Mark Cramer is the author of numerous books such as Kinky Handicapping, Value Handicapping and the racing novel Scared Money as well as the Funky Towns USA and numerous Culture Shock travel guides. He is currently the author of the monthly C&X Report, available at
www.altiplanopublications.com/candx.htm and has appeared on countless talkback shows.
You can also find his European Report regularly (and free) on James Quinn's site
www.turfpedia.com. Cramer is most famous for his "against the crowd" betting ideas, and his endless research into "different" and oftentimes strange handicapping angles. In this article, PPM contributor Steve Wood concludes his exclusive interview with Mark Cramer.
SW: We can also use the trifecta in a similar way to the exacta-as-a-place bet, but this time using Our longshot in the third spot with the legitimate favourite on top and the field in the second spot, right? Would we only use this strategy when we have an extreme longshot?
Cramer: The trifecta-as-a-place bet can be used only in the third spot. However, this past summer, I did this bet twice, collected on the win or the exacta, but would have had a huge trifecta if I'd bet it every which way. As you can see, I'm in an existential quandary about this one, and I'd need a 2000-race sample to make a reasonable pronouncement about the tri-as-a-place bet.
SW: You suggest an interesting strategy whereby a punter who is not accustomed to longshot betting should gradually increase their bets on longshots to the point where they are not only betting the same amount, but more on the longshots! This is contrary to many popular beliefs, so how do you justify it?
Cramer: This may not be the best strategy for most players. Some experts have shown that, in the interest of cash flow, it's better to have more invested in your lower odds horses because they win more often.
In my case, my win percentage doesn't increase as much as it should when I bet lower-odds horses. The times I've finished fifth and seventh in tournaments (with a partner each time), the reason we were not closer to the top was not the failure of longshots but our failure to produce with low-priced safety bets.
On the other hand, it's painful to lose a $50 bet on a favourite and then win with $5 on a longshot. That feeling has convinced me to bet more on longshots than on low-priced horses. But for your readers to make such a decision, they'd have to know what their win percentage is in the low-odds territory compared to the high-odds territory.
SW: Would you suggest that someone starting out should stick to win bets? How can we venture into exotics whilst keeping some semblance of sanity?
Cramer: In the cases of most horseplayers, I believe that if you can't make money with win bets, you're not going to make money with exotics. But I'm sure there are exceptions.
My suggestion for the beginner is to bet straight win, the exact same amount on each horse, a comfortable amount, and keep a record of each bet. Once you can get through two 20-race sequences with a profit, you may wish to experiment with other types of bets. Or, you may be ready to raise your bet and continue to bet straight.
SW: Speaking of race sequences, personal research has obviously been the core to everything you do. Sample size is something that's often hotly debated between punters of different persuasions. The mathematicians tell us we need thousands of races, and that's still not enough, whereas the "doers" are quite happy just looking at current events, and thus, smaller samples. When are you comfortable enough to start betting a newly researched
"hidden factor"?
Cramer: A longshot player who views every race as a separate puzzle might have to wait around for years to accumulate a reasonable sample. I say, if there's some intrinsic logic backing you up, make the bet.
As for factors that do recur, sample size is very much misunderstood. What if you took an irrational factor with little or no intrinsic merit, like "post position five" or "finished seventh last race"?
It is possible to go through a thousand races with such a thing showing a profit. Pure chance. My feeling is that the more intrinsic logic that goes into the researched factor combination, the smaller the necessary sample.
Consider medical research, which I've worked with on the periphery. Sometimes a sample of 16 patients is enough for a conclusion. Other times samples of 598 patients end up giving a false conclusion because of a secondary variable that was not considered.
Let me give you one example.
Twelve years ago, I wrote that California trainer Richard Matlow was profitable with first-time starters. I wrote that off a sample of less than 20 races. But the way he won with debut horses, the fact that the pre-race workouts were often slow, and the fact that he often used low-percentage riders gave me so much qualitative argument that I published the finding.
As of today, he is still profitable with first-time starters, and I have a collection of thank-you notes from guys who have won off this factor. If you were waiting for a large enough sample, you'd have to pass on the research to your son and grandson, and then maybe the fourth generation could start betting. But then, it would have to be on Matlow's grandson.
SW: I have to ask you this one! If you suddenly found yourself exiled to a strange place such as Australia, how would you go about developing a strategy for racing down under? You've naturally had to do this already, having played in various countries. Where would you start?
Cramer: I've played the races in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Panama, Chile, England, Ireland and France. No matter how different the look of the racing form, no matter how weird the configuration of the track, no matter how strange the language being spoken, there are certain universals for investing in a bet.
In no country can you survive betting low-percentage trainers, but in every country you can get good longshots with high-percentage trainers. In all countries, in races where horses take turns beating each other, the public overbets the horse that won most recently and underbets the one who won against the same horse on an earlier occasion.
In all countries, publicity horses are overbet in stakes races, leaving us with betting value for other legitimate stakes horses entered in the same field.
In most countries, the public underbets horses that are coming back after a layoff, even if they've won before following a layoff.
In all countries the takeout is greater for exotic bets than straight pool bets, yet more people bet the exotics. Trip handicapping is yet another universal factor. Hemingway was a trip handicapper when he lived in Paris in the 1920s.
I'd start by confining my bets to trainers whose win percentage is above the mean, and limiting wagers to the straight pools. The next thing I would do is to find out which handicapping factor is most overlooked by the public.
For example, in the States the pace factor is overbet. So much has been written about it and the typical running lines make this factor obvious. But in France, where the past performances do not have running lines, the pace factor is overlooked.
Virtually every one of my winning longshot straight pool bets in French thoroughbred racing has involved horses with early-pace running styles in fields in which most of the starters come from behind. I wait for these races to materialise. if the pace configuration is totally balanced, I lose my edge.
If the Australian racing form is similar to the European form and does not show the running lines, this is probably where I'd begin in Australia.
I'd like to show you a specific misunderstood. What if you took an irrational factor with little or no intrinsic merit, like "post position five" or "finished seventh last race"?
It is possible to go through a thousand races with such a thing showing a profit. Pure chance. My feeling is that the more intrinsic logic that goes into the researched factor combination, the smaller the necessary sample.
Consider medical research, which I've worked with on the periphery. Sometimes a sample of 16 patients is enough for a conclusion. Other times samples of 598 patients end up giving a false conclusion because of a secondary variable that was not considered.
Let me give you one example.
Twelve years ago, I wrote that California trainer Richard Matlow was profitable with first-time starters. I wrote that off a sample of less than 20 races. But the way he won with debut horses, the fact that the pre-race workouts were often slow, and the fact that he often used low-percentage riders gave me so much qualitative argument that I published the finding.
As of today, he is still profitable with first-time starters, and I have a collection of thank-you notes from guys who have won off this factor. If you were waiting for a large enough sample, you'd have to pass on the research to your son and grandson, and then maybe the fourth generation could start betting. But then, it would have to be on Matlow's grandson.
SW: I have to ask you this one! If you suddenly found yourself exiled to a strange place such as Australia, how would you go about developing a strategy for racing down under? You've naturally had to do this already, having played in various countries. Where would you start?
Cramer: I've played the races in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Panama, Chile, England, Ireland and France. No matter how different the look of the racing form, no matter how weird the configuration of the track, no matter how strange the language being spoken, there are certain universals for investing in a bet.
In no country can you survive betting low-percentage trainers, but in every country you can get good longshots with high-percentage trainers. In all countries, in races where horses take turns beating each other, the public overbets the horse that won most recently and underbets the one who won against the same horse on an earlier occasion.
In all countries, publicity horses are overbet in stakes races, leaving us with betting value for other legitimate stakes horses entered in the same field.
In most countries, the public underbets horses that are coming back after a layoff, even if they've won before following a layoff.
In all countries the takeout is greater for exotic bets than straight pool bets, yet more people bet the exotics. Trip handicapping is yet another universal factor. Hemingway was a trip handicapper when he lived in Paris in the 1920s.
I'd start by confining my bets to trainers whose win percentage is above the mean, and limiting wagers to the straight pools. The next thing I would do is to find out which handicapping factor is most overlooked by the public.
For example, in the States the pace factor is overbet. So much has been written about it and the typical running lines make this factor obvious. But in France, where the past performances do not have running lines, the pace factor is overlooked.
Virtually every one of my winning longshot straight pool bets in French thoroughbred racing has involved horses with early-pace running styles in fields in which most of the starters come from behind. I wait for these races to materialise. if the pace configuration is totally balanced, I lose my edge.
If the Australian racing form is similar to the European form and does not show the running lines, this is probably where I'd begin in Australia.
I'd like to show you a specific illustration. On October 5 at Longchamp, second race, an 18horse field, the narrative
descriptions of most of the horses in the field read like: "galloped in last position and made his move 300 metres out", or "after racing in midpack, found an opening in the stretch", or "for a long time in the middle of the pack, shook loose at the head of the stretch", or "after waiting in retreat, finished honourably".
There were only three forward runners in the whole field. That told me the pace would probably be moderate to slow and the closers would have a tough time making up ground in the stretch.
Once I'd narrowed it down to the early runners, I looked for (1) a high-percentage trainer, and (2) an angle. Number 13, Danger Money, was trained by David Smaga. In similar large-field handicap races, Smaga had the second-best win percentage of all the trainers. Danger Money was 13/1. The angle: his previous victory came following a layoff and today he was coming back after a layoff. That explained away his poor performance in his most recent race.
Danger Money won the race, although he shared the win with another horse, in a dead heat. The other horse was lightly raced and had been improving his early pace, although I had failed to project the improved early pace until after the race.
The trainer of the other horse in the dead heat was the only trainer with a higher win percentage, within this handicap race specialty, than David Smaga. So if the Australian past performances do not show running lines but do have brief narrative blurbs on how the horses ran their races, pacewise, ¬then that might be my point of departure in Australia, which I do hope to visit.
SW: We look forward to having you! As we conclude this interview I'd like to ask you, with all your years of experience, if there was one piece of advice you could give those readers wanting to travel the kinky path as you have done, what would be the most important thing you could press home to them?
Cramer: That the methodology we choose for playing the horses is an existential decision. There are different ways to win at the track. If we are good students, careful record-keepers, and willing to deal with nuances, then we can win.
As a racing journalist I've interviewed winning players with diverse methodologies. Some of them would be winners no matter which valid method they chose. I happen to be an against-the-grain person, so a "kinky" method is more likely to enhance my enjoyment of the game.
More than the methodology itself, if a player simply had a ledger for every bet and wrote down the reason for every bet, after maybe 200 races, that player would be able to tally which reasons were more successful, with a superior return on investment, and which ones should be dumped.
If you still want to follow a "kinky" path, then the first thing you should do when studying the past performances of a horse race is to LOOK FOR THE DIFFERENT HORSE. The one you have to ask, what's he doing here? If you can find a good reason why he's in the field, then you're on your way.
SW: Thanks for being with us, Mark. I hope that readers have as much fun as I did in hearing about how the "kinky one" thinks.
Click here to read
Part 1.
By Steve WoodPRACTICAL PUNTING - JANUARY 2002