NEVER TAKE FINANCIAL ADVICE FROM SOMEONE WITH HOLES IN THE BOTTOM OF THEIR SHOES...
By Kelso Sturgeon
I spent almost all my adult life on the race track and I have great affection for horseplayers. But the truth is the truth; those who bet horses are for the most part the most hard-headed, closed-minded and self-destructive of all those who inhabit the world of handicapping.
You can talk sense with football, basketball and baseball bettors--even have a respectful discussion with them. But don't try it with a horseplayer, unless you thrive on a form of rejection delivered with an uncommon rage. But, of course, we know one cannot tell anything to one who knows everything.
This is why it was with great interest I recently re-read a story on the so-called "bounce" factor that had been published in Daily Racing Form. The article, written by editor and publisher Steven Crist-himself a very sharp handicapper-debunked the "bounce" as a major factor in handicapping. Yes, Crist noted, this element of handicapping is important, but it is only a small piece of the puzzle-a very small piece.
Crist wrote with alarm, noting that the "bounce theory", first offered to the racing world by the chef de chef of all handicappers, Len Ragozin, was being used as an excuse for losing, even by trainers. To Crist, it was one thing for a bettor to use the "bounce" as an excuse and quite another for a trainer to make it the main reason for a horse's lack of success.
For the uninformed, the "bounce theory", per Ragozin, assigns a horse a number for each race it runs. The lower the number, the better the performance. Ragozin, who won millions of dollars with this theory and built one of the most powerful racing stables in the country, noted that a horse running a career best number in one race usually performed poorly in its next outing.
IT'S MORE THAN REGRESSION TO THE MEAN...
For instance, let us say that Feedlebomb usually ran an "8" or a "9" and now runs a "4". The bounce theory would say that, off the "4", Feedlebomb would run a poor race in its next outing, and he usually did.
It all makes sense. A horse is flesh and blood and subject to wear and tear. If a horse ran its guts out in one race, performing at a level much higher than usual, it is reasonable to assume it spent an exceptional amount of extra energy to do that.
Thus, the clunker in its next effort.
Some would call it regression to the mean, but it is far more complicated than that.
But Crist pointed out that, while some horses certainly do bounce off a great performance, not all horses do that. He could have even added that the better the horse, the less chance it will "bounce" at all. Grade I horses can run their eyeballs out race after race and come right back and do it again and again. That is not the case with cheaper horses.
Now, for a trainer of a $5,000 claimer running at Charles Town to say that his horse ran poorly because it "bounced" off a good effort in its previous race is absurd. If a horse has won 2-of-25 lifetime starts, he just might be a slow horse that occasionally runs a winning race. It certainly didn't bounce to defeat in all those 23 losses.
IS COMMONSENSE RETURNING?...
As important as it was for Crist to address this issue, it may be a sign that commonsense is on its way back to handicapping race horses. Maybe it will serve as a wake-up call for those who keep losing their money everyday, even though they already know everything.
In recent years, 90% of all horseplayers have tried to reduce to a number a horse's ability to perform. Much of it begins with the bogus Beyer figures published in the Daily Racing Form. The Beyers have some substance, but they have less real impact on the handicapping equation that the bounce.
The Beyer figures (the higher the number, the better), which appear in each past performance line of each horse, are the foundation of many handicapping programs. And we wonder why horseplayers keep losing and die broke?
These figures are named after Andrew Beyer, a brilliant handicapper and racing editor of The Washington Post. In his theories and in the manner Beyer addresses the issue of handicapping the thoroughbred, he operates in the same rarified air that kept Ragozin in the twilight zone of analysis. If the Beyer figures were his figures, I would swear by them. But they are not.
The Beyer figures are compiled by some of the most suspect handicappers in the country, many of which live broke and drive old cars. One would have to assume that anyone who has the insight to make these figures would have a difficult time finding places to hide all the money. That their bankrolls would fit in a watch pocket tells it all.
MY GOLDEN RULE OF HANDICAPPING...
If I accepted as most horseplayers do the legitimacy of the Beyer figures as published in the Daily Racing Form, I would have to cast aside Kelso Sturgeon's Golden Rule of handicapping....
NEVER TAKE FINANCIAL ADVICE FROM ANYONE WALKING AROUND WITH HOLES IN THE BOTTOMS OF THEIR SHOES.
I do not mean to be personal, but I have been in horse racing since the early 1960s and have seen and done it all. I know there is no way one can reduce a horse to a number and then use that number to successfully handicap.
As one who served as jockey agent for some of the leading riders in the country-former national riding champion Carlos Barrera (who, by the way was the only 100% honest person I met in more than 30 years on the track), Eclipse Award winning Alberto Delgado and the great stakes rider Vince Bracciale, Jr.-I know of what I speak.
Handicapping horses is a logical, objective process based on basic principles of analysis. The bounce is a small part of it, the Beyer figures much smaller than that.
It also helps for bettors to understand they are wagering on horses under one set of rules, while races are run under another set, all hidden from the public. In my next column, we will delve into this issue-hoping to save from themselves any horseplayer who does not already have all the answers.
If you have any listening left, you just might discover that 90% of everything you know about horse racing is bunk-false, bad information handed down by generations of losers.
I will return.
