You've done your homework; you've taken into account all of the various handicapping factors that apply to this race, from current track bias to liking for the distance, pace, etc., and have three "real" contenders that you will now analyze using your primary handicapping factor--the one that you have come to rely on as the last step before making a wager.

You look at your three contenders and begin to realize that they ALL measure up pretty well, that they are very evenly matched, enough so that any of them could win today's race.

Box 'em all in an exacta or trifecta? Key one with the others in some gimmick? Bet two (or maybe even all three) to win?

It took my attending Michael Pizzolla's Handicapping Magic seminar this past April in Las Vegas to be reminded of the RIGHT answer, which is also the easiest. I had, as you may have, overlooked the answer by falling into the traditional mindset of handicapping to pick "the" winner of a race. 

We all do that from time to time because for most players, the concept of "picking THE winner" is equated with the real concept of handicapping, which is making money.

Let's cut to the chase: the easiest way to separate your real contenders is to let the tote board do it for you.

If we're talking win bet, and our three contenders are going off at 3-5, 4-1, and 12-1, how do you bet? Obviously, making a win bet on two or all three would return in a loss if  the 3-5 horse finishes first. Throwing out the favorite and betting  both of the other horses will return a reasonable profit and present a risk situation most players would find acceptable in terms of the odds.

Does this mean in such situations, you should AUTOMATICALLY throw out the favorite?

YES---IF you believe the other contenders ARE pretty much equal to him.

The reasoning is relatively logical, just as actual racing is. Yes, favorites win 33% of all races run, but the distribution of that 33% is not uniform. In any race, you have the possibility of a bad break, a bad ride, a bad estimation (by you OR the trainer) that the horse is properly placed, and just plain bad racing luck. 

With those factors being a given (AND added to the track take) in every race you play, shouldn't you demand decent odds, if your handicapping determines that the real contenders are three horses, all of which have legitimate merit?

[Michael uses the term "merit."  It is not one that is commonly used in racing and handicapping. It's a fabulous expression that helps shape my handicapping and may help you as well if you get used to using it.]

So let's see now...we're going to bet two of our top three selections because they both have merit and the odds say to back them. When you put it this way, the separating of contenders is not only easy, it's also automatic.

What about exotic wagers? The reasoning is the same, but I've found that the horse to use to come in second should be one that handicaps not as the "best of the rest," but the horse(s) which figure to be win contenders for a couple of different projected pace scenarios--which may or may not include the other win contenders. A little deep for some players, but not impossible, although we're talking a more detailed discussion for another day.

Before the IWE (Inevitable Winning Example), the hated reminder, in the words of Spotplay: It don't always go down the way you think it should. Like a lot of games of chance (even the very few like handicapping thoroughbreds, which can have a long-term positive expectation), this is a streaky thing. You overcome the strings of losses (wins by favorites or very low odds horses) by the lower number of wins at higher odds by horses of merit who you cannot absolutely tab as "THE" winning horse.

OK, the example: Sunday, April 8, 2001. Following the seminar, I came up with two horses that had merit in a Maiden Claiming race on the turf at Santa Anita. One was a "traditional" logical choice, a young horse with decent speed and pace ratings and a few races that hinted he would graduate soon. The other contender was, by my speed and pace analysis, a SIX-year-old, with nine races in his pp's that didn't really show much on paper!

My immediate first reaction was "throw the bum out!" But dammit, the figures that work well for me said he was for real in that race's field. The younger horse was something like even money; the bum was 12-1 (and I was a little concerned because I thought he was so LOW at those odds). Do I ignore my handicapping because the surface picture looks like a no-brainer from a classical handicapping work which would summarily dismiss any chance of the soon-to-be old-timer winning?

I threw out the chalk and bet the bum.

He outran the field down the stretch to win by a little less than half a length.

Let's see...suppose I was conservative (or chicken, if you prefer) and had bet both horses. A $4 wager would have returned a profit of  roughly $52, which would enable me to bet similar "2-horse" races  13 more times and lose ALL of them before the profits were reduced to zero.

The lesson is easy to hear, but not always easy to understand and remember: it's not how many of "THE" winners you pick; it's how much you've made when you decide to end the game. If your handicapping is halfway decent, let the tote board help separate your real contenders and you'll be more than pleasantly surprised at the results.

And remember, in racetrack lingo, this whole idea  is often referred to as an overlay. If a horse which you think or actually determine to be be a legitimate 3-to-1 shot goes off at odds of 5-to-1, you have an overlay. Over time, this should create a profitable situation for prudent bettors. http://www.equusracing.com.au is an example of a service that utilizes high-quality information to help you determine if your contenders are worth backing with confidence.