"TOUT:" a: chiefly British : to spy on racehorses in training to gain information for betting. b : to give a tip or solicit bets on a racehorse. 

What about 'em? 

I recently read a letter from a player who complained that the selections he had received from a public handicapper--and they were FREE selections, no less--(1) were all low-priced favorites and (2) ran out of the money. He went on to say that he handicapped a high-odds horse in one race himself, but didn't play it because he was "influenced by the pro" whose picks he received and then watched as his longshot scored at 20-1. He concluded: "boy, am I disappointed...his handicapping was pathetic." 

It's almost hard to believe that Political Correctness has filtered down into the rank and file of horse race handicappers. Blame the other guy. Blame the horse. Blame the trainer. Blame the track. But don't blame yourself!

Touts, paid selections, picks, handicapping services, whatever you prefer to call them, have been around racing a long time. 

Why do people buy picks rather than handicap the races for themsleves?

1) Unfamiliarity with handicapping. The obvious still has to be spelled out:  many people attend live racing and simulcasts who don't have any idea how to handicap, why one race is different from another, or that sprints are actually different than routes. Many of these ultra-casual fans choose not to bet on numbers or the colors of the jockeys' silks, but would still like to have something to use that can steer them off a certain loser and at least increase their chances a little for taking a stab on a better possibility. So they buy the "blue sheet," or some other tip sheet in the hope of cashing a ticket or two, and at least get a little run for their betting money. 

2) Lack of experience or skill. A beginning player or a handicapper with limited experience may be overwhelmed with information and unable to decide which factors should take precedence over others. Such a player may buy a sheet or publication that uses a little more of the jargon specific to racing, with more detailed explanations of how and why a selection was made. Over time, using a well-written sheet, this can be an education in itself, helping developing handicappers to recognize the hiearchies of handicapping factors, as well as certain spot plays that may suit their style, or show situations to avoid. 

3) Lack of information. Even the most experienced handicapper has weaknesses. Some players know they don't do well with certain types of races, such as maidens, turf races, starter allowances, and marathons. Without fairly detailed records, certain types of racing situations present impossible handicapping situations: horses going long or short for the first time; first start on grass (or dirt); 2-year-old racing, and so on.

Buying the picks of someone like Lauren Stich, with her selections for Trackmaster based on in-depth knowledge of bloodlines and breeding, is an excellent way to supplement and strengthen your handicapping in an area that baffles many handicappers. Is it also an admission of weakness? Yeah. So what? 

4) Lack of time. A problem that is common to both newcomers and veteran players alike. No further explanation needed. 

What do people expect from touts?

1) The winning horse in every race. This really sounds stupid when you read it in print,doesn't it? And yet, this is the hope, the dream of everyone who buys paid picks.Wouldn't it be nice if all you had to do was to bet the top selection and just cash ticket after ticket? Get real! Ain't gonna happen. The sad part is that when that top horse doesn't come in, the buyer will usually curse the selector without looking to see: 

• in how many races the top pick hit the board
• the number of exotic bet wins using the top two or three selections (maybe even four) in each race
• if the winning horse was among the top half (or better) of the picks of each race

2) Every day to be a winning one.  Again, another unrealistic expectation. Anyone who reads the classic books of handicapping, whether by Ainslie, Beyer, Davidowitz,   Quirin, or other easily recognizable names in the game, should come away with the understanding that in horserace handicapping and wagering, as in any other form of gambling or sporting event, nobody wins every day.

Form cycles of horses, players, and athletes peak and decline in irregular and different patterns. Fatigue and injuries require different times for recovery for each person or animal. Winning and losing goes in cyles; we all have good days and bad days and some seem to cluster without reason. Sound obvious? It should be, but for the type of person who can rightfully be called a sore loser, it's not!

When Ak-Sar-Ben was alive and well here in Omaha, I was in a public handicapper's challenge with two other good local handicappers, including Terry Wallace, the English-teacher-turned-race caller currently at Oaklawn, and one of the most knowledgable players I know. I handicapped for about 36 hours straight, and wound up picking 9 out of 12 winners on top on Ak-Sar-Ben Handicap Day, and 24 of 36 horses in the money. I won the contest; then I went home and slept for almost two days straight. After the dust and the glory had settled, the next few days, I couldn't pick a winner if he was one of two horses in a race and his opponent only had three legs. Burnout happens. 

The intelligent way to decide if you should use a paid selector to supplement your own handicapping basically has 3 steps: 

1. Acknowledge that you are going to lay out a specified amount of money for a period of time. One or two days will simply not cut it. Two weeks is the minimum; a month would be better. It's an investment in something that only you can research. 

2. Make up your own list of performance standards. This is crucial. Do you want to track top-horse-win stats only? How about a list using the bulleted list above? Any other type of performance? Without such a list, you're wasting your time. 

3. Keep track of the results for your performance standards by type of race. Just as you have your strengths and weaknesses, so do other players. The selector you're "handicapping," even one with years of experience and know-how, might be a killer with allowance races and miserable with maidens. 

Some public handicappers are just hacks throwing together a list of selections to make a fast buck. The so-called pros, writers and racing personalities with name recognition and years of experience, usually work honestly and hard, utilizing their racing experience and solid handicapping concepts, to arrive at their selections.

They try to do their best, in spite of the fact that a daily deadline for full-card handicapping can be a grinding, tiring effort. On days when they pick a lot of winners, they are heroes. On days when they're just off the mark or racing luck ruins their work, they're bums; and yet the same amount of analysis and work went into both efforts. 

Racing is peopled by many who don't like to admit or to be told they're mainly chasing dreams. Others who share a passion for thoroughbreds understand that it takes experience, skill, luck, work, and sometimes a little help to put it all together, and that it sometimes just doesn't go down the way you really think it should. 

Which are you?