N o. 4 of Handicapping Hints discussed "bet-down" horses and determined that the obvious bet-downs from our "No. 1 group" fared better than the non-bet entries from this same group. In fact the bet-downs did almost 100% better than their brethren, the non-bets. This No. 1 group was composed of 21 of New York�s most successful trainers; those who consistently average better than 15% winners.

The implication of these findings seems obvious i.e., it pays to heed the message of the mutuels. Note, however, that this group of well-publicized trainers only scored (finished first or second) with 45% of their bet-downs.

RELATIVELY SPEAKING 45% IS NOT THAT GREAT

Let�s now compare the foregoing with our " No. 2 group." We�ll examine the records of 21 "everyday" New York trainers; those who normally and consistently average 10 through 15% winners. Although not as laudable as that of group No. 1, these percentages still represent a highly satisfactory performance. Be cautious though about betting on trainers who consistently score with less than 10% winners.

Record for group No. 2:
               Bet Successes
               440/772 succeeded = 57% (finished either first or second)
               332/772 failed =           43% (third or worse)

Approximately six out of every 10 succeeded and four out of every 10 failed. We can�t show group No. 2�s results for non-bet horses simply because we hadn�t kept track of those particular records.

To some, it might come as a surprise to note that the lesser luminaries did better (57% to 45.3%) with their bet-downs than did the brighter lights (our group of better known trainers). The explanation would seem to be that highly publicized trainers such as Moschera, Mott, Jerkens, et al. tend to be overplayed by the public.

When one considers that favorites average only about 55% win and place, the 57% averaged by group No. 2 looks even better. This applies particularly if one takes into account that the mutuel payoffs tend to be greater.

Our findings suggest, (1) that not every bet-down that a trainer from group No. 1 enters should automatically be considered a goodthing, and (2) serious consideration should be given to the bet horses entered by our No. 2 group inasmuch as such relatively heavy action probably is not being driven by the public. Most likely it�s the denizens of the back stretch who are fueling the mutuel fire.

In other words the publicity and public awareness of a well-known trainer�s accomplishments frequently serves to generate heavy play from the public without just cause. On the other hand, when money shows for a less-publicized conditioner�s entry it should serve as a red flag to look closer.

It seems fitting at this point to emphasize an important factor. I�ve discovered, during my near-60 years of racetrack betting, that there�s no formula, no magical "Open Sesame" to mutuel profits. There�s no secret that�s going to pave the way to riches. Racing, primarily due to it�s extortionate tax bite, is a tough game to beat, and the only "secrets" that are going to help are knowledge and a not-so-commonsense approach.

A brighter aspect, however, to pari-mutuel betting is that you are not playing against "the house" with its inexorable, constant "take." That constant take (no matter how minor it might appear) is something that over the long haul cannot be bested.

In racing, fortunately, you�re actually betting against your fellow fan. And - with all respect to him or her - this situation offers a far greater opportunity to win than if one were betting against the house. The average fan bases his play on hope and misconceptions which over the long term cannot hold up. The controlled, informed player can thus gain a huge edge.

Please note: HANDICAPPING HINTS NO. 6, due about June 1st, will be devoted to an analysis of speed ratings. Some useful knowledge will be presented. Don�t miss it.