Even those of you who confine your bets to major tracks should pay attention to this one. Today, we start a 2-part series to be completed next week, addressing specifically the problems and challenges of small-track handicapping, shape determination and betting. This is applicable to many local tracks, and sometimes the lower class and "fillers" for larger tracks on weekdays.

One of the problems for the value player at the small track is that a much higher percentage of the races carded are what I call "Sore Thumb Specials" or "STS" for short. The only time that you get cards which are predominantly well-matched fields is on the feature card, usually Saturday night, and usually in the height of the season, which is summer for many tracks, particularly those that are in vacation areas (like Pocono) or which do not race all year.

The Meadowlands is in a league of it’s own. By and large, the races there are so well carded that you almost never need to key on a favorite. You can get all the action you will ever need by confining all your bets, including the second slots in exactas, to horses that you know, without a doubt, are in shape. Those of you who have followed my selections and analysis from the start of the Meadowlands meet have seen how we have hit countless exactas in the $75 - $150 range using only in shape horses. In fact, we have had a whole bunch in the $150-200 range as well, without using any garbage in the ticket. We even had a $136 horse and a $2,000 exacta with horses who absolutely figured (meaning they were, with no doubt, in shape). But that is the Meadowlands, and that is unique. But at the lower-tier tracks with lower caliber horses and lower caliber drivers, you don’t get these. There are very few $100 exactas at Pocono with strictly in-shape horses who fit and figure.

At the other tracks, however, knowing who is in shape is just not enough. In fact, many times you might spot a horse the previous week and look forward to his next race, only to see him open up at 7-5. And if you come in and make a $50 bet at some of these tracks, you are going to drive him down even more. What can you do then? Well, one of the key skills you can develop at these tracks is how to find value in the exactas using this sore thumb horse, with other horses who look like they should be in Rover’s dinner bowl instead of on the track. We need to be able to differentiate between the various levels of junk and, what’s more, we need to find creative ways to bet it.

The STS races are so because 1 or 2 horses seem to lay over the field. They lay over the field usually in 1 of 2 ways - they either appear to have a large talent or ability advantage or, they appear to have a large shape advantage. These are often combined with an advantageous driver and/or post position advantage. And there is a huge difference in both the type of action and betting between the race with one sore thumb, versus the race with 2. From this point on, I am talking about the race with 1 sore thumb - the 2 sore thumbs are the toughest races in the sport to make money on.

The large talent or ability advantage usually shows up in the form of a recent final time or times which seem to dwarf that of everyone else in the field. Further, it is usually combined with a drop in class as measured by the horse’s claiming price or the conditions and/or a switch of tracks from a higher-tier track to the lower-tier track. It does not seem to matter how competitive the horse was in any of these races. The most vulnerable sore thumbs - the races which are the best of this poor bunch, are those where the sore thumb sticks out due to fast final times while racing non-competitively in the lowest class at a tier-1 track, and is now shipping in to face horses in the higher classes of the lower-tier track. I'll tell you why this is so at another time, but I truly believe that the lowest level claimers at the Meadowlands ($15,000) when in medium shape are not as good as the $15,000 claimers at Pocono (among the top classes at the track) - and these horses often look like standouts, get the crap bet out of them and get beat to the total shock of the greedy who think they've found a sure thing. They win just often enough to keep sucking in the money.

The large shape advantage usually shows up in the form of several wins in a row, or trips where the horse has been obviously roughed up, being repeatedly parked at key places such as leaving, or first-over for the second half, while the others in the field seem to be motionless piles of horseflesh, many of whom have not made an effective move in any of their recent races. Overall, those with the massive apparent shape advantage are much more reliable than the group above.

When you combine these together, and add in one of the top drivers at track, and the formula looks like this: Unless this horse falls down, he must win by as large a margin as he wants. Well, we have all seen these go down the tubes inexplicably, which is why they run the race. It appears as though this horse would have to come up totally empty while, at the same time, some other horse comes up with a lifetime mark.

Well, we could continue this installment by talking about why these horses ever manage to lose, which they do - often enough to make win betting on them a big-time losing proposition in the long run. But since they do manage to win a large percentage of the time, the question becomes, who has a good chance to finish second and can they be bet profitably?

When evaluating a large group of horses who seem to be at a large talent or shape disadvantage, there are a few things to keep in mind. First, if we are conceding the race in a manner of speaking, to the STS horse, when weigh the other horses’ chances, we are weighing them for second, not for win. This is important. A good drill you can do here is to practice by eliminating the STS horse as though he were scratched, and doing the morning line exercise from a few weeks ago. If this horse were not in the race, what should the odds of the other horses be?
Now I know what you are saying - you’re thinking "hey Steve, that’s great, but he isn’t scratched, so what good is it?"
My answer here has to do with how these STS horses tend to race. The preferred style at small-time tracks for horses where everyone feels these big advantages is on the front end. Even if they have not left in months, when they get in this situation, they either leave or make a sweeping move, usually at the quarter. Following this, the very often will start rattling off their own fractions, leaving the "pocket" horse not in a tight pocket, but in a loose pocket or gapping, thereby not really getting any cover. So for all intents and purposes, this horse is out of the race.
In these types of races, I think the best place to be when racing for second is on the rail,well rested. This means 3rd on the rail, or 4th on the rail. While these are seemingly dead spots for a potential winner, when racing for second when the winner is out on the lead, these become pretty decent spots for a "roach rush" in the lane. Often, there will be an early rat race for position behind the STS horse, but my observation is that this tends to take an awful lot out of these out of shape pieces. Often, their well intentioned attempt to grab the pocket ends up costing them after ¾ of a mile.

FINDING SOMETHING TO LIKE IN THE OUT OF SHAPE BRIGADE

In a motley bunch of Sanford & Son rejects, here are some specific things you can look for that can help you in sifting through these corpses:
1. As Jerry Connors points out in his current USTA article, sometimes, just the ability to throw in a final quarter can be the difference. I don’t agree with a lot of what Jerry has to say, but when trying to find a potential value with or underneath the STS, a decently positioned, well rested piece who can stumble home consistently can often represent value.
2. Take apart the races of theses seeming non-contenders. Forget the fractions of the actual races they have been in, and look at what their individual fractions were in those races. You do this by simply adding their lengths behind to the leader’s time at each point of call, with each length being 1/5 of a second. This gives you an indication of how fast or slow these horses are actually able to stumble around the track, and whether or not they can "brush" at any point in the race. This will help you to determine whether they can keep up with cover.
3. Look at the previous races and see which of these out of shape horses gapped during the race. This is easily observed when you are there. While gapping itself is not a good attribute for a potential winner, when it comes to stumbling around for second, it can come in handy. Why? Because a horse who gaps does not have the affect of cover and is really running his own race. If you can find a seemingly dead piece who has been able to stumble home with a decent final quarter, if he did this after having gapped prior, it means he might be able to go faster if he can suck along, even if it is well off the lead.
4. A very key thing to look at is how fast can these clunkers go in the 3rd quarter - very often, if they can somehow advance their position during this period, they can position themselves to possibly out-stumble the others in the lane. This can be computed right off the program - but for this purpose, it is important to get the actual time for that horse. This is important because he may have to pass someone else in order to get into position here, and the field may be spread out where he will have to do some of the work on his own. Sometimes, you will find a horse who seemingly can throw a 29.2 - 29.4 last quarter at them consistently if he goes a third quarter which is not too fast, say 31 seconds. You may find that there aren’t many horses in tonight’s race that have been consistently pacing faster than that in the 3rd panel, but are not able to come home faster than 30 seconds. I like these types.
5. Another type to look for is the horse who seems like he can go almost as fast as the STS horse for ¾ mile but cannot finish nearly as well. From the inside posts, these horses can "trip out" especially if the STS horse decides to back down the pace rather than bottom out the field. The warning here is that this is often the horse that everyone jumps on for second because the figure he will have the pocket.
6. I generally don’t give any weight to junk horses who go 3-wide. Usually, if one of these has to go 3 deep, they’re out of it.
7. In skimming through the trash, I have a strong preference for horses who have been able to pass somebody in the stretch in recent races. I prefer these to rats who have gone out faster and hung on.
8. I ignore the bias of previous tracks in deciding which Sanford & Son reject I’m going to throw in with the STS horse. In me experience, it doesn’t matter.
9. Finally, there is a little comparison research you can do. Go to the chart of their latest race and see which other horses in that race ran more or less the same race as they did for the last ¾ of the mile. You can try to check and see if this other horse has ran back since and, if so, how did he do?

Look, the favorite in these types of races can be very hard to bet on, and very hard to bet against. It 1 horse seems to stick out like a sore thumb, you can sometimes find value with the others. If the others are well matched, than the same thing holds true as holds true for highly competitive races with in-shape horses - the favorite is usually a poor bet. In this case, the low exacta combination with the STS is often a poor combination to wager on.

There's also another type of "Sore Thumb Race" which predominates these cards at smaller tracks - that's the "2STS" race, where 2 horses seem both in shape and both very close, and together the 2 of them stick out like a sore thumb. I steer clear of these races. They are statistically poor races to bet - period. I much prefer the "One Sore Thumb" to the "Two Sore Thumbs" and much of this reason has to do with the betting ... which is next week.

Next week, how to and how not to bet these types of races … how to know if the exactas are okay and how many should you bet.