I have already received my first "expert essay" in my new Expert Series, and I am very excited. It is just as obsessive and as interesting as I had hoped for.
Now, without further ado, I give to you (complete with his own parenthetical digressions): Michael Thomas
Oh, and discussion is encouraged!!
A Day At The Races ... Without Groucho
By Michael Thomas
A day at the races actually begins the day before. When you pick up the Racing Form, which, contrary to popular belief, is not that hard to read.
The Form consists of data, logically and, some would say quite artfully, presented. Each race is described by its conditions. That is what horses are eligible to run in the race, the distance of the race and the surface over which it will be contested (dirt or grass). (Parenthetic digression #1: Not all horses or races are alike. Novices often get this wrong. All horses and races look alike: brown animals of indeterminate sex running in a big circle. But, there are actually horses that have never won before [maidens], horses that won once, twice, three times, etc., horses that are good enough to run in stakes races and horses that lack enough ability that they need to run in claiming races [races in which they can be purchased (claimed) for a designated price]. Then here are your colts and your fillies and your geldings. There a dirt horses and turf horses, and they are not interchangeable. See, it's complicated ... but not that hard.) So, the conditions tell you what type of horses are running in the race. In Lit Crit parlance, the conditions give you context.
Then, each horse is listed in post position order, accompanied by the record of its last twelve races. Called "running lines," these data tell you what post position the horse broke from, where it was early, in the middle and late in the race, as well as where it finished. Your job, should you choose to accept it, handicapper Phelps, is to compare the running lines against the conditions of today's race, and against the other horses running in the race, ie. how has the horse run in similar races, at today's distance, on today's surface and against similar animals? You want to be scrupulous about comparing apples to apples. (Parenthetical digression #2: this is about the point in the presentation, when showing my wife how to read the Form when she said, with exasperation: "I GET IT okay?") Anyway. Not much further.
Now we come to the modern panacea of horse racing handicapping ... SPEED FIGURES. A self appointed group of geniuses (called students of time by handicapping legend Steven Crist [son of Judith]) invented a convoluted system for converting the final time of a race into a number that supposedly designates how "fast" the race was. (Parenthetic digression #3: why not just go by final time you ask. Because that would be misleading. Not all tracks are the same. Some surfaces are slower that others. Also, conditions change from day to day, even hour to hour. So these guys figured out a way to account for these changes (the genius part) and assign an absolute value to a race's speed that is predictive from day to day and track to track.) These figures work ... relatively speaking and with caveats. I won't go into those here for fear of losing the one person still reading this (Sheila did say "obsessed," right?)
Assertion #1: Given that all the horses you're examining fit the conditions of the race they are entered in today, THE FASTEST HORSE WINS. Easy, right?
Assertion #2: If more than one horse appears to be the fastest (within a few speed figure points) BET THE HORSE WITH THE LONGEST ODDS. Makes sense, no?
Now, thanks for reading all of the above, but file it away. It won't do you that much good. Everybody who's any good at the game knows all this and more.
What most players don't know - even the high rolling big boys - is how to spot a winning race horse today, now, in this race about to go off. That's what's fun about a day at the races. You're in a beautiful place (come to Belmont or Saratoga in New York this spring, summer or fall and I dare to keep the breath from escaping your lungs in an awed gasp), watching magnificent animals run gracefully and fast. And on many occasions the winner will flag himself or herself for you in the Post Parade. It's neck will be arched. It's eye will be steady and intense. It's gait will be purposeful and eager. It's manner confident. No kidding. Watch carefully. The winner will announce itself. (If more than one horse fits this description, bet the one with the highest odds.) It's the last edge in horse racing for the observant player.
A day at the races: beautiful scenery, magnificent horses, exciting races ... and beer. Come on out.
Great idea!
I did not know most of the things in this article but I am not much of a gambler.
But it makes sense, just like picking a stock. Do your research, understand the rules and conditions of the market, and speculate.
Cool
Posted by: j Swift at April 5, 2004 6:03 PMI love the horse races. Mom taught me to handicap at the age 16. Cool rite of passage.
Posted by: Dan at April 5, 2004 7:46 PM"Mom taught me to handicap at the age 16."
Er ... Dan, will you marry me? Thanks.
Posted by: red at April 5, 2004 8:48 PMIn re: j Swift's comment: I gamble 'cause I go to the races. I don't go to the races to gamble. There's a difference.
M
Dearest: Michael has got it right. God I love horse races [Seabiscuit-the movie, really stunk--the race scenes were pathetic]. One of my favorite books is [naturally] Francis Stuart's Racing for Profit and Pleasure in Ireland and Elsewhere. The last time I was at the track was with Siobhan in Ireland. A lovely soft day it was. love, dad
Posted by: dad at April 6, 2004 11:13 AMMichael,
Sport of Kings for some, thrill of speculation for others.
Was not pointing any fingers, just not my thing.
Great job on the article.
Posted by: j Swift at April 6, 2004 3:16 PMSure. We should probably meet first though, hahahaha.
Posted by: Dan at April 7, 2004 12:07 PMDan - Nah. Why ruin things?
Posted by: red at April 7, 2004 12:13 PMGood point that.
Posted by: Dan at April 7, 2004 12:50 PM