Handicapping.com
Your Thoroughbred Racing Website
The Handicapper's Library


powered by FreeFind

A Different Way to Handle Class Drops
by George Kaywood

Is three a magic number in handicapping? 

I'm beginning to think so. 

Many players, myself included, try to narrow the field down to the three most likely contenders to win and fine-tune our handicapping and betting strategy from there. Many racing systems and some solid methods as well are built around the top three horses that figure to be the top selections according to three factors-speed, class, and pace. We have three ways to cash winning tickets-win, place, and show. 

Look through handicapping books since the 20's and you'll find many instances of threes in handicapping. For example, in Total Victory at the Track, William L. Scott proposed a way to assign class rating points to each horse in a race, using one, two, or three points "...to reasonably assess class ratings in past races, not perfectly, but close enough so that your tallies will be as useful and reliable as the average good player can make them." 

The "three" I have in mind today, perhaps not so coincidentally, is essentially another way of assigning a number to rate a horse by class, but from a point of view that most players probably never consider when they are in the thick of handicapping. I think this concept is one of the most underrated gems in all of handicapping, overlooked by virtually everyone. 

I wish I could take personal credit for it, but the credit belongs to Henry Kuck, who presented the idea in a little chapter in Winner's File

Kuck devised a three-point list to classify horses by the owner or trainer's intention when the decision is made to drop a horse in class.

The three classifications are: 
 
A Belief that a purse will be won
and/or that a bet will be cashed
POSITIVE
B Hope that the horse will improve facing cheaper stock NEUTRAL
C Hope that the horse will be claimed NEGATIVE

If you readjust your thinking so that your analysis begins by asking "What are they trying to do with this horse in this race?" rather than "How well did this horse compete against better company?" your handicapping will shift in such a way that the confusion that usually accompanies evaluation of class drops diminishes greatly and in many cases disappears, letting you move swiftly to the next stage in your handicapping. 

Take a copy of the Daily Racing Form and do some "reverse handicapping." While is is easy to "find winners after the race," this is one exercise that will provide enough real-life examples of when each of the three Kuck classifications applies.  For this particular factor, handicapping "after" the race is a valid way to get comfortable with this approach. 

The usual disclaimer: keep in mind that no single concept works by itself in a vacuum in handicapping races, and that other, perhaps larger, influences may neutralize this factor, depending on the nature of the race in particular. 

An example of giving a horse an "A" rating:  a claimer who won at $12,500, was moved up to $16,000, wins, moves up to $25K or $30K after running well but not winning those races, now moving back down to $16K. Has made money for his connections, shown that he just can't quite compete against horses a couple of notches better, but is solid at that $12.5-16K level. Certainly not a negative drop; he's an "A." (Claiming prices are all relative-works the same above and below this range as well as with horses moving from claiming to allowance and back again.) 

A "B" example: a hard-knocking horse whose pp's show he likes to run on or close to the lead and has done so in most of his races, including the most recent ones, finishing within 5 lengths of the winner but just not getting there. Has been racing at, say, the $40,000 level and is in today for a tag of $25K. Negative? Not necessarily. By the very words of the description for a "B" horse, he rates a "B" and is neither set to romp to the winner's circle nor be automatically thrown out. Often a tough call because it involves your subjective decision. 

"C" horses are generally easiest to spot. A horse entered today at half the claiming price of his last couple of races in which he showed no ability. A horse that's been off a long time, maybe since last year, in really cheap compared to his former racing level. Yes, these monster dropdowns do occasionally win, but their odds are invariably so low they're usually not worth serious bets. 

The exception to the rule: highly specific trainer stats (most likely ones you won't find among the batch the Form is printing for all horses now) which clearly show a pattern that invalidates the use of classifications like the ones Kuck puts forth. 

The nice part about this set of "threes" is that they can be used at all tracks, major and minor, although as with all handicapping factors, you'll find them to apply much better at certain tracks than at others. 

If you've noticed or use any other "threes" in your own handicapping, drop me an email  and I'll pass them along in a future column. 

Or three. 

Budget- Car
Return to Library Index
Return to Home Page