supply-side economics? There’s the demand side and the
supply side, and economists argue about which one to lean
handicapping experts, there never was any debate. It was
always asset-side handicapping stealing the show from
liability-side handicapping. On the asset side you
emphasize the contenders’ assets. On the liability side,
you concentrate mainly on eliminating horses that have
little or no chance of showing up in the winning
advantage of liability-side handicapping is that it forces
the player to retain horses that might not have been
accepted by an asset-side handicapper. In exotic results,
even though asset-side contenders are more frequently
among the winners, there is often a “maybe” horse, a horse
that you could not embrace but could not eliminate either,
that ends up in the winning combination, spicing up the
how my Short Form method works, both by pen-and-pencil and
with its software version. The two rules blend in the
exquisite synchronicity between two underplayed factors:
trainer and class. First, eliminate all horses whose
trainer’s overall win rate is less than 12%. Second,
eliminate all horses that have lost at least twice at
today’s level, with no intervening win. A “quality
elimination” emerges when a horse that does not make the
cut has failed under both parameters. In maiden races, a
first-time starter is considered a contender if the
trainer shows at least 16% wins with debut horses, with a
flat-bet profit and with at least 4 wins in the stat.
typical “maybe” horse: You might end up with, for
example, a 13% trainer whose horse has just been defeated
at today’s level, but only once. This will probably look
like a “maybe horse” but the odds might be right. In a
context of more horses easily eliminated, the
maybe-horse’s chances are enhanced.
example was sent to me by a user of the Short Form. Please
note that I did not play this race but confirmation from
my readers proves that it can be learned and applied.
Lately I have been playing strictly win bets from the
Short Form software, testing with real money to see if I
have found my Holy Grail: the automatic bet. Until now,
with 55 horses bet, I have a return of plus 6 cents on the
dollar. I am testing the infrastructure of the software.
There are enhancement-filter-stats that improve ROI but I
want to make sure that the filters function as interior
designers for a solid structure rather than repairmen for
a faulty structure. So far, I am quite pleased.
my reader scored on was a maiden claimer at Santa Anita,
Race 8, March 11, an 11-horse field. By Short Form
standards, the favorite, Benicia Beauty, was a quality
elimination, since the trainer had only 9% wins and the
horse had lost twice at the same class level of the race.
Form qualifiers were:
horse, Whoopsie, 26% trainer, lost one race, but at a
higher class. Today’s odds: 18-1.
horse, Dramatic Reward, 25% trainer, lost only one race at
today’s level, now 12-1.
horse, Line One, lost only once at today’s level with a
16% trainer, now at 12-1.
the three, the $1 exacta paid $212.70. Not bad for an
automatic bet. Note that the eventual winner, Line One, if
you were handicapping by assets rather than liabilities,
might not have made your cut with a 16% trainer win stat,
compared to the other higher stats. But he was included
because he did not have the liabilities for elimination.
Finishing second was Whoopsie.
who played this race added one more contender, based on
the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.
He added the first-time starter, Judy’s My Angel, because
the trainer showed a $6.70 return on investment (per
dollar) with first time starters. I say spirit rather than
letter of the law, because the trainer had only two wins
in the specialty and his 15% stat was one point below the
letter-of-the-law 16% requirement. Judy’s My Angel
finished 3rd in the tri, which paid $1,510 for
fourth finisher in the superfecta was none other than
Dramatic Reward. The super, derived from the Short Form,
paid $11,635 for a dollar.
had to make a very minor judgment, so the Short Form was
100% mechanical for the exacta and 98% mechanical for the
tri and the super. In an e-mail he sent me, he wrote:
“Don’t need many of these to show a profit.”
Form is just one way to do liability-side handicapping.
My point is that asset-side handicapping contains the
intrinsic risk of excluding the “maybe horse” and also
assures a lower average mutuel than liability-side
handicapping. The Short Form can be done either on paper
or with a time-saving software program. Either way, in the
age of that Big Monster, INFORMATION OVERLOAD, the Short
Form provides a structure within which to operate with
greater agility. Even when the Short Form is not
automatic, which is often the case, by having eliminated
the enormous nuts-and-bolts handicapping process from each
race, and by readily excluding races that can be passed,
it liberates handicapping time for what really counts:
note that my flat-bet, real-money research has been
limited to claiming routes, since the original large
sample research by the programmers showed that these two
categories “all non-maiden claimers” and “all routes” had
both earned a flat bet profit. So my first task was to
confirm that the program’s infrastructure by combining
those two factors and doing straight flat win bets.
to avoid any subconscious fudging, I have had a colleague
use the software and put in the bets. I sent him the
bankroll. Since he has to pay me for my winnings, I doubt
seriously if he would inflate the statistical profit. So
this is as pure as research can get. Since he is a program
user himself, I am also testing how well the user can
relate to the program. I get feedback from him and then
relay it back to the programmer who can thus add
enhancements or correct occasional anomalies. If the user
misunderstands the program and messes up a race, I’m the
one who has to pay. So I am putting my money where my
extremely reluctant about letting any company market my
method. I had had a bad experience previously when my
stuff was used the wrong way by a different company. But
in this case I was also interested in getting a large
independent research sample, so in exchange for RPM’s
research, I told the guys there that I would give them my
okay for marketing only if I saw profits in the
research. Otherwise, no go. Since the profits came up
in the two categories I mentioned above, I gave them the
then, they have added many statistical features to the
program, allowing users to apply it as flexibly as they
wish, in their own inspired way. The program is advertised
as a time-saver and convenient handicapping enhancer,
rather than an automatic bet. But my personal goal is to
find a method whereby I can close my eyes and bet
automatically. Prior to RPM’s research, I had used the
Short Form in a way that was 90% mechanical but 10%
interpretive. With the current real-money research sample,
I can say: “so far, so good.”
to visit the RPM website, and
to read much more about the Short Form program.
Click on "Software" and scroll down to see screenshots and
detailed explanations about the program's features.
HANDICAPPING.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved