Horse Racing - Picking Winners - Part 3

7 Criterion 1 - Five Furlong Sprint Handicaps

Even more than with handicaps in general, sprint handicaps over the minimum trip are usually won by horses near the top of the weights which are also well to the fore in the betting. 

1 Concentrate on the top half-dozen in the weights (slightly more in very big fields). 

2 Concentrate on a similar number of horses at the head of the betting. 

3 Winners last time out frequently win again. But even over this minimum trip where weight might be thought to have less effect, an increase of more than seven pounds in the ratings may well be enough to prevent a repeat victory. 

4 Horses which have been running well without winning or even being placed can and do win sprints. Here form from some time ago can suddenly become indicative of a probable win, although the horse has been just short of concert pitch in very recent outings. The market on the race compared with the betting forecast often provides the clue that a sprinter is 'off' today. 

5 Five furlongs is a specialist distance both for horses and trainers. Never ignore lightly the chance of a runner trained by one of the small number of handlers who specialise in winning sprint handicaps. They have purple patches from time to time in these races when every runner from the stable suddenly improves by leaps and bounds. They even win with 'cast-offs' from other stables. One of the 'secrets' of the success of trainers who target sprints is that they focus on making a horse quick from the stalls. Speed at the gate is usually the difference between winning and losing in these races. 

8 Criterion 2 - Six Furlong Handicaps

These events are not the object of specialisation to the same extent as races over the minimum distance. However, more than in the latter, the key here is winning form over the trip, although not necessarily last time out. Therefore: 

1 Consider only horses which won last time out or which have won at least one of their last three runs or which have won at least two of their last six runs. 
This rule will have a severe 'pruning' effect in many races, but strict adherence to it will pay off over time. 

2 Ignore horses in the bottom third of the weights. 

3 Provided a horse is not hopelessly overburdened by being put up a huge amount in the weights as a penalty for a facile win, ignore the study of weight. It may not help much in six-furlong handicaps. 

Even races of this type with enormous fields are seldom won by a horse priced over 16—1. The betting market on the course is far and away the best indicator for the shrewd punter who can spot when money is 'talking'. 

9 Criterion 3 - Two-mile Plus Handicaps

There are not a lot of these races but horses at or near the top of the handicap are much the best. Class tells over a distance of ground. Therefore: 

1 Concentrate on the top third of the handicap. 

2 Consider, say, only the first five in the betting in races of 16 or more runners, and roughly pro-rata for races with fewer contestants. 

3 Look for horses which are ultra consistent as revealed in the six-figure form summary. It is not necessary to insist on a preponderance of winning over placed form, but too many '0's in the form line make a staying handicapper a suspect betting proposition. 

11 Criterion 5 - Maiden Winners First Time In A Handicap

Horses, three-year-olds for the most part, which have won a maiden race and which are now running in a handicap race for the first time, have a poor record. They hardly ever go on to win good class handicap (A to C) immediately and are suspect propositions in races of lesser class. 

Maiden-race winners made favourite to win their first run in a handicap are especially poor value as a betting medium. Some of them, running in big handicaps and trained by a fashionable trainer, are sometimes at very short odds. They hardly ever win but punters are 'taken in' in droves time after time. 

12 Criterion 6 - Nurseries

The days when nurseries, that is handicaps for two-year-olds, were the medium of betting coups by clever stables have long gone. Nevertheless, the market related to very simple form study is a fair guide and these events are by no means as formidable as races for older horses. 

The first four in the betting are heavily favoured (first five in fields of 16 or more runners). 

As a general form prescription, winners last time out are to be preferred to seconds in their previous race which in turn are better than thirds and fourths. 

Unlike three-year-olds, many two-year-old maiden winners go on to score in a nursery handicap at the first time of asking, but be wary of the winners of sellers. However low their weight, the rise in class will nearly always put paid to their chance. 

13 Non-Handicaps - Backing And Opposing Favourites

Although it is a view that has been challenged in some quarters in recent years, traditional racing wisdom holds that the backer's best chance lies in trying to find the winners of non-handicaps and that those races in which the handicapper has an influence should be avoided by the serious punter. It is a fact in support of this view for instance that both on the Flat (turf) and over jumps (hurdles and chases) approaching 80 per cent of all winners in stakes races 
emanate from the first three in the betting forecast. On the other hand, handicaps, judged either from the point of view of betting forecasts or the actual market on races, are nothing like as consistent. No category of handicap under any code of racing can boast the same kind of statistic. 

However, even if a non-handicap race can be narrowed down to just three possibles much of the time, which one of three will actually win remains a major conundrum. Also, the odds available for 'live' candidates in non-handicaps are on the whole some way below the rate of return for fancied runners in handicaps. 

In all except the most competitive conditions races, given the expertise of both bookmakers and backers in reading form, the favourite should win, but will rarely be at a generous price. If the backer opts for a horse which is not favourite, even though it is second or third favourite, this generally means that the indications of form are being ignored. 

The secret of winning in this area of betting, as in all others, is to find enough winners at prices good enough to ensure an overall profit. In practice, finding the right blend of first, second and third favourites is a feat beyond most punters. 

As a starting point to solving this perennial problem, the following question should be to the fore of the reader's mind every time a non-handicap race is considered as a potential betting proposition: 

If the favourite is, theoretically, the best horse in the race at the weights, but only 35 per cent or so of all favourites actually win nowadays, is the favourite in the race under review one that is likely to succeed or fail? 

It is a simple-enough question but one with enormous significance in determining how the backer should proceed. In this respect statistics can be a great help, at least if one is comfortable with statistics in racing to the point where they may sometimes contradict a personal opinion. 

For the purposes of this article a survey of 500 conditions races on the Flat was undertaken. Betting-forecast favourites were arranged by their odds, and the number of winners and losers in each of four price ranges carefully recorded. The outcome was as follows: 

There are small but variable profits to be had from random betting on favourites in the first two categories, although too small probably to satisfy the ordinary punter wagering in moderate stakes. Forget about profit and loss for the moment, however, and consider only the winning percentages. Surely, for anyone who backs a lot of horses regularly, the following prescriptions, derived from the above survey, must make sense. 

1 Back all odds-on chances in the betting forecast to win, 

2 Back all horses quoted between evens and 6—4 to win. 

3 Back some horses quoted at between 13—8 and 11—4 to win, but in some races with a betting-forecast favourite in this price range, find an alternative selection. 

4 Automatically oppose any horse quoted as favourite at 3—1 or longer in the betting forecast with some other selection. 

I personally see nothing wrong in principle with betting at odds-on but, for the many who do not like laying the odds, the first rule could be amended to read: 

When the favourite is odds-on in the betting forecast, do not oppose it with a bet on some other selection. 

Eyebrows will no doubt be raised in some quarters at such a set of sweeping generalisations which restrict the backer's freedom of action across the board in a number of vital respects when it comes to backing favourites. But, hopefully, readers will grasp the point that is being made, even if they ultimately reject some or all of the prescriptions as automatic betting tactics. 

When attending a race meeting with the intention of having a bet on every race, or when going down the day's cards in the morning newspaper with a view to having a bet, it is usual to pick out some favourites and avoid others. Hitherto this process will have been entirely subjective, governed by one's own knowledge, prejudices and preferences. 

But, how often is this right? How often does one pick out one 6/4 chance that gets beaten and disregard another horse at the same price which wins? More often than one cares to admit is almost certainly the answer. 

Instead of relying on personal judgement of form, suppose we make the above conclusions a set of absolute, inviolable precepts based on statistics, not fallible human judgement. This will then be right more often than not. Perhaps one should not bet on every race at a meeting (although bookmakers do) and be more selective in betting from home, but the general point remains valid. 

As a first step in assessing any race, the favourite's chance should be examined and action taken accordingly. If punters are prepared to put their faith in statistics, the aforementioned quartet of rules provide an automatic modus operandi to guide their betting actions. 

Needless to say, many will reject such a mechanistic approach. But even the most confident and talented reader of form will find food for thought here, and although not wishing to adopt every one of the four rules as a matter of course, some readers may be prepared to let non-handicap betting be influenced to a greater or lesser extent by them. 

Within the main survey of 500 races a number of other possibilities concerning the favourite were considered. The results of this secondary investigation are set out below. Remember that only non-handicap races are within its scope. 

Where the betting-forecast favourite was at odds against, but was replaced as favourite in the actual racecourse market, 22.7 per cent of the original favourites won. Since there was a 6.8 per cent level-stakes profit on outlay from backing all horses which met this qualification, the view often touted among some media pundits and others that a favourite which drifts in the market 'cannot win' is simply not true. On balance it is better to back the drifter than to oppose it, certainly unless there is a good and sufficient reason to account for the lack of confidence reflected in the betting market. 

On the other hand, the one time when a big drift in the market can be viewed as a potentially accurate indicator of an imminent poor performance is at Group level, especially in Group One and Group Two. These are big races, and every move of the candidates at home and on the racecourse is, as far as possible, scrutinised for fitness and well-being. If information that a horse is not 100 per cent for some reason reaches the racecourse betting ring, and this 
information results in a drift in price, then in the main such information proves accurate, not always but usually. At all other times it is no bad thing that a horse drifts in the betting, and the statistics bear this out. 

Another frequent circumstance surrounding favourites was investigated and the outcome was as follows: 

Where the favourite was at odds against in the betting forecast, but was backed down to start at odds-on in the racecourse betting, 55.6% of such favourites actually won. Unfortunately here things are not quite so clear-cut for backing non-handicap favourites which behaved in this manner produced a level-stakes loss of 24.3 per cent overall, despite the high percentage of winners. Clearly there is nothing in this circumstance to help the backer in a positive sense, although an important negative conclusion can be drawn, namely that in statistical terms at least there needs to be a very good reason to bet against the trend and oppose a favourite which shortens up to odds-on in the pre-race betting exchanges. 

One other question was asked in assessing the results of the survey. This concerned the fate of betting-forecast favourites quoted at odds-on in the morning newspaper, but which drifted out to odds against on the course, although still remaining clear favourites. The finding in this respect was that there are very few such horses. No clear trend emerged, with about half winning and half losing, but it would be pointless to cite exact figures because the sample was too small for any serious statistical conclusion to be drawn.

 
It is hoped that this survey is of value. Even if readers are unwilling to act to the letter upon the conclusions which emerged, thereby making them an automatic part of non-handicap betting strategy, at least the realities of the situation are now known in the case of the various betting scenarios discussed. And, in the uncertain world of backing horses, certain knowledge is a precious commodity. 

The survey focused on non handicaps in general, but non-handicaps can be broken down further into a number of different types, far more in fact than is the case with handicaps. This opens up an obvious avenue for specialisation, and specialisation is the backer's best chance of winning in the long run.

Good recent form, especially last time out, is as always the racing enthusiast's greatest ally and most effective weapon in the struggle with the layers. 

However, it may pay to apply this guiding principle to one or perhaps just a few of the various kinds of stakes race — hence the analysis of main categories which follows, although space prevents a full and separate examination of some of the sub-categories, especially those which are grouped together under the heading of 'conditions races' in the guidelines to be found in the next few pages. 

14 Criterion 7 - Group One/Two Races For Three-year Olds And Over

For betting purposes one of three possible form profiles is generally found in the races which make up the top flight of British racing. There is the very competitive event with plenty of runners. Many have high-class form and there are quite a number of horses which hold a reasonable chance of winning. The Classic races, with the usual exception of the much less competitive St Leger, are invariably of this type. At the other extreme we find races with relatively small fields that have 'cut up' to such an extent that an odds-on favourite, which on all known form should win, apparently dominates proceedings. In races of the third sort, where just two or three horses seem to have a real chance, the punter has a straightforward choice, but knows only too well that it is easy to be on the 'wrong one'.

In the case of the presence of a 'hotpot' or 'good thing' in the field, on balance it is best not to attempt to 'buy money at very short odds. Odds-on favourites in Group One or Group Two are more reliable than their counterparts further down the racing scale, but they are not infallible, and from time to time they flop - to the astonishment of the racing cognoscenti. Horses, even horses of the highest class, are not machines.

The better bet is to ignore the presumed 'certainty' and to go for an 'each-way steal' as it is sometimes called. This is a horse with sound form that might just upset the favourite. If such a horse has an outstanding chance of finishing in a place, it will be good business to back it each-way, even though the punter is prepared to accept the loss of the win part of the wager. Once in a while there is a shock result and the backer on the only realistic alternative to

the favourite will reap a handsome reward. Even if the favourite wins, its very short price inflates the odds for the rest of the field to an unrealistic level. The each-way better is therefore almost certain to break even, even though the bookmaker will pay only one-fifth the odds for a place, or in the case of some firms, only one-sixth when the favourite in a non-handicap starts at odds-on.

It does not do, however, to oppose every odds-on chance in a big stakes race with each-way bets. The horse chosen for a win-and-place bet should be as outstanding for a place as the favourite apparently is for a win. If the backer can additionally find even a slight chink in the favourite's armour such as doubtful stamina or a tendency to prefer different going, then the each-way steal is truly a 'bet-to-nothing'. For example, the race for the 1999 St Leger threw up precisely such a bet. The odds-on favourite Ramruma had won the Oaks on soft ground but, on both form and breeding, there was a substantial doubt as to whether she would stay the extra distance of the Doncaster race on the very firm ground that prevailed at Town Moor. By contrast Mutafaweq, a Royal Ascot winner on lightning-fast ground, seemed certain to stay every yard of the St Leger trip. The outcome is history. Mutafaweq ran out the winner

of a hard-fought contest and rewarded the 'each-way thieves' at a handsome 11—2, while those who had 'laid the odds' on Ramruma lost their cash on a gallant filly that could only finish an honourable second.

Where one of these races looks Very Open, it should be remembered that this is the top level of racing and that form still works out well. The favoured form figures cited in Criterion 4 are especially effective as a winner-finding aid in this class of competition, although here I I I stands out and the remainder are

fairly equal in rank. Conversely. inconsistent animals with poor form figures should be left severely alone. Statistics tell us that it is highly unusual for the winner of such events to be outside the first five in the betting.

Most Group One and Group Two winners are horses with established form at the highest level that have been specifically prepared for their races as part of a career strategy. Therefore the backer should be wary of the type of animal which, on the strength of a single brilliant run, is suddenly asked to break into the highest echelons of competition. This certainly applies in Classic trials in the spring of each year, when fitness gives an advantage to precocious types that cannot be sustained in the big race itself. Even when connections are prepared to go to the considerable expense of supplementing a horse for a big race, it is generally one of the established stars which succeeds, and the newcomer is found to just lack the class necessary to repeat its impressive performance at the lower level. Recently, there have been a few exceptions to this trend but, generally speaking, even the top yards often get it wrong in these cases, at least in so far as prize money for a win, though not necessarily a place, is concerned.

Since Classic and other Group One and Two contenders are now trained with the utmost tenderness to ensure that they hold their form, a long absence is no barrier to success in an important stakes race. These days, far more than in the past, the best horses are prepared at home for their long-term objectives, in contrast to lesser animals which are expected to earn their keep on the racecourse by the alternative route of winning a few races from a

lot of runs. Participation in actual races at Group level is kept to the minimum compatible with establishing a reputation for stud purposes as much as for gathering prize money. Fitness can therefore be taken on trust in racing's showpiece events.