Before we continue our discussion of angles, we should note that our good old friend MAGIC HAPPENS was sent off as the solid favorite Saturday night, and did not win.

I’m going to take a pause in my review of the world of angles to focus in on 3 in particular, since they are relevant and timely --- one I consider powerful, the other not. One is currently being covered by the Cybercapping author on the USTA website.

These 3 should be looked at in order, since I make backward references.

For those of you who regularly visit our follow-ups section, this example is a review. But there are many people out there who seem to use an inordinate amount of energy noticing little nuances about what is going on with the tote board. As the old adage goes, "the money talks." Well, if money indeed talks, then shape SCREAMS. If I paid attention to what seemed alive on the board, I would have missed all these $150+ exactas that I’ve hit already this season, and most of the really profitable win bets.

"But Steve, what if the stable is betting - doesn’t the tote board reflect "inside information" or "smart money"? To this, I have 1 answer and 1 answer only. This is based on my decades of experience as both a handicapper and as an owner and as a confidant of owners of many horses:

And you can be too. My experience in dealing with drivers and trainers is that while they may be terrific at what they do, they are the worst handicappers. Trainers in particular, have a particularly narrow field of vision when it comes to estimating their true chances of winning on any particular night. They pass information to their owners, who then put their unique, ego-driven spin on it and are, in most cases, even further out of touch with reality.

If I had listened to even a fraction of the "inside information" and "betting recommendations" that I have been given over the years - from my various trainers, from other "insiders", owners, friends and contacts of owners, etc. - I wouldn’t have this web site because I would be too broke to afford the connect time on the Internet or a computer!!!

And this continues to this day – through my correspondence on the Internet with a host of owners, trainers, vets, etc. on this web site. In fact, there are several trainers currently racing at both the Meadowlands and Pocono Downs who regularly ask me what my opinion is of the shape of THEIR horse and whether it looks bettable. How’s that for inside information!!

However, there is one rule that I use religiously regarding the board, which is illustrated by this point. ANY TIME I ENCOUNTER A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS A HORSE WHO, WITHIN PROXIMITY OF POST TIME, IS A FAVORITE, AND I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY, I PASS THE RACE. Notice I said "I cannot understand why." This is different than "I don’t agree." Even with the worst of favorites, most of the time, I can understand what rationale might exist for supporting this horse, even if I disagree violently. But, with 30+ years invested in this sport, if I, in all modesty, cannot understand any rational explanation for a horse being bet way down to favorite status, it is a warning signal and I pass the race - in ALL such situations.

Here’s a recent example which yours truly inadvertantly orchestrated, so to speak, on Saturday, May 30 at Pocono Downs. The horse involved was CORAL SUPPLY with Willie Mitchell driving. The horse was, by every conceivable method of program review, out of shape. The driver, Willie Mitchell, has probably the lowest win percentage of any driver in the sport … here’s a review of what happened:

SATURDAY MAY 30, 1998
Tonight, CORAL SUPPLY, a horse who needed a 7-horse accident to win, driven by WILLIE MITCHELL ran in the 13th race .... I wanted to have some fun and see what would happen, so I bet him. Now, here is what the tote board looked like at post time. CORAL SUPPLY is #5.

Now...here's what happened .... Coral Supply ended up with $1,046 on him to win. I wanted to see the expression on Willie Mitchell's face during the post parade when he was 4/5! Look - $600 of that money was mine, okay! Who was betting the rest of the money?? Are they simulcasting to the mental institutions or something? Now, here's the kicker - I didn't bet a penny in the exactas. Not one red cent. Okay --- here's the exacta board:

I've highlighted some of the ridiculous numbers .... just look at this nonsense! Now of course, the live horses were 2,3,6 and that was indeed the order of finish-- but look at the exactas! Look at the red -- how did the 5-2 get lower than 2-5? Don't look at me folks! In blue, the 5-3 is only $40 while the 3-5 is $65! In green, the 5-6 is some $20 lower than the 6-5! I did not bet one cent, and there was almost $8,000 in this pool! There must have been some money bet on these combinations, don't you think? Perhaps the people thought that "the money was talking" as they say - and these ducks --- these fish took the bait, hook line and sinker and actually bet the dickens out of Willie Mitchell on top in the exactas!

What's the bottom line on this? Forget the freaking board, okay -- these terds ain't no smarter than you -- in fact, based on this experiment, it's obvious that your competition is pretty damned stupid. They'll go for anything - they'll even bet Coral Supply, a horse terribly out of shape, in the exactas. Look, I would have like to see him win - really. And in $3,000 claimers, anything can happen. He showed a little early speed out of the blue last race, so at long odds that figured, he may have been worth a shot. But this stampede to the exacta windows? What was this all about?

Trust your decisions, seek value and don't let the board convince you of something you know isn't right. And never just bet horses because someone else is. After all, as the old adage goes ... "If they were jumping off bridges, would you do it too?"

I’ve already stated my opinion on this at various points here and there. I still get angry email from people who think this is some kind of factor.

Look - when I analyze races here on the site, I give you my straight scoop. I don’t play games. I don’t tell you that I think a certain horse is in shape when I think he isn’t. I give you an excellent idea as to which horses I consider worth of a win bet, and in many cases, the horse that I am most likely to key in on. Every month, 20 of you get actual bets that I am strongly considering based on where I feel the likely value will be. Wouldn’t life be easy if your competition gave you this all the time? Wouldn’t football teams love to have the plays that the other coach is planning on using next Sunday?

But when we get to the track, I am your competition. If you want to consider "back class" as a factor, go right ahead - hey, I’ll take whatever extra advantage you want to give me! You want to make it easier for me to win your hard-earned money from you, fine with me!

In his biweekly column, Jerry Connors points to the fact that "smart handicappers" ALWAYS (not sometimes mind you, always) try to find improving horses, "…..especially if there is evidence of ‘back class’ in his career." Here I go again ... obviously, I am a "stupid handicapper" because I DON'T GIVE A FUCK how fast the horse ran in past years. As my friend Ron, from Canada so nicely put it, " Because my uncle once ran faster than me as a kid, I should be mindful of that if I decide to race him now despite the fact that he has a heart condition!

The example he uses is the following program entry for the horse LONGPORT - again, using my limited, crude and stupid ideas on shape, let's look at it:

Now, here’s my brief interpretation of his program:

On 4/17 he qualified back conservatively.
On 4/25 he made a quarter move and faced some pressure in the second half before being overtaken in an improved effort in his first start. Here, notice how the pace picked up a bit in the second half, when he did his most effective usage.
On 4/30, he drops a bit in conditions, goes off at 3/2, reserves off the pace coming out (I assume first over) sometime down the backstretch. Again, the pace quickens in the second half and he held well … though this might be considered a disappointment - not seeing the program, the fact that he went of at 3-2 gives you some indication that perhaps he "figured" in that race.
On 5/5 he is scratched sick, offering an apparent explanation for the final half failure the week before.
On 5/12, he shows speed on both ends, leaving for position (possibly parking a challenger) before yielding, getting shuffled a bit as the pace slowed, but coming on nicely to win as the pace quickened in the final quarter.

To me, this horse had 2 things going for him … first, he is clearly in shape, having improved steadily with each start. Second, he has another angle going for him - discussed in the 3rd section of this installment - the "Sick Scratch Sandwich". This horse is, on face value, clearly in shape and a candidate for a wager. I don't care if this horse's mark last year was 2:04!

So what if he want 1:50.4 last year?? Look - say his mark last year was 1:53 instead… he’s a 4-year old and most reasonably sound horses are eligible to improve from their 3 year old campaigns into their 4th year. If I wanted to consider what he did last year, maybe I should consider the names of the horses he’s running against …let’s see…I don’t see Arturo …..hmmmm, Red Bow Tie is not in this race, oh… and apparently, Master Barney must have been scared away as well.

Let’s get real … the race he ran on this night doesn’t win the Open at Pocono, and the only time that any of those horses ever went 1:51 was in trailer on the highway on their way to the track! He ain’t uncorking no 1:50.4 tonight! And that mark was taken at Lexington, probably during Grand Circuit week, and that is lightning fast…. So who the hell cares?

As for the race itself – well, I didn’t see it. And it did represent a win. And the price was nice. And I would still call him sharp, based on his previous form. But other horses did the work going to the half in a blistering 55.4 before Longport made is move facing tired leaders in a last half of 58. Had he not already showed steady improvement and had the scratch angle going for him, this race wouldn’t convince me.

Here’s a pattern-based angle that I find very productive for value. In fact, the horse which I just spoke about above, featured by Jerry Connors, is a good example of it. It goes like this:

1. You start with a horse who is sharp, or who seems like they are rounding into form.
2. Then comes a race which seems a bit disappointing (sometimes 2 or 3).
3. Then comes a line where the horse is scratched "sick"
4. Then, the following week, with no additional delay, he runs another seemingly useless race, often with no apparent intent. (Thus, the sick scratch is "sandwiched" between 2 seeminly dull efforts)
5. Then, he comes back with a strong effort at good odds.

In-Shape Horse
I prefer to start this pattern with a horse who I know is in-shape or improving steadily. This way, I can attribute failure clearly to something physical, versus a combination of shape and illness.

Disappointing Race
In this race, the horse usually runs in his most effective style but clearly underperforms. For a front-runner, he may go well on the front end until deep into the race, but stop unexpectedly. For a closer, it may be decent cover with slow fractions, the starting of a move which the horse, unexpectedly, cannot complete. In this race, they usually attempt to go with the horse aggressively.

Sick Scratch
If, the following week, you see the horse scratched "sick", you can usually attribute the failure of the previous race to illness versus a sudden form reversal. Sometimes, however, there is no sick scratch. You might see the horse miss a week for what appears to be no reason. If the disappointing race was so conspicuously poor as to raise the eyebrows of the trainer, they might, for example, have the horse scoped immediately after the race. If a horse is huffing and puffing after a race when he ordinarily would not, this might also cause immediate post-race concern. In any event, if they spot something right there, they will very often not even enter the horse the following week, hence, no sick scratch but instead, an unexplained week off. How can you tell whether this is the case? Owners have an advantage here, as the horse may be on the steward’s list, but you can figure it out, if you are on the ball. If, for example, the other horses in that event race back a week or so later, but your horse misses that period, it’s a pretty good bet that something was up. Also, if the class he was in went off with something other than a full field, it’s an indication that they held the horse back a week. I actually prefer that the horse not actually be scratched, because that sticks out like a sore thumb.

Quiet Race
Here, upon having the time off and likely to be short anyway, often they will race the horse easily and conservatively, hence, you might see a line with no moves. Alternatively, they might go with the horse, but the horse usually does not fare that well. Some horses, if they were not really that sick, can race back here at full effectiveness, but not most. This race can be ignored regardless of how lackluster it appears. I actually prefer this race to look like an effort in a winnable race and to look as bad as possible. A clear no-go hear usually keeps the bettors wary and they are less likely to overlook him in the following race.

Second Race Back
By this time, the horse is often free of whatever ills having been fully treated, and has usually gotten back to normal eating, training, etc. and has a race under his belt. If they were in good, sharp form prior, they have a pretty decent chance of regaining that on this start. Frequently , these horses are overlooked in the betting to some degree. Also, because they have a couple of poor finishes under their belt, there's a possibility that the horse may qualifiy for easier conditions.

In the Jerry Connors article mentioned earlier, LONGPORT is a good example of this, with the twist being that he won the comeback race. But please, let's not think that what he did last year in Lexington Kentcuky had anything to do with it -- we're racing tonight -- in Pittsburgh! The horse was in shape, plain and simple.

Currently at the Meadowlands, you might want to look at the program lines of FEARLESS RAIDER, which is another good case of this, with 2 twists ….

First, the race before the scratch, he was first over which may have been an excuse for being caught late (although if you saw that race, you would have noted, as I did, that his legs were wobbling at the end). In his comeback race, he drew into a short field without a lot of form, and was bet down. He also got blocked for his life.

There are some twists and turns on this …. Some horses can race like they are out of shape for some time before they finally figure out what’s happening, they take care of the problems, and suddenly the horse is a monster. That is not what this angle is about … this is about the horse you know was already racing sharply prior to having problems – they are more likely to regain their pre-illness form than an out-of-shaper is to wake up when suddenly cured.