I did an installment on this last year or the year before. Nevertheless, it is still an area which I see gives players trouble. I also get tons of questions about it. Accordingly, I will venture into it again. It is also important and really deserves the extra time and attention. 

Since the vast majority of my plays are based on a key horse or horses that I have been "following", a question that I am frequently asked, in one way or another is: "How long do you follow a horse? When you follow a horse, does that mean that you automatically bet the horse? When and how do you decide to keep following a horse, or stop following?"

Some very good questions. The way I handle it is part art, part science. But one thing is for sure: You can't have it both ways. You can't hedge. You can't "kind of" follow a horse and "kind of" not. Whichever route you choose, you must go with it; that is, take your stand and be willing to live with it, win or lose. If you feel that a horse no longer warrants any particular attention on your part, you must be willing to give it up and knock the horse off "your list". If he then wins and pays a good price, so be it. If you keep beating yourself up saying "oh, I should have had him," or "see, he was on my list 3 weeks ago," then you are merely engaging in the most dangerous habit that a speculator can do: subconscious hedging and continuing to say you were right even when you were wrong.

Here is exactly how I decide whether or not to continue "following" a horse:
1. First, I am specific about the reason for following the horse in the first place. In the vast majority of cases, I am following a horse that I believe is sharp(**) or very sharp(*) based on his most recent race. I also follow some horses that are (**½) meaning that the effort might not rate them as (**)sharp in and of itself, but represents a significant improvement over previous races AND I have reason to believe that the horse might improve even further in the next start.

There is ALWAYS a specific reason that attracts me. For example, it could be the way the horse closed in the stretch. Perhaps it could be the way the horse used early speed. It could be the way the horse raced uncovered and hung in there. There are numerous reasons.

2. When the horse appears in his next race, the first determination that I make is whether the horse "fits." By this I mean that based on my assessment of his shape AND his level of ability, when I look at this week's field and what the shape and ability level is of his competition, does the horse appear to be in a field where he can realistically compete for the top ball of wax? Is he in a field in which the horses appear manifestly superior and in significantly better shape than the field where I first spotted the horse?

It's important to be honest about this - and it is CRITICAL to make this assessment BEFORE the race. Don't wait until after the horse stinks up the track to say, "oh well, he was over his head." When you do it later, it is mental hedging and will eat you up alive mentally. I make the decision AHEAD OF TIME. If I decide that a horse is truly "over his head" then I IGNORE THE RACE and will keep the horse on my list REGARDLESS of how bad the effort was.

This is an area where I am CONSERVATIVE in my viewpoint, by the way. There are certain times in following up a horse when I am aggressive, and certain times when I am conservative.

If I feel a horse is in shape, and "fits" with the field, but perhaps has a post position or some other reason where I wonder whether a full effort is in the offing, I will error on the side of aggressiveness. I will make a bet and live or die by the sword. If I feel a horse is in shape and "fits" but he looks "dead on the board" I will also be willing to error on the side of making the bet and take my licks if I am wrong. In short, if I feel he is worth a bet and the value is there, I am willing to error on the side of being aggressive.

The one place that I go conservative is the case where I honestly feel that a spotted horse is "over his head". In this case, I usually error on the side of not betting and waiting out the race. Before you scream at me, let me say that this is also consistent with the way many top catch drivers view things. Even if they look at the program, many of these guys will decide ahead of time whether the horse they are on tonight "fits" or "belongs" in the race and, unfortunately, they often decide ahead of time how they are going to drive the horse based on this feeling. Too often, if there is a perception that the horse doesn't belong, then the driver will drive him as though he doesn't belong and the chances of winning are reduced to a totally unacceptable level.

3. Now, given the fact that I've decided that the horse "fits" in his next race, I am BRUTALLY HONEST about the horse's effort in that race. Unless the horse as a valid excuse for a poor performance, the current race MUST be good enough on its own right for me to consider the horse sharp (**). If not, he is off my list. If he does race well enough, then he stays on - it's that simple.

In deciding whether or not an effort is good enough to maintain a sharp (**) rating, I go back directly to the reason I thought the horse was sharp in the first place. IF THAT REASON NO LONGER EXISTS - ZAP - HE'S OFF MY LIST - PERIOD. So, for example, if I was attracted to a horse because of the way he closed from a certain spot, and he races tonight, and is even ONE IOTA less effective from what was apparently an easier spot to close tonight - WHAM- I can't keep following him. If he turns around and beats me next week, fine - I can't bet them all.

Assuming that the race did NOT meet my criteria for me to rate him as (**)sharp - in order for me to keep him on the list, he had to have a VALID REASON OR EXCUSE for the performance. I know people who fall in love with horses and can come up with a reason or excuse every time that they don't win. "The horse stunk", by the way, is NOT a reason. ROFL. And it amazes me how few people can admit that a horse they thought was good, stunk. Here are what I consider to be valid reasons:

a. The horse was used even harder than the previous race and did better than you expect.
b. The horse had CLEAR traffic problems or some other reason why he was prevented from performing his best. Being empty does not count here.
c. The horse was CLEARLY given a poor drive, which gave him no chance.
d. The horse was CLEARLY a "no-go". This is the one, which catches all the suckers. Every time the horse doesn't win, they claim that the driver didn't try. Bullshit. UNLESS YOU KNOW, ABSOLUTELY AND POSITIVELY, that they weren't going, you should assume that they were and judge the performance accordingly.

By the way, the corollary to all of this is: If you feel a horse is sharp, and he races and wins, he is STILL SHARP regardless of whether he won by a nose or by 20 lengths. It matters not. Even if all the other horses in the race fell down. Once a horse is (**) sharp, all he has to do to justify this is to win. It doesn't matter how, or by how much.

It's that simple. After you spot a horse that you feel is sharp:
1. Evaluate the spot he is in for his next race. If he is clearly "out of his league" or "over his head" then you can safely ignore the race for the purposes of shape. I prefer to error on the conservative side here.
2. Once you determine that he "fits", evaluate the effort with total objectivity. If the effort does not meet your expectations, he is no longer sharp, unless he had a CLEAR AND CONVINCING EXCUSE for doing less than his best. Sometimes, it might be a good idea to check with someone whose opinion you respect who might not have had a financial stake in the horse's previous effort, and ask them for their objective opinion of the race.

There are hundreds of horses racing at any given track at any one time. You cannot follow them all. It only pays to follow those that you believe might be truly sharp, ready to win and at a fair price. You cannot follow or bet on all of them.