by Frank Cotolo

Part 1 ishere.

Aristotle said, “The purpose of knowledge is action; not knowledge.” This becomes evident as I peruse the results of the 1990s American Turf Monthly (ATM) active handicappers/bettors’ survey.

This section deals with handicapping, and the first five questions appeared in Part 1.

6. Are you opposed to or in favor of writing a personal odds line (POL)?

“I think it is advisable,” said Betty from Texas, though she did not say she used one. Otto from Vermont, “favored” the process. “They are useful,” said David from Texas. “However, I look only at my contenders and decide if the odds justify a bet,” meaning he does not use it. Blaine from New York was blunt, “I think it is a waste of time.” Then there was F.J.’s incomprehensible statement: “I try not to let odds influence my handicapping decisions.” Other responses like, “I see no merit in 2-year-old races,” and “POLs are out of whack,” and “Don’t care,” share misunderstandings of handicapping and refuse to acknowledge writing POLs as valid.

A lone wolf on the question came from Jim from Washington. He said, “I create a personal odds line for each race. Without one, I wouldn’t know the values I expect from them winning.”

7. How much research do you do when handicapping?

The answers for this proved no responders measured the time invested in the handicapping processes. All answers related to sources reviewed — public handicappers and personal notebooks and trip notes — all of which made the question moot.

8. Do you concentrate on playing particular tracks?

The greater number of answers for this focused upon responders’ local tracks except for the simulcast of national stakes events.

9. What aspect of handicapping bothers you the most?

Suspicions arose across the board here. Amos from Arkansas said, “Is the owner and trainer and jockey well-meant [today] or is this race just a tightener?” Others said, “How does a horse feel [today]?” and “Is the horse feeling well enough to even run a good race?” Brett from Maine also struggled with “a lack of understanding of conditions in a race,” which is why he said he was “not fond of allowance-type races.”

10. Do you read the opinions of public handicappers?

Julius from Illinois said, “I put little importance on someone else’s opinion.” Harriet from California “enjoys discussing aspects of a race with other handicappers,” and Willis from Indiana said, “Yes, but unless something is pointed out that I overlooked in my selection process I will invariably go with my selection.”

Not one respondent mentioned a specific public handicapper whose opinions influenced them. Here and there the Andy Beyer speed ratings were mentioned as casual factors but no other national names came up; not even popular authors on handicapping like Cramer or Quinn or Mitchell. The attitude of those surveyed more than insinuated average pari-mutuel handicappers are equals to those being paid to share opinions.

“I subscribe to a handicapping service,” said Barry from New York, “more for scratches, trainer and track information and weekly news than for its daily picks… I have a mini-library of racing books.”

Another respondent used the question to complement ATM. “The only outside opinion I consider,” said William from Illinois, “is ATM’s Fit and Ready List.” He was the only surveyed to mention the publication.

If anything was proven by the handicapping half of the survey it was the side-to-side extent of self-reliance and personal independence when it comes to measuring the ingredients of handicapping and how it depends upon the fixed beliefs of the individual. I know of no such survey for standardbred racing. Still my experiences knowing handicappers of all racing breeds (including greyhounds), and as a paid public handicapper, it is safe to assume there is plenty of information to make a wise decision about a race but how the information is processed rarely results in profitable wagering.

Over five decades of knowing handicappers offered more and more valuable information to measure any class of race by any breed it was a scant few able to be skillful enough with their betting dollars to accomplish more than a break-even long-term result. Even before the creation of single- and multi-race exotics and their huge payoffs attracting lottery-minded bettors to inflate pools, it was the sensitive practice of money management rewarding the few successful players.

This inarguable fact is why the second half of the ATM survey asked handicappers about their wagering practices. Pari-mutuel bettors were asked to reveal how they invested in races. The questions begged for specifics and hoped for patterns that indicated the importance of not betting as well as what expectation demanded how much to wager.

The histories of financially successful people in any risky investment are indications of turning knowledge into action. Careful choices concerning when to act and when to pass. Strong knowledge of handicapping demands emotional strength to be loyal about a money-management plan.

Aristotle’s advice is demonstrated in the next review of the ATM survey.