Before I get to this week's installment, I did get one interesting piece of mail recently, a question which I thought should be answered in Handicapping Corner. The reader was in a dilema - as you know, I usually post the analysis on the afternoon of the card, usually sometime about 3 pm. If I do it too soon, sometimes I will not be able to see how other horses in certain races came back, so I usually keep it day by day, unless I am not going to be around. The reader asked if there was any way that I can post it sooner, as it is difficult for someone who has to drive several hours to get to a track, to see my analysis and still get to the track.
My response to those who are in this position is as follows: Get your priorities straight buddy, okay? You want to live near your family so you can spend time with them? You want to live near your job so you can cut down your commute? Fine. Not me. I say - pack up the wife and kids and get your ass closer to a race track. First things first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I can, I'll talk to you guys from the boat -- otherwise, see ya when I return
Let's take a look at another angle, which many handicappers start to consider at about this time of year. I am referring to the notion of a horse being "due". Now that most of the horses have had enough races under their belts, you start to hear many of the handicappers saying, "such and such horse is 'due' for a win". This particular angle can be helpful if properly understood. The way most people use it, however, it is more of a hindrance.
The way most people seem to understand it, it goes like this: They look at the horse's record from the previous year, they see that a horse won 6 races in 35 starts, they see that he is 0-16 this year and feel that he is certainly due for a win. If you follow my analysis, you have heard me, from time to time, refer to a horse as being "due". Well, I'm not sure I agree with this definition, but let's go with it for now.
So, now that we have decided that this horse is "due" for a win, let's look at some of the reasons that a horse might be "due":
1. One reason might be that the horse
has had a series of bad post positions, which have prevented him from winning
races that he might have won.
2. He might have an abnormally high number of 2nd place finishes, racing
well but not able to get the top ball of wax.
3. He might have had unusually bad racing luck, such as being blocked, boxed,
blindswitched or parked.
4. He may have gotten a large number of poor drives, preventing him from
winning.
5. He may have been the victim of injury or illness, which have prevented
him from performing at his best.
While these are certainly all valid reasons for not winning races, most of the horses who are "due" in the sense that we are talking about are not that way mainly because of any of these 5. More often, it is one of the following 2 reasons:
6. Poor stable management - meaning
that they have been racing at levels which their shape has been unable to
support. I think that one of the things that good horsemen do is keep their
horses at appropriate levels. They view the ownership as a business proposition
and do not fall in love with the horses. Some people do, and therefore are
always afraid that someone might claim their horse (as if it were the last
horse on earth) and keep the horse at overly high levels, or in conditions
where the horse has no chance. Furthermore, whether it's the owner or the
trainers who are calling the shots - when you keep a horse consistently
over his head, it is more difficult to get a horse race-sharp. All moves
seem futile, since nothing works except sitting - and sitting does not get
a horse tight - horses usually need to make moves and get a little tired
to get tight. Some horses will sulk and go into a funk, some will get used
to losing. It is also more difficult to tell when a horse is racing better.
7. Poor shape - more often than not, horses who are "due" in the
sense that we have been discussing are in that position for one very simple
reason: They have been in poor or mediocre shape - period.
So, if you are going to look at the winning percentage for the current year and compare it to last year as a way of seeing if a horse is "due", be honest about why he is that way. If a horse has truly been in decent shape but has been a victim of one of the first 5 that we listed, then perhaps you've got a workable angle there. But don't con yourself. Most of those horses are in less than bettable shape and/or are racing with fields whose level of shape and/or ability virtually preclude him winning without a mishap.
I define "due" a bit differently. I don't call him due based on last year's wins. After all, say that the horse won 6 out of 30 last year and is 0-18 this year. Do you know how he won last year? Perhaps he had more than his share of good racing luck. Perhaps he was able to race from the pocket 3 weeks in a row? Perhaps he faced some short fields? Perhaps he started the year at a very low claiming or condition level? Perhaps he did a good amount of racing at another track? Perhaps he was in a different stable, which trained him more effectively and placed him more effectively? That 6 might have been a 3, plus 3 more lucky ones. Suddenly, he doesn't look so "due".
When I say a horse is "due", I mean relative to his shape level currently, not relative to last year. If a horse has been in sharp enough form to win his share, and has been racing against an appropriate level of competition, but has not been able to win, then he's due. If he keeps racing at this level, it would appear to be only a matter of time before things start going his way and he picks up those wins. I think that this is the way to use "due" as a productive angle.
Now is a good time to see which horses have been and are currently in good shape, but who have not won their share for good reasons. Horses who are out-off-shape are never due. Horses who are racing over their head are never due. Only horses that have been in reasonably good shape and who have had legitimate excuses can be considered "due" for a win.