Daily common arithmetic still defines reliable horse racing handicapping

by Frank Cotolo

Mrs. Dawning taught mathematics as if she was present when humans used bones and pebbles to evaluate survival critical to daily existence. She was well respected at Public School 121 in Brooklyn, NY. Once she told students she was descended from the family present when mankind accepted long division. She enjoyed teaching sixth-graders as if they were members of the pre-historic apes in the opening scenes of “2001; A Space Odyssey.”

We had no way to battle the ole gal’s teaching methods; no less her demeaning delivery while explaining why some ancient Greek named Diophantus became known as the “Father of Algebra.” All in all, she made us feel that no matter what we learned about mathematics it would never be enough to balance a checking account.

There were a few great math teachers in Junior High School. Great when compared to Mrs. Dawning because I began to understand basic arithmetic that would change my life forever. Not only did I grow into an adult able to balance my checking account but to apply math to everyday life and eventually learn to handicap horse races and manage my money so as to turn a profit investing in one of life’s most unpredictable games.

It turned out that when I became faced with learning how to handicap horse racing, I was being taught by people who did not realize it was part of their daily lives even if they never so much as counted the legs on a racehorse. The definition of handicapping was always this: “Any disadvantage that makes success more difficult.” The most ordinary situations in our lives present success and failure. We attempt measuring each of them to succeed and hope our estimations are accurate. Our tools — as defined by the brilliant James Quinn — are Experience and Knowledge and Intuition (E + K + I).

Take any simple task you face daily. How do you decide ways to accomplish its Success? You have a basic equation (E + K + I = S). All things being equal you trust you will arrive at your job on time (S).

You have a general knowledge (K) of the disadvantages most likely to produce failure. You apply the best successful route to arrive at a certain time (E).

You research the weather forecast and traffic reports affecting your usual route and make sure your car has enough gas and oil and basic operating functions (I).

But factors may differ day to day so you measure chances that a weather change or an unexpected traffic jam or some unpredictable situation will contribute to failure. You may leave earlier to combat the changes you know (I) by using an alternate route (K) or another tactic you used before to succeed (E). The basic equation does not change but the strengths of each element may need adjustment.

That is the process is handicapping and you do it every day with each situation you face because the human race aims for success over failure; it’s an act of maintaining survival. Now add arithmetic. Assign percentage values to the chances of success and you are 99 per cent ahead of anyone who thinks handicapping horse races is the task of “picking a winner.”

In college I was required to take elementary math as a prerequisite to my major — Communication Arts. The lightbulb shone brightly. I memorized an odds-to-percentages chart and understood the use of percentages in political polls and how they were misused in commercial advertisements and successfully used in all scientific studies. And of course, on the tote board at Roosevelt Raceway.

After graduating I practiced without betting and though still crudely using that basic equation, I embraced arithmetic like professional gamblers. With a mere pittance of a bankroll, I practiced with minimal bets and amazed some of my friends going to Roosevelt Raceway with me by not betting every race based solely on some wacky system or a local tout or a tip sheet or my birth date or license-plate number, etcetera.

I began to use the percentage-to-odds table to handicap my chances of succeeding in life paths. I looked at everything with a calculated approach while my friends made no attempt at being objective when placing bets. They were driven by emotion and ego. They ignored the value of cashing a winning ticket as opposed to how many tickets they cashed. And they never passed a race because their perception of value could not compete with their hunger to brag, they picked winners on the sole brilliance of their handicapping.

Plus, I learned to keep records and they did not. I knew when I was wrong when I lost and why I was right when I won. All because simple math would not allow me to pick winners. Just to play them.