THE ART OF WINNER-FINDING II

MY CONTENTION when last tackling this subject was that it is better to use your eyes than a slide rule when trying to pluck winners from the tree of racing. As a result, I have been prompted to demonstrate what was meant, isolating some of the issues mentioned.

So I will start with one of the most intricate, perhaps vital components when trying to read a race – that is horses in general. After all, it is difficult to assess the future of an animal without forming a judgement of its physical positives and negatives. Let us start with the paddock. Appraisal of horses in the paddock is not as difficult as those that do it, and therefore wish to preserve their monopoly on a pursuit few tend to query, wish to have us believe. Start with the most obvious. If we are evaluating newcomers and maidens, look at a horse in the parade ring as if you are weighing up someone at a social gathering. Does the horse look at ease in its surroundings, is it comfortable. Has it a swagger in its walk. You often hear paddock observers say a horse is a good walker. Walking does not have too much to do with racing, but a horse that has a John Wayne-type gait is probably confident and capable of running up to its best. If it appears curled up – the equivalent of a shrinking violet at a party – is sweating and edgy, chances are it cannot wait to get back to its stables and is unlikely to show too much in a race. Its ears should be forward, possibly flicking back and forth with interest, its head held high and coat shining. It should not be carrying condition – that is weight round the tummy – whilst ideally its backend should rise from its middle with its hindquarters well-muscled. Remember that the engine of a horse is its hind legs. They are the pistons. The more built up a horse’s backend is, the greater its power. Sprinters often have backsides like butcher’s dogs or cooks. They have to be all muscle and speed, often running on one breath from stall to line.

Apart from fitness issues, these remarks do not normally apply to seasoned handicappers, some of whom, aware it is merely another day at the office, can walk round the paddock all day like old sheep. Horsey people will tell you that equines do not fully mature until reaching the age of six. That is not necessarily true of racehorses; but be prepared for them to improve physically from two to three and again when they become four. Some horses are only shells in their younger days. These are unfurnished animals, yet to fill their frames. They appear leggy and slightly gangly and are similar to the teenager in the playground whose body is sprouting in all directions waiting to take a solid shape.

The debate over paddock-watching is an ongoing one as not everyone likes the same thing. Just as some men are attracted to blondes or brunettes or women wearing glasses, some horse-watchers like big rangy types that can often be weak, ignoring at their peril athletic and compact types that, once fit, are ready to shoot from the hip.

Note how a horse goes to post. You want to see it striding out with some zest on the ground not scratching to post as if on a gravely road. But horses that pull hard are bad news. They are fighting their jockey, expending energy in the process. If they pull on the way to the start, there is every chance they will do the same in a race, in which case they are unlikely to get home.

If the ground is soft, it is unlikely to suit a horse with a low action. Fast ground it can skim over is what is required and having to handle soft ground corresponds to a human running in wellington boots. On the other hand, soft ground will suit the sort of horse with a rounded action, which is one that resembles a rocking horse, and that hits the ground hard with its forelegs. Imagine those front legs thumping down of fast ground and you get an idea of how it feels for the horse – rather like racing on hot coals. Wingwalker is an obvious example of a horse that climbs when faced with fast ground and predictably, it proved his undoing at Newmarket. There is a saying that horses will go on any ground once. That holds water to a degree but sensible trainers do not ask questions their charges have difficulty in answering. Once again, breeding will help provide a clue or two as to how a horse will handle extremes of going. There are too many stallions to list individually here but a couple of general rules apply. Sire of the moment, Galileo, produces stock that is best on firm. The same applies to Elusive Quality. Oasis Dream’s offspring, along with Pivotal’s, like some give. American-breds are invariably best on fast ground; although those like Street Cry (responsible for imposing horses) and One Cool Cat, who were proven on dirt, can produce stock that handle easy ground.

There is another saying often muttered around paddocks and in betting rings. That is, when dealing with extremes of ground that, it is the same for all. Actually, it is not! No horse wants a bog to race on. Similarly, few, if any, want to gallop on the equivalent of the M1. Some are better equipped to handle such conditions but it is never the same for all of them!

Assessing a race is the easy part. Always question form from slowly run races that have developed into a two-furlong dash. Races with the best record are run at a proper end-to-end gallop, often the case with handicaps. Handicappers are the literal workhorses of the industry and know what they are doing. They settle well, can squeeze through gaps; their experience and professionalism means they are often hard to beat when faced with winners of maidens. And because they have been around for a while, they are often streetwise enough to save something for themselves. They also carry few secrets. We know their optimum conditions and at what time of year they tend to bloom. Whether they invariably need a run and whether they have a left or right-handed preference. The last point may seem trivial but horses often have a preferred lead leg, something that can be crucial on tight tracks like Chester. If it is their off fore, a right-handed track suits them better than one that requires them to change leads. Overall, Flat horses are less likely to be as affected as those who jump fences or hurdles, who are required to be in a greater rhythm.

Some maiden winners can look impressive when showboating to a hard-held easy success. Check to see what such horses have beaten. Watching a horse cruising away from a horse rated 75 does not mean you have seen a 90-rated animal. Similarly, horses hemmed or boxed in, snatched up, or otherwise unlucky, never find what you might at first glance think they might next time. Two lengths is a lot to find. Watching unlucky horses can be deceptive. Just as horses that veer from a true line have never given away the distance you presume them to have, those that get a run via the high street can mislead. Halve the impact their apparent misfortune will have next time and you will be about right.

A top class horse has the ability to quicken in a race three times. Once to angle for a position, again to challenge or maybe inch into the lead, and one last time when confronted. But there are not too many of those; maybe I have seen twenty. Most, even Group 1 winners, have two gear changes. I would have said New Approach had two-and-a-half gears, Lush Lashes had two and that Zarkava, never fully tested, probably had three.

However, we are starting at the top. Most animals have one change of gear and it is just a question of for how long they can sustain it. Some have a short sharp burst, others can lengthen and keep up a strong gallop for a couple of furlongs. Watching the lesser end of the spectrum, it is noticeable that once let down, poor horses may try but they cannot accelerate. So they go from seeming to be travelling strongly to just plugging on at the same old pace. This is especially useful to remember if you are an in-running player. Inexperienced race-readers often label such animals as dogs but that only demonstrates they do not know what they are looking at. For this reason, it does help to know and understand the animals you are watching. The gift of speed has been bestowed on some horses, allowing a change of gear, whereas others have only one pace. Rather like people, they can only achieve what is within their capabilities.

Better horses can accelerate, some even battle back when headed. Although not a advocate of sectional timing – mainly because I feel the work involved is not commensurate with the end product – the time of a race, in comparison with those on the same day, providing the going is constant, will provide a clue as to the worth of a race. Once again though, this does depend on the way the race was run. But if a race is recorded in a slow time for no obvious reason, then it is an event to be wary of until proved otherwise. As a potential race-reader, the ability to pigeon hole races is vital. Bad or moderate races will throw up that sort of horse. Those that are visually appealing and start to produce subsequent winners are worth paying attention to. Wingwalker’s maiden at Newmarket was a notable example this year as it produced a host of mid-summer winners including Delegator, who later went on to finish fifth in the Dewhurst.

It can be just as useful to identify bad or average races. Those that do not put in the work are likely to assume that because a horse won at one of the major tracks, it was a decent performance. Even if you formed no particular view at the time, clues are always in evidence. What did said horse beat? Did the market suggest it was a strong contest with several fancied horses lining up? Alternatively, were there silly plunges on big-priced horses caused by the awareness by shrewdies that nothing was fancied and they could have a blast on a long-priced half-chancer. The betting is often a good guide, particularly in maidens. When they bet 5 or 6/1 the field, clearly there are no standout messages for the participants. Unless something streaks to an unexpected wide margin victory, as Your Old Pal did at Newbury, chances are the race contains little of substance. But always be prepared to rethink. If a week is a long time in politics, two months can be a long time in the life of a two-year-old.

Keeping a record of horses and races that have made an impression will help greatly in your future strategy. Like everything connected with this business, it requires plenty of work and to avoid burn out, you should concentrate on those aspects of the game you are best at.

Try to do it all and you will end up gibbering to yourself in some quiet corner somewhere.

THE KNACK OF WINNER-FINDING

THERE IS a story that concerns a man who owns a factory that makes components for motor cars. A vital piece of machinery malfunctions. Without it, he is unable to manufacture the pistons and valves that are the focal point of his business. So he calls in an expert, a man who mends intricate pieces of machinery for a living. When the man arrives at the factory he circles the offending piece of apparatus, looking at this, looking at that and tutting the way tradesmen do. After a few minutes, he delves into a bag of tools and produces a hammer. Then, to a hushed ensemble, he lifts the hammer high over his head, bringing it down sharply on a nut. He asks the owner to press the start button; and low and behold, the machine kick-starts into action.

Once the factory floor churns back to production, the owner calls the hammer-hitter into his office and asks how much he charges for his services.

“£1,000,’ is the reply.

‘That’s scandalous,’ retorts the owner. ‘You have only been here for five minutes. Would you care to itemise your bill.’

‘Certainly,’ says the tradesman. ‘£1 for hitting the nut: £999 for knowing which nut to hit.’

In other words, the man had a knack known only to himself. He knew how to restore the machine to working order. How he arrived at this was somewhat incidental.

Possessing a knack for anything is a precious commodity. Actors can be taught how to act, footballers how to score goals, jockeys how to ride horses. But what lifts the good from the very good; the very good from the excellent, is something that cannot be taught and that is a knack. After all the theory has been exhausted, it is the person that can operate without recourse to a manual, the one that can improvise, the one that has an in-built auto-pilot, that will be the best.

Some professional punters try to narrow winner-finding down to a fine art. They approach it as if they are architects that need a blueprint. To a degree, there are certain elementary things you need to know. Just as the actor has to look natural and listen for his cue, the punter must be conversant with his script. He needs to know that a high-numbered draw at Chester is hard to overcome as it is on the round course at Thirsk. In a sprint, it is handy to know where the pace is likely to come from so that a selection is not likely to be cast adrift in the middle of the ocean. A view needs to be formed when a selection is tackling a trip it is unproven over. If dealing with a steeplechaser, an impression of the horse’s jumping capabilities is required. Knowing a little about breeding is desirable. That will help evaluate whether a certain horse is likely to handle the ground it faces.

It is also advantageous, particularly in non-handicap events, if a punter can segregate the quality of a race he has watched. He needs to know whether it is poor, moderate, good or top class. That way, he will be able to read how dangerous future participants from such a race are likely to be. He will then know whether to overlook them with a degree of safety in favour of horses that appear to have contested better events. Sometimes finishing sixth in a good maiden is preferable to having been second in a moderate one.

Many of these points are basic but it is surprising how many times you hear so-called pundits falling into the various black holes espoused here. ‘That was a really good effort last time,’ they will often say, ‘So and so was only beaten a length at Newmarket.’ But how many winners came from that race and, more importantly, if the race was recently run and nothing has surfaced from it, what sort of a race did it look to be to the naked eye?

Now we are taking knack. Successful punters need to be good race-readers. They need to spot when a horse fails to stay; therefore, it is possible to forgive a disappointing finishing position. Similarly, they need to notice a horse staying on at the end of a race that was patently too short and make sure they pay special attention to its chances when a more suitable trip is presented.

So, let us return to the punter that takes the blueprint approach and wants to cover every angle. I know one enormously successful punter who takes this approach. Actually, I have worked for him on and off. I have read races on his behalf, helped compile sectional timing, assisted in surveys on ground analysis at various tracks but, largely, I thought most of it was piffle! I cannot argue with his results and some people like to be doubly sure before they bet. It is the belt and braces approach and if that gives them comfort then fine; but I contend if you do not know what you are looking at, then you should do something else.

I should say here that plenty of successful punters do not know what they are looking at. They employ people like me to tell them. That is a different matter. They have accepted that evaluating form and watching the confirmation of horses in the paddock and scrutinising the worth of races is not their forte. What they are good at is collating all information put before them and acting accordingly. They make successful decisions regarding betting in the same way managing directors take judgements based on expert opinion.

But unless you are in a position to employ a work force to feed you data, and then have the courage to act accordingly, we have to assume as a fledging pro-punter, you reach most decisions yourself.

Personally, I feel sectional timing is nonsense. Once you start introducing such clutter into the winner-finding process, you then have to agree an accurate going description, measure the wind direction and, Oh Lord, by the time you have worked it all out, you might as well have gone to university for five years and qualified as a lawyer. Forget that nonsense! Use your eyes!

I once told the punter I was describing; I thought Notnowcato would win the Juddmonte. ‘Couldn’t back him,’ was his reply. ‘He’s never done a decent time.’ He only won by a short head but he won and I backed him at 8/1 with the pro punter choosing to disregard the opinion he paid me to supply. I also told him to ignore news from Newmarket that Soviet Song had been working badly prior to her win at Ascot, as four-year-old fillies can often doss at home. This is something I know because I understand, in part anyway, how racehorses function.

He did not. If it was not there in some wad of paper, then it was not worth bringing to the table. Of course, on plenty of occasions, he was right and I was wrong, but the point I am trying to make is that not everything can be quantified. Some things have to be the result of intuition and often they are the best decisions we make in life.

Think back to all the good and difficult decisions you have made: perhaps regarding buying or selling a house or a car. There is no way under these circumstances you can cover every eventuality. Ultimately, some thought process has to kick in and you make a decision often based on scant information. But it is information you trust allied to a general feeling. If buying a house, you like the fact that the neighbouring houses all have well-tendered gardens, that there is not a rusting fridge stuck out on someone’s back yard and three doors down there is not the sight of a car jacked-up on bricks. These are positives but do not ensure the house you are contemplating buying does not have dry rot, is not haunted, infested with rats or that that well slanted lawn is not about to succumb to subsidence. However, they are clues.

I started with a story and will end with one. It just happens to be true and as a tale is nothing more than an example of Lawrence Olivier’s inflated ego. When Dustin Hoffman [a very fine actor] worked with the great man on Marathon Man, he needed to appear out of breath for one scene. Hoffman set about running up several flights of stairs prior to the take, eventually bursting in on the set gasping. After the scene, Olivier asked Hoffman why he had put himself through such a vigorous rigmarole. ‘So I was genuinely out of breath,’ Hoffman replied.

‘Why don’t you try acting dear boy,’ replied Olivier. As I have said, I can imagine him saying such a thing in that supercilious way the British cultivate when they feel they are superior. But the point is well made; it just would have been more dignified had Larry kept it to himself!

Bugger the times! If you think Notnowcato can beat Dylan Thomas over ten furlongs and on ground that is ideal for him, back him! Don’t wait for some boffin with a slide rule to confirm what you suspect may be right.

Try to winkle out a knack, be it for racing or for hitting the right nut with a hammer. The man with the knack will always sit down to eat at night. And who knows, in the coming winter months that could just be important.