Most people handicap from the program. Now let's think about that for a moment ... just exactly what is a program? What information does it give you? What information does it NOT give you?
I don't know about you, but when I go to the track regularly, I don't even need a program, except to act as a summary and refresher of what I already observed and read. Why is this so? Well it's not because I'm a genius or anything,
but think about it: if you go to Pocono Downs every Saturday night during the height of the summer season, isn't it true that most of the horses that raced last Saturday are also racing this Saturday? Sure, some are moving up from a class that they run on another night, or some are moving down, but for the most part, they are the same horses. This makes it easier for you to carefully observe the action, and to make notes or remember what happened. The result? After a few weeks, you pretty much have the program in your head! The actual written program that you buy helps you to compare the respective efforts of various horses, but it is a poor source of information from which to make shape determinations on horses.
What are good tools?
Well I already mentioned one, namely, your own personal observation. In order for your observations to be valid, three things must be true. First, you have to know what it is you are looking for. You need to know what you are seeing when you watch a race. Second, you need to be in a position to see the race. This means that you cannot be sitting inside at the bar, having pizza and beer with Harry but,
must be outside, in a spot where you can see everything, with binoculars, regardless of the weather. The third, and most important requirement is that you must be able to view a race with total objectivity. Now here's the kicker - and be honest - if you have a bet in on a horse in the race, what are you watching? The whole field? Other horses? NO!!!! You are, like most people, watching YOUR investment.
This is the downfall to powerful observations, because if all you are focusing on is your horse, you can't possibly make any meaningful distinctions about the performances of the other 7 or 8 horses in the race! This makes things real difficult. One solution to this is simply not to bet every race, and to watch the races you are not betting as carefully as you would watch your horse. Who leaves? Who starts to leave then takes back? How soon does a horse give up the lead? How long does a horse race parked? And it is even more important when something is happening toward the back of the pack, which cannot be seen on television.
Well assuming you are human and didn't carefully observe the performances of every horse in every race, the next best tool at your disposal is the CHART of a race. A chart is totally different from a program. While a program highlights in chronological order, the performances of individual horses in today's race, a chart helps you to evaluate the performance of all horses in a past race. The first thing I do after I get home from the track, is get my hands on the charts the next day, and review them, making notes of what I saw (before I forget). I see if the charts of the various races confirm what I think I saw. Sometimes they do, sometimes they do not. Often, they reveal details that I totally missed.
Years and years ago (in the 60's and 70's), before there was commentary, before there was Sports Eye, I used to save the charts from the back page of the Yonkers and Roosevelt programs, every day. Then, I would buy the Doc Robbins (that was the company who used to publish them) monthly chart books when they came out. It was a lot of work. Today, with all the technology, there is no excuse for any serious player not to have the charts of every race for the season on their computer.
But now, what to do with these things. I'll tell you, chart reading is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT skill then reading a program. It takes visualization, imagination and understanding to put the whole story together. But the difference is dramatic. It brings you to a whole new level of understanding about what happened. I can't even begin to show you even a fraction of what there is to know about it on this one installment. First, we'll look at the chart of KRUGER from 10/31, which was the basis for our pick and recommended bet last night (Saturday 11/8, race one). Then, we'll cover a more ambiguous chart analysis revolving around 2 horses in Saturday's 3rd race, Lost Fella and Justice Denied.
Here's an excerpt from Saturday's program for the first race:
The 10-31 line looks pretty uninspiring: easy start, near the rail, slips out behind cover at the 3/4 and loses ground. Yuk! Not in shape. But let's examine it a bit further. First of all, this week, he is in for $10,000 in a $10,000 claiming race. On 10/31 above, he was in for $12,500 in a $12,500 - $17,500 claiming handicap. Quite a difference. Just look at the horses names. Also look at the shapes (which we determined prior). Broderick Road, Might Oak, Nukearama and Radiant Wiz were all in at least "good" shape. So this field was a tough bunch, much tougher than the 5 others he faced on Saturday night, with only 3 of them in shape.
Here's the chart of KRUGER'S last race on 10/31:
Let's read the chart like a story, a very helpful technique, and see what really happened.
Staff Officer, who was, in my book, in questionable shape, inexplicably goes off the favorite and leaves hard from post 7. Nukearama, who we have seen show good tactical speed to protect position in the past, leaves from the rail as well. Seabon takes a seat. KRUGER continues a move to the lead, out sprinting Nukearama to the top, then yields to Staff Officer. They go to the 1/4 in :27.2. No moves as they come past the stands and swing into the turn, except Broderick road is on the move on the outside midway through the 2nd turn. A breather, :30.1 for the leader (who we now know is out of shape, since he cannot even parlay this enough to hold Broderick Road out until the final turn). The outer flow is on the move rapidly around the leader, Mighty Oak jumps on the train behind #8, and KRUGER slips out behind him. The #8 clears to the rail before the turn, leaving #6 and KRUGER on the outside for the turn. :29 flat third panel....#8 manages to open up daylight on the field turning for home. Mighty Oak races very bravely for second. Nukearama gets room in the passing lane to rally for 3rd. KRUGER finishes fourth. Radiant Wiz, who had slipped out on the back lane behind KRUGER followed his cover, but could not gain. Now what happened to KRUGER. KRUGER and Mighty Oak pace the same last quarter - :29.1. KRUGER is 2 1/2 behind Mighty Oak at the finish...that means, he was also 2 1/2 behind him at the 3/4s... that means, he was without full benefit of cover (since 1 1/4 lengths puts you right behind). By the same rationale, KRUGER must be only 2 3/4 behind the leader at the 3/4, loses a length on the turn, so he really doesn't do all that badly in the stretch, against far superior foes to the ones he faced on Saturday, losing only a length to Mighty Oak in the stretch (Mighty Oak won Friday, by the way). The last half, you will note, was in 57.3, which is MUCH faster than what the other horses in the race have been going. Moreover, remember back to the start, KRUGER must have made at least one quick move in order to secure the position early, thus, making it even more impressive that he held so credibly against these superior foes.
The result: he drops into a much softer group, goes off at 4-1 in a 6-horse field, get's a fine trip I'll admit, but beats them good. Oh by the way, based on the above chart, and the fact that Mighty Oak had defeated Broderick Road soundly the week before, does it make sense that in the following race (this past Friday, 11-7), with Mighty Oak drawing the 3 hole and Broderick Road getting the outside post, in a 5-horse field, that the latter should go off at 2-5 while Mighty Oak went off at 7-1? Think about it (all you math whizzes can take your calculators out or else believe me): If Broderick Road won that race, he would have returned $2.80 for a $2.00 wager. So if we ran this race 100 times and you bet $2 each time, you would have $200 invested. How many times out of 100 would Broderick Road have to win in order for you to break even. Answer---72 times. If you make the same computation for Mighty Oak on Friday, at $16.60 to win, you would only need to win 12 races out of 100 to break even.
Ummmm - folks ---"Earth to handicappers..... Earth to handicappers ....... come in handicappers....all of you who are out in La La Land".....this Broderick Road horse got a pretty decent trip here. If Nukearama doesn't get stuck behind a tiring leader, he blows Broderick Road to pieces here in the stretch. In fact, if you account for the ground MIGHTY OAK lost on the turn, he held even with Broderick Road. So it was no surprise that the following week (11/7) Nukearama gets caught in a early speed duel and still beats Broderick Road, and Might Oak beats them both, and get this: HE WAS THE LONGEST SHOT ON THE BOARD. That's right folks - last pick. The worst.
Now let's take a look at the charts of 2 races from Pocono Downs on 11/1. This is significant because both of these horses ran Saturday in the same race, seemed inseparable on the program and were both bet almost equally. Let's see what we can learn from the charts of their last races. The races from November 1 are the 7th and 9th and the horses are Lost Fella and Justice Denied. Here are the charts of those two races:
Okay. Before we make any comparisons, let's see if we can briefly tell the story of each race. In the 7th, Lost Fella went of as the 6-5 favorite. Only 1 other horse received any reasonable level of support at the windows. This hints to us that perhaps these horses looked much the best on paper. Lost Fella left along with #4 outside of him. There was no resistance from the rail horse. He got the top with the other strong contender (a horse by the way that we had rated as "in-shape") in the pocket. He raced past the quarter in 27.4 on his own. Nobody came out in the stretch the first time, except #6 who, attesting to the poor shape of the field, could not flush anyone out for cover and ended up first over. In the meantime, Lost Fella had successfully gotten a :30.4 breather in the second quarter. As they headed down the backstretch, #5 slipped out off the rail but could not get the cover of #6. (This is an interesting point, especially since he won last night, paying $42! ) Therefore, he really raced uncovered! The #6 never got close enough to the leader to pressure him, and he waltzed by the 3/4 mark in 1:28.2 (a :29.4 3rd qtr). Lost Fella opened up on #4 turning for home and maintained a clear lead, winning easily with a final quarter in :30, mile in 1:58.2. #4, an in-shape horse could not even make a dent from the pocket. Interestingly (ya learn something every day - even me), Gold runner held pretty well. By comparing the lengths behind at the top of the stretch with the finish, we see that Gold Runner actually gained on everybody else in the field except the 2 favorites. The only problem here was that all of the final 4 horses had been rated (****) poor shape, so you don't know how to interpret it. Let me tell ya guys and gals out there... if there had been any (**) or (***) horses in there, I might have upgraded his shape and who knows, maybe he could have been a bet last night. This is because he really never caught his cover, and it was just like he was first over! As it was, I could not tell what his shape was, and didn't find his race yesterday interesting enough to handicap.
Now lets turn to the 9th race, and look at JUSTICE DENIED. He was the 5-2 second choice in a much more evenly-bet field. His race was a $4,000 claimer, versus Lost Fella who was in a $3,000 claimer. He left hard from the rail and the #2 ducked in behind him. The #5 left half-ass and got hung. They moved to the quarter in :27.1. To the half, #5 found his tuck, no challengers, a :31 qtr., half in :58.1. Down the back stretch, out of the 3-hole comes an "in-shape" favorite (who, by the way, raced super game again last night, bummer luck - first over again, Timeisoftheessence) who came at him big time, :29.4 down the back lane, 1:28 for 3/4. In the meantime, #5 had come back out behind the favorite, but couldn't keep up. This allows other contenders to slip out off the rail in the far turn, if needed. As they turn for home, Justice Denied is still dueling, up just a head. Coming for home, the benefactor of the front-end duel, #2 It Za Monkey cleans up the pieces, the #3, who was first over proves much better than the leader, and beats him convincingly in the stretch by 1 1/4 lengths. Daveyjo gains ground on Justice Denied in the lane, as does Go Global, who was parked for the quarter, ducked in, back out for the 3rd turn. In fact, Justice Denied fails to hold his ground in the lane against ANY of the other horses in the race, despite finishing 3rd! Go ahead -- look at it for yourself -- I'll wait.
Back? Okay, let's compare these performances. It's not black and white. The least important fact is that Lost Fella (I'll call him "Fella") went in 1:58.2 and Justice Denied (I'll call him "Justice") went in 1:58.4. Fella ran in a 3 claimer, Justice in a 4 claimer. This doesn't really matter. Fella's field was certainly in less shape than Justice's. Fella went his mile on his own, with no pressure. Justice was hounded for the second half. Fella paced his last half in :59.4, eased up, Justice was death & taxes in 1:00.3. Fella, despite being eased, opened up distance on everyone in his field, including the in-shape pocket sitter. Justice gave way to everyone in his field in the lane. Justice's first half was 11 lengths faster than his second half, Fella's was more even, just 6 lengths quicker. Drivers? Drew Chellis, driver of Fella is a proven performer here, were Larry Stefenick, Justice's pilot is not.
This is a tough one. Maybe I should have chosen one with a black and white answer as our first example of chart reading, but why not start with a challenging one? My answer? I have none! You can make a case for either of these head on head. Truthfully, if pressed, I would have leaned toward Justice Denied because he was used in a relatively quicker first half, received pressure from a live horse and had a tougher race. Certainly, I would excuse his poor stretch performance on this basis. From a betting perspective, they were both bet down quite severely, 3-2 and 8-5. But I'll give you one piece of truth, in keeping with the comments on betting which I've made to you. If one of these was 8-5 and the other was 4-1, it would be a no-brainer - I'd be on the longer price, regardless of which of these it was. Why? Because I think that if they ran this same race over 100 times, they would probably win a similar number of them. Certainly, one of them would not have won twice as many as the other. And that's what would have to be, for those odds I described to stick.
Here's why I say this (you math whizzes follow me now) because this is some of the logic of understanding which are overlays. If one of these were 8-5, he would pay $5.60 right? Now let's say you bet 100 races, $2 each race. You invest $200. How many times does the 8-5 shot have to win to get you even? 36 times! The 3-2 shot needs to win 40 times. That's 76 taken! We had 2 other horses in relatively decent shape in Saturday's race. I figure that It Za Monkey should have been about 4-1 and Garnethill Skidoo about 6-1. That's 20 races won for Monkey, and 14 races for Skidoo, and for the other 4 horses....
That's right, and what gives here is that this can't be....one of these two favorites MUST BE AN UNDERLAY... they can't possibly win the number of races needed, in the long run, to get their supporters even. So one of them must win less. The odds that the bettors were offered in last night's 3rd race, on these two horses, just couldn't be, if I am correct my other estimates. Either both of them must have been higher, say 5-2 or 3-1 or one of them much higher, say 4 or 5 to 1. And, if that was the case, and correctly we feel that the two of them are pretty close on form, he MUST BE THE BETTER BET FOR THE ODDS.
As it was on this Friday's card, they were both lousy bets!
Steve M.
