Edward Bulwer-Lytton authored the famous line “the pen is mightier than the sword” in his 1839 work “Richeliu; or The Conspiracy.” While his immediate focus was on a now obscure 17th century French Cardinal, he inadvertently provided writers with a powerful quote that could be used to fit any number of circumstances. Indeed, over the ages this quote has been brandished in attempts to remind nations, states, and other assorted groupings of people that shrewd diplomacy should be a preferred course of action over armed conflict.
Today we’ll use the quote for a slightly different purpose; that of observing horses prior to a race. To begin with, we’ll need to adjust the wording a bit. No longer shall the “pen” remain the dominant feature of the quote. While we may not have a sword at our immediate disposal, no doubt each handicapper has himself (or herself) a trusted writing utensil with which to document picks, observations, and analysis. It’s a little exercise we affectionately refer to as “handicapping” which often our own closest friends and immediate family fail to understand.
In the world of thoroughbred handicapping, the pen and the notations it makes upon a fresh copy of the Daily Racing Form, or “the sheets”, or perhaps even a local track program, go a long way in determining what our final wagers will be at the window. Many more highly esteemed authors on the subject than I have noted that handicapping itself is only half the battle – the other half being using those insights to wager properly. It is my contention, however, based on recent experience, that when all is said and done the eye is the tool we should trust far more than any stroke of the pen.
Allow me to explain in detail.
How many of us have faced the following experience on numerous occasions? You stay up late into the evening, slaving over a particularly challenging card. You take everything into consideration: class hikes and drops, form cycles, fractional times, equipment changes, jockey changes. If it can be inferred from the data available to you, it is considered and reconsidered in the labor of love that goes into the selection making process. You jot down your picks, and probably even rank them according to preference. You might even spend time visualizing your horse and how they will prevail. With your selections thus confidently made, you journey off into slumberland dreaming of the riches that await a successful day of wagering on the ‘morrow.
Then, as race day approaches, you finally catch a glimpse of the runners you agonized over the night before. Suddenly the names and form on paper are revealed in their full living embodiment – only something isn’t quite right. That “sure thing” you were so confident of last night suddenly doesn’t look anywhere near as attractive in the paddock. His/Her coat is sweaty, or the horse appears to not be enjoying the surroundings. Even worse, a horse who you thought had absolutely no chance of competing makes an entirely opposite impression and appears to be the standout of the post parade.
What to do?
Call me crazy, but at this point in the process I believe it to be absolutely foolhardy to stick with the “paper” selections and ignore that which your eyes are allowing you to see. For starters, the information on the paper in front of you can really only lead you to a “guess” or an “approximation” of the horse’s talents and abilities. It must be remembered, however, that you aren’t wagering on one of the horse’s past performances. You’re wagering on how they will run TODAY. While all the work you have done can certainly provide valuable “clues”, they are by no means a foregone conclusion.
And therein lies the proverbial dilemma. Often we become so wed to our selections, and so paralyzed with fear that if we don’t wager them, we will appear foolish if they wind up defeating our tickets. If there’s one characterization that is used to define horseplayers more so than any other (beyond being “opinionated”), it’s that we have a propensity to be acutely stubborn in our ways, and totally resistant to change. We believe our methods to be tried and true. Our information to be more reliable than the next guy’s, and most importantly, our intuition to be of a higher degree of accuracy than those we are wagering against.
Another way of looking at this might be to suggest that we are inflicted with the infamous “pride before the fall.” Not that there’s anything necessarily wrong with being confident in our picks. Truth be told you probably shouldn’t wager a red cent on anything you believe to be a totally random investment, with no degree of opinion as to it’s prospects for failure or success. It’s just that one must also be acutely aware of their own fallibility. As genius as we all believe ourselves to be in the moments leading up to the race, it takes only one false step or bit of bad racing luck to wind up feeling like the court jester, complete with egg on the face and foot in the mouth. Trust me…Ive been there way too many times for my liking.
The above situation is one that dogs me frequently, and I suspect is an all too common situation that most “public handicappers” face. It’s tough to make predictions a day in advance and then actually follow them through the next day. So much changes on the fly. First, there’s the unavoidable “second guessing” that you will drag yourself through. “Did I think of everything?” Then, there’s the changes and scratches that are announced an hour before the first post time. Often, these adjustments change the entire complexion of a race. Finally, there’s the post parade itself. The first opportunity to see the horses in person and allow your eyes to cast judgement. I don’t have empirical evidence to support this, but I can tell you that it feels like as many as 50% of my “selections” change to some degree (sometimes entirely) based on appearances in the post parade.
Of the numerous examples that come to mind, the one I often fall back on is the 2007 Belmont Stakes. Being the self appointed “world’s biggest Curlin fan,” I was very pleased with his appearance in the post parade. I thought he looked a million bucks, even if somewhat tired in the eyes. That was to be expected given his grueling series of prep races leading up to his efforts in the Derby and the Preakness. He appeared to be a lock. Just then, the cameras went past Rags to Riches. “My god!” I thought. I hadn’t considered it was possible for a horse to make a sharper post parade appearance than Curlin, yet somehow this filly looked even more magnificent. Swallowing a healthy doze of Curlin-infatuated pride, I cleared the 5 feet of distance between our sofa and computer in record time to place a sizeable wager on her. The rest was history (100 years of Belmont history, to be exact).
Fast forward to our present situation. If you’ve been following along with the action at Del Mar, than you know that it takes quite a bit of guts to stand behind a favorite thus far at that meet. We’ve all heard the line that favorites win about 30% of all races. You might be surprised to learn then that through 5 days of racing at Del Mar, post time favorites have only won 5 out of the 47 races run, or roughly 10.6%. Coincidentally, the average win payout thus far has been roughly $13.96, at odds of roughly 6/1. Not bad at all for price players.
So what’s that got to do with eyeball handicapping as opposed to conventional paper handicapping? Well, if you’ve been playing along on “All Access” on TVG, you’ve been able to get a decent look at most of the runners in the fields as they approach the starting gate. This past Sunday was a perfect lesson in “eyeball handicapping.” Not a single favorite on the card prevailed. None. Notta. Zilch. Who did prevail? Only a steady slew of attractive looking runners at relatively attractive prices, that’s who.
In the opener this Sunday, Box Office Star returned $14.80 at odds of about 6/1. In my pre-race handicapping, which would’ve been my published picks had I published them, he came up as my 4th choice in the race. There were simply runners who seemed more interesting on paper. But in the post parade it was all about Box Office Star. The same thing happened in the next race with Scorpion Time, who returned a disappointing (for current Del Mar standards) $7.80 to win as second choice at nearly 3/1. I actually played against that one despite the fact that he turned up in my “paper” and “eyeball” picks, but I digress.
As the day progressed, Quiet Lightning ($20.20), Millenia ($46.00), Meydan Princess ($17.40), Dewey’s Special ($8.60), Molly McFast ($27.60), Street Royale ($7.80), Unzip Me ($8.40), and Dynamic Range ($9.60) completed the trend of attractive looking horses who made strong impressions in the post parade finding their way to the winner’s circle. The only horses I didn’t catch in some fashion in this sequence were Meydan Princess and Molly McFast – and namely because I foolishly stuck with my “paper” picks in those races. Ironically, the only favorite the entire weekend to prevail, Tiny Woods, was arguably the winner who made the weakest post parade impression, if only because his stature reflects his name so well.
By the end of the day I had learned my lesson. In fact, as regular reader Sally Cruikshank from Fun On Mars, Frank Price from RaceHorseDreams , and I celebrated our newly fattened betting accounts following Millenia’s triumph at 22/1 in the 6th race on Sunday, I resolved that never again would I trust the pen over the eye.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m still an avid paper handicapper. Going into a horse race without having done proper handicapping the night before is like going into battle with one boot off. It’s just that no matter how strong my opinions and beliefs on paper, it seems clear that the secret for success is to be flexible enough to see through the mistaken assumptions of one’s selections as they are confronted with real time information while veiweing the horse in the post parade.
And let’s be honest – who amongst us claims to be an “expert” at picking horse flesh? Not I, for sure. Their are exhaustive works on the subject which should be consulted properly before toying with the idea of even becoming anything close to an expert. It’s just that the eyes don’t lie. There is no “darkened form” when viewing a horse in the paddock. All they see, with a little training, is truth – and that my friends is what we should be wagering on. Truth over hype. The hidden truth in the past performances over the obvious assumptions available to anyone with a program in hand. The mistakenly overlooked at the window instead of the mistakenly hammered.
Because when all is said and done, in our old age, who amongst us wouldn’t like to sit back like Robert DeNiro’s Ace Rothstein character at the end of “Casino”: oversized sunglasses on our face, Daily Racing Form spread out beneath us, noting to ourselves that after all these years, we ”can still pick a winner.”
And with that, I’m off to Kentucky to see Curlin. Hopefully upon our return we’ll have the honor of walking Rachel Alexandra and the rest of the Haskell Invitational field to the paddock at Monmouth on Sunday. It all depends on whether we can hold on and win the “Ultimate Rachel Alexandra Fan” contest that Monmouth is hosting over on Facebook.
We’ll see ya when we return. And don’t worry, we’ll give Curlin everyone’s love and well wishes.
Here’s hoping we see some of you at the Haskell this weekend.
RECENT COMMENTS