From time to time, at small and large tracks alike, players come across races with horses that stand out as being totally misplaced in those races.

Examples include:

--the horse that is dropping in claiming price from, say, $25,000 to $5,000 in one shot

--the horse that is rising in claiming price from, say, $5,000 to $25,000  in one shot

--a minor allowance horse from a truly second or third-tier track entered in a handicap or stakes race at a major track in which it has absolutely no chance to even sniff part of the purse

--a confirmed deep closing router in a short sprint race facing proven sprint speed horses who don't quit

These situations, and other variations of them, inspire players to say something like "What kind of lunatic entered this horse in this race?"

Your next thought might immediately be "Maybe he was a filler."

Up until maybe five or ten years ago, players with more than novice handicapping knowledge could often look at races and spot "fillers."

Fillers were horses that didn't belong in the race, which were entered more as a workout with no real intention of making a serious try for even part of the purse. In the days when fields were full and also-eligible lists were plentiful for what seemed like every race at every track, racing secretaries might ask a few trainers to enter a horse that needed some exercise just so that a particular race that didn't fill well wouldn't have a field of "just" 5 horses.

Today, it's safe to assume there are virtually NO fillers in horse races. As virtually all players know nowadays, fields are so short at many tracks that there just aren't enough horses to have as many as seven horses in each race, much less a full or nearly-full starting gate. The practice of using a filler or two is history.

So what kind of lunatic entered this horse in this race?

We can guess at some of  the answers: a lunatic owner who thinks his investment can win anywhere, anytime; a lunatic trainer who has a horse that has sustained some type of injury severe enough that he's hoping and praying some sucker who doesn't know better will claim the animal; a lunatic trainer who, being on a hot streak, thinks he has a horse that can grab a piece of the purse against far better animals; or maybe a lunatic trainer who thinks his horse that just can't win at one distance will magically win at another distance for which the horse is not geared.

Or maybe...just maybe, it's not the trainer who's the lunatic.

Saturday, July 25, 2001, Del Mar, Race # 3. 6 furlongs. An Allowance Optional Claiming race for fillies 3 & up which have not won either $3,000 twice other than maiden or claiming or which have never won three races or claiming price of $62,500.

Got some speedy, classy older horses (5 yrs old), and a classy router who's always there at the 6f mark who meets today's conditions.

Wait a minute, who's this outside horse, Salty Helen? A three-year-old who hasn't raced since May, over a year ago, in two THREE FURLONG RACES at Turf Paradise??? Well, yeah, she won some futurity with a purse of $118,000, but what kind of lunatic deal is this...why is she in this race today at Del Mar?

Like most other handicappers, I dismissed the horse pretty quickly. I was as surprised as anyone when Salty Helen went wire to wire at almost 17-1 and paid $35.80. When she hit the finish line, I started to wonder if maybe it wasn't a lunatic deal after all....

The DRF results chart read: "Salty Helen quickly sprinted to the lead, angled in and set the pace a bit off the rail, turned back a rival into the stretch, got clear past midstretch, and held gamely under some urging."

I decided to go back to the past performances to see if there was something I missed.

Something I missed???

Granted, trainer Kory Owens has a decent 22% win record this year. But a three-year-old from Turf Paradise with only a couple of 3-furlong races?

Well, note that Owens is the new trainer, and the horse had been previously trainer by Molly Pearson. Note that horses making their first start after 6 months or more layoff with Owens win at a 43% clip (even with a short sample, still impressive) and throw off an R.O.I. of $2.69. Note that the "first-time blinkers" (which was the case, noted in the Form) stats showed a 50% win (short sample) and $4.43 R.O.I. Note that dirt races and sprint races (both large samples) show R.O.I.'s of $2.60 and $2.68 respectively.

I hated the feeling when I realized that --I-- was the lunatic!

I saw something odd and didn't examine every piece of information I had available to me. I failed to remember that Del Mar is one of the country's top race meets and that horseracing there is a cut above the rest, with everyone racing there making serious efforts for the higher purses. And in so doing, I didn't make what I call an "insanity insurance bet," as I sometimes do when there's a lot of reasonable information that conflicts with my usual handicapping logic, so that if the odd (yes, sometimes lunatic) horse wins, I won't go nuts, saying "You jerk, a single unit bet on that horse would not only have saved a loss, but actually made a decent profit!"

The lesson: Don't be in a hurry. Examine every piece of data you have, even if you're comfortable with a winning approach--you're never too old to learn new tricks when it comes to handicapping. When a horse appears to be overwhelmingly out of place in a particular race, give him a really hard look before you toss him.

In short, don't you become the lunatic.

Class dismissed.