6. HANDICAPPING VIEWPOINTS AND FACTORS

At this point, having explained the bare mathematics of mutuel betting and attempted to clear the reader's mind of novice and sucker plays that he may have favored, it is possible to take up factors in­volved in any handicapping process. This handicapping process is the basic thing a player must master before he can entertain the least hope of making money by betting on Thoroughbreds. A number of the lesser details of the art of handicapping will not be touched upon here, for lack of space, but a player who gets a real grasp of the essentials will find that he will begin to improve.

The time to do this work—for it is work that can be extremely tiresome and laborious—is the night before or the morning before the races. All sound handicapping in­volves a balancing and weighing of favorable and unfavor­able factors, class, consistency, weight, form, times and possibly a few dozen other less easily characterized de­tails. The process on one race certainly will take a good many minutes at the best, and at the worst may run into hours. However, if it takes a handicapper a very long time to make up his mind about the probable winner of a race the chances are that the contest is too close between two or more horses to be sanely playable at all. It is possible to try to dig a little too deeply into fields, and putting a tremendous amount of time into the job often is a sign that one is doing so.

A cool and collected handicapper will not shirk the job of going over the past performance records with real care and attention. But long hours need not be wasted over a single eight-race card. More than half the events will be seen at a glance not to be playable at all—too cheap or too close—so that available time can be spent on the remainder that may offer a bet.

All the facts involved in estimating the chances of any single horse entered in a particular race can be found in the past performance records for that race as printed in any standard racing sheet like Daily Racing Form in its several editions or The Morning Telegraph. Each horse in these records—those entered for the particular day at the tracks covered by the paper—is represented by a num­ber of lines of type which show the races of the animal in reverse order of time, the latest first, and so on back as far as the record goes. Each line, as printed, is highly con­densed, using numerous special abbreviations that may not be familiar to a novice player. Any paper will send, with­out charge, a booklet fully explaining how to read these lines. And any player, whether novice or not, had better make sure that he does know how to read past perform­ances. Many players, even those of some experience, have only a vague notion of what the various words, letters and figures represent.

The more important points that must be determined by a player before he can formulate a sound opinion on the chances of a particular horse in a given race are: (1) his basic class as a racing Thoroughbred, (2) his honesty, steadiness or consistency in winning, running in the money or finishing close by the leader when properly entered against other animals of his own basic class, (3) whether he is at advantage or disadvantage under the weight he is assigned to carry in relation to the weights on the others, (4) his present form, so far as can be estimated from re­cent races or workouts that have been reported, and (5) his speed at the distance of the race, as measured by the watch, in the light of the fractional and final times he has run in earlier contests.

An intelligent reader will realize, merely from state­ment of these points for investigation, that reasonable de­terminations may be reached if the necessary facts are available to a player, as indeed they are in the past per­formance records of any standard racing sheet. A player who will delve into these matters can hope for success commensurate with the degree of his intelligence and the effort he puts into his investigations. The other type of player, who snoops for stable information, tries to detect from the fluctuations of the odds board where "smart" money is going, estimates the jockey apart from the horse, plays post positions rather than horses, or takes his bets from tipsters and touts, is merely paddling about in a sea of uncertainties. Usually he knows nothing about horses anyway, and he certainly will never learn anything from the procedures he follows.

One thing should be mentioned specifically. Through­out the following sections of this chapter I shall be dis­cussing the chances of individual horses entered in partic­ular races. Any race is classifiable either as a sprint—a con­test at a distance up to seven furlongs or possibly a full mile—or as a route—a contest at any distance in excess of a mile. Some horses are natural sprinters, can develop high speed quickly and maintain it for six or seven furlongs,, even a mile, and then fade. Other horses are natural routers, lack the quick early foot of sprinters but can maintain their slightly inferior speed for much greater distances. Yet in the following sections of this chapter I shall not specify whether ^ a race under discussion is a sprint or a. route unless that fact is pertinent to the factors I am trying to explain. Anyone can distinguish between a sprinter and a router because most of the efforts shown in the past performance records will have been at distances to which the horse is suited. Sometimes a router is dropped into a sprint by way of preparation for a longer race. Or a sprinter may be stretched out over a route, particularly if he is aging and losing some of his early lick, on the gam­ble that he may be able to negotiate the distance. As a rule it is easy enough to determine with what type of horse one is dealing, and therefore it also is easy enough to avoid betting a sprinter in a route-race or a router in a sprint. I will now show past performance lines on a horse which is a sprinter and nothing else. Dates of races, tracks and numerous other details are not given, but the distance of each race, fractional and final times, the class of the race and the horse's running position at each call are, which is entirely sufficient to indicate the animal's racing characteristics. The races shown are all sprints at either six or seven furlongs—the latter in one case only. The figures in each line, following indication of the class of each race as an allowance, a D allowance or a claimer of a certain valuation, give successively, from left to right, the horse's post position, the order in which he broke or started, his running position at the quarter mile, his position at the half, his position entering the stretch, and, finally, his posi­tion at the finish. The last two figures or alls give in smaller superior figures the number of lengths he was behind the leader at the particular point, or, if he himself was leading, the number of lengths he was leading by, In the last line of the set-up, representing a race at seven furlongs as indicated, an extra, call is given, the figures showing in order, from left to right, post position, order of start, and then running position at the quarter, half,: three-quarters (six furlongs), stretch and finish.

On the face of it these lines show that the horse is at least presumptively only a sprinter, for no race at any distance greater than seven furlongs appears. But the lines show more than this. Take the fourth race down from the top. The times shown are 22 (seconds) for the quarter-mile, 44 4/5 (seconds) for the half and 1.11 1/5 (one minute, eleven and a fifth seconds) for the full six furlongs. All these times are definitely fast, so much so that they will be found only in races at the intrinsically faster courses of the country. And the line for the race just men­tioned shows that this horse at the half-mile call was run­ning second off the then leader's whirlwind time of .44 4/5, at the stretch-call was still second but eight lengths off the leader, and then proceeded to blow wide open and finish seventh, fifteen long lengths behind the winner.

To put it in a nutshell, on the evidence of the race just examined and of all the others shown, the horse is a fast quitter, possessed of high early speed but unable to carry it even for six furlongs, three-quarters of a mile, par­ticularly if he meets any real speed in the early stages and has to come from behind to win. The second race from the top of the set-up shows him winning but in a claimer, presumptively for horses of less ability than those in the allowance affairs. Also in this race it will be noted that he hit the stretch with a fair lead of a length and a half which he managed to hold to the finish probably be­cause nothing else was pressing him closely. It should be noted that the half-mile time of .46 2/5 seems to be within this animal's capabilities, so that setting the pace to the half at that figure left him with something in reserve for the late stages. In the fifth race down from the top of the lines shown here the horse also won, but only by a neck and again in a claimer. In this race he was leading at the half in .45 4/5, and the somewhat faster pace in comparison with the race previously mentioned probably accounts for the fact that the horse lost quite a bit of ground in the stretch, having had a length and a half lead at the last turn but having won only by a neck.

The lines show very plainly that this horse hasn't got much and that what little he has is merely high early speed without ability to maintain it in the stretch. In every race shown in this set-up, except the top one, where he merely held even, he was losing ground in the stretch, and in one of his two winning races he also was losing ground.

It is definitely significant that both of the horse's wins were in claiming races. The lines themselves make evident the horse's quitting tendencies, and the fact that he has been able to beat only somewhat inferior opposition in­dicates that he is not very much despite his ability to de­velop speed for a half-mile or thereabouts. An animal of this type always is a problem to an owner or trainer. If he is entered against good ones he probably can't win, but if he is dropped into a claimer where he has a better, even a good, chance his known early speed may lead some­one else to halter him for the entered price.

The past performance lines make dry reading. But a handicapper who does not know just what the figures rep­resent, and cannot look behind them to get a clear picture of each horse and of his racing characteristics, had better learn to do so or else quit betting.

The lines above show a horse which is a natural router, the opposite type from the one presented in the other lines. Only one sprint is shown, a six-furlong' affair where the animal trailed throughout but came up a little in the stretch-run. All other races were at distances ranging from 1 1/16 miles to 1^4 miles. The times given, except for the sprint, are at the half-mile, three-quarters and finish, and the figures after the class of the race, as stakes, handicaps and graded handicaps and allowances, give in order from left to right the horse's post position, the order in which he broke or started, and his running position at the quarter, half, three-quarters, stretch and finish. Inspection of the horse's calls at the three-quarters in these races, in con­junction with times at the three-quarters set by the then leaders, shows plainly that this horse possesses no great early foot, but that he is not a truck which can run only in the late stages. In the top race he was third, fairly close to six-furlong time of 1.13, and in the bottom race he was third also, fairly close to three-quarters time of 1.12 3/5. Both of these affairs were at a mile and a sixteenth; in the race at a mile and five-eighths, fourth down in the set­up, this horse was third back of 1.13 3/5 for the three-­quarters, fairly lively time for so extended a route. It is evident that the horse is a router, not a sprinter, that he can develop fair speed in the early stages when suitably placed, and that he is not a quitter. In the first, second, fourth and fifth lines from the top the superior figures (of lengths behind) with the stretch and finish calls show that he was losing ground in the stretch, but the showing does not amount to a demonstration of quitting tendencies.

The first of the basic matters involved in any sound . handicapping process is that of estimating the real quality or class of a horse.

I. CLASS

The word "class," as used by a handicapper or a turf-writer, is no mere abstraction. The entire structure of Thoroughbred racing is based on the differences in basic class between individual animals. In stake races, for in­stance, apart from the penalties for prior wins, all entrants carry the same weight. The theory is- that the owners have paid heavily for the privilege of running their colts and fillies against first-class opposition and are entitled to put their chances to the test in so doing. In handicaps anyone who is willing to pay the required fees may run a horse, but the track's handicapper assigns the weights for the race so as to ensure a real contest, putting the heaviest weight on what he considers the best horse, the lightest on what he considers the worst, and burdening the in-betweens as justly as he can in a real effort to bring all over the finish-line together. In an allowance race the weights are assigned directly by the conditions of the race itself, not by the track's handicapper, the animal of best prior record getting the most weight with gradations down to the lightest weight, to be carried by the horses of least impressive records. And in the average claiming race the conditions take weight off a horse if entered to be claimed at a valuation lower than the others.

"Weight brings them all together," and weights are varied among a single field either by the judgment of the track's handicapper or by the judgment of individual owners as limited by the conditions of the race. If it were not for differences in class between individual horses, variations in weight would not be necessary to produce good contests. And if good contests had not been pro­duced, by and large, through these procedures based on differences in class of horses, racing would have fallen of dry-rot long ago.

Just as differences in class are part of the structure of racing, so is ability to recognize differences between in­dividual horses in point of basic class an absolutely essen­tial part of the equipment of every player who attempts to figure-his own winners. Quite apart from the matter of detecting the best horse in a single field, of whatever class, take the very simple matter of avoiding extremely cheap horses, the $l,500-down platers that clutter up race­courses to the boredom of spectators and the enrichment of bookmakers. Many of these nags are unsound; many of them are aged and almost as unreliable as the cripples; others are simply no good—never could race well and never will race well. And yet, strangely enough, these aged, dicky-legged horses seem to have a fatal attraction for players, particularly for off-course players who patron­ize bookmakers. Anyone with the least knowledge of horses knows that these animals are utterly unreliable as wager­ing media, so lacking class that they will not race to handi­capping figures of any type with any consistency. And any­one with the least ability to classify horses cannot fail to recognize them for what they are and to avoid them like a pestilence. An elementary classifying ability at least will enable a player to discard these tramps of the track.

In the last analysis all practitioners of the gentle art of handicapping fall within one or the other of two groups. The first group is made up of those who attempt an analy­sis in terms of the comparative class and consistency of the individual entrants in each field; the second group is made up of those who rely primarily upon a process of speed-analysis in attempting to get winners. Between these two schools of horse-figures there has been much printed con­troversy ; I have even battled in the lists myself, on the class-consistency side. There is no point in wasting space on that old argument here, but to anyone who is a con­stant player and scrutinizer of the past performances I should like to suggest that it is very common to note a horse beaten in slower time than he won in last out, although carrying less weight. And on the other hand, it is a comparatively uncommon thing to note a win by a horse when really stepped up in class of opposition over what he has been able to beat before.

A player who for six months will make a note of each of these two different situations in analyzing past per­formances daily, and will keep a count of wins by stepped-up horses as against defeats in slower races by horses under lighter weights, will secure a basis more solid than mere opinion to judge whether speed by the watch is a better handicapping instrument than analysis of class-consistency.

Admitting that class is a valuable instrument to any handicapper, how is it best evaluated and measured in any single horse? Personal inspection of the animal is not to be relied on, for many magnificent physical specimens, of faultless lines and beautiful conformation, do not live up to the promise of their appearance but fail to race well, however placed. Nor can breeding be relied on as an indicator of real class, for hundreds of colts and fillies whose blood-lines cannot be faulted, fail miserably when brought to racing. If appearance and conformation even approximately measured real racing class, there never would have been any $75,000 lemons at the Saratoga year­ling sales and buying young horses would be much less of a speculation than it has been.

There is just one real test of the basic class or quality of a racing Thoroughbred and that is his performance in actual competition—what he has been able to do when brought on the track against his own kind, horses with three centuries' heritage of breeding to run fast and far. And since races of different types are deliberately pro­grammed to attract horses of different degrees of class, it follows that a grading of races will afford a tentative classi­fication of the horses that have run in them.

The very highest class of race—highest because the best horses race in it—has a dual' aspect. There are the stake races, the weight-for-age stakes and the stakes for two-year-old or three-year-old horses, many of which are al­most untried but whose owners feel so sure of their chances that they pay very substantial fees for the privilege to race for their own and the other owners' money plus something' added by the track. The other race of highest class is the important handicap for horses of three and up or of four and up—important either in money-value, like the Santa Anita Handicap or the Widener Challenge Cup, or im­portant in long tradition and the prestige to be had from winning, like the Suburban and Brooklyn Handicaps in New York.

In racing sheet past performances all stakes are identi­fied as such and all heavily endowed or otherwise im-portant handicaps are designated. A horse which has raced entirely or somewhat regularly in races of this type , can be rated tentatively as a first-class animal. Whether he will retain that grading after further scrutiny depends on what he does in actual racing when placed against the best available company.

Reproduced below are the conditions for two important three-year-old stakes and for a substantial handicap for horses of three years and up—the Withers, Arlington Classic, and Roger Williams Handicap. It will be noted in the case of all of these races that there are no condi­tions for eligibility other than that the horse be of proper age and that his owner pay the required fees. Of course in the Withers, as in the mile and a half Belmont Stakes at the same track, geldings are not eligible. The specifica­tion of scale-weights for horses of different ages in the Roger Williams Handicap, run in May, does not establish the weight to be carried by any given animal. In all handi­caps weights are assigned by the track's handicapper, in accordance with his view of the merits of the field, and the specification of scale weights in the conditions for this race is merely for information.

1 Mile. 3-year-olds. Withers Stakes. $25,000 Added. Weight, 126 pounds. Maidens allowed 5 pounds. By subscrip­tion of $50; $250 to start. Geldings not eligible.

1 1-4 Miles. 3-year-olds.

Arlington Classic Stakes. $60,000 Added. Weight, 126 pounds. Non-winners of a 3-year-old's race of $30,-

000      allowed 4 pounds; of such a race of $15,000, 7 pounds. By
subscription of $50, with additional payments $1,000 to start.

1   1-16 Miles. 3-year-olds and Upward.

Roger Williams Handicap. $10,000 Added. Scale of weights, 3-year-olds, 112 pounds; 4-year-olds, 127 pounds; older, 128 pounds. By subscription of $25; $150 to start. Weights, Monday, May 13. Winners of a race of $2,500 after announcement of weights, 3 pounds extra.

Below are set forth condensed past performance lines covering the records of several of the leading entrants for the Champagne Stakes in a recent renewal, a late-season Belmont Park feature for high-class two-year-olds at a mile. Note the column giving the types of races in which these horses competed previously, most of them having raced half the time or more in stakes for animals of their age. Since each had performed in the best type of race, presumptively each was a first-class horse. Whether that grading actually was justified in the case of any one horse can be determined only by noting how well he had raced in the past when so placed, how consistently he had won against superior opposition, and how consistently he had finished close by the winner when beaten. Persistent entry against good ones will not change an inferior horse into a good one himself; the type of races where he has com­peted merely affords a line on his class which must be confirmed by good performances before he can be ac­cepted.

The following condensed past performance lines repre­sent some of the entrants in a recent renewal of the mile and a quarter American Derby at Washington Park, a richly endowed stake race for three-year-olds. Note the high proportion of high-class races in which each horse had been performing as shown by the column stating the type of each race. The last horse represented, E, seemed to be in over his head under a class analysis of the field, since he had raced chiefly in allowances and in only one stake. But as a matter of fact he won and paid a mutuel in excess of $200.00. The very long price was due to the fact that he did seem to be in over his head, and to his poor per-'f ormance in the single race where he did meet stake horses.

But such upsets are part of racing, and no one ever will devise a method of figuring fields that will enable a player to anticipate such occurrences.

Equal to a real stake-horse in point of basic quality is an animal which performs chiefly in rich handicaps for horses of three years and up and enjoys conspicuous success when so placed. The lines below represent three of the entrants in a recent renewal of the Manhattan Handicap, a mile and a half race at Belmont Park carry­ing $25,000 added money. The high-class races in which these horses had been competing is evident in a glance at the column giving the types of events in which they had run previously.

Horse A was the King Ranch's Assault, triple-crown winner of 1946 and the only three-year-old in the Man­hattan Handicap that year; horse B was Pavot, two-year-old champion of 1944, although something of a disap­pointment at three in 1945; and horse G was Stymie, Hirsch Jacobs' Equestrian stallion, and the ultimate winner.

Below are reproduced the conditions for a typical allow­ance race. Eligibility is limited to three-year-old horses which have not won four races, other than maiden or claiming races, at any time. The conditions also establish a base weight of 120 pounds and allow weight off for prior inferior racing performance within the limits specified.

6 Furlongs (Chute). 3-year-olds. Allowances. Purse, $3,000 For non-winners of four races other than maiden or claiming at any time. Weight, 120 pounds. Non-winners of a race of $5,000 at any time or three races of $2,000 each since September 1 al­lowed 3 pounds; of a race of $2,500 in 1946, 6 pounds; of a race of $2,000 since October 1 or a race of any value since April 20, 9 pounds; of two races since November 1, 11 pounds; of a race since October 1, 13 pounds; maidens, 15 pounds. Claiming races not considered.

All the races hitherto specified are non-claimers, and the distinction between claiming and non-claiming events is the deepest single cleavage separating one class of race from another. In any claiming race an entering owner risks loss of his horse at the price for which he is entered, and of course only relatively inferior horses are entered under such conditions, except by owners so desperately in need of a purse that they are forced to take chances.

Below appear the conditions for a claiming race. The key points are that each horse must be entered at a fixed valuation ranging from $7,000 to $7,500 and that the cheaper he is entered the less weight he must carry. This race also embodies a clause making weight-allowances for prior inferior performance.

6 Furlongs (Chute). 4-year-olds and Upward.

Claiming. Purse $3,000

Weights, 4-year-olds, 118 pounds; older, 120 pounds. Non-win­ners of three races since December 1 allowed 3 pounds; of two races since then, 5 pounds; of a race, 7 pounds. Claiming price, $7,500; if entered for less, 2 pounds allowed for each $250 down to $7,000.

Horses entered in G, D and E handicaps, particularly the D and E are also frequently entered in claimers at a price of $5,000, as a scrutiny of the past performances for almost any graded handicap will reveal. But it is impossi­ble to state just what claiming prices, if any, G, D and E handicaps are equivalent to, just as it is impossible to state what type of graded handicap an allowance race is equivalent to. But it really is unnecessary to make these attempts, because in considering any single race as set-up in the past performances it is not difficult to determine" which horse has been racing in the best type of events. The real difficulty is to fix on an accurate class rating for each of two horses where one has an excellent record in somewhat inferior races as against the other's somewhat inferior record in races against better company. The ques­tion will be taken up again here and in the next section, on Consistency.

Claiming races, of course, are graded automatically by their valuations. A race for horses priced at $6,000 pre­sumably is of higher rank than a race for animals priced at $5,000, just as the $5,000 race is better than a $4,000 event, and so on down the claiming-price ladder. It may be stated incidentally that it is a waste of time to try to handicap horses entered for less than $1,250. As pre­viously suggested the $l,500-down kind are the bookies' friends.

A horse of the sort referred to is shown by the past per­formance lines reproduced below. Still a maiden at five years of age, he never has shown anything at all even against other maidens or in the cheapest of claimers. Not only has he failed to win; usually he has finished so far off the winner as to indicate that he himself is nothing at all.

A tentative list of race-classifications, in descending order of quality, looks something like this:

Stakes and Important Handicaps—A Handicaps—B Handicaps—G Handicaps—Allowances—D Handicaps—~ E Handicaps.

Claimers are graded according to the actual entered values of the horses.

It must be remembered that the allowance race is a fluc­tuating and relatively unknown quantity. Just what classification a particular allowance event should receive really depends on the class of horses it has attracted; it may have been as good as an A or B handicap or even a stake, or it may have been no better than a claimer of modest valuation.

It must be remembered also that D and E, even C handicaps, may have been no better than claimers in point of fields attracted, and therefore should be ranked no higher in favor of a horse on whose class one is trying to get a line.

A fair idea of the presumptive class of a horse may be gained by noting the type and class of races where he has performed. If a three-year-old has raced only in the great stakes for colts of his age, then he is presumably a colt of first class in comparison with all the three-year-olds of his year. He actually is a first-class three-year-old of the year if he has proved the fact by winning with some frequency or running close by in the richly endowed stakes for three-year-olds that have attracted the best of that age division. And if a four-year-old sprinter has been winning with some regularity, say once in four, when- entered in six-furlong spins at a valuation of $4,000, then he has dem­onstrated that he is a real $4,000 horse of his type that should very definitely be preferred over another four-year-old of sprinting type which has won no higher percentage of starts when entered at $3,000.

A cautionary statement should be made here. Races of different types as noted in the past performance cannot be accepted for grading at face value without considering the class of the track where each was run. By "class of the track" I mean the class of the course as determined by the general quality of the horses stabled and racing there year after year.

Ranking of various racecourses probably can best be done on the basis of their daily average purse distribution on the hypothesis that the best horses will be found where the most money is available. On this basis the following tracks would rank as major courses: Belmont—Pimlico— Santa Anita—Saratoga—Hollywood—Arlington—Wash­ington—Aqueduct—Empire—Laurel—Hialeah—Jamaica —Garden State and the Atlantic City and Monmouth tracks in New Jersey—Delaware-—Suffolk—Narragansett —Havre de Grace — Bowie — Churchill — Keeneland:— Hawthorne—Tropical—Lincoln Fields—Bay Meadows— Rockingham—Detroit—Del Mar.

Between these and definitely minor tracks come courses like the Fair Grounds, in Louisiana, Sportsman's Park, in Illinois, Oaklawn Park, in Arkansas, and various other scenes of racing activity.

The definitely minor tracks are those whose courses are less than a mile in circuit, as well as all the Canadian tracks.

In attempting to classify a race at anything other than a first-class course, allowance must be made for the track's generally inferior status. A horse which has been winning $2,500 claiming races at Sportsman's Park cannot proper­ly be graded, from that bare fact, with an animal of equal performance in $2,500 claimers at Pimlico or Belmont Park.

Admittedly it is a difficult thing to compare races at different courses, particularly if one track is substantially less important than the other. But it is always possible to dodge the difficulty by confining one's efforts to fields that have been racing at the same course or at least at courses of approximately equal rank.

Each past performance line in a standard racing sheet indicates the track at which the race was run. A reader who does not know all the abbreviations should at once familiarize himself with the names they stand for, and if he does not know whether each is a first-class, in-be­tween or minor course he should make a list classifying them.

I have attempted to give the relative grading of all types of races, non-claiming and claiming. The assumption has been that all races were at courses of equal grade, nor­mally first class. To attempt to do the same thing in one table for all classes of races at all classes of tracks would be impossible. Too many factors are involved. It is hard enough to determine what price claimer is equivalent to an E handicap at Belmont Park or Pimlico alone without trying to handle the intangibles involved in an assumed equivalence between a handicap at Charles Town and a claimer at Hialeah Park. On these issues, after he once understands the theory of first grading races and then grading horses through the class of races where they have run, a reader must be left to his own intelligence, persever­ance in checking, and ability to learn from experience.

■ In attempting to evaluate the real class of a horse, par­ticularly a plater, it is often valuable to note the best type of race that he has been able to win. Take a $1,000-$ 1,500 plater. Assume he is entered today at the latter figure. As­sume also that he has been able to win a fair percentage of his starts, that he has on occasion raced to fair times at the distance, that he seems a handy type, able to stay with the pace likely to be set and is positively no quitter. But assume also that a check into all his races in the past per­formances shows that he never has won when entered at a valuation in excess of $14OOO. That fact is practically conclusive against his chances today when entered at $1,500. Horses which have won at $1,000 but failed at $1,250 and $1,500 several times almost always are hope­less prospects when entered again at $1,500. The point is a fact; the fact is the strongest endorsement sof the practi­cal value of a close class analysis of fields; and yet, simple as an analysis of this type is, it is unknown to many thou­sands of players bemused by consideration of post posi­tions, jockeys, trainers, workouts and times.

The past performance lines below, covering a horse entered at $2,000 in a claiming race at a minor track, af­ford an illustration of the situation just discussed. All races shown, except the top two, were at minor courses. The first two entries, at a major course and at valuations of $2,000 and $1,800, resulted in very poor performances. The highest figure at which the horse had been able to win was $1,250 at a minor course, so obviously the animal was stepped up when entered at $2,000, as in the race for which the lines were printed. And he finished nowhere.

Only a limited number of late races, seven to ten, are set up for each horse in the past performances of a standard racing sheet. If there is any doubt as to whether a single animal measures up to today's field, in class of race, it is often advisable to follow his record farther back through the chart'books. In doing this, however, it is well not to give much weight to races so remote in point of time that the horse may have tailed off materially since, not so much in racing edge as in basic quality and ability.

The type of race in which a horse has competed pre­sumptively measures his basic class and quality as either belonging or not belonging in today's contest. But whether the prior type of race actually measures his quality de­pends strictly upon his average winning performance when so placed. In other words, real operative class, so far as it can be measured, is a product of theoretical class when tested by actual consistency in that class.

II. CONSISTENCY

In examining the past performances of a field of horses, the very first thing for determination is whether each animal in the race really belongs with a field of the type for which it was conditioned. If it is a six-furlong sprint at a major track for platers entered at $2,000-$2,500, and if all entrants have been performing at that or similar courses at about the indicated valuation, then one can assume that no great class-differences are presented. But if one or two of the horses have raced at the valuation only at some half or three-quarter mile track, or if one or two have never raced at a major course at a valuation higher than $1,500, then a very definite class-question immediately presents itself. Do they really belong with the field against which they are entered? And, on the fact that they have not raced at the valuation at a major course, the answer almost certainly is in the negative.

Intimately associated with the question of class is that of consistency. A horse may have been entered repeatedly in stakes, in handicaps, in allowances or in claiming races of any given valuation, but unless he has won at least occasionally or has run close up at the finish—the mere fact of his entry in such races cannot certify that he has sufficient basic quality to be classifiable as a stake-horse, a handicap-horse, a horse that belongs in an allowance race or as a plater of the particular valuation at which he has been entered in the past. Such a horse really is an un­known quantity, and, until he beats something, no handi-capper can know where he does actually belong.

I remember a very good illustration of the necessity that a horse show something in terms of winning races before he can be accepted safely as possessing any degree of class. In 1933 Whitney's Singing Wood worn the Belmont Futurity, with a maiden, Sir Thomas, close behind him and closing. On the strength of this second, Sir Thomas was made winter-book favorite for the Kentucky Derby of 1934, but ran nowhere and in fact never won a race until he finally managed to finish first in a $1,000 claimer after having been dropped down and down the class ladder until he wound up where he really belonged.

It is a very common experience for a handicapper to come upon a race in which some one horse seems to be decisively dropped down in class of opposition. He has been racing $2,500 platers, for instance, possibly with some success, and today is in a race with a $1,500 tag on his head. What's the answer? Is he a cinch, or would one be a sucker to take him?

There is no definite answer. He may be a cinch, may be able to gallop to $1,500 horses although he never has shown much against better animals. On the other hand, he may still be pitched too high, may be able to do noth­ing against his cheaper opponents. All presumptions are against the possession of any degree of class whatsoever by any horse until he has proved it by beating something. And, of course, there is always the chance that an animal is being entered lower because he has developed some physical infirmity.

Quite often, too, a handicapper will note a horse deci­sively stepped up in class of opposition. Assume that he beat $1,500 platers a couple of times, then was entered at $1,750 and won or ran very close to the leader, did the same thing at $2,000, and finally is entered at $2,500 against horses similarly tagged. He may even have run the distance of today's race faster than any of his $2,500 opponents have done at the same course, but to accept him as a bet is to take more than the risk inherent in any wager on any horse. He may gallop to the better field as he has done to cheaper ones, but there is no logical assur* ance that he will do so.

The consistency or steadiness of a racing Thoroughbred may be viewed in several aspects. Each is of real im­portance, and I will list them before taking them up in detail.

The first aspect of consistency has to do with its certi­fication of a horse's real class. I have suggested this already.

The second aspect of consistency has to do with its measurement of a horse's relative racing ability in a fixed class.

A third aspect of consistency has to do with the differ­ence between steadiness in winning and steadiness in run­ning in the money or close by.

A fourth aspect of consistency has to do with an ani­mal's ability to remain in contention and stay with the sort of pace that probably will be set. To note that one horse in a race can run to about .46 at the half, and still keep going for a full three-quarters, and that another cannot keep within lengths of such pace, is not to depend on bare time to get a winner but rather to detect the ob­vious fact that the second animal is under a very definite handicap, that he must win from behind, and may not be able to get through horses ahead of him when he starts his drive. It is a simple matter to cast an eye down the half-mile calls in a sprinter's past performances and note that he usually is running first, second or third to time of about .46, at tracks fast enough to permit it, and also to note that another horse usually is fourth, fifth, sixth or worse at the same point when the time is similarly fast.

As stated above, the first aspect of consistency has to do with its certification of a given horse's real class. A racing Thoroughbred is just about as good as what he can beat; there is no other dependable measure of horse-quality. An animal may be perfect in conformation and looks; he may be bred in the purple; he may be able to break watches in morning gallops; but if he can't win he is no earthly use as a betting medium.

When there is doubt as to a particular horse's class, the only procedure is to examine each race in the past per­formance lines to determine its intrinsic class, then to con­sider the class of the track at which it was programmed, and finally to note the particular animal's performance when so placed. If he is entered at $2,500 today at a course such as Belmont Park, and one sees that he has been performing at that valuation at Pimlico and has won occasionally or quite often, then it is a demonstrated fact that he belongs with the field. He may be a speed-horse, of relatively inferior powers in the stretch, and up against even greater early foot that may kill him off; he may be at definite disadvantage at the weights; he may have drawn an unfavorable post position. But these matters have nothing to do with the question of class; he has proved that he belongs with $2,500 horses and can be accepted as a bet unless the other factors involved appear too unfavorable.

The first aspect of consistency tends to merge with its second aspect, that having to do with measurement of a horse's relative racing ability in a fixed class. A plater which' has beaten $2,500 animals only once in- fifteen or twenty attempts may be a real $2,500 horse himself; he has demonstrated it once anyway. But a plater which has beaten $2,500 horses from 25 to 40% of the time obvious­ly is something more. Not only is he certainly a $2,500 plater; he also is an exceptionally steady and honest horse from which a bettor may confidently expect his usual steady race.

A field of horses of about the same general class, if there is no great disparity in weights assigned, may be graded accurately by developing the percentage of starts in the money this year—after enough races to afford a true base —or by developing the percentage of wins, the percentage of starts in the money (counting wins again) and then averaging the two figures. The procedure is of A B G simplicity, so much so that it may not appeal to a real handi­capping fanatic who gets as much fun out of splitting hairs in his figuring as he does from cashing bets. But profit is almost certain over a period for a player who will confine himself to the New York and major Maryland tracks, will pass up fields entered at less that $1,500, will average the winning and in-money percentages of each horse, and then will refuse to bet the animal that rates best unless he has a margin of fifteen points or more and does not go as favorite. This straight arithmetical horse-doping will not yield much action, with the restrictions indicated, but it will pay dividends. And such dividends count, not only in the pocket, but also in certification of handicapping ability.

It is a melancholy fact that a very high percentage of all horses on the tracks, whatever their intrinsic class, are so erratic and inconsistent that one really is throwing away his money to bet on them. Animals which show occasional fine races, and display speed but rarely, are nothing but heartbreaks to a bettor. They may do it again, but on the average of their performances the chances are heavy that they will not. As media for betting they are better forgot­ten. And yet, year after year, day after day, hundreds of thousands of dollars are wagered on erratic and inconsist­ent horses that never run two races alike and are certain and steady only in losing. A sensible player lets them run for Sweeney, but the percentage of sensible players ap­parently is not very high. Every horse in every race gets some play, if only a few dollars, and it would take the wisdom of a Socrates to figure out why.

Below appear condensed past performance lines on a horse of the erratic character referred to. He has won once—in a claimer and at the cheapest figure he ever had been entered at—and he has run second once and third once. It is evident from the lines and his finishing positions that this fellow has nothing on the ball and is an extremely hazardous bet except against cheap company, other vices is that of faltering or quitting when the real racing begins in the stretch; in every race in this set-up, in­cluding his winning effort and his tries in the money, he was losing ground in the late stages. Horses of this type make up a large majority of all those racing, and it is a player's own fault if he insists on betting them and con­tinues to lose money.

Some years ago I published a book listing and analyzing over two hundred ultra-consistent horses.8 In the course of getting my material together I ascertained that .the horses included in the list, though less than 2% of all Thoroughbreds trained and raced that year, had actually won about 10% of all the races programmed at American tracks in the particular period. The fact that less than one-fiftieth of all horses can win one-tenth of all races is a striking affirmation of the importance of winning con­sistency as an instrument of prediction in handicapping. I think very few players would deny the importance of consistency in argument, but hundreds and thousands quite obviously deny it daily in their betting practices and techniques.

A large number of players are over-sold on the notion that a substantial percentage of all races are fixed and crooked, or are won or lost on the basis of smart inside tactics by the owner, trainer or jockey. A player who has this attitude toward the sport is imposing on himself a most severe handicap. Instead of looking coldly at the horses and analyzing their relative abilities he goes about with his ears cocked for stable information and paddock tips, with the result that he never develops any ability as a handicapper on his own, and never gets any real informa­tion either. Despite what the chap with frayed trousers may ladle out while trying to make a touch, racing is the straightest professional sport in the world and under the most severe regulation in the interest of complete honesty. The sensible figure-man who works out his own winners and plays them with his own money knows this because his figures predict pretty accurately, and he knows that they could not do so unless racing were straight.

8 Horses to Bet, William Morrow & Company, New York City, 1938, now out of print and obtainable only at second hand. For a method of play confined exclusively to extremely consistent horses selected by mechanical means without personal handicapping, see Winners at Prices, M. S. Mill Co., Inc., New York City, 1947. M

Good horses have the winning habit; bad horses have the losing habit. There is absolutely no difficulty in dis­tinguishing the two types after.a glance at the past per­formances. A player has only himself to blame for his losses if he disregards the important matter of consistency or insists on taking something in a field where all the horses are just no good. Why bet on something that hasn't won in months?

The third aspect of consistency has to do with the dif­ference between steadiness in winning and steadiness in running in the money or close by the leader.

There are horses of a type that only rarely finish on the front end but often land in the money or are only a length or two away at the finish. These of course are greatly to be preferred over animals that almost inevitably finish up the course. But they should not be rated too highly, for they lack the winning habit despite their general stead­iness.

They are of two utterly different types. One type is made up of the chronic falterers and quitters, that possess high early speed, often open up a good lead at the fractions, and then tire or chuck it cold in the stretch, ending up beaten, if only narrowly, by some gamer animal that can carry his speed the full distance.

The past performance lines reproduced below will serve to illustrate a quitter, although certainly not the worst one on the tracks at the time this race was set up. The top race shown is characteristic both of the horse and of the type. He hit the stretch with the narrow lead of a head, but could not take heat and hit the finish line third, three-quarters of a length off the winner. In all other races shown except one, his single winning effort, he either was losing ground or was being caught by a horse or horses in the stretch-run. In his winning effort, in a claimer, and theoretically the cheapest race shown, he did manage to come up from second by a head to finish first by a head, but the feat obviously was exceptional for him and not characteristic. Such falterers and quitters are a chief curse of the tracks, and a player will greatly improve his results who makes it a fixed rule never to bet on them.

The second type of horse that wins much less often than he lands in the money is the animal which lacks early foot but can turn it on in the stretch—a type exactly op­posite to the quitter. Sometimes he manages to get up at the finish, but usually he is just a trifle late although com­ing fast at the end. A year's summary of record of a front-runner and of a stretch-runner may look much alike as printed at the head of the past performances. The figures for each might show for this year seventeen starts, one win, five seconds, four thirds. But there is no similarity in the past performance lines of each. The quitter and falter-er will appear in nearly all races as leading or near the front end at the fractions but finishing second, third, fourth or worse. The stretch-runner will have been well back at the early calls but coming on fast in the stretch to catch tiring horses.

The type of horse to bet with confidence is neither the quitter nor the stretch-runner, however consistent in run­ning in the money either may be. The horse to bet is the fellow that has enough early speed to stay within striking distance of probable pace, if not to set it, and has enough courage to battle it out in the stretch if he must, without being forced to come from too far behind. The foot and courage of such a one will show in the figures crediting him with a good percentage of wins as well as in-money tries. He is a better animal than any mere quitter or stretch-runner, and a much handier racing type. He faces less difficulties than a stretch-runner because he can stay somewhere near the pace and not be forced to come through or around horses from behind; he has a better chance than the mere quitter because he does not fold up when the going gets hot.

A handicapper who really studies the past performance lines, and does not merely dream and dope over them, can get a very accurate picture of each horse in the field he is considering. One animal he will note as having won only a single start of twenty-seven races this year and last. The bare fact will immediately give rise to a strong sus­picion that the horse does not amount to much, and a check on his past performances will reveal that he is just plain no good, a highly erratic animal with no definite characteristics, a faint-hearted front-runner or a belated stretch-runner. Whatever his type, one thing is certain. A horse that has been able to win only once in twenty-seven times cannot amount to much and almost surely will be beaten by some other animal of better winning record whose past performances demonstrate not only that he has won several times against the sort of company he is facing but also that he should be able to go "with the. probable pace and will not quit in the stretch.

Consistency of any type, whether in winning or merely running in the money, is an attribute so rarely found in the modern Thoroughbred, particularly in the cheaper platers that make up the great bulk of races programmed, that in race after race a handicapper will find absolutely nothing of any real consistency and hence be forced to pass the event as a medium for wagering. It is much easier to get the better horse of two that have some ap­preciable degree of consistency than it is to find the least inferior and least inconsistent animal in a mess of sorry plugs that have shown nothing in competition. Maidens that have been raced for two or three years and other cheap and erratic skates should be passed after a glance at the conditions of the race. There's no gold in them thar hills, but plenty of grief.

The following past performance lines seem to present quite plainly a case of "qualifying" with a maiden. In the races represented by the four bottom lines the horse while a maiden showed nothing and ran very poorly. But in his next start, in a claimer for maidens when he was en­tered for $3,500, the horse ran ahead all the way from the first quarter, and after that won two more races in a line when entered at increasing valuations. After he broke his maiden his connections evidently were trying with him and had some success. and labored analysis. He is as real as a pound of gold, and he is classed as great simply because he took on all the better horses of his period and beat them regularly and consistently, often when conceding much weight. Ex­terminator was a great horse, because he raced an even hundred times against the best that could be pitted against him and won exactly half his starts; There never has been any test of greatness in a horse other than consistency in winning, and there never will be. And just as consistency in winning is the only test of greatness in a horse among good horses so also is consistency in winning and running close by the surest indicator of quality among day to day fields available to an amateur or professional handicapper. Once the class-question is settled, once it is determined that the particular animal really belongs in the particular field, then there is very little more to the process of get­ting a winner than to find the single horse, if there is only one, which has succeeded in winning the highest per­centage of his starts over a period of six months or a year.

In turf-writing as a whole, it seems to me that there is much too little emphasis on consistency as the most basic of the factors involved in any handicapping process. The average serious player of horses will read in a year thou­sands of words about times, weights, jockeys, trainers, post position, present form—anything in the world, in fact, that has the most remote connection with a horse—and come across barely a line stating flatly that ability to win con­sistently in his own class is the only thing that distin­guishes a good horse from a bad one. The other matters so frequently mentioned, analyzed and discussed are just details. Yet their prominence in print can hardly fail to give them false emphasis with a reader and tend to affect his handicapping.

When six or seven horses present themselves in the past performances of a standard racing sheet, and it is ob­vious at a glance that not one of them has ever shown real ability by winning with some frequency, it is sheer nonsense for a player to prefer one that happened to win his last race or run close by. There is such a thing as present form, and an animal not in good racing trim probably will be beaten, but it is folly to assume from a' recent win or a fair race that a horse will repeat when, his whole record shows that he never repeats anything except bad- races. Yet a high percentage of favorites is made because of a lucky win or a superficially fair race.

The fourth special aspect of consistency that rounds out the discussion concerns a horse's ability to keep in the contention and stay with, if not set, the probable pace. Even in routes, but especially in sprints, an animal seri­ously lacking in early speed in comparison with the field' is at a very definite disadvantage. If he is to win he must do so by coming through horses from behind or coming around horses from behind. Coming around means losing some ground, and coming through means finding a hole. The slow beginner may be pocketed on the rail or other­wise blocked, and even if he has room for free running against an early-speed quitter he may be unable to get close enough to turn on the heat and bring out the yellow in the other.

Examination of times and running positions of the whole field at the half and three-quarters, as given in the past performance lines, will yield a very definite idea as to just about what pace is likely to be set in the present race and which animals are likely to set it. If today's race is a sprint, and the whole field has been sprinting, it is not hard to ascertain which horse or horses have been on or near the front end at the half in most of their races and approximately what time at that point they can set or stay with. If something in the race has been rapping .45 and a fraction at the halves, and nothing else has been setting or running with pace faster than .46 4/5 or .47, it is ob vious that the first horse has it in him to open a long lead, if his rider elects, and that he will be at advantage because he will have to be caught. Of course if the animal is a front-runner and nothing else, a bad quitter, the fact that he or she almost surely will be on the front end for a time should not be accepted as counting for too much.

I am writing about consistency, not about speed-handi­capping, and these statements are not leading away from the subject. A horse which has been running halves in sprints in about .46 can be expected to do so today over a course approximately as fast as those over which he made the times. And a horse which never has been able to stay Close to pace of about .47 at the half must be expected to be pretty well back if time is any faster. By comparing all the animals in a field in this way it is possible to get a very clear picture of the way the race will be run to the fractions, unless all the horses are so closely matched in early foot that the pacemaker probably will be determined by the luck of the start.

The way I use time at the fractions in handicapping is really somewhat negative. In looking for the probable winner I try to get the most consistent horse in the race, if there is any definite margin in favor of only one. I then do a little time-checking on him at the finishes, particular­ly in figuring sprints, to get an idea of how fast he can run. I will take no relatively inconsistent horse to win just because he has run the distance faster than the others, but I will take a really consistent horse to win even though the final times of his late races have been a trifle slower than those of the others. Finally I check on what frac­tional times he has run to and quite frequently I refuse to bet an animal that seems decisively outfooted to the half in a sprint or to the three-quarters in a route, al­though such rejections come much more frequently in sprints than in routes. In whatever I do with time I con­sider only figures that each animal has been able to run to consistently.

Horses A and B, represented in the lines below as entered in the same race at six furlongs, afford an illustration of what is meant. Horse A obviously had an edge on B in point of early foot. In the eight races shown for him: he had been leading at the half in five, had been second at that point in one, and had been third in two others. The half-mile times, he had thus been setting or staying close to were strictly comparable with half-mile times in B's races where B had been considerably farther back at that point as shown by his half-mile calls (third column in from the right for both horses). As a matter of fact A had once set half-mile time in a sprint as fast as .45 4/5 (bottom race in his set-up), a feat evidently quite beyon4... the powers of B. Also, despite his front-running ability, A was no quitter but a highly consistent winner, not only in races shown in the lines but also in other races running back for a year. It required no masterminding to work out A as probable winner over B in a six-furlong sprint in view of his superior consistency in winning and his su­perior consistency through early foot in getting an ad­vantageous position for the stretch run. Also the final times run to by each of these horses showed that A was just as fast as B to the finish and probably somewhat faster. ■ In fact A had already beaten B narrowly, in the top race shown for each, run over a heavy track.

It may be mentioned that A won this race easily enough.

A very easily applied test for consistency, apart from an animal's bare record of wins, seconds and thirds, is to glance down his finishing positions in all .races shown in the past performances. Look for a horse that almost never is more than one, two, three or four lengths off, even when beaten and finishing sixth or seventh. And of course it is all the better if he had some sort of an alibi for his worst races, like being left at the start in a big field or blocked in the drive. Avoid like a pestilence those horses whose finishing positions certify to nothing other than their ex­tremely erratic character. If in nine races set up in the past performances there are four, three or even two ex­tremely bad races, showing finishes out of the money and many lengths back, the fact is good ground for prejudice against the animal and for refusal to bet on him, even if the player fears him and does not care to bet against him.

It seems to me quite evident that the time of races be­comes increasingly important as their distance decreases. Times run to in the past are extremely important in get­ting winners from among fields of two-year-olds where they are stretched out above five furlongs. It is possible to handicap the youngsters solely by the watch because their races are run at a burst all the way, particularly at three, four and four and a half furlongs, with little rat­ing by jockeys, and consequently there is a truer reflec­tion of speed-capacities in final times. And time is of some importance in handicapping six- and seven-furlong sprints for older horses. But in races of a mile and more, extreme steadiness in winning or running close by is the best indicator of winning chances, although I am never sorry to see indications, in times run to, that the horse I fancy seems to have something on the others in speed at the finish.

There is more benefit to a player in limiting his choices to consistent horses than in the handicapping method it­self. Not only is a very consistent animal thoroughly steady and honest himself; his even level of performance is a guarantee that he is in the hands of an honest owner and trainer, who are leveling for purses all the time.

At the head of past performance lines covering any horse appears a summary of his record this year and last year. This summary gives the number of times he has started, the number of times he has won and the number of times he has finished second and third, as well as the total amount of money he has won in purses each year. Such a statistical summary is the best evidence of a horse's general consistency, and additional evidence is available in his finishing positions in races covered by the past per­formance lines set up. If a horse is a chronic winner, that fact will appear in a glance at the statistical summary of his record for the two years. And if he also is exceptionally consistent in finishing close by, even when beaten, an­other glance at his finishing positions in all races will re­veal that fact.

The total amount of money earned by a horse in a specified number of starts in a year is of use in fixing the class of races he has been performing in back of those covered by the past performance lines. A high average amount earned per start indicates not only consistency in winning but also entry in better type races.

III. WEIGHT

Equalization of the different horses entered in a single race is effected by putting lighter weights on the animals of less quality and heavier weights on the animals of better quality. It is axiomatic that the less weight on a horse the better his chances of winning, other things being equal, but so many factors intrude upon the effect of weight that a novice at handicapping is apt to go widely astray unless he has some guidance in the matter of weight other than his own ability to estimate the figures expressing pound­age to be carried.

In a handicap the track's handicapper has assigned the weight to be carried by each entrant, in a deliberate at­tempt to bring all over the finish-line together in a dead heat. In an allowance race the conditions are drawn to place the higher weights on entrants of better past racing performance and the lighter weights on entrants of rela­tively inferior racing performance. And in claiming races the limitation of eligibility to horses valued at or between certain "top and bottom" claiming prices restricts the con­test to animals of about the same general class; usual con­ditions allowing a few pounds off base weight for entry under the top but within the bottom claiming price give an owner or trainer additional leeway in adjusting the weight to the class of his horse. So also does the privilege of putting up an apprentice or "bug" jockey, with five-pound further allowance in weight to the horse.

Obviously the matter of weight is basic in the racing scheme of things; therefore it should be basic in the pro­cedures of a handicapper. On the other hand, a player who is considering the weights for a race never should forget one underlying point. Light weight, even exceed­ingly light weight, cannot safely be relied on to improve the average performance of a thoroughly erratic and in­consistent horse. These bad horses—a heavy majority of all racing at any time—are easily detected by glancing down their finishing positions in their past performances. It is completely futile to expect that such a horse will re­verse all his basic characteristics merely because he is carrying light weight.

A player should not forget that a horse very lightly weighted in a handicap has drawn his low poundage because the track's handicapper thinks he has little ability in relation to the top weights of the field; that a horse lightly weighted.in a condition or allowance race has got­ten in under the particular poundage because he has shown less than the others in actual racing; and that an animal very lightly weighted in a claiming affair is not highly estimated by his connections and has been enabled to get in under the poundage by entry for a price less than the others, by allowances for not being a previous winner, plus—possibly—the putting up of an apprentice jockey. Light weights are assigned to improve the chances of in­ferior horses, but often do not accomplish that end when the animals carrying them are inferior to the better per­formers in a field.

It is axiomatic around the tracks to take the high-weight in a handicap. The rule will work as frequently as any other for that type of race, and it will work because mere light weight cannot be expected to rid a horse of racing inability.

Apart from direct consideration of weights, a player who will refuse to wager on horses that have not been able to win 20% or more of their starts will find himself avoiding many losing bets on light-weights that have little else to recommend them.

Weight is basic both in the theory and structure of all Thoroughbred racing and in good handicapping. But real horse-quality is a jewel beyond price, and real horse-quality is reflected in winning and not in drawing imposts. If a horse can be figured as having a real chance at level weights with the top-weight of his field, then obviously he is at tremendous advantage when getting a fifteen-pound break in the weights, but if he should figure nowhere at levels then he is a most hazardous wager no matter how lightly he is packaged.

Light weight cannot be relied on to work great improve­ment in erratic horses, but material advantage in the weights certainly can be relied on to improve the chances of fast, steady and honest performers. A three-year-old that has been successfully meeting colts of that age at a mile and a sixteenth under weights of 115 to 120 pounds is at advantage at the same distance against animals of the same age if carrying only 110, unless his opponents are enjoying similarly favorable shifts. • And a handicap horse which has been carrying fairly heavy burdens with success over distances is at advantage if dropped into a condition race under somewhat lighter poundage, par­ticularly if the class of his opponents does not quite meas­ure up to his own. All these qualifying statements must be made because weight cannot be considered alone in handi­capping a field; the other factors of consistency, class and distance also enter in.

"It's difference of opinion that makes horse racing," and all opinion is fallible. The track handicapper may be wrong in his estimate of the ability of some horse or horses. In an allowance or condition race the racing secretary's opinion, as reflected in the stipulations, may result in gross underweight or equally gross overweight for some horse or horses. And in a claiming race the conditions may favor some one age-group of entrants rather than produce an even contest, or the opinion of any owner or trainer may be wrong that his horse is favorably treated in the weights under the conditions. But in any event it's all matter of opinion, as to how favorably or unfavorably each horse is treated in the weights.

Fortunately, in the case of horses over two years of age that have raced a number of times at different dis­tances and under varying weights, it is possible to get a pretty accurate idea of what poundage each can carry at a particular distance without losing his speed and stamina. An animal that has raced to fast fractional and final times under 115 pounds certainly can be expected to carry that weight or even two or three pounds more without substantially impairing chances. If he is under the -weight he has proved he can carry, so much the better, and more so if he-is carrying still less, provided again that other members of the field figuring close to him are not enjoying similar shifts.

In figuring a field I would not be inclined to consider too seriously the fact that a horse is picking up three or four pounds unless the additional burden is being added to a rather high weight previously carried well. Also the matter of distance must be considered as diminishing or increasing the probable effect of weight. Poundage bears down on a horse much less heavily in sprints than it does in races over a distance.

Apart from the age of horses, which is a matter for dis­cussion later in considering the age-scale, when weights get above the 120-pound level they begin to be really burdensome, particularly in route-races. A three-pound difference at 106 to 109 pounds is less potent in stopping a horse than at 126 to 129 pounds, particularly over a distance of ground.

When weights get really high is the time to watch one's step in taking a horse heavily burdened; if a field is weighted in the lower ranges, say from 110 pounds down, it is possible to get a satisfactory percentage of winners while giving comparatively slight consideration to the matter of weight. "A pound's a pound the world around," but a pound or two over 120 or 125 may weigh like a ton or two on a horse when its is straightened out in the stretch for the drive to the wire.

I have pointed out that the assignment of weights to horses, and judgment as to the effect of weights on horses, are both matters of opinion. And no one can escape the possibility of error in attempting to estimate weights in searching for winners. Take the predicament of a straight. speed-handicapper. He goes by the watch and he must formulate some equivalence between time and weight to use as a standard.

The final time of a race may depend very largely on whether the pace the winner was forced to set or to stay with was fast or slow. It may depend very heavily on whether he was able to hug the rail and run the exact dis­tance of the race—the distance for which he was timed—or whether he had to go wide all or part of the way. It may depend, too, on whether he was blocked or shut off for some substantial part of the race and hence unable to run freely.

It would be possible to pile up hundreds of words point­ing out factors other than weight that may have heavy influence on the times of races, but perhaps enough has been said to warn a reader against accepting any arbitrary assumption that five pounds more weight means a fifth of a second less speed, or any other attempt to formulate an equation between time or speed and weight.

A race at Jamaica, New York, afforded an excellent il­lustration of the increased effect of extra pounds at high-weight levels and over longer distances. Hirsch Jacobs' Silent Witness was entered at a mile and three-sixteenths under 126 pounds. Opposing him was Navy, another horse over four, under 102 pounds. Silent Witness was a very honest and reliable sort; in fact he was coming up off three straight wins. The event was a grade C handicap, and the wide spread in weight between the two horses re­flected track handicapper Jack Campbell's opinion as to their relative merits. As the race was run, around the sharp Jamaica turns, Silent Witness was forced to race on the outside all the way, and in the stretch could not get his nose ahead of Navy, which won in a photo finish. At the weights, and at the extended distance of the race, to bet Silent Witness was to accept a hazard that might have been avoided by one who realized that the extra heavy poundage, though only slightly more than Silent Witness Excess weight can be considered as having somewhat more effect on a horse when running over a track that is muddy, heavy or otherwise off. But in the average case the off-track abilities of known mud-larks more than com­pensate for any reasonable weights.

Too many players, particularly novices, are entirely un­familiar with the scale of weights 9 and its use in handi­capping fields for winners. The basic purpose of the scale is to establish what theoretical weight-concessions should be made by more mature horses to younger animals at any given distance in any month of the racing year. Com­paratively few races require entrants to carry exact scale weights, but even in races departing from the scale in as­signment of weights, the scale itself is a valuable instru­ment for determining whether any particular age-class is at theoretical advantage or disadvantage.

The first thing to note about the scale is that it provides a three-pound weight-concession to two-year-old fillies en­tered against males, and a five-pound weight-concession to fillies and mares of three and up when entered against colts, horses or geldings. This five-pound sex-allowance is cut to three from September 1 to the end of the year in recognition of the fact that the sex disability of females diminishes in the fall.

The sex-allowance is provided for female horses be­cause as a class they are less robust than males. Without the allowance they would have little chance on the tracks, and even with it they are extra-hazardous bets against

9 On p. 112 is appended The Jockey Club's Scale of Weights, adopted in New York, Maryland, Kentucky, Illinois and a num­ber of other racing states. (The Scale is from The Rules of Racing, copyright 1947 by The Jockey Club, and is reprinted by permission of the Club.) Scales adopted in states not using this one differ from it very slightly.

It takes a rather exceptional filly to beat colts and geldings in the Kentucky Derby even in May when carrying 121 pounds to the colts' 126, as shown by the fact that Regret has been the only filly to win the race.

The way to use the scale in relation to females is ex­tremely simple. Merely add her sex-allowance of three or five pounds to the weight actually assigned the filly or mare before attempting to compare her position, with that of the males. This need not be done in handicaps, because the track's handicapper has considered sex with other factors in assigning the weights, but in all other races it. should be done.

In races of intermediate lengths, the weights for the shorter distance shall be carried.

In races exclusively for three-year-olds or four-year-olds, the weight shall be 126 pounds, and in races exclusively for two-year-olds, the weight shall be 122 pounds.

Except in handicaps and in races where the conditions ex­pressly state to the contrary, fillies two years old shall be allowed three pounds, and mares three years old and upward shall be allowed five pounds before September 1, and three pounds after­wards

A scale of weights was first developed in England by Admiral Rous in the nineteenth century. It has since been modified repeatedly, but the aim has always been to estab­lish weight-differences at various distances that would. equalize the chances of immature animals entered against horses that are fully mature.

In handicapping a race for horses of different ages the first thing to do is to read the conditions carefully in order to determine what class of horse it was designed to attract. Next, make a note on the racing sheet beside the weight actually assigned, of the number of pounds each horse is under or over scale weight for his age at the particular distance in the particular month of the year. A three-year-old racing four-year-olds at a mile in June when carrying 112 pounds to the latters' 120 is not at any advantage at the weights, but rather at definite disadvantage. His 112 pounds is only 2 pounds under scale-weight of 114 for three-year-olds at a mile in June, whereas the 120 pounds on the four-year-olds is 6 pounds under scale-weight of 126 pounds for them at the distance in that month. There­fore the three-year-old is at a net weight-disadvantage of 4 pounds. Beside the three-year-old,'s actual weight should be entered in pencil —2, and beside the four-year-olds' should be entered —6. Or if one horse is over scale-weight, the number of pounds over should be entered with a plus sign before the figure, and the same treatment accorded the weights on all.

If this procedure is adopted as a constant practice one will not be misled as to the actual weight-situation in races for horses of different ages, and automatically will note the fact if the track's secretary has conditioned the affair to place at definite advantage horses of any given age, if that is the case, as it frequently is.

The scale is a matter of opinion and therefore fallible; I would not advise following it on weights to the exclusion of all else. Apart from age, a horse's weight-packing ability counts for much and should be accorded due recognition by a handicapper who notes an animal of any age that has been able to handle heavy packages. But the scale does afford most useful guidance, and one would be foolish not to take advantage of it in figuring weight in races pro­grammed for horses of different ages.

In particular it may be noted that three-year-olds of excellent winning record against opponents of their own age frequently prove unable to beat older horses despite substantial weight-concessions not quite equaling those called for by the scale. Only rarely do three-year-olds beat older horses in important spring handicaps in New York, like the Paumonok, Suburban or Brooklyn, although in assigning weights the track's handicapper has allowed for the relative immaturity of the younger animals. King Cole, a three-year-old, won the Paumonok at six furlongs in 1941 at Jamaica, beating older horses, as Pompoon had done in 1939, the last preceding victory for a horse of that age. Omaha was a good three-year-old in 1935, but Dis­covery, an older horse, handled him easily in the Brooklyn Handicap of that year at Aqueduct. In its numerous re­newals since 1884 the Suburban Handicap at a mile and a quarter has been won by only a few, three-year-olds—a fact most eloquent on the issue of a three-year-old's chances against older horses in late May or early June unless substantially favored in the weights. It is a fact that a three-year-old's good record against horses of his own age is of little significance to his chances against older horses, even though he may be receiving weight-conces­sions equal to those called for by the scale.

Examination of the scale will show that weight-conces­sions to three-year-olds from four-year-olds diminish as the racing year advances. This is because three-year-olds, as the season advances, are gaining upon older horses in relative maturity.

Weight-concessions to four-year-olds by older horses under the scale cease to exist after May, June, July or August, depending on the distance of the race. Scale-dif­ferences between these ages are very slight anyway,,and are of little practical importance to a handicapper. Chief utility of the scale to one who figures his own winners is in spotting advantages at the weights as between three-year-olds and older horses.

The scale is of minimum importance as regards two-year-olds. Weight really is a minor factor in handicapping the juveniles as a class. They are raced only against each other and over short sprinting distances for most of their first season, and the*watch rather than the weights is the standard to go by. The short dashes in which the juveniles perform until the latter part of the year, particularly the three, four and four and a half furlong sprints pro­grammed in the earlier months, are tests of such short dur­ation that weight has no time to tell. Also such races, be­cause they are short, are run at a dead pelt all the way, with little or no rating by the riders. The net result to a player-handicapper is that he can select the colt or filly which has run at the distance to time two- or three-fifths of a second faster than anything else in the race has shown over comparable courses.

If it is noted that a two-year-old has run five furlongs a couple of times at Jamaica in 1.00 flat, and that nothing else. in the race has been able to beat 1.00 3/5 whether winning or losing, then the first is a logical selection over the field at Jamaica or at Belmont. And in measuring juveniles by the watch in this way it is well not only to find the horse fastest at the distance but also to insist that he or she has shown some degree of consistency in running to figures of the sort. In other words, it is wise not to rely on just one race that was faster than anything shown by the others in the field.

In making these analyses of two-year-old fields along lines of time a player-handicapper should insist, before making a final selection, that the fastest horse in the race has also shown times that are absolutely fast in themselves. A colt which has raced five furlongs in 1.00 flat or .59 3/5 has shown speed that means he is a real race horse in his own age-division. But where all the entrants in a field have been running to times for five furlongs at 1.01 4/5 or slower it is futile to dig around the figures for the fastest horse. No one ever has shown any real speed; all are simply in­ferior two-year-olds.

Where older horses have some appreciable degree of class and some real consistency in winning and running in the money it is not difficult to detect the best unless two are so closely locked as to be really indistinguishable. And where two-year-olds are really fast and have shown some true Thoroughbred speed it is not difficult to detect which one is apparently fastest,, unless two or more figure dead together in that respect. But where all older horses in a field are cheap and erratic, and where all two-year-olds in a field are definitely slow, it is very hazardous to try to find the least inferior of the older animals or to try to find the least slow of the two-year-olds. It is much easier to detect the best horse of a good or fair field.

To say all this is not to digress from the subject of weight. It is necessary to point out that juveniles cannot be handicapped with any success by analyzing the weight-situation of each; they must be measured in terms of time.

Jamestown, a faint-hearted fellow, that had been send­ing up early-foot quitters from the stud, in 1930 won the Belmont Futurity over the short seven-furlong Widener straight course when carrying 130 pounds. The next year at three he failed against topnotchers over distances when carrying lighter packages.

It is in relation to three-year-olds as an age-class that the scale of weights is most important to a player-handi­capper. Animals of that age frequently are entered against older horses at all distances. And early in the season three-year-olds should be getting most substantial weight-conces­sions from older animals. If they are not, they have little chance of winning.

A three-year-old which has drawn more than scale-weight against older horses that are at scale or under scale usually must be really good to win, particularly over a route. This is also true if he is receiving from older horses concessions less than called for by the scale, even though he himself is at less than scale-weight for the distance. A player-handicapper is most foolish to fuddle around with weights on his own basis and not constantly apply the proved and tested measure of the scale.

A horse reaches complete maturity about July of his fourth year. After that month he is not entitled to receive nor does he need weight-concessions from older horses, and the concessions he does receive prior to that month are quite minor. A four-year-old at level weights with a five- or six-year-old is at no theoretical or actual disad­vantage ; his weight can be compared with theirs directly in terms of the demonstrated ability of each to handle the poundage at the distance.

It may be of some service to players to suggest one thought in connection with weight and the scale. Most American Thoroughbreds, particularly platers in claiming races, are entered too often, many times on hard-surfaced tracks that accentuate the normal strain of racing and tend to wear out or even break down the horses competing over them. Racing is a constant drajn on the vitality and class of a horse from the first moment he is brought into competition, and younger three-year-olds who remain sound may be at some advantage against older horses from which the tracks have taken a heavy toll.

IV. PRESENT FORM

It now is necessary to outline procedures that should be followed by a handicapper in evaluating the present form or racing condition of a horse.

Perhaps a preliminary note on terminology may not be out of place. Many turf-writers use the expression "form" loosely, to indicate matters not strictly involved in the con­cept of present racing condition. If one writes that a par­ticular horse this year has not raced within many pounds of the form he showed last year the evident meaning is that the animal has deteriorated in class and quality, not merely that he is under par in racing condition, not quite on edge. To confuse viewpoints in this way, speaking of form when quality is meant, is to run some risk of confusing a reader or student. Class is one thing; form another; and each factor should be rated independently in attempting to estimate the chances of a horse.

Assume that an animal of high class recently has been beaten, perhaps quite badly, by the very best horse or horses in competition. When entered against second-class performers, a winner may be missed if a handicapper rates against him on form merely because he was beaten last out by extremely fine horses. Whirlaway probably could have beaten King Cole—if the latter had gone into the race—in the Belmont Stakes at a mile and a half on June 7, 1941. That year the streak from Calumet seemed just about unbeatable over a distance of ground. But to assume from such a beating that the King was off form and not in shape to handle his mediocre opposition in the Shevlin Stakes at a mile and a sixteenth at Aqueduct on June 11, 1941, would not have been sound handicapping.

Racing condition or form is one thing; class or quality is another. The two concepts should be kept separate la handicapper's thinking.

Two main clues present themselves to a handicapper who is endeavoring to estimate the present racing condi­tion of a horse. Qne is his actual record in the recent past, within a week or two or even three. The other is the way 1 he has been working out in the morning. Of these two the record in actual racing is the more reliable index, but morning gallops, their times and the way they were ac- complished, have value too.

Before going into these matters in some detail it may be well to develop two cautionary points.

The first is the effect upon financial results of any tendency to over-emphasize present form in handicapping. All public selectors do this, and a player who does the same thing is going to find himself on public choices that pay nothing when they do win and that lose often enough to throw his whole operation into the red. As each short-' priced apparently "hot" horse goes to the post he may seem a cinch, backed as he is by "expert" opinion and ' j by public money, but over the course of a hundred or a thousand such choices enough of them will lose to con­sume more than the profits of the fewer bets that win at the short prices paid by favorites.

Anyone who will analyze the comments published by selectors in racing sheets and daily newspapers cannot' fail to realize how heavily these men are guided by ap­parent present form in1 making their choices. "Won last," "Should repeat," "Good right now," "Close by last out,", "Just missed in last," are comments of the type referred to, indicating that the selector is taking the animal strictly off his last race and disregarding the possibility that he may be stepped up in class of opposition, unfavorably treated at the weights, or out of his distance.

A horse almost inevitably is made favorite when coming "■ lip off a win, unless another one or two are doing so also.

In fact it is quite possible to tell what went to post favorite in a race by covering up all of the result chart except the extreme left which shows the date of each animal's previ­ous try and his finishing position in that race. If all the horses were out of the money except one or two, the favor­ite almost certainly was one which won or ran close by last out. A great part of really sound handicapping seems to be dumped overboard by selectors and public alike in figuring fields day to day, to the exclusion of everything except ap­parent present form. To do this is to estimate a horse only in terms of his last race, instead of enough races to give a line on his real quality. The practice is unsound from the angle of price, and also thoroughly unsound handicap­ping-

It is easy enough to develop handicapping ability to a point where the player in the average case can detect the probable favorite, the horse also endorsed by selectors, and play him because he looks best under superficial scrutiny. Unfortunately too many players stop at this point, mislead themselves into thinking they are good because they so often are in agreement with the experts, and go on losing money on public choices until they are broke or quit. A successful player has developed his handicapping ability until he has enough confidence in his judgment to pick his own horses and to back his own selections with money, particularly when he disagrees with selectors and public alike, for that is the time he knows he is going to get a fair or a good price—the price that will show him a profit over a prolonged series of bets. A player who merely pre­tends to pick his own horses, refusing to play what he likes unless most of the selectors and the public are in agreement, is licked before he starts, whether he knows it or not. He might just as well back favorites at random or follow any single selector or consensus, and lose money.

To say that over-emphasizing present form in handi­capping tends to put a player on short-priced horses that will show a loss over a period of time is not to suggest that one should always try to "knock over" the favorite by betting against it. If a short-priced favorite really does figure to win, really does figure best, then pass the race, be­cause prices of the sort never will pull one out in the lonj run. But if a public choice does not figure best with an individual player who knows he can handicap, then let him refuse to be influenced by others and back his own judgment with his own money. The only question open is the accuracy of his own judgment; at least he knows that the price will be right and that he is taking advantage of an overlay if his opinion is good.

The second cautionary point about present form in handicapping has to do with erratic horses. Many of the cheaper animals on the tracks, and some of the better ones, never repeat a good race. In considering an animal of this type—although it is the better practice to pass the race— it would be foolish to rate heavily against one on lack of present form just because in his last and recent start he raced poorly and finished far back. That sort of race is normal for him; it is not proof that he is out of shape but merely confirmation of his character as erratic and unreliable. A succession of bad races presents a different situation; it suggests that the animal may have gone wrong and almost certainly is not in shape to deliver his best ef­fort even if he runs kindly. But even two poor races do not afford logical basis for rating heavily against the ani­mal for lack of present form. If a player, on account of the weights, a speed-analysis or on other grounds, feels impelled to bet an animal of this type which has run poorly last out, let him do so by all means if he is sure of the favorable factors. When such nags do happen to bounce in after poor efforts they normally pay long prices3 and if a bettor is going to have any dealings with them at all he would be foolish to refuse play just because the last raee was at best mediocre.

I am not intimating that it is sound procedure to risk money on inconsistent horses, for it is not. I am suggesting, however, that one who does follow this type should not be greatly concerned about present form as demonstrated in late races.

As stated previously, two main clues to the present form of a horse present themselves in the past performances —his recent record in actual competition and the way he has been working out in the mornings. Of these two in­dexes the first is the more reliable, but both have value when properly handled.

If a horse is coming up to today's race off a win or close-up finish within a week or two, a handicapper will be sensible in accepting his present racing condition as satis­factory. A good recent race is as effective a certification of good physical condition as anything can be. However, if the last race was an unusually hard effort, and the ani­mal won or ran close by under a severe drive, then he may have staled off after that race and require slight' freshening rather than more racing to attain his edge. And if a long shipment from another circuit has inter­vened between the last race and today's, the animal's con­dition may have been dulled by the trip.

Races other than winning efforts or tries close by may be accepted as good evidence of present condition. If a sprinter in his first start of the year or after a considerable layoff showed speed in the early stages and set pace or stayed with it only to fade in the stretch, the effort may be accepted as evidence that he has his speed and should improve today, unless he is a chronic quitter. The same is true of a route-horse which set or stayed with pace only to tire in the late stages after an absence from competition. Unless he is a confirmed quitter or tirer the effort may be relied on as having tightened him sufficiently for today's contest.

When it is noted that a horse in a recent race closed fast in the stretch, that fact too may be accepted as good evidence of racing condition whether the race was a sprint /J or over a distance of ground. Ability to close in the late stages is the very best evidence that a horse is in shape, unless he is one of the type that never or rarely wins be- " cause he is so slow in the early stages that almost always he is too far back to make his late bid effective. If an animal's whole record shows that he possesses enough early foot to set or stay with the pace, then his ability to close with a rush in the stretch, recently demonstrated, is almost cer­tain proof that he has come to hand, is on edge, and is ready for a, winning effort when suitably weighted and entered against his own class.

Stake and handicap horses of some quality are raced ' much less often than are platers, particularly the cheaper platers, and in handicapping good horses a player must rely for evidence of present form much more heavily on times of morning gallops than he need do in the case of platers raced every week or oftener. As a matter of fact, the cheaper horses are trained and brought to con­dition by actual racing rather than by morning spins. In figuring them on the form factor it is well to note when one is apparently coming to harid by closing well in the stretch. The works of these cheap horses are of compara­tively minor significance. Usually they are relatively short gallops done in times neither fast nor extremely slow. These horses are so worked to enable them to hold any peak of condition they may have attained through racing. If the workout line of a plater in the past performances shows that he went a half in .49 4/5 handily, the time is , quite meaningless, for any horse that belongs in racing at all can equal it without raising a sweat when he is in con­dition. And for newspaper selectors to print these times of last works for platers is just as meaningless as the times * themselves. The gallops, in the usual case, were not speed-trials at all but rather mere exercises.

In the case of better horses, raced less frequently, times of morning spins can be considered more seriously. It is not so much a matter of preferring the horse that has worked fastest as it is of analyzing the works and times to find evidence that an animal is in shape to turn in about the best effort that he has proved himself capable of in actual competition. If a handicap horse has been able to win with some consistency under a certain poundage, and if he is to meet the same type of horse he has met with success in the past, then a three-furlong work in .35 breez­ing, a four-furlong gallop in .47 handily or breezing, or a five-furlong spin in 1.00 done handily, can be accepted as practically conclusive evidence that he possesses all of his own intrinsic speed, at least for the early stages, and should race to his own par for the distance. If the animal has not raced this season, such a work will not certify to necessary condition for a route-race or even a six-furlong sprint, for he may be dead short despite his ability to turn in a few fast furlongs. But if he has raced within the re­cent past, a fast work of the sort gives assurance that he is and has been on edge or has attained racing condition. The older the horse, the more preparation he needs for a good effort. Younger animals come to hand more quick­ly, and definitely seem to hold any edge for a longer time. Whirlaway, at three, raced early in the year and continued to win after the Kentucky Derby without loss of edge. Of course his record may have been proof of excess class over the other three-year-olds, rather than superior condition. At any rate, older horses are slower than younger animals to come to hand, just as they are quicker to tail off. The consistent aged platers that repeatedly win or run close by throughout a season are not necessarily on edge. They have so much advantage in honesty over the erratic cheap ones they oppose that their winning record cannot be at­tributed to racing condition.

Before the Belmont Stakes at a mile and a half, a race he won easily in mediocre time, Whirlaway had turned in: a tremendous mile and a quarter workout in 2.02 2/5,,.' He was indeed a very exceptional colt if a work of this sort did not make him stale off. In the average case so fast a work shortly before a stake or handicap engage- ment might be estimated as a bad rather than a good sign, so great is the liability that a horse at condition or nearing condition may be pushed over the line into staleness by too strenuous exertion. Ben Jones, Whirlaway's trainer, announced that the Calumet star needed plenty of racing and was going to get it, and Mr. Jones seems to have been right.

I am mentioning this work of Whirlaway's to point out that there are factors other than the times of short or long gallops that must be considered in the handicapping angle. A fast long work is not necessarily assurance that the horse will be on edge for a following race, although it is excellent assurance that he was on edge when he ran to the time. That is just the point. Good as he was at the moment the effort may have tightened him too much and staled him off.

It may be of assistance to set down a table of fast and other workout times at different distances and comment on them at some length. Here is the table.

Distance   Fast       Good      Fair        Exercise*

3f. 34          .35         .36      .37 up .
4f. 46          .47         .48        .49 up
5f. 59        1.00       1.01      1.02 up
6i             1.12       1.13           1.14     1.15 up
7f           1.25-       1.26           1.27     1.28 up
lm            1.38       1.40           1.42     1.43 up
l/8m         1.53       1.55           1.56 . 1.58 up

The first comment to be made on this table is that the time shown for any distance as "fast," "good," "fair" or merely "exercise" figures can be looked for only over courses of some speed, like Belmont Park in New York, rather than a course so notoriously slow as Bowie in Mary­land.

The second comment is that the table must not be ac­cepted as an ironclad measure. If time of .34 in a workout at three furlongs is fast, so also is time of .34 1/5, .34 2/5, anything up to .35.

Another comment which should be made before dis­cussing this table in any detail is that a horse's manner of going in any workout is just as important as his speed. The workout line in the past performance records gives the distance of each work, the time, and the manner of running. Thus "3 f., .36, b." means that the animal ran three furlongs in thirty-six seconds "breezing." Again "6 f., 1.13, h." means that the animal galloped six furlongs in one minute and thirteen seconds "handily." The letters used to characterize the manner of going in workouts are "e" for "easily," "b" for "breezing," "h" for "handily" and "d" for "driving." Easily means running quite without effort or urging; breezing means just about the same thing, indicating that the work was accomplished without effort or urging; handily means that the horse was running well within his capacity although somewhat more extended than if he were breezed; driving means that the animal was asked for speed and was under some degree of urging By the exercise-boy.

The more easily a work was accomplished, the greater its significance. When analyzing workouts to determine the present racing condition of a horse a handicapper should never neglect to note the manner of going in conjunction with the time set. In the case of a high-class horse, for in­stance, a handicapper might very properly shy away from him through noting a work at a half in .48 under a drive. The time was neither fast nor really slow, but the fact that the animal had to extend himself to set it is some evi­dence that he is not at par for a high-class field. A work at the distance in .48 breezing, however, would not be 'ad verse evidence.

The table of workout times requires another comment 1 In attempting to evaluate any work a handicapper should always consider the class of the animal involved. Cheap platers are not going to work out any distance at a time shown in the column characterized as fast. Most frequent-' ly they will work out at a fair time, particularly at three and four furlongs or at times indicated as exercise only. And works of the sort cannot be held against any relatively cheap plater because their mam purpose will have Dee'n ex-ercise to hold the animal at any edge he has attained, not to test his speed. Even if the work of a cheap horse was definitely on the slower order, as .52 for a half or 1.46 for a mile, the gallop gives rise to no suspicion of lack of con­dition if it was a breeze and the animal was not really set down.

To put the matter in general terms, the columns of the table headed "fast" and "good" specify times for the vari­ous distances which are beyond the capacity of inferior horses except in rare cases; the column headed "fair" specifies times worked to quite frequently by platers, par­ticularly at the shorter distances; and the column headed "exercise" specifies times that are almost meaningless in J reference to the condition of any horse, whether good or inferior, unless the particular work was under a drive, which would give cause for suspicion as to the animal's fitness. In effect these comments draw a vertical line down the center of the table between the columns headed "good" and "fair." Times to the left of the line are those of horses of some quality; times to the right of the line are those of animals of little class, the $2,000 down platers that fill most races programmed on American courses.

Another line may be drawn through this table of work- out times, a horizontal one. It should run between the times at seven furlongs and one mile, for works at short and works at fairly long distances cannot be evaluated in the same way. A horse in racing condition in an exercise gallop, up to and possibly including seven furlongs, can be expected to approach the time he should run to at the same fractions in a longer race. Thus high-class animals will work in .46 for a half or close to it with some fre­quency, if asked for speed, although that time for the half is just about as fast as horses have to run the distance even in a six-furlong sprint. But works over a distance of ground almost never will come so close to actual racing times at the finish. Long gallops almost never are speed tests; their purpose is to give a horse stamina if he is prepping for a route-race and not yet on edge, or merely to give him exercise if he is on edge. Therefore works at a mile or a mile and a furlong in what the table shows as exercise times, 1.43 and up and 1.58 and up, are indica­tive of little except that the horse has been worked.

Each year before the Kentucky Derby one or more of the relatively untried three-year-olds will turn in a work at the full mile and a quarter distance in fast time, some­thing approaching real racing time for good horses. Im­mediately the papers will ballyhoo the gallop and the an­imal's price in the futures will recede. But in the outcome, the fastest worker for the race will rarely be found in the winner's circle under the blanket of roses.

In analyzing works for present form a handicapper should apply the principle that the more easily any time was set, granting it was on the fast or good order, the more weighty the gallop as proof of racing condition. Slow moves accomplished easily or breezing are nothing against a horse; they merely were part of his training routine. But slow moves under a drive, or even fastish moves under a drive, very definitely should be held against an animal's chances.

When it comes down to the actual figuring of fields for winners, it is my opinion that a handicapper should deal with the factor of present form in a somewhat negative way. By that I mean he should not so much prefer horses only because they seem to be in sharp present condition as he should exclude horses as probable winners which posi­tively seem to be out of shape. A handicapper in this way will not be on some short-priced favorite merely because the nag happened to win his last start when his whole rec­ord shows him to be erratic and unreliable. On the other hand, a handicapper following the suggested procedure of excluding horses that definitely seem to be off form will not select for his wager an animal which has shown a succession of three or four poor races, whatever his works just before the race for which he is being considered. And a handicap­per attempting to solve the form problem in the manner suggested here will be pleased to note a fast work done breezing or handily by an animal he likes anyway on grounds of class, consistency and the weights, but will not determine against such a one merely because he has not been breaking watches in the morning.

It is occasionally possible to get winners merely by taking the fastest worker for the race, if there is one, but handi­capping of the sort cannot be recommended as financially nourishing. Workouts must be considered to some extent, but they should not be given too serious consideration. The underlying fact is that they are almost always mere, exercise gallops. This fact prevents their times being given absolute value, even when considered in conjunction with' each animal's manner of going. And all timings in work­outs should be viewed in the light of each horse's absolute' class, for a fairly fast move by a stake or handicap horse would be quite beyond the powers of a cheap plater, and a fairly fast move by a plater would be mediocre indeed for a good horse preparing for an important race.

Good efforts in actual competition in the recent past always are the very best evidence of good present racing condition, although, as has been suggested, a very hard race may have caused an animal to go off temporarily just as a long shipment may have had the same effect. But if an animal has been racing well, it is sensible to pass him on the question of present form with little attention to times of workouts. If a horse has not started this year, or has not raced for some time, then his morning gallops must be considered more seriously in an effort to deter­mine whether he is in condition to do himself justice. If he is being figured for a sprint, the thing to look for is works of three, four or five furlongs, even the full six or seven furlongs, done in fast time at least handily even if not breezing. If he is being figured for a route-race, then the thing to look for is works at a mile done handily in time of 1.40 or close to it. If the animal is a cheap plater it is most unlikely that the workout line will show any mile moves in 1.40. For such a horse times around 1.43 or even 1.44, set handily, are good enough to go on if the horse has a past racing record that justifies his selection. And, whatever the distance of the next race, short works to really fast times done easily, breezing or handily are pretty good proof that a horse has his foot for as far as he usually goes.

A handicapper who follows only present form is going to bet on a lot of favorites, get short prices on winners as a rule, and probably lose money. It is no trick at all to detect the one animal in a race which apparently is in hot present shape so that selectors and public alike will go for him. The real trick is to detect horses ready to win, able to win and about to win that most selectors and conse­quently most of the public will overlook. When bets on ani­mals of this type win they pay something, and a player who develops his handicapping skill to a point where he can uncover such horses with some regularity is going to make money over a period of time even if he does not be­come another Pittsburgh Phil or Chicago O'Brien.

V. SPEED

In taking up the matter of the speed of horses as meas­ured by the watch I am entering an area of considerable controversy. Some players swear by the watch as a means of getting winners; others swear at it. I myself occupy a middle ground, both in theory and in practice when fig­uring races for bets, and that involves using the fractional and final times of past races only when and where they can be used safely.

One situation where the final times can be compared to great advantage is in the case of short races for colts, -geldings and fillies of two years of age during their first season at the-tracks.

The Fair Grounds, Louisiana, programs two-furlong • dashes for two-year-olds immediately after January 1 or on that date. Tropical and Hialeah Parks, Florida, also put on three-furlong sprints for two-year-olds early in the year. Such races are mad scrambles all the way; every- • thing depends on the-break and high early speed; there is no need and no chance for a jockey to rate his mount, reserving him off pace for an effort in the stretch. Indeed in such races there is no stretch, for they are all just pell-mell dashes down a straightaway.

Of course the green character of the entrants leads to various mishaps. And the very short distance of the races exaggerates the effect of bad luck at the start and any, inability to get away winging. But the fact remains that a high percentage of winners can be secured in these races by taking the colt or filly which has raced the distance two-fifths of a second or even one-fifth of a second faster than anything he or she is meeting today. This statement implies that all the horses shall have run the distance pre- ' viously, and preferably several times, so that a fairly accu­rate line may be secured on the capabilities of each in the direction of speed at the distance.

The result chart on one of these races gives only the final time of the winner. But the final time of a horse which never has won a short dash can be computed readily enough by adding to the winner's time one-fifth of a second for each length that the particular horse was off the winner at the finish. If a two-furlong dash at ihe Fair Grounds was won in .23 flat, and the second colt was one length off that time, his own figure was .23 1/5. The as­sumed equivalence between one length and one-fifth of a second is not exactly accurate, but the same margin of error affects computations for all of several horses and will occasion no practical trouble.

If a particular colt has been spotty in his times, not having shown ability to duplicate a really fast effort, it is best to refuse to bet him rather than to rely on his run­ning equally fast today. This is just about the same thing as a test for consistency in winning applied to older horses. An animal which only infrequently shows a good per­formance, whether tested by the watch or otherwise, is never a solid hazard.

Fast time for two furlongs at the Fair Grounds is .23 or anything under. Fast time for three furlongs at the two Florida courses mentioned is anything under .34. And in my experience a two-year-old that can race to fast times of the order indicated and has done so once or twice is a safer hazard to beat a colt slightly slower than is a slower colt which on his best times has a wider margin over the next fastest in his race.

Mere speed is one of the most common of commodities on American race tracks. For decades we have been breed­ing for speed until the danger at the moment is that the American horse shall become no more than a six-furlong jack rabbit unable to carry weight at real speed over the more extended distances of a mile and an eighth and a mile and a quarter that we now refer to as routes. And the modern mania for speed has had effects on the typical American horse other than to render him unable to negotiate a real, distance at really respectable velocity. One of these has been the appearance of many hundreds of horses which are fast for three, four or five furlongs but quit in. the stretch if they get the least competition, even if the race is at only three-quarters of a mile. Thus the neces­sity to avoid chronic quitters confronts a handicapper even when he is dealing with races at so short a distance as six furlongs. But in dealing with two-year-olds running two and three furlongs a handicapper can ignore the pos­sibility that his selection may quit. The distances are too short to test stamina in any degree at all. In the usual case the fastest horse will win, unless he is sluggish at the break or interfered with.

A player of two-year-olds in these short dashes, who relies on the watch and the watch only to get his winners, gets rid of the necessity to consider a number of handi­capping factors involved in figuring races for older horses at greater distances. He need not attempt an analysis of basic class, always important in longer races for older, horses, for the only standard he can apply to two- and three-furlong two-year-olds is the ability to develop speed for such distances. He need not attempt to estimate con­sistency in winning, running in the money or close by when beaten, but he does apply a standard for consistency by insisting that any selection must have run to a time sufficient to beat today's field. He need not attempt to estimate the effect of the weights because in these short dashes for juveniles all carry the same weight or nearly so, apart from sex-allowances which can be ignored. And-he need not attempt to estimate the present form of each horse; first, because most of them will have been winning or finishing close by if they showed times indicating that they should win today; second, because nothing like the preparation to get a three-year-old ready for a hard mile and a quarter is necessary to fit a two-year-old for a dash.

These short races for juveniles do not reach down to and test either real Thoroughbred quality or real preparation and fitness, so a handicapper can rely with confidence on inspection of times previously set at the distance by the various members of a field. Usually the fastest juvenile will win, and by "fastest" I mean the one which in prior races has shown the fastest time at the distance as reported by the official timer and as reflected in result charts and past performance lines.

I reiterate that the validity of the test of the watch in races of the type under discussion derives from the fact that in sprints so short there is neither necessity nor room for the rating of horses off pace by their riders. Since horses are permitted and even urged to give all that they have all the way, the final times to which they run really measure their speed-capacities at such abbreviated dis­tances.

The exact contrary is true in relation to older horses running even in six-furlong sprints and in the case of races at a mile or more. Final times in such races, partic­ularly the longer journeys, cease to be conclusive measures of the speed-capabilities of the horses because each was under some degree of restraint for at least part of the distance, and the degree of such restraint and its effect upon the final times of the winner and those behind him cannot be known. No horse can go all out, hell bent for leather, for more than two or three furlongs without tak­ing all the real edge from his speed thereafter. Therefore they are all rated, in any race from six furlongs up, to an extent utterly indeterminable, so that their final times in a race of any material distance cannot be accepted as accurately measuring their best capabilities at the distance.

All this amounts to saying that a two-year-old which has been running three furlongs in Florida in .33 2/5 and .33 3/5 is almost a certainty to beat one which has raced to .34 once or twice but never has beaten that time. At the worst the first has a clear margin of 2/5 of a second, two lengths, possibly 3/5 of a second or three lengths.

Two-year-olds, after the Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Illinois and New England circuits open in the spring, are raced at distances in excess of three furlongs. -' They are tried at four, four and a half and five furlongs quite early in the spring, and by June or July are asked to go five and a half and six furlongs. Later on, in the-fall, they are stretched out to distances of a mile or more, and even may be asked to meet older horses. And the particular question I am concerned with here is up to what number of furlongs a handicapper can discount rat­ing of mounts by jockeys in two-year-old races so that he can rely on comparison of final times as a realistic measure of the speed capacity of each horse.

I am disinclined to rely solely on times previously run to, in a race at more than four and a half furlongs. The time element is still important, and still should be used in ways that will be explained when, discussing times of older horses. But many two-year-olds, when first asked to race five furlongs or five and a half, have behind them a considerable body of performances at shorter distances.. These prior races not only afford time-lines, but also yield clues as to the basic class of each horse, and indicate the degree of his consistency in winning and running close by when beaten. The increased distances of the races make them more searching tests of real horse-quality in respects other than mere speed. Tendencies to quit under pressure, for instance, should be searched for when analyz­ing a single horse. And earlier races will have shown some horses that were closing fast in the late stages but not. quite getting up. It may be that increased distance will enable these to win.

It now is necessary to discuss the proper use of a time-analysis of a field of horses of any age from three up and at any distance from six furlongs to a mile and one-half or farther.

Rating of horses is always present in these races to some extent, and that fact prevents a player from accepting the final time run to in any prior race as the accurate measure of his capacity in speed at the distance. Of course he ran just so fast, and probably can do so again, but the prior race does not guarantee that he cannot run faster. But if times run to cannot be accepted as certain pointers to winners, still they can be used in various ways.

Fractional times, for instance, can be very useful—times to the half-mile in sprints under a mile, and times to the three-quarters or mile in routes in excess of a mile. Ex­amination of a large number of result charts will prove that a high percentage of all contests is won by a horse which was prominent in the early stages, running first all the way or at least not worse than second or third at the half or three-quarters. One would expect this even with­out knowing it, for a horse ahead all the way cannot be interfered with by others, and an animal with only one or two ahead of him is under least liability of being blocked or otherwise hampered. And the fractional times any single horse has been able to run to in the past without having blown himself for the stretch give a very good idea as to what sort of pace he can set or stay with.

If it is noted that some one horse has frequently set time of .46 for the half-mile in six-furlong sprints, and that none of the others has been able to do much better than .47 for the same distance at the same track or those comparably fast, then it is almost a certainty that the first horse can open a lead on the others in the early stages and win the affair if his prior efforts show that he also can run in the stretch after setting so fast a pace.

Speed in the last quarter-mile of a six-furlong sprint can be determined for any horse in a race by taking his final time at the distance in one of his representative prior races, subtracting therefrom his time at the half-mile dividing 1,320, the number of feet in a quarter-mile, the number of seconds it took the horse to cover that distance.Thus, if a horse ran to .47 for the half, and finish the full distance of six furlongs in 1.12, it took him. difference between these times, or 25 seconds, to cover final 1,320 feet, which was at the rate of 52.8 feet second. The same procedure can be adopted for all horses in a race, and conclusions reached as to the stretch- speed of each.

When a horse is leading at the half-mile, his own there is given by the past performance line representing! the race. But if he was not leading, a player cannot tell| just how far he was behind because the past performance;; line's figure giving his position as 2, 3, 6 or 9 is not accompanied by a figure showing how many lengths he was off. But if he was second or third, possibly even fourth, $ may be inferred that he was not very far off the time- shown for the leader. By this I mean that if a horse was, third off half-mile time of .46 3/5 it is sufficiently accurate. to assume that he was not more than a length or two away so that his own time was .46 3/5 seconds plus 1/5 or 2/5.'i A handicapper not satisfied with assumptions can go the result chart on the race—such charts are available j book form—and calculate the animal's time exactly be-*1 cause the chart will show the lengths he was off the leader at the half-mile call.

Half-miles are quite frequently run by high-class sprinters in time of .45 or .45 and a fraction. Forty-six seconds, however, can be taken as representing a lively half in sprint by a good horse racing over one of our faster Ameri- can tracks. Forty-six seconds for the half is 2 seconds un der "even" time for the distance, so if he maintains rate of 2 seconds under evens of 1.12 for the full distance he will set final time of 1.10. This is very fast for six longs, and to run to it, even a good horse must be in class racing condition, be running over a lightning fast course, and probably be favored by relatively light weight.

Half-mile times of .47 flat or .47 and a fraction are more common for platers than times of the order given above. But the same procedures can be employed to use them as guides to winners. The past performance lines for all the horses in a race will show at a glance just what half-mile times each entrant has been able to set or stay fairly close to. The player need only cast his eye down the half-mile positions shown in the lines for all and compare them with the times at the half for the leaders.

The apparent stretch-speed of any sprinter, whatever his class, can also be determined as indicated above, by di­viding the 1,320 feet in the last quarter-mile by the number of seconds representing the difference between the ani­mal's fractional (half-mile) time and his final time.

The final time of any beaten horse can be secured for any of these computations by adding to the winner's time, given in the past performance line, one-fifth of a second for each length the beaten horse was off that time.

A player-handicapper who is using fractional times in past performance lines to determine whether any horse should be able to set or stay with the pace will be wise to realize that early foot is much more important in sprints than in races over a distance of ground. In other words, he should be more insistent that his selection to win a sprint be able to stay on the front end at the half, than he would be if the race were over a longer distance.

But a horse's chances even in a route are certainly not harmed by ability to go with the field all the way and not just at the end, provided he is no quitter, can develop speed in the stretch as well as in the early stages, and has the heart to carry through for the full distance.

If a route-horse has some degree of early foot, enough at least to keep up with the field he is meeting, it may be a demonstrable fact that he is superior to any in point

of speed in the late stages, so that he should win with some ease. Or possibly he is sufficiently superior in late| speed to enable him to overcome deficiences in early foot. To make these determinations on a basis of times, the same procedures are undertaken that are employed in analyzing early and late foot in sprints. Only the distances involved are greater, and the weight that should be ac­corded a time-analysis is somewhat less.

The important fraction in a route-race is the call at the three-quarters, and the distance from there to the finish varies with the distance of the race. From three-quarters to a mile the distance is 1,320 feet. Therefore in a race at a mile and seventy yards the distance from three-quarters to' finish is 1,320 -f- 210 feet; in a race at a mile and a six­teenth 1,320 -f- 330 feet; in a race at a mile and an eighth 1,320 -|- 660 feet; and so on. The number of feet in excess of six furlongs, divided by the difference in- seconds be­tween a particular horse's time at six furlongs and his time at the finish, will give the number of feet per second he ran during the late stages of the race. A number of races for each horse can be analyzed in this way, throwing out those where he was interfered with or was not himself. Figures on two or three of his better races will give a good idea of his speed in the late stages. Then the whole field can be re-surveyed in the light of these figures to see if any one horse has an advantage both in early speed and late foot. If there is such a horse in the race he is the natural selection to win, provided he grades with the field in basic class and consistency, subject to the further proviso that he not be over-weighted.

Considerable work with paper and pencil must be undertaken by a player who goes through these procedures systematically on each race that he considers, but that in. in itself is not a bad thing. Most players make too many: rather than too few bets by gunning over cards of eight or more races at three or four tracks for which past per­formances are set up. Such dissipation of effort is impos­sible for a player who really digs into two or three good races at a single track, say an allowance affair and one or two claiming events for horses entered at $2,500 or more. Two or three races daily over a year represent plenty of ground for solid wagers, and a bet or two a day is enough for anyone except when he goes to the track and wants to play three or four races. No sane person will make a practice of playing whole cards, forcing a bet to place or show when he can find nothing he dares take to win. Even at the best courses many races are programmed for inferior horses too cheap and erratic to run to figures of any type, and of course a high percentage of all races programmed, good and bad, figure too close to be playable at all.

In this section on speed I have not explicitly cautioned against carelessly comparing fractional and final times set at one course with times run to at another. All tracks vary in the speed that can be developed over them, for some have a deep and soft surface while others of the "paste­board" character have a relatively thin, hard surface. Bowie, in Maryland, is a track with a deep surface, there­fore on the slow order. Belmont Park, in New York, though not unsafe for horses, is one of the fastest in the country. I shall not use space here to reproduce a table of track-variants, giving differences in times at various large tracks of the country. In the first place, no such table could be set up that would be more than approximate. In the second place, even if it were accurate it would not continue so for more than a very limited time. In the third place, a player can get a pretty good notion as to these matters for himself, figuring fields and checking result charts. And in the fourth place, anyone can dodge the whole difficulty by refusing to play races unless all of the entrants have run a few times over the particular course, so that their speeds can be compared directly.

A player will find it a useful thing to analyze times s& suggested in this section. But it is financial suicide to select horses that have run recently to faster final times than others in it. The theory is plausible, but it just simply will not work. Horses are raced to win purses and bets, not to break watches, and the final time usually represents what the horse had to run to in order to win. In the Withers Stakes of 1943 at Belmont Park, Count Fleet won the mile in 1.36. The preceding fall he had raced the same distance at the same track as a two-year-old in 1.34 and a fraction —fastest mile ever run by a two-year-old and a new Bel­mont record for horses of any age. Was Count Fleet a 1.36 or a 1.34 miler? No one could possibly tell from the times or from anything else. Count Fleet won the 1943 Derby of a mile and a. quarter in 2.04, inferior time, whereas Whirlaway won the 1941 event in 2.01 1/5. But was Count Fleet really nearly three seconds slower than Whirlaway at the mile and a quarter? I think one would find difficulty in getting any competent handicapper to answer yes to that question. Final times are almost worth­less as indicators of winners, particularly in route-races. Where there is no rating by jockeys, as in the shorter dashes for two-year-olds, then final times run to can be relied on as indicating a winner when some one colt or filly has raced the distance slightly faster than anything else in the field.

I trust that what I have said in this section about the proper use of time in handicapping will not mislead the reader. The first and most important thing to be figured about a horse is his class-consistency, relative to others in the field. If he rates under such analysis as best, and if he is not apparently over-weighted or out of shape, he is a solid bet, apart from price, without any confirmation of the judgment by a time-analysis. I usually find myself resorting to these analyses when I can't be sure a horse rates on the class-consistency angle alone, and that more often than not means the race is too close to be played. Passing races too close for confident play is one of the secrets of success in this business of betting for profit. Remember that this chapter has taken up class, consist­ency, weight, present form and speed in the order of their importance, and do not be misled into too much emphasis on speed and the showing of time-analyses.

VI. ILLUSTRATIONS

In this last section I shall set out past performances of some of the contenders in a number of races in order to demonstrate by illustration and concrete example how the business of getting a winner may be gone about in specific cases. The science-art of handicapping is always and nec­essarily a matter of comparison between different horses, and a discussion of it would remain somewhat in the air without material of the kind I am now going to set out.

The first race I have selected was a three-furlong sprint for two-year-olds early in the season at a Florida track. In races of this sort, run at a burst all the way by all the entrants, the time-test is the surest guide to winners. In this race eleven were entered, but I am showing past per­formance lines for six only, they having been the real contenders.

Horse D

It is evident from a mere glance at these lines, all rep­resenting three-furlong races at the same track, that A is the fastest horse. In his first race (bottom line) he finished' a length and a half off the winner's time of .33 flat, mak­ing A's own time a whisker slower than .33 1/5. In A's next race he won and ran dead on time of .33 1/5, and did the same thing in his following start (top line).

The fastest time at the distance ever shown by-B was in his first start, which he won in .33 3/5, giving him a theoretical two-fifths second or two-length beating from A*

C's fastest time for the distance was also .33 3/5, shown in his first race. Like B's, his next two races were slower.-

D's best time for the distance was inferior not only to A's but to B's and G's as well, being .34 1/5 shown in his last race.

E's best time was theoretically a trifle slower than D's .34 1/5, since in his second start, his fastest effort, he had finished three and a half lengths off the winner's time of .33 3/5, making his own time, as stated, a trifle slower than .34 1/5.

F appeared to be the fourth fastest horse in the race at the distance; in his second start he had won in .34 flaU

As he figured to do along time-lines, A won this race. B and G, being tied in the matter of speed and hence not distinguishable although seemingly faster than the others, ran second and third.

It should be noted that A, the winner, not only was faster than his closest competitors, B and G, but also was more consistent and steadier in running to his own faster best time than were B and G in running to their own slower best time. This consistency in running to good speed figures is important in handicapping two-year-olds by the watch just as is consistency in winning and run­ning in the money in the case of older horses in sprints and routes.

Certain other points may be noted here about speed-handicapping of two-year-olds in early-season short dashes up to four and a half or possibly five furlongs.

Weight in such sprints is of very little significance.

A horse cannot be surely graded as to speed on the basis of what he has shown in only one or two starts. Two-year-olds often improve radically after a little racing education, Therefore it is hazardous to bet against a one or two-time starter a horse which has raced more often but whose best time is not greatly superior.

Increased distance today may invalidate time-lines on the field secured from earlier shorter races.

In selecting two-year-olds along time-lines it is wise to confine oneself to fields that have shown some real speed at the short distances raced—say around .34 for three furlongs, .46 and a fraction for four, .54 or faster for four and a half. Slower horses are less reliable in running to their own best times. Inferior times should be accepted only at slower courses.

An apparent margin of two-fifths of a second in favor of a two-year-old in a short sprint is sufficient to support a bet. One-fifth of a second may be enough if the best time has been consistently run to and is intrinsically fast for the distance.

A time-test is not reliable in handicapping two-year-olds entered to race at five and a half or six furlongs or greater distances in the fall.

Following past performances represent a $6,000 claiming race at a mile and a sixteenth for horses of four years and up. Other animals were entered, but these four cover the real contention of the affair, having been the first, second and third choices in the betting and the ultimate winners.

Weights on these horses were as follows: A, 122 pounds; B, 118; G, 110;D, 113.

A's. past performances show that he has been racing valuations of $4,000 an# $5,000; that he can get a distance of ground in mediocre company; that he often runs fairly well toward the front end in the early stages of races; and that he is not too faint-hearted in the stretch. His record of only 4 wins in 29 starts is very poor and gives rise to suspicion although his record for running second and third is fair. A went to post as favorite in the race.

B's past performances show races in sprints only, no routes, three having been $5,000-down claimers and two non-claimers. He seems to have some speed, but his poor record of wins, seconds and thirds is a red flag of warning. B went to post as second choice.

C's past performances show entry in two allowance races and in four claimers at valuations of $7,000 and $7,500. He has raced over distances but done nothing, and is quite erratic, his record of no wins in seventeen starts being very poor. Yet he went to post as third choice.

D was a rank outsider and paid a mutuel of $28.60 when he won. His record shows entry in two very cheap claimers, but he won away off in both of them, and later raced with some success in non-claimers. He seems to like to run on the front end and probably has fair early foot in routes on a fast track. His record of six wins in fifteen starts is far superior to anything shown by the others, and is a strong certification of general racing handiness and ability. He looked like a winner apart from price, and at better than 13/1 seemed a most conspicuous overlay. He had a material advantage at the weights over A, the fa­vorite, and on the whole seemed to be rather well placed, although of course not a cinch.

I am not confining these illustrations to races where some one horse stands out head and shoulders above the rest. The race that I have shown and the others I will show for horses over two years of age present pre-figurable winners but not animals whose chances are beyond all dispute.

Following past performances represent a six-furlong class C allowance race for three-year-old fillies at a New York track where all entrants had made their last start or starts

All the fillies in this race carried 108 pounds, with the exception of B, which had 107, so that there was no ques­tion of advantage, at the weights.

Inspection of A's finishing positions indicates that she has been rather erratic, which is also true of B. In addi­tion, A has been beaten previously by E. In the present race A went to post as extreme outsider and finished last.

As noted above, B seems to be rather erratic and pre­viously has been beaten by E and C both. B went to post as fourth choice and finished third.

G seems to be the steadiest horse in the race. In her seven starts she has been out of the money only once, and when beaten has not been far off the winner. In her two years' campaign she has earned more money per start than any other filly in the race, and on the whole seems to be well placed although at two years of age she had once been beaten by D. C went as favorite and won the race, narrowly beating out D, the second horse.

D herself seems a little on the erratic order and is not too handy a type of horse. I do not like her running so close to half-mile time of .45 4/5 (bottom line in her set­up) and later being well off time of .47 (third line down from top in her set-up). These only substantiate D's whole record of inconsistency.

E seems to be a respectable little filly but her lines in­dicate that she often weakens in the stretch-run; seven out of the nine races set up for her show her losing ground from the head of the stretch to the finish. She has fair early speed, usually being at or near the front end to fractions, but can't hold that speed consistently. This o finished next to last, a length ahead of A.

This race presented no issue as to class, since B, C, and E all had been racing better type horses, sometimes in stakes or handicaps, each with some degree of success.-.! A alone seemed to be somewhat outclassed, never having gone into a stake and being erratic in cheaper races.

The race for which past performances are reproduced'; below was a class G handicap at six furlongs for three-1 year-olds. Five were entered but only four went.

The weights were: A, 118 pounds; B, 108; C, 111; D, 123.

On the issue of class there seemed little to choose among these horses. A had been entered in the highest type races —Derby and Withers—for instance, but he had not done much when so placed. His only win was in a C handicap. Horse C had raced in stakes and straight handicaps, with one allowance, and basically graded with the others. B also graded, but had been erratic when highly placed. D had raced in C handicaps and in straight handicaps.

D was the most consistent horse in the race, not only in terms of his record for two years but also in terms of his winning or finishing close by. He had plenty of early foot, and in sprints did not normally lose ground in the stretch.

D was giving weight to the three others, but he pre­viously had won under 123 and 122 pounds and had run second under 124. His poundage did not seem to be an excessive handicap.

Cross-lines were available on some of these horses. A and B both had beaten D once, but only very narrowly and when D was in close quarters in the stretch and un­able to run freely. D had beaten B once by a considerable margin. D had beaten C twice. Results of actual meetings among these horses did not diminish D's chances. He won as favorite by a length and a half at a price a trifle longer than even money.

Below appear past performances for a class D handicap at a mile and an eighth in which only five horses were en­tered and all went.

HANOI

The weights were: A, 107 pounds; B, 120; G, 107; D, 110; E, 122.

A, the only three-year-old in the race,, obviously amounted to nothing. He had gone in one high-class stake, the Travers, but had shown very little, and his two years' record, as well as his finishing positions, proved to be highly erratic and unreliable. His assignment of 105 pounds was 12 less than scale-weight for the distance September, when the race was run, whereas E, a four-year-old and the topweight of the field, was only 4 pounds under the scale. However, the difference was not enough to compensate for A's inferiority.

B, the Argentine importation, was an unknown quan­tity which probably could be disregarded as against E.

G's two years' record shows him to be erratic, an im­pression reinforced by his finishing positions. In addition, E had already beaten C twice at various weight-arrange­ments.

D amounts to very little, as shown by the summary of his record and by his finishing positions. It was highly improbable that his lighter weight would compensate for his obvious inferiority to the more heavily weighted E.

E himself looks like a pretty fair horse in second class company. In allowances and graded handicaps he has a good record for both winning and money consistency, and his winning or close-up finishing positions are additional proof of his honesty, steadiness and ability. It is impossible to go beyond him for the winner of the race, and he did in fact win most easily over A, the second choice. The Argentine horse was third. In this race E's superficially short price of $1.20/1 was an obvious overlay.

The next race for which lines are shown was an allow­ance affair at a mile and a sixteenth for fillies and mares of four years and up. Eight were entered and one scratched. Past performances are given for the four short­est priced horses in the race.

HANDICAJ^ING VIEWPOINTS A&D FACTORS'

The weights were: A, 122 pounds; B, 115; C, 110; D, 112.

All these fillies and mares seemed to class about the same, having been racing entirely in non-claimers, whether or not graded affairs.

A is aged and also obviously erratic, as indicated by her poor two-year record and by her finishing positions. She is at disadvantage at the weights, and in fact finished next to last.

B has been fair in terms of winning and running in the money as shown by her two-year record. Also only two bad races (bottom lines) are shown in her past per­formances. But she seemed to be outfigured by D although she in fact finished a close second to that filly.

C, as shown by her whole record and the lines, is too erratic and may be disregarded.

D has a much superior two-year record in comparison with the others. And the lines shown for her indicate ex­emplary consistency, with the exception of one race (sec­ond down from top). D is at no disadvantage at the weights, and can be accepted as the probable winner. She did in fact win, beating B narrowly, and paid a mutuel of $7.50, a price which seemed to be an overlay in the limited field. Note that her last previous race (top line) showed her possessed of great intrinsic speed (leading in 1.11 to the three-quarters). This fact tended to counterbalance the rather slow times run to by her in the other races shown, which, incidentally, were at one of the slower courses of the country. In her last race D weakened in the stretch and ran second, but her own time equaled the previous track record for the distance, one mile and 70 yards.

The following lines cover the first four choices in an allowance race at six furlongs for horses three years old and up.

VIEWPOINTS AND FACTORS

The weights were: A, 115 pounds; B, 113; C, 113; D, 102.

A's two-year record shows him to be erratic; so do the lines representing his recent races. His last race was in an $8,000 claimer, the others in allowances, and he seems to amount to very little. Nevertheless he was made second, choice, but finished next to last, beating only a rank out­sider.

B's lines also show he had raced in a claimer at a valu­ation of $6,000. His good races in the lines, everything ap­pearing above the claimer except his last very poor race, were at a minor less-than-mile course'. All that can be inferred from his two-year record is that he is highly in­consistent. Yet he went as third choice and just managed to beat out A.

C, the mare, had appeared once at a minor course (bot­tom race), also had run in a claimer for $6,500. Her two-year record showed no real consistency, although the lines set up for her exhibited a series of steady races. She could not be regarded as having much for sprints or routes either, in view of her inconsistency and the times she had raced to. She went as fourth choice and finished fourth.

The three horses just discussed carried about the same poundage—no material advantage or disadvantage for any.

D, the three-year-old filly, seems to outclass this field. She raced well in the Kentucky Oaks, finishing third. In her last effort, another stake, she met two of the best fillies in the country and was not disgraced, having made up ground in the stretch after a poor start, although she finished over six lengths off the winner. Six wins in ten starts over two years is much superior to anything shown by the others in the present race. Running in July at six furlongs, D's weight of 102 pounds was 15 pounds under scale for a three-year-old filly, just about the situation of the four and five-year-old horses. D looked like a sure winner and an overlay even as favorite at 1.20/1. She won very easily by two and a half lengths, beating an outsider not represented in the lines. In fact neither A, B or C managed to finish in the money. Time of the race was 1.12 1/5, obviously within D's powers in view of her hav­ing raced to faster time under heavier weight on a slower track (bottom line in her set-up). And it is evident from the races shown that time of 1.12 1/5 should be sufficient to win, quite apart from the other matters involved in a sensible consideration of the race.

The next—and last—race I shall set out was a class E allowance affair at six furlongs for horses of four years and up. A considerable number were entered, but there were numerous scratches and only nine went to post. The lines below represent the five shortest priced animals in the race, including the winner, which went to post at only .60/1 and in fact was pretty much of a standout.

Horse A

Brown gelding of 4; summary of record for two years—24 starts,          1 win, 4 sec­

onds, 2 thirds; earned $5,900

hy 6f .23 Vs -473/5 1.14% Allow'ce 12 4         2          2          2*        4<|
gd 6f .224/5 .473/s 1.14 D Allow.  4 4 2          2          32|       46J
gd 6f -223/s .463/5 I.I33/5 D Allow. 11 4         3          5          4«§      5«i
fst 6f .222/5 .451/5 l.lOVs D Allow. 6 2            2          2          2*        5'J
fst 6f -222/5 .452/5 l.llVs D Allow. 4 4 2          2          42|       6'J
fst 6f .223/5 .46'/5 1.10ys D Allow. 16 3          4          4«        69i

The weights on these horses were as follows: A, 115 pounds; B, 119; C, 110; D, 115; E, 115.

All animals represented had been performing in straight allowance races, with the single exception of A, which had been entered chiefly in D allowances. Any theoretical class-differences were in favor of E, which had raced in a num­ber of handicaps as well as in straight allowances.

The weights presented no problem. All starters carried about the same poundage except C, under 110 pounds, \ And he, in thirty-three starts, had managed to win only four. He did not seem to be much of a threat.

All the horses in this race except E have been highly in­consistent. This statement is supported not only by their two-year records but also by their finishing positions. And a class-consistency analysis of the field is supported by a time-analysis; nothing else "has shown ability to come even close to E's best time for six furlongs—1.10 3/5. This one seemed to have an edge in class, having raced in a number of handicaps; he had a very wide margin in gen­eral consistency as well as consistency in winning or fin­ishing close by, and he had a wide margin in speed. It was obvious that he must go to post at a very short price, and it was equally obvious that he should win easily. His margin of victory over D, the second horse, was a length and a half. Although E broke poorly and was running seventh at the quarter, his jockey could have made it half a dozen lengths had he desired.

The reader will understand that the type of race and horse-analysis I have discussed in this section is not the only type of handicapping which will yield winners. It is possible to analyze races strictly in terms of the watch and weights. But in my opinion, a class-consistency analysis of the sort I have illustrated in this section is the most reliable means of getting winners and avoiding losers.

A reader should also understand that a class-consistency analysis of fields is not going to turn up plausible bets in race after race. A high percentage of all races programmed figures too close to permit making a logical choice, even when fair horses of figurable class and consistency are entered. Also the fields are often too poor to permit a choice. The only way to handicap fields and to play horses is to analyze race after race patiently until one is found presenting a prefigurable winner and then to refuse to back that horse unless he goes to post at a price longer than his real chances of winning call for.

Nearly all players of horses are unsuccessful financially.

This is of course implicit in the high percentages taken from mutuel pools by tracks and states. No one is going to get rich quick through betting horses, and I am afraid no one is going to get rich slowly, under present-day con­ditions. But it is possible to make some money through betting even today, when the taxing authorities' lunch-hooks are extended for the spoils. To do so requires first-class handicapping ability plus self-control to withhold play even from solidly prefigurable horses when the price is not adequately remunerative. The type of handicapping to be employed is up to the individual player. It's his money and his risk. But the procedures I have been ad­vocating throughout this chapter, involving heavy em­phasis on consistency in winning and running in the money before an animal can be accepted as a wager, at least are calculated to keep a player off unpredictably erratic skates—the kind that makes up the bulk of horses entered to race on any one day at any single track.

I have just picked up a copy of today's Telegraph. Past performances are shown for races at Tropical Park, Flor­ida, the Fair Grounds, Louisiana, and Santa Anita, Cali­fornia. Of 119 horses entered at Tropical in 8 races only a single animal had won as many as a third of his starts in the current and preceding years. At the Fair Grounds no animal of the 121 entered had shown similarly meri­torious performance. At Santa Anita, of 109 horses en­tered to race, again only a single animal had won a minimum of a third of his starts in two years. In total, less than 6/10 of 1% of the horses entered on the particular day (2 out of 349) had really shown something. The day was quite typical in this respect, and this fact is a devastat­ing commentary on the basic quality of the animals that make up over-long American racing programs. On this particular day several hundred times more money was. wagered on the 347 dogs than was risked on the 2 respectable horses. It is no wonder that races made up of skates are unbeatable.

A sensible player, who insists on proof of some real consistency in his selections before risking his money, will not be kicked from pillar to post by the unpredictable per­formances of inconsistent horses which never have shown anything simply because they haven't got anything. A steady and honest performer usually will run his race, and a punter who confines wagers to horses of this type has an infinitely better chance for success than one who keeps shotgunning at random over race-fields of nothing.

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