Winning is Easy if You Know What to Look for

I call these “Angles” my lucky thirteen.

{1^st time/2^nd time Lasix}  

Lasix is an anti-bleeder medication given to horses in an effort to combat the stresses on a horse’s cardiovascular inner-workings. Under extreme duress a horse usually bleeds from the nose. If said blood drains into a horse’s throat, he will want to stop running. Currently, about 80% of all racehorses need Lasix in order to continue a career as a racehorse.  I believe that number needs to be at 100%! 

The reason why I think Lasix is not “overused”, and should become mandatory, is due to the fact that almost all horse’s “bleed” a little bit (especially during the stresses of going all-out during the running of a race), and it just seems to me to be a bit more humane, in my opinion. 

But, there are still owners of racehorses out there that believe the use of this medication diminishes the overall value of the horse, in the event that said horse were to go on and have a career as a stud.  It’s my opinion that an owner that still subscribes to such a view, might want to consider a new hobby, or at least become more educated about the topic. It’s my contention that “1^st time Lasix” no longer has the same effect it once had in the world of handicapping.  It’s my solemn belief from a handicapping perspective that “2^nd time Lasix” is a much more valuable “Angle” to consider.

In my opinion, 2^nd time Lasix is a much stronger position to help base a selection on.  There are a few crucial variables that most horseplayer’s are not aware of.  Such as; the fact that in most states horses racing on the medication Lasix must receive it in a “Detention Barn”.

And, there’s the fact that when getting this medication for the first time, said horse might not urinate most of it out of his/her system in time for their race.  Lasix is a diuretic and a horse on it should urinate a lot, prior to going to the paddock for saddling.  Naturally, the first time this completely foreign substance is injected into a horse, the horse may not totally “go” enough prior to the start of the race. As of consequence, the horse may not race as well, as compared to the second time around. If said horse showed a marked improvement after the first start with the Lasix, then you can rest assured, that the second time will probably garner even more favorable results.

{1st start as a “Gelding”}                  

Horsemen from coast to coast refer to this as “The Ultimate Equipment Change”. A horse (typically a young colt), becomes a “Gelding” after a Veterinarian removes the testicles from said horse, through, castration. This is a very standard practice done in an effort to calm down an overly rambunctious horse. The average amount of training time that is lost from this practice is only about 5 to10 days, for “healing”.  If a trainer feels the need to have a colt “gelded”, it’s usually for a pretty good reason. 

There is absolutely nothing “inhumane” about it.  And, a lot of times a horse might need to be “gelded” for actual safety reasons. As a basic rule of thumb, if a horse becomes completely “unruly”, it might be done strictly as a safety measure. After a colt becomes a “Gelding”, it almost instantly becomes much more docile.  If a horse is extremely “lazy” and doesn’t want to workout, or simply refuses to, it might be a good idea to “geld” said horse, solely for that reason.  There are literally a dozen or so other reasons why a horse might need to become a “gelding”. 

The one thing that I look for (from a gambler or horseman perspective), when it’s announced that a horse is racing “first time as a gelding”, is the length of time that has passed from the horses last start, to today’s race.  If the horse just raced a month ago, then it’s safe to assume that said horse has healed properly, and is back in training.  There should also be a few workouts to view. If not, that’s usually a bad sign.  It suggests that the horse might not be doing so well, after all.  But, if the horse in question has a couple of decent workouts during the passing of a month, one can assume that all is going well. In the event that the workouts are exceptionally fast, that would immediately suggest to me that the horse might be ready to run a big race! 

I would then look for his all time fastest speed rating and automatically add five points to it.  If that new/revised number (speed rating), puts the horse in real contention to win, I’ll place a wager on him.  In the event that my win bet was to lose, but the horse’s effort was much improved, I’d make a note of it and give serious thought to another win wager on said horse, in his next start.  And for the record, “Gelding” a horse rarely backfires. Hence the reason it’s called “The Ultimate Equipment Change”.

{Turf to Dirt}

The whole concept behind a trainer putting his or her dirt runner on the turf, and then back to the dirt, became a very “in vogue” practice in the early 90’s.  The logic behind it from a horseman’s perspective makes a lot of sense to me.  It goes something like this…Let’s say that you have a horse that almost always finds their way into that second flight of horses (in route races at a mile or a mile and one-sixteenth), that usually are running about 4 to 5 lengths behind the speedsters. 

Now, let us assume for the moment that your horse is consistently involved in those races where they hit the half in or around: 48 seconds. 

Which means, on average, your horse is tripping the timer (at the half mile pole), at or about: 49 seconds, on a fairly consistent basis. But, you notice that your horse seems a bit disinterested in deep stretch (due to the fact that he or she is still the same 4 or 5 lengths behind), you’ve tried “Blinkers”, and your horse was too rank, so what’s next? 

These days, the turf course is what is “next”.  And, as I’ve already stated, I completely agree with the prevailing logic.  When said horse tries the turf for the first time, and he or she is still only 4 or 5 lengths behind the leaders, but, the leaders just went in: 45 seconds flat, your horse just went approximately 15 lengths faster than usual. And in all likelihood, will benefit greatly the next time out (back on the dirt), if said horse were to race back on the main track in his or her next start.

The real “key” to this “Angle” working, typically comes from those horses that have never done it before.  It’s quite the rarity to see it as a regular formula for success (with any horse), from any self-respecting trainer.  And, in the event that you were to see a “pattern” of this, through a horse’s past performance lines, I certainly wouldn’t chalk it up to anything more than pure coincidence. I believe that this “Angle” works wonders with horses that are 4 yrs-old or younger.  “It’s a lot easier to “fool” a young one.”  Those words came straight from a pretty excellent trainer in my opinion, my Father.

{1^st race in a new barn}

This “Angle” mainly pertains to those horses that race with a claiming tag, in “Claiming Races”.  A “Claiming Race”, as most of you already know; is a race whereby owner/trainer (A), can “Claim” a horse from owner/trainer (B), to have for themselves; immediately after that particular race is run. 

As a very basic rule, you are suppose to “Claim” only from those trainers that you think you have more talent then.  Unfortunately, this is no longer the “rule”, but the exception.  But, from a handicapping point of view, I typically only back horses that have just been “Claimed” back to his original owner/trainer.  Now, if I truly believe that the new trainer is indeed a better trainer then the previous one (and said horse is not stepping up in class too much), I allow myself this one exception.

I may entertain the thought of a sizable win wager; assuming the horse that has just been “Claimed” is coming off an above average performance, and I like the new trainer much more than the previous one.  Every so often, a 2 or 3 yr-old might change hands through a “Private Purchase”, or in a “Claiming Race”.

But, those horses are usually of a stakes caliber and the amount of actual improvement is very minimal.  I like to reserve judgment in those instances, until after I’ve seen a race with the new connections.  If some drastic improvement is noticed, I will be sure to take note of it, and so should you.

{Turning Back}

“Turning Back” is a direct bit of  horseplayer vernacular used in describing if a horse is about to “shorten-up” in distance, from their last race.  “Turning Back” is usually done after the trainer realizes his horse cannot handle a particular distance.  Typically young horses (especially in the maiden ranks), start off at 4.5 furlongs, 5 furlongs, etc. 

When the trainer realizes just what kind of horse he’s got, that trainer will typically try to keep his horse racing at whichever distance he thinks his horse is best suited.  But, just because a horse breaks his maiden at 5 furlongs doesn’t necessarily mean he’s not going to have a future racing at a route of ground.   Most horses do break their maiden at very short distances, and do go on to have careers primarily racing at a route of ground.  Even a horse that breaks his maiden at 4 furlongs and becomes a “sprint specialist” will at some point in his career try a route of ground at least once.  In the history of thoroughbred racing there have been numerous three year olds that just couldn’t handle the mile and a quarter at the Kentucky Derby, but turned out to be “world beaters” at a mile, or even as much as a mile and an eighth. 

The gambling “angle” of “Turning Back” can lead to some very hefty payouts.  But, you’ve got to know what to look for.  The only time that I will make a sizable win wager on a horse “turning back” in distance, is if the horse clearly shows an unwillingness to keep on running through the stretch in two turn route races (two turn races are also known as just “route” races).  

If the horse shows me on a consistent basis that he can win at 6 or 7 furlongs, in his past performance history, and if I deem him to be the “controlling speed” in said race in which he is “turning back”, I’ll feel confident in making a win wager on this particular horse, if he meets all of those criteria. 

One final thought on the whole “turning back” angle and that is to always keep in mind that trainers (since the beginning of time), have had a tendency to use certain types of races strictly as a workout.  

A wonderful example of this would be if you’re looking through the past performances lines of a certain horse and he/she clearly shows only running in route races, and now all of a sudden said horse is placed in a 6 furlong sprint (in which he’s not dropping in class), one can deduce that this may very well be a “workout race”.  When you notice this, it’s important to keep in mind that unless said horse has overwhelming numbers and/or is taking a severe drop in class, this would be a horse to stay away from and try to recognize it for what it is, a public workout. 

{Stretching Out}

The concept of “stretching out” is pretty self-explanatory.  But, for those of you that aren’t completely familiar with the terminology, it is basically the complete polar opposite of “turning back”.   I personally love to see when a horse stretches out after a big effort, but only if it’s something subtle, such as winning at 5.5 furlongs and then trying 6.5 or 7 in that next subsequent start.  I strongly believe that when a trainer does this with one of their horses, it’s in an effort to ensure that said horse does not “bounce” in its next start.  The added distance typically insures a slightly slower pace. And, it can keep a horse much more “interested” in running, especially if the horse in question is coming back on short notice. Actually, I love seeing such a move done by any trainer, whether it is by design or not, because I realize the significance in doing so, and now so do you.  

A lot of times horses are being “stretched out” by their trainer, as simply a part of trial and error, a tryout if you will.  The old saying “you don’t know unless you try” comes to mind when I see a horse trying a route of ground for the first time. 

As I’ve mentioned on numerous occasions already, I’m a huge proponent of videotape analysis.  I believe through video analysis that it is quite possible to predict whether or not a horse is going to like the extra distance, or whether he is strictly just a sprinter.   The one characteristic that I look for when making such a determination, is whether or not the horse looks like he is struggling to keep up in that last sprint race.  If I notice such a thing, it’s my belief that the horse will benefit greatly from the slower internal fractions that typically accompany races run around two turns.  

Now, this is not something that applies to “front runners”.  Horses that have “front running” styles about them generally have different stride types.  If a horse is very big and bulgy in his physical appearance, yet he has a very quick stride instead of a long flowing stride, it’s my belief that this type of horse will not like “stretching out”. But, if said horse does have that nice long flowing stride (regardless of the horse’s stature); I may entertain the thought of betting such a horse in their first time around two turns.  Especially, if after looking at their last race, it impressed me enough and I was able to notice said horses stride characteristics. 

{Blinkers On}

It’s a complete misnomer to believe that if a horse is wearing blinkers for the “1^st time”, it is not really his first time wearing them.  If there ever was a piece of equipment that gets used in “trial and error” more than blinkers, I haven’t heard of it. 

Typically, a trainer will try a horse with the blinkers on, in a morning workout, either days or weeks before the horse’s actual first time with them on in a race.  “Blinkers” are primarily used to “sharpen a horse’s speed” and/or to get a horse to pay attention a little bit better.   I’m a big believer that blinkers help on horses that seem to come in second or third a lot. Especially, in the event the horse is still a maiden.  

“First time blinkers” on a stakes caliber horse can also show dramatic improvement, but you’ve got to know some of the characteristics of the horse.   Is it well known that the horse only has a very small brush, does the horse “hang” a lot, and does he/she get to the leader’s throat latch and not seem to want to go by? With good horses, these are the characteristics I look for in a horse that might need “first time blinkers”.

The same characteristics can also apply to much lesser stock, but again, only in horses that are four years old or younger, or if their still racing in maiden races.  If a horse is five years old or older, and it’s being announced that he’s wearing blinkers for the first time, or at least it’s the first time that he’s worn them in his recent Daily Racing Form past performance lines, I don’t look for a lot of improvement, and chances are he or she has worn them before. 

{Jockey/Trainer combos}

We’ve all seen and/or heard certain racing personalities talk about how potent certain Jockey/Trainer combos can be.  Now, is there any real substance behind knowing what combinations are worth betting on?  I think the answer is a resounding “No”.  I’m a numbers guy, and I believe that these types of statistics don’t lie.  Jockey/Trainer combos and the percentage of winning that comes with certain combinations have been around a lot longer than I have.  Back in the mid to late 90’s I can remember vividly the combination of Bailey/Mott winning like mad.  Does the horse Cigar ring any bells? 

I guess the greatest success of a Jockey/Trainer combo in my lifetime, has been Baze/Hollendorfer, up in Northern California.  Even though those two men (Baze/Hollendorfer) have an almost 30 year relationship, Baze sometimes rides other trainer’s horses.   It’s a rarity, but on occasion it does happen, and when it does, I must admit I read deeply into it.  There is a high degree of “politics” involved in which jockeys normally get the mounts for specific trainers, hence the reason these jockeys have agents.  “The Agent”, is basically like you and me, a handicapper.  Actually a handicapper and a pimp (much pun intended).  But in all truthfulness, a jockey’s agent really has to be an excellent handicapper, besides also having to be a great P.R. guy; that has the ability to pump up his jockey amongst the trainers. 

In closing on the topic of Jockey/Trainer combos, it’s my belief that you shouldn’t put a lot of stock into the statistics that are thrown at you, about certain Jockey/Trainer combos. There are a lot more pertinent “angles” worth exploring and utilizing in handicapping horse races. 

{The “double bet down” theory}

Here is an angle that I could spend days talking about.  I first noticed it back in the early 90’s at Calder Race Course in Miramar, Florida.  I was the ripe old age of 22 when I was first exposed to “the double bet down theory”.   Basically, the theory goes something like this…. Say a horse is 8-1 on the morning line, and it was 17-1 in his or her most recent start.

Now, let’s say the horse is not dropping significantly in class, there has been no significant trainer or jockey change, and/or equipment change, yet the horse is for some unknown reason going off at 9-2.  This is what is known as a “hot horse”, or a horse that meets the criteria for the “double bet down” theory.  

Now with horses like these, it’s sometimes hard to make a case for them, yet there it is right before your eyes, the horse has been bet down from his/her last start, it’s been bet down from the morning line, even though his/her past performance lines (at least recently), may not look very appealing, the horse in question is still getting bet. 

At this point, the question “why” can probably be answered through watching this particular horse’s last couple of outings, through “race replay”.  If after watching said horse’s last two starts, and you still can’t see a legitimate reason “why” the horse is getting bet, then I would strongly suggest that you just stay away from that horse.  But, if you’re investigating (from watching the race replays) does reveal something significant, I’d advise you to lay a fairly sizable win wager on this kind of a horse, and simply “trust” the steady flow of money coming in on said horse.

{Highest priced horse winning in a small field}

This was an “Angle” first brought to my attention in my late teens.  This was a strange phenomenon that I had noticed a few years prior, but I never knew the reason “why”, and I just accepted it as such.  But, as I honed my skills as a Horseplayer, I developed a few theories as to “why” this would happen.  I noticed (in at least one out of every three small field races), of only 5 to 7 horse fields that I watched, the longest shot on the board would sometimes win. 

I believe that I have a four-point theory which can/will explain why this “strange phenomenon” is so prevalent.  This “phenomenon” happens quite a lot.  You should start looking for it!

A.   It’s my contention that a horse going off at 15-1   odds in a five-horse field, would be at least (3) or (4) odd-points lower in a full field of ten.

B.     So, right off the proverbial bat we can assume that the post-time favorite in these “smaller field races” does indeed get “over bet”! 

C.    Most people get lulled into a false sense of security when wagering on a favorite in a “small field”, solely on the basis that said horse may only needs to beat 4, 5, or 6 horses, instead of (10 or more).  These two factors, coupled with the fact that most Horseplayer’s aren’t cognizant of them, inevitably leads to a horse going off at a price much higher then his or her form is deserving of. 

D.   Finally, in these “small field races” there usually isn’t an overwhelming emphasis put on whatever that day’s “track bias” might be. That is key mistake number four, in handicapping a small yet contentious field of horses. 

“Contentious”, is certainly the proper word to describe a field of five allowance horse’s sprinting six furlongs at Santa Anita, for a purse of 80,000.  And in such a race at Santa Anita, there might be a horse going off at 7-5 and he/she is only the second choice in the wagering. 

The “favorite” might be at 6-5 or even money, which in most cases leads to the honest mistake of “neglect”, which ends up taking place on one or two of the remaining three horses.  These are the four factors that need to be questioned when trying to find any “overlay horse”, but especially in those small field races.

{Higher priced horse of the “uncoupled” entry}

This “Angle” has been around a lot longer than the thirty-seven years I’ve been on planet Earth.  A Trainer is allowed to run two or more horses in a race, as an “uncoupled entry”, if he or she can prove that there is “bona-fide separate ownership” of those two or three horses. Then, said horses are allowed to run as separate betting interests. 

The unusual occurrence that takes place here is that the horse going off at the highest price (of this particular Trainer’s group of “uncoupled” horses), ends up in the winner’s circle.  Why, is the most obvious question?  My personal belief, is that this primarily only happens with top-notch trainer’s, who already have exceptional stock to begin with.  That is the main reason why I can see such an anomaly happening as often as it does.  I’ll only give serious consideration to this “Angle”, if a trainer such as Todd Pletcher is running two or more horses in the same race.  Whenever this “Angle” wins with a lower-echelon trainer, I simply chalk it up to coincidence. 

But, when it wins for a “top notch” trainer, it’s not surprising to me, because I know the reason why.  Now, so will you. 

What should you look for besides whether or not the “higher priced” horse comes from a high-end barn?  I look for essentially two significant and mitigating factors.  A. Does that “higher priced” horse show a poor last outing?  If so, can I “excuse” it? 

If the answer is a resounding “yes”, that is factor one, which will influence me in a final determination.   B. Is said horse coming off of a few excellent works?  If the answer to part two were also a “yes”, then that would probably be a “Higher priced horse of the “uncoupled” entry” type horse, worth taking a flyer on!

{Classification}

Proper “Classification” of a horse is paramount to its future successes.  If a horse is truly a high-priced claimer, it shouldn’t try to race versus stakes competition.  When something like that is done on a consistent basis with a horse, by its trainer or owner, it will eventually lead to that horse’s demise.  So, by properly classifying ones horse, said horse has a much greater opportunity for success on the track, and for its owner(s).

“Classification” is truly the key to any real financial success with any racehorse.

Improper “Classification” happens a lot in the Thoroughbred game.  As a very astute horseplayer once told me…”Being able to recognize when a horse is “in over his head”, is half the battle.”  I completely agree with that statement.  If you develop a highly accurate opinion of the horses racing at your local track, this “recognition”, becomes almost second nature and will lead to you picking more winners.  Most horseplayers would rather wager on a horse dropping in class, rather than a horse taking a small step up in class. This logic has always perplexed me.  I personally have always subscribed to the theory that if a horse is “stepping-up” the class ladder, he/she must be in good form.

“Form” plays a very integral part in what condition race or claiming race a trainer opts for. Here’s a very common situation that I’m sure you have either come across in the past, or will in the near future.  A horse wins “handily” versus 25k claimers. Then, might try the 35’s next time out, and gets beaten by just two others, but the margin to the winner was some 6 ¼ lengths.

So, now said horse is suddenly back in for a tag of only 20k…what are we to make of this? 

The horse in question was great two starts ago. Then, in a higher class was only defeated by two other rivals. And now, said horse is suddenly in for a lower claiming price than the original group of 25’s that it walloped just about a month or so ago. Is this something to be apprehensive about?  My answer: “NO”!   In all likelihood, the 25k claiming class was not listed in the trainers condition book (for that day), or quite possibly the 25k class has gotten a bit stronger over the past month or so (since said horse won so easily), and the trainer/owner thought that this 20k class was a more prudent move.  Plus, the actual forfeiture of a few thousand dollars in purse monies is almost always a trade worth making, to get back to the winner’s circle.  I think that 95% of owners across America would agree with that statement!

{The “Bounce Theory”}…and how to forecast it!

What does it mean for a horse to “bounce”? 

A horse “bouncing” refers to a horse having an incredibly mediocre performance after having an excellent one in that horse’s previous start.  “Bouncing” usually occurs when a horse is either being asked to do something he or she has never done before (as in stretching-out for the first time), or when said horse’s “routine” is suddenly disrupted by an unforeseen variable (such as a heavy rainstorm right before it was going to race), might make a horse “bounce”. 

On occasion, a horse might “bounce” solely because of a poor training decision made by the trainer of the horse. But for the most part, if a horse “bounces”, it’s because of one of the first two reasons mentioned.  Now that I think about it, there is one other variable that can make a horse “bounce”.

If a trainer enters his or her horse into a race without the proper/normal amount of time off between starts, this typically can lead to a horse “bouncing”. 

The one thing my father always told me about making sure a horse doesn’t “bounce” on you, after a great performance, was the following…”Son, make sure that you commit this to memory, LESS IS MORE!!!”

What I’m sure my Father meant by that was, the less that you do to a horse after a “big effort”, the more likely said horse will reward you with another excellent performance.  Most trainers’, theses days, like to train a horse even harder after a “big effort”, thinking that the horse might develop a “sense of urgency”.  Anyone, who thinks a horse is that smart, shouldn’t be training horses to begin with.  At least that’s something that my Father would say, if he were still alive.  And, I would completely agree.

So, if you see that a horse is coming off of a really “big effort”, and then has two or three “hard works” thrown into him/her, rest assured that said horse will probably “bounce”! 

But, if you see a few slow workouts since that horse’s last start, and the trainer decided to also “stretch-out” said horse a bit, then, there’s a better than a 70/30 chance that said horse will NOT “bounce”!  Those are the main intangibles that you should look for in making a determination on whether or not a horse is about to “bounce”.  Having some ability to predict if/when a horse might “bounce” is certainly an invaluable tool in handicapping the races.

{The three-in-one angle}

Finally, the last and my most favorite angle of all that I would like to teach, is the “three-in-one angle”. It’s pretty self explanatory.  If by chance, any three of the previous thirteen angles seem to be working in concert with one another; this is a horse that falls under the category of the “three-in-one angle”. 

Say for example, a horse is going from “turf to dirt”, a drop in class (which falls under the angle of “classification”), and it is a well known “trainer/jockey combo”.  This would be a horse that meets the criteria for the “three-in-one” angle.  Another shining example would be if a horse is being announced as a “first time gelding”, a “double bet down”, and “2^nd time lasix”. Any combination of the previous thirteen angles would apply directly to this angle.

Now, in the event that you’re handicapping a race in which two or more horses meet the “three-in-one” criteria, the onus is solely on you to determine which one of the two, or three, or four horses has the best chance of winning. Now in the event that you were playing an exotic wager such as a pick-3 or a pick-4, by all means feel free to use all of the horses that meet the “three-in-one” criteria. 

If you’re simply looking to make a win wager and you find yourself staring into the form, at a race that has three or four horses that meet this angle, and if you can’t differentiate on which said horse has the best chance of winning, I would strongly advise you to just take a pass. Move on to the next race, or as I’ve mentioned already; use all those horses as part of an exotic wager (maybe even a three or four horse trifecta box).