Chapter 13 - Consistency-A Winning Habit

How to pick a horse that wants to come home first.

Consistency can mean many things, but the player sums it up in a simple expression: a winning habit.

Horses, like human athletes, develop winning ways which enable them to give good performances, year in and year out until they pass the natural life span for competing in sports. A horse with a winning habit will attempt to give a good performance no matter what the racing circumstances may produce against him. He is like the athlete in there giving the "old school try."

Some selectors (or handicappers) value consistency above all other variables in arriving at their choices. There is no doubt that it should rank high, but just how much importance should be attached to it is a question most players will have to answer for themselves.

In other sports, consistency keeps a man in competition long after more "flashy" opponents have gone from the scene. Many a baseball player has burst into the major leagues with a bang, but has gone back to the minors within a year or two or has passed out of baseball entirely.

The "flash in the pan" gets a lot of attention and publicity, but the consistent player is the man who does most for his team when the pennant chase gets hot.

In golf, the gallery may take off after the pro who suddenly catches fire and begins to burn up the fairways. Soon, however, the spectators are back with the player who goes along in a steady, consistent manner and who usually winds up in the front or very close by.

Down through the years, some athletes have tried to 109 make up for their lack of top ability by talking loud and acting big. Their boasts or antics may have caught the crowd's fancy or may have caused the crowd to overestimate their actual skill. An unbiased study of record books, for example, shows that many almost legendary athletes of the past have been remembered more for their antics or eccentricities than for their actual performances.

The baseball fan who enjoys the antics or likes to chuckle at the boasts of a second-rate player isn't that tolerant when he goes to the track. When his $2 are down, he wants performance and not laughs. The average player cares little for great horses of the past unless he can find some way to have them show him how to win today. His interest in horses in training is simply to try to figure out how they will fare in today's races.

For that reason, a player is much interested in learning whether a horse has a winning habit. Again, as in many other circumstances, the player can make two uses of this knowledge. He can ride along with the horse who has a winning habit or he can sit out the race if he does not wish to buck such an entry.

Other sports have definite figures to indicate consistent performance. A baseball player who bats .300 can be compared with any other man in the two major leagues. But horses cannot be compared because no one has agreed upon any consistency standards by which to judge turf performances.

Certainly, a horse that has won half of its starts in any one year can be said to have a winning habit. But how far down in percentages of starts and wins can you go before you can say the horse has no winning habit? Obviously, if the horse never has won he can't have a winning habit. But suppose he has won a third or a fourth or a fifth of his starts?

The riddle is made more complex because there are two factors, or bases, upon which consistency can be figured. Some selectors use the basis of the number of wins in total starts. Others base it upon total money earned by the horse this year and also his total earnings in his whole racing career.

The method of figuring on a basis of the number of wins to the number of starts can be readily understood. However, it does not make any allowance for the class of the races. An owner with a $2,500 horse may race him several times in that company and win. Then he moves him up into stiffer company and perhaps the horse has several losing races. Again, the horse is moved down and once more he wins.

The horse's total record may show one win in every five starts. But if all or most of the wins were $2,500 races, the most we can say is that the horse is a consistent $2,500 plater.

Figuring on the basis of earnings has its drawbacks also. If we take the same $2,500 plater and move him up, he might suddenly spring home first in a $5,000 race. It might be racing luck, the horse's one big day, or any such condition. His total earnings in such cases may not be an exact measure of his consistency

A more impossible but nevertheless easy-to-see example is the colt which wins an extravaganza such as the Kentucky Derby. His earnings in the Derby would permit him to lose many races before his consistency, as measured by total earnings, caught up with him.

Many players, for that reason, use both bases in figuring consistency. One acts as a kind of check and balance on the other, and if both produce a high consistency, the player probably has greatly minimized his risk. Using only one base, however, need not be disastrous. {See System No. 9 in Chapter 21.)

A variation in this method will narrow down the field considerably. Divide the number of races the horse has started-this year—if he hasn't run 15 include last year also—into the total earnings over the same period. If the horse averages less than $500 per start, pass him by. The horses' number of races and winnings are given in the Past Performance Records in the racing dailies.

The biggest defect in the consistency variable lies in the difficulty of classifying horses precisely. A horse cannot be said to be a $2,500 plater until he has been tried sufficiently in higher company and has failed. Conversely, a horse run without good results in allowances or graded handicaps cannot be assigned any specific class until he is dropped down to a class in which he wins. The problem is complicated by the fact that prices differ at various tracks. A circuit, that is several tracks in the same state or same geographical region which usually hold consecutive race meets, often will offer the same purses. But horses are shipped freely from one section of the country to another and often to tracks which have vastly different purse scales than the tracks at which the horse has been racing.

The player must then figure if a $2,500 purse at one track is higher or lower than at today's track. The purse variation is felt especially in comparing small tracks with larger ovals. At a smaller track a horse may be classified as an "allowance" horse, but when he moves to a larger track he may find it necessary to enter ordinary claiming races. Even then no one knows exactly in what price claiming races he belongs until he has shown several good efforts.

A general rule, however, is that the cheaper the horse the less consistent he will be, and the more erratic will be his performances. There is a vast difference between merely a cheap horse which lacks consistency and a cheap and erratic horse.

A cheap but consistent horse may never win but his performances are fairly creditable. He may finish in the money frequently and never far out of it. But he never seems to make the grade into the winner's circle although his owner may drop him down in company time and again. He puts out good efforts but never seems to develop a winning habit.

Performances of an erratic horse cannot be predicted. In one race he may seem to be over his head but he suddenly "drops down from the clouds” and wins. The next time out he may turn in a dismal effort. His workouts may be sharp and brilliant and convince the player that the horse is rounding to form. Then he may go out and race in a dull fashion.

Or he may run one or two dull races and then crack the track record and even at a distance longer than his customary course. Such horses continue to run "hot and cold" and not even their trainers can tell what their temperatures might be on any given day.

These "hot and cold" horses are difficult to figure and also to ignore. To ignore them may lead to disaster. Smart players, if they find such a horse entered, examine the whole race carefully and never hesitate to pass it up if retreat seems the best discretion of the day.

Some players confuse a win with consistency. A horse is not necessarily consistent just because he won. He may have raced 15 times so far in the season and now he has won. His victory doesn't mean he is a good risk to repeat in his next race.

The cheaper grade of horses especially seldom repeat a win. This finding can be checked easily in the Racing Form. In the cheaper races few horses will be found which won more than once in the current season. It is almost a "once and done" performance with them.

Furthermore, those few which do repeat usually won relatively easily. A cheap horse which failed to win by more than a length is the poorest of all risks to repeat in his next outing. The reason probably is about the same as that which permits a dub in any sport to blossom out suddenly one day and then fade for the season.

Today, the dub golfer finds everything "clicks" as he moves along. His drives are long and true, he skirts the traps, his approach shots are accurate and his putter seems to have a magic touch. He is not cracking any course records because he isn't that good. But he is banging strokes off his usual game and if he averages around 85 or 90, he ends up today with 78 or even less.

He has his score card framed for a souvenir and bright and early the next day he is back again convinced that in no time he will be as good as any professional. But alas! his drives may be long and true but his approach shots are off and he winds up in traps on hole after hole. Or his putter may be just as stubborn today as it was magical yesterday. He just isn't constructed of championship material and he might as well exult in the few good rounds that come to him in a season.

Thus the horse which suddenly broke right was rated correctly, found plenty of racing room along the rail and had the breaks, steps into the winner's circle and nods to the judges. His trainer may handle him carefully so that he doesn't taper off. But despite all that is done to have him hold his form, he trails far back in his next outing.

The better type horses are more consistent but here again playing a winner to repeat doesn't always work. The difficulty here is that the owner likely steps up the horse into faster company. If he should win again, the owner steps him up still further.

Some horses which won at $2,500 have come back to win at $3,500 and then have won a third time although entered in an allowance race. The player's job here is not to figure out the horse's consistency because he knows the horse will turn in his best effort. What the player must figure out is the maximum ability of the horse as expressed in the type of race which he can win.

Once in a while the rules of consistency seem to go astray. In the last year of racing in Texas, a most unusual pattern of repeaters developed. Horses that won at small or fair mutuels often came back and won at box-car figures. Some of them paid up to $80.

Naturally, this is a phenomenon that is noticed better after a meet closes and when it is too late to take advantage of the information. At least one player, however, spotted the trend early and took full advantage of it. He simply played right back all winners about which the charts said: "won easily." He paid no attention to whether the horse won by a length or a half dozen lengths. He also ignored the conditions of the next race.

Strangely enough, most of the repeaters won the second time at about the same weight, distance and class as their first victory. Probably no one will ever know why the Texans permitted these winners to come back the next time and be so lightly regarded.

Some players who noticed the pattern too late believed it would hold good on all tracks. But when those Texas horses scattered to other tracks, the boys who dreamed of profiting by just playing easy winners to repeat were awakened rather suddenly and disastrously, because no other track yielded the same results.

It has been pointed out in this chapter that two methods of rating consistency are (1) dividing a horse's total starts by the number of his wins, and (2) adding his total earnings.

In addition, there are two other methods but, again, neither one by itself will keep a player ahead very long. One of these two methods is to add the number of times the horse was in the money and then divide his total starts by this figure. For example, if a horse in 12 starts won twice, was second twice and third twice, the selector would add his finishes in the money and get six. His total starts of 12 divided by the six times finished in the money earns him a rating of 50 per cent.

Or a horse may earn a 50 per cent rating by being second twice and third three times in ten starts. One player would say this horse is "knocking at the door," while another player might believe the horse belonged in the class of "always a bridesmaid but never a bride." The horse might have developed an "in the money" habit but not a win habit.

There might be a good reason for such performances. For horses, like men, can be the victims of "pressure," too. A horse may run a good race as long as he is up in contention or out front but may start to wilt when the pack applies the pressure. The dub golfer may be relaxed and at ease as long as his opponent is three strokes or so behind. But when the lead is whittled to one stroke, the story may be different.

Then again, some horses, like some human athletes, seem fated to be always an "almost won" type. There always happens to be another horse in the race which is just a trifle better. Even a high-grade horse may develop this "I'll settle for second or third" habit if he is raced many times above his head. Thoroughbreds are raised for no other purpose than to race and a high-grade horse likes his work. But if he is continually raced beyond his class he soon learns to accept his lot and may not be able to win when he is dropped far down in class.

The second of the two additional methods of rating consistency is to strike an "average" purse. The horse's total earnings are divided by the number of starts and an "average" winning purse established. This "average'* then is compared with the "average" for every horse in the particular race being studied.

The pitfall here again is the possibility that one or two large purses might have swelled the horse's average earnings far beyond his true ability to perform. Horse A may have an average of $600 and Horse B might have only $300. But Horse B's average might have been compiled by frequent wins and in the money finishes. In fact, an erratic horse might show up well under such a method of computing an average purse.

All four methods!—the two just described and the two mentioned earlier in the chapter—suffer from the defect of recency. None of the ratings takes into account the dates on which the races were won. A horse on the basis of total starts divided by wins might rate 50 per cent. He may have won five times in 10 starts.

But today's race is being run in September. Four of the horse's wins might have come early in the spring in late April, May or early June. A horse with a rating of only 20 per cent may have earned all of that rating within the past three weeks or month. Obviously, it is dangerous to say, then, that Horse A is 20 percentage points better than Horse B.

All four methods suffer also from the defect of class. A rating of 50 per cent may not mean as much as a rating of 20 per cent if the 20 per cent rating was achieved in races of much higher class than those won by the horse which earned a 50 per cent rating. The race today may be near the same class as those which the 20 per cent horse won while the 50 per cent horse might be well over his head today.

For in determining the class to which the horse actually belongs, his "equine companions" are not of too much help. A horse may run in a handicap or allowance race but that doesn't mean he is a handicap or allowance horse. His class must be determined by the type of race in which he has the most success. If he can win only in $3,500 races, he is a $3,500 horse no matter what his owner or trainer may think.

Once a horse's proper class has been determined, he should be rated on that basis. After all, a race doesn't make the horse. A $3,500 plater may be entered in an allowance race, but he still has no more business calling himself an allowance horse than a bush leaguer does of calling himself a major leaguer. In the chapter on Security Systems (Chapter 20), note how many methods include the provision that a selection must have been in the money at least 50 per cent of all his races. The fan does not lose by insisting that a horse show good signs of consistency before he rates a play.

There is still another consistency that is important to the player—and that is his own consistency. The most difficult task for many players is to stick by the horse that comes up when they apply their own method of selection.

One reason, of course, is that the player may get to the track only a few times during a meet. He wants to crowd into each day as much sport and excitement as he can obtain. On any ordinary day back home, he can pick up a racing paper and calmly arrive at the horse he would play were he at the track. All "do's" and "don'ts" are carefully weighed and in case of doubt he chooses the least possible risk.

Such cautious figuring when he is at the track may force him to pass up a race or two. And that doesn't satisfy him. Thus in order to get more action for his money he cuts corners, ignores some rules, and resolves all doubts in order that he can arrive at a selection in every race. On most cards there is one race, and perhaps two, which while he was home he wouldn't bother to figure. Yet at the track he plunges into these races although he may feel it is like pulling names from a hat.

At the track, too, the player is subjected to hunches, gossip and "signs." The loud-speaker may boom out: "Mrs. Smith, report at once to the secretary's office." The player hastily checks to see what horses Smith has entered. A last-minute change of jockeys which he would ignore at home now becomes important, especially if he overhears other people talking about it.

Sudden changes in the odds of one or more horses may send the player deeper into his paper. Or he might be affected by a change of weights or a change in the equipment a horse will carry. All during the half hour between races while he is intently figuring, the player is subjected to hunches, signs, gossip and many tips, and their opinions will begin to work on the player.

Many times, therefore, when a player abuses a horse for not being consistent he should berate himself instead. Perhaps the horse was consistent by most methods of figuring, but most likely the player was more flexible. He stretched a rule or two in order to make a play.

Thus consistency in itself is not a golden key to success. It, too, must be considered with other variables. For it is just one of the parts of a jig-saw puzzle which if put together properly will pay off at the finish line.

Consistency can be the "jewel" of racing or it can be a booby trap that ensnares the bettor. The use of consistency in making selections must take into consideration these factors:

1. Consistency as expressed in the number of money finishes as compared with total starts by that horse must show a good balance among wins, places and shows. A horse that finishes consistently second or third may give out good efforts but he doesn't have the winning habit.

A horse which has been in the money 10 times out of 12 starts but hasn't won any of those races must be studied carefully. Either he has developed a bad "follow the leader" habit or else he has been run in company a trifle too fast. Top flight horses often develop this trend. One of the better horses—Spy Song—usually was a good bet to finish in the money but not too reliable for a win wager. He finished second in the Kentucky Derby and in other major stakes. Part of his trouble was due, however, to his temperament which made him sulk, especially if the jockey used the whip on him.

2. Cheaper horses should show about 10 to 20 percent wins to their total in the money finishes. For example, if the horse was in the money 10 times, he should have won once and preferably twice.

3. The total amount of money won is not a reliable guide unless the earnings were spread out in proportion to the number of races. A horse which has won half or more of his total earnings in just one race cannot be said to have more than an ordinary consistency. A horse whose money earnings are about equal to that of any other entry and whose record shows about 50 per cent in the money finishes is a good betting tool.

4. A horse's wins and earnings, to be significant in measuring his consistency, should have been made on comparable tracks. A horse may be in his right company when he runs in allowance races on a minor track
but may be far over his head in a $4,000 claiming race on a major track. In figuring consistency, it is safer to throw out all races run at minor tracks.

5. Some horses develop a sharp pattern which can be spotted easily in their past performance records. For example, the past performances on Flyoff showed a consistent pattern of five mediocre races, an in-the-money finish, and then a win. This pattern was repeated twice in his last 14 races. Players who noted that fact one day in West Virginia also saw that the race that day was his fifth since his last win. Those who climbed aboard were rewarded with an $86 mutuel.

6. A good measure of consistency can be traced in a horse which in his last few races has shown gains between the head of the stretch and the finish line. It doesn't matter in what place he finished as long as he showed a gain between the stretch and the finish line. Unless he is being run far above his head, he will come down front very soon.

7. Few cheaper horses will repeat a win. The winning effort seems to take too much out of ordinary horses. A horse has the best chance of repeating if he, too, showed a gain between the stretch and the finish. Suppose he was second by a head at the stretch and came on to win by two lengths. When entered the next time in a similar race, he is a good bet to repeat. But if he won by two lengths but was four lengths ahead coming into the stretch, he is not likely to win.

8. The type of race in which a horse has been competing does not automatically stamp him as a horse of that caliber. A horse running in the Kentucky Derby, for example, may not be a top stakes horse just because he was permitted to run in that classic. A horse run in allowance races half a dozen times without winning is not an allowance horse despite what his owner or trainer may think of him. The type of races in which he shows his best efforts determines what kind of classification must be given to him.

Are You Ready To Move Onto The Next Lesson? Click Here….