonder how many of those are just making an argument for argument's sake. Indeed, the debate has shifted in 2006. No longer do we find his fans arguing for greatness and his detractors wary to bestow it. Instead, it seems the battle is now fought over the past -- the undue disrespect (or adulation -- depending on your point of view) given to the Fog last year.

It's fairly clear -- at least to this writer -- that LITF is not as dominant as he was last year. If you had no history with him and only saw the race on Saturday, you'd probably would be impressed with the move on the turn and the determination he showed in the stretch, but you wouldn't call him a great horse -- under any meaningful standard of the word. And you certainly wouldn't go home, tell your family about him, and start wearing hats with his name.

In any event, though, horsefans should be happy that we have a chance to see him run as a four-year old. In many cases, we never get to see this occur -- our fast-maturing child stars are typically sent to stud long before they lose their cuteness and start working as security guards. It's fun to wonder, however: How would the story be different if he was hurt in training for the Breeders' cup and finished his career undefeated? Would he be viewed as Sadaharu Oh -- holding an impressive record against inferior competition...or would he had have been James Dean?

***

We've got an exciting week upcoming with the Belmont Stakes and its usually terrific undercard. Make sure to come back later in the week for some analysis and a very exciting announcement.

S.A.

Enigmas, Emotion, and the Fog

2006-06-02T10:49:00.000-07:00

I used to hate this weekend as a kid. Why did we have to wait another week for the Belmont? I had fallen into this very nice bi-weekly triple crown rhythm, and I didn't want to wait any longer. Sure, I understood the grueling nature of the series and the need for horses to be properly rested, but I just didn't have all that much patience. Well, with the confirmation that Sweetnorthernsaint will skip the Belmont, no horse will run in all three of the classics this year, and, thus, these traditional "need for rest" arguments are moot! Let's run the Stakes now -- I'll go fire up the grill and turn on ABC! Don't worry, though, the "mature" fan in me isn't seriously proposing that we move up the Belmont. I'm willing to wait another week (or even longer) to insure that these animals are fully rested and healthy.

Despite having to wait for the Belmont (incidentally, due to my love of pedigrees, my favorite race of the classics), this weekend is not devoid of drama. We've got older fillies and mares running out in California (with Star Parade getting the co-high weight, hopefully no one will be upset with these weight assignments), some Grade II turf racing from Canada, and an intriguing turf race with a nice field of 3-year old fillies at Belmont. But, hands down, the drama of the weekend will occur about 5:58 p.m. local time at Churchill Downs, when the lightning rod known as Lost in the Fog will break from the starting gate with a field of 6 other older sprinters.

In an original draft of this piece, I originally described Lost in the Fog as an enigma. But, it occurred to me that it's not the horse that's "puzzling, ambiguous, or inexplicable," but, instead, it's the fans and the haters of this horse. Whether it's the DRF's Mike Watchmaker keeping him low on his sprint rankings, or the cadre of fans wearing LITF hats and viewing this horse as the second coming, this is a horse that simply won't be ignored. Mention this horse at a track or on a message board, and voices will be raised within ten minutes. This puzzle is certainly not a function of three-year old sprinters -- indeed, nobody is losing their voice arguing for or against the greatness of Too Much Bling (at least not yet...).

Perhaps LITF's modest breeding brings out the populist in fans which always yearn for an underdog. Or, maybe, it's simply the way he dominated the early fraction of races (until the Breeders' Cup) last year. Beyer speed figures aside (which were always quite nice with the Fog), his races were always visually impressive and appeal to the innate something that draws us to horse racing in the first place. Yet, detractors were quick to point out that he ran in an incredibly weak three-year old sprint division, and, other than the Sprint, never faced large, competitive fields (incidentally, a past performance review of all LITF races shows an average field size of 7.3 horses). But, above all else, like a conservative culture critic, his detractors attempted to use the evidence to protect that all-too common horse racing moniker for greatness: "the super horse." Indeed, in a world where we long for greatness, perhaps our desire to believe occurs far too quickly, in spite of a inconclusive body of evidence.

The detractors had their day at the Breeders' Cup, where LITF couldn't keep up in the stretch and lost to eventual Met Mile champion Silver Train, among a half-dozen others. Inevitably, his supporters came up with a bevy of excuses to explain the loss (detention barn, etc.) and continued to defend their superhorse. It didn't help their case that LITF lost his first race as a four-year old in a 4 horse field and, in doing so, lost to a former claimer (although do people make the same negative arguments when a horse they dislike loses to Lava Man?) .

However, unlike that last race at Bay Meadows, a loss by LITF (installed as even money M/L favorite), regardless of the strengths of any of the other contenders, will seriously dull the coat of this "superhorse." With a win, his supporters will mobilize and begin to move towards redemption on an upcoming Fall day at Chuchill. Yet, win or lose, the arguments will resurface at the tracks and on the message boards on Saturday night. And, isn't that what makes this all so much fun?

S.A.

---

(6/3 12:36 p.m.): Two interesting points: LITF is carrying 124 pounds -- 7 pounds more than the 2nd weight. After that, every other horse is 115 and under (ed. late weight changes moved a few others up, but still no horse is more than 117) . I've seen the studies that weight is irrelevant, but I think this might warrant a bit of handicapping consideration -- at least if you believe that the early fractions might be contested. But, more importantly, it gives a ready-made excuse to his supporters.

Another interesting factor here is Mark Guidry taking the mount for Todd Pletcher on Yes Yes Yes. I don't think I've seen this combination before and my jockey/trainer stats concur. I have tremendous respect for Pletcher and tend to give extra points to jockeys that he selects.

Is this thing on?

2006-06-01T17:45:00.000-07:00

It's a quiet Thursday night, and I just sat down to open a Word document to randomly write and think about horse racing. I've been typing similar thoughts in Word for the past several years, and, typically, I just forget about them. But, for some crazy reason, I've decided to start a blog to publish all my future thoughts about horse racing and handicapping. If you happen to find yourself here, I hope not only that you enjoy what you read, but that what you read leads to further enjoyment and appreciation of the races.

Anyhow, I anticipate three types of entries in this journal:

1. Actual analyses of horse races: I don't expect to post traditional selections here, but, instead, to try a new focus. I've always been a sucker for drama in sports. Whether it's a 7-game playoff series, a last minute drive (or fumble) to decide a football game, or a subtle off-the field story line, I love how sports tells us stories. Horse racing is no exception to this drama, but, unlike the Yankees/Red Sox rivalry in which a casual fan knows the story almost innately, the story lines within horse racing must be uncovered by the fan. Every day I dig through past performances and discover wonderful bits of drama in upcoming races across the country. In these entries, I will share this drama, both prior to and after the event.

2. Musings about handicapping: Some, but not lots, of ink has been spilled about the best handicapping methods, especially during the last thirty years. Class, speed, form, pedigree -- the list could go on for quite some time. While I envision literal musings about the effectiveness of various methodologies and factors, I don't plan to rehash most of this stuff. Instead, the majority of this category will be with other topics involving handicapping -- dealing with losing, the limits of human insight, a world of gray, the second choice.

3. The handicapping life: Finally, as I became a horseplayer, I noticed that many of the traits that lead to success in handicapping also lead to success more generally in life. Risk-assessment, decision making with uncertainty, assertiveness, and contrarian thinking are just a few examples. In these entries, I plan to leverage some of my past studies (yes, I was a social philosopher at one time) and discuss how the not-always obvious relationship between horseplaying and living the good life.

I hope you come back often and enjoy the blog.

S.A.