Before discussing the science-art of handicapping, it may be useful to indicate certain wagers that always involve extra hazard and hence should almost never be made. These will be covered rapidly, for no lengthy discussion is necessary.

Aged horses. Thoroughbreds are brought to racing at two years of age, and are used on the tracks as long as they last. Colts and fillies of two, raced only in sprints until the fall of their first season of competition, frequently are referred to as juveniles. But the strain of racing at the speeds necessary to win today is so severe that horses, geldings and mares over six years are classed as aged. An animal of seven almost invariably has passed his peak and is beginning to go down hill. Five years or more of racing have taken their toll, and a player will be wise to make it a fixed rule never to bet on an aged horse. If such an animal seems the likely winner there is no sense in betting against him, either; the proper procedure is to pass the race.

Of course aged horses win many races at all tracks in the country, but they are harder to train than younger animals, slower to come to hand, and hold an edge of physical condition for a shorter time. Also it never can be known just when one of these oldsters is going to break down.

An aged horse which has been winning a good percent­age of his races in a season almost always will be found to be an animal of former class dropped 'way down in quality of opposition, pitted against a class of horse that could not have warmed him up in years before. Real racing class in a Thoroughbred implies courage and hon­esty of effort, and a good horse as he ages will not lose all of this. He still can beat cheap ones of the sort he never would have been entered against formerly, but he is racing on borrowed time and a player who backs him is assuming something more than the risk inherent in any bet.

Inconsistent horses. Not more than 2 or 3% of the horses racing in this country in a year ever display any real degree of consistency in winning and in running close when beaten. This is true whether each animal normally goes in good races for good horses or in cheap races for cheap horses. The American tracks are full of erratic, in­consistent misfits, dragged around from meeting to meet­ing by small owners whose aim often is to flimflam friends and suckers rather than to win purses and bets. Horses of this sort win very rarely, and then unpredictably and through accident. It is easy enough to detect them, for any standard racing sheet gives in its past performance set-up on any animal a summary of his racing record for the current and the preceding year, showing the number of starts in each year together with the number of firsts, seconds and thirds, as well as the total value of purses won. With such figures staring them in the face it is be­yond my understanding why so many players persist in backing animals that on an average win only one start in ten or fifteen. But all horses, however inconsistent and in­ferior off their cold records, get some backing in the mu-tuel pools and handbooks, with the result that millions of dollars are wagered each month on animals so patently worthless that their backers cannot be classed otherwise than as suckers.

If it is part of wisdom to avoid aged horses, it is even more so to avoid betting the obviously erratic and chronic non-winners whose only real functions are to help racing secretaries fill over-long programs.

Cheap horses. The greater number of all inconsistent horses are cheap, and practically all cheap horses are in­consistent. By "cheap horses" I mean those racing in claimers at major courses at valuations under $2,000, and almost all of those racing at the small half and three-quarter mile tracks where purses are low and competition inferior. Animals of this type can be figured, after a fash­ion, but assurance that the figures will prove an accurate prediction is always less than in the case of real Thorough­breds competing in good events at major courses. The cheapies are the kind the weekly tip-sheet proprietors hand out to their readers as probable winners simply be­cause the skates win by accident on occasion, are lightly backed, and tend to pay longer prices than can be adver­tised. No competent player will bother to examine the fields in these cheap races for inferior horses. Betting is a tough enough game at the best without assuming the added handicap of grubbing for winners in the sewers of the horse world.

Unsound horses. The American Thoroughbred, starting flat-footed in a mechanical gate and racing around turns at speeds often close to forty miles an hour, is subjected to terrific physical strain. A horse weighs a thousand pounds and more, and that half-ton of weight is corning down on a small hoof and an ankle that can be clasped by thumb and middle finger of a man's hand. And this on tracks that have been given a hard "pasteboard" sur­face to increase speed as tested by the watch in order to impress the public! It is no wonder that so many horses go wrong—crack hooves, bow tendons, develop joint trouble, become bleeders. Indeed the wonder is that all of them do not develop some infirmity.

Good and valuable horses are not raced again until they have overcome some unsoundness, or are thought to have done so. But the cheaper animals, those that make up the bulk of racing programs, are sweated for the brass most cruelly, and many of those wagered on by the public each day are afflicted with some unsoundness. A wager on an unsound horse is always a most risky transaction, and I suggest that a player avoid it so far as he can.

Detection, of course, is not always possible. But a player can view the horses in the paddock and on their way to the track, noting bandages and any soreness. He will be assisted in this amateur vetting if he scrapes acquaintance with a trainer and gets him to talk about the disabilities to which horses are subject and how to detect them.

The Morning Telegraph, one of the standard racing sheets, has a word or two of comment at the end of each line of the past performances. This note may state that the animal bled, or was sore or pulled up lame. Such com­ments can be recorded by a player or borne in mind when the horse appears again in the entries.

And of course a sensible player will not back a horse known to be unsound in any respect or which he suspects may be unsound.

Chronic maidens. In racing lingo a horse is a maiden until he has won a race. When he does that he "breaks * his maiden." And there are maidens and maidens. Usually a two-year-old, newly brought to racing, needs a little edu­cation. In his first start, or even in his first few starts, he may race "green"—track or racing lingo again. He may not run straight or run only in spots, being nervous and confused. Or the newcomer in his first start may be up against very fast top notchers of his age that either have it on him all the way or have an edge in racing experience. At any rate, a two-year-old maiden with no starts or only two or three under his belt cannot be dismissed because he has not won. A good handicapper analyzing his chances may note that in his earlier few starts he ran materially faster, even though beaten, than anything in today's con­test. And if that is the fact there is no silliness involved in backing him, provided the price is reasonable and not too short.

But chronic maidens, horses of two, three, four and even five years of age which have raced repeatedly without winning, are a different proposition. It is immaterial how good their chances may appear on a time-comparison of the field or any other basis; they are suspect. Therefore a good rule for a player to adopt is never to play races for maidens of the sort I have called chronic.

Two points may be mentioned. The rules of racing do not require an owner to "try" (to win) with a maiden. If he wants to enter one fifteen times just for the exercise no objection can be raised by officials or anyone else. The second point is that sometimes in races for maidens a player will note that the race is the first start for some one entrant. If this horse is well bred, and particularly if he is owned by an important stable, then the smart thing may be to bet him. The others have proved repeatedly that they have nothing; the previous non-starter may have something on the ball.

Females vs. males. A most excellent rule for a player to -observe is never to bet a filly or mare (female horse) against colts, horses or geldings (unsexed male horses). Female horses on the average are less robust in physique and lighter in weight than males of the same age, and do not normally beat them, other things being equal. This fact is recognized in The Jockey Club's scale of weights— and in other scales of weight adopted in various states. Under The Jockey Club's scale a two-year-old filly receives from colts and geldings a weight-concession of three pounds throughout her second year, and a filly or mare of three or more receives a weight-concession of five pounds up to September 1 of each year and thereafter three pounds. The reduction in concession in the fall is because the females by that time have ceased "horsing" and are less under sexual disability. These weight-concessions ap­ply in all races unless the conditions of the event stipulate to the contrary.

In my opinion the concessions the females receive from males are insufficient to put the two sex-classes on an equal basis. But my opinion is not important. What is im­portant is the fact that not only are female horses lighter and less robust than male animals; they are also notoriously more temperamental and erratic than males. We have had great mares and we shall have more, yet the fact re­mains that a player will be wise to be chary of backing female horses to beat males of anything like the same class.

Younger vs. older horses. Two-year-olds are very rarely pitted against older animals. But quite commonly a race will be noted where three-year-olds are meeting older horses. When that is the case a player-handicapper should analyze the field with some prejudice against the three-year-olds, particularly if the event is over a mile or more— and if it is to be run in the spring or midsummer. A Thoroughbred does not reach full maturity until the latter part of his fourth year, or even his fifth, and it is good practice to be skeptical of three-year-olds' chances against older horses until—possibly—the fall of their third year.

Quitters. Racing is a business as well as a sport. Some wealthy breeders attempt to produce Derby, Preakness, Belmont and Suburban winners, real horses that can carry weight against the best over distances of a mile and a quarter or a mile and a half. Others, less fortunate finan­cially, must sell their produce. With hundreds of contests programmed for sprinting two-year-olds, and thousands of events programmed for sprinting older horses, there is a demand for yearlings whose blood-lines indicate that they should be able to "win themselves out" quickly at two and possibly earn their way in sprints for older horses. The result of the demand has been to produce thousands of horses of the type demanded—basically sprinters. The American horse, because of these influences, has been sub­jected to an infusion of speed-less-stamina that has left a profound mark. To put it curtly, we see very few first-class route-horses in a year or five years. We see ten or twenty or even fifty times that number of fast sprinters who can scamper six furlongs (three-quarters of a mile) in times that would have made dockers of thirty years ago think they had been drinking. And, as a further and inevitable corollary, we find that a substantial percentage of our six-furlong horses lack stamina (even for that dis­tance) , guts and gameness. In other words, there are many quitters on the tracks, even in sprints.

These horses are detectable readily enough in the past performance records. Normally they are true to type—-break fast from the gate, take a lead or stay with the leader for a half-mile or more, and then, in the stretch, when driving for the wire, begin to fade.

My suggestion here is that players refuse to back quit­ters and falterers, with the possible exception of races at tracks with sharp turns and a short stretch, where such a horse can be figured to be at some advantage.

Late runners. These horses almost always close mag­nificently in the stretch after being so far off early pace that they fail to get up at the finish. I suggest that one be wary of backing them because they can win only from behind and are subject to many liabilities, such as not being able to find racing room in the stretch without going wide.

Hitherto in this chapter I have been discussing certain types of horses. Now I will take up very briefly condition of the track and certain types of bets.

Tracks muddy or off. It is notorious that upsets occur most commonly on muddy or heavy tracks. Horses that fig­ure to win do so less consistently when the track is off. Therefore, although some animals are known to like soft footing, it is best to confine play to courses that are fast or good on the particular day. Quitters that can negotiate the going at all seem somewhat less addicted to giving up in the stretch when the track is muddy. Whether this is on ac­count of their action, shorter and choppier than that of a long-striding route-horse, or whether it is because such front-runners throw mud from their heels in the faces of animals chasing them, I do not know. But the fact is curious.

Foolish bets. Some bets are merely foolish, quite apart from the horses wagered on. One type of nonsensical haz­ard is the parlay, which involves betting two or more horses with one stake to win, to place or to show. If one of them fails to finish as stipulated the stake is lost, and I doubt if there is a horse-player in the United States so successful in picking single winners that he can justifiably try for two or three at once. The daily double on the first and second jaces at any track selling such tickets is the same thing as a two-horse straight parlay, except that the pay-off is computed on a different basis, and is merely a trap for sucker money.

All contingent bets are productive of loss over a period of time. In wagers of this type a player puts some fixed amount unconditionally on horse A, and then stipulates that another fixed amount of winnings, if A performs as bet,' shall go over on horse B. Reverse and back-to-back plays are if-money transactions not worth the trouble of definition. Round robins involve playing all possible par­lays on three or more horses. The basic effort back of all these doubles, parlays and if-money bets is to multiply winnings of a small stake in the event of success, and the raw fact is that they will not work.

Another type of foolish wager is a future-book bet. So far as I know, future books in this country are made only on the Kentucky Derby after the entries for the race close at the end of February. Operators of such books will lay a price against each of 150 to 250 entrants, but the wager is on a "play or pay" basis. Even though the horse does not start the wager is lost. No one can hope to make any money through this type of betting in view of the many hazards that may prevent a colt from getting to post or prohibit his reaching top condition.

A player of horses who will religiously avoid hazards briefly indicated in this chapter will take a long step to­ward becoming a successful bettor.

Are You Ready To Move Onto The Next Lesson? Click Here...