SWITCHES & MYTHS

The gambling game of so-called (SC) horse racing serves to provide the casual observer with a most disturbing insight into what can happen when the very people positioned to control the manner in which a gambling game is played are also allowed to gamble - and police - their own conduct.

While the word longshot, propped up by an endless supply of well-rehearsed excuses, provides refuge for a growing number of shoddy, arrogant Form Reversals, the Lack of Legitimate Verification is unquestionably the engine which makes the whole mess possible. But there is yet another ingredient in the mix: the very system employed to classify horses for gambling purposes. Insiders occasionally refer to it as the Staircase Game. "Up and down and all around," as the saying goes, "and when she pops - nobody knows." Well, that's what they say (in public), by golly.

The Staircase Game - because of its woefully inadequate design - is little more than a convenient tool for the dishonest, a system based largely on trust instead of Legitimate Verification, a system that allows horses to be placed almost anywhere, easily concealing Current Performance Capability (CPC). The system is so poorly conceived it can be easily manipulated by anyone possessing no more intelligence than is required to clean out stalls or scrub down urinals. Rather than "keep trying until the horse and jockey can win," which is what many gambling fans have been led to believe actually occurs every time a horse participates in a Gambling Proposition (GP), the Staircase Game enables members of the run-slow-run-fast gang to "give the impression they are trying to win until such time as they cross the finish line first."

That the current system of classifying horses takes good care of the "controlling position" is indeed a bitter reality. One should remember that the Staircase Game, which should not be confused with the one-time popular TV series "Upstairs, Downstairs," does not draw its strength from those individuals positioned to gain most from its existence. The greatest supporters - at the same time victims - are gambling fans.

Whether the word trick conjures up notions of a scheme designed to fool, to outwit, to gain something that otherwise might not be attainable, or something that is done to another person for reasons of entertainment or revenge, the word clever invariably comes to mind. Even when separated from your money - it somehow makes matters more palatable to know it was a clever trick. After all, who would want to admit to being taken in by the type of sleazy trick that rarely escapes the attention of a reasonably astute observer?

There's nothing clever about the gambling game of SC horse racing. That countless gambling fans have permanently turned away, forcing the game's purveyors to troll for New Faces in new places, certainly comes as no surprise. How it manages to survive at all, given its pathetic state of affairs, says a great deal for its shameless, shoddy propaganda - and volumes less for those who cling desperately to the notion they can "beat the horses" using TRADITIONAL METHODS OF HANDICAPPING, when all too often they are playing against jockeys and trainers.

In shed-row jargon, the words SWITCHING, SWITCH (ES), and SWITCHED are commonly used to describe the placement of a horse at a different distance, a change in jockeys, equipment, a change in running surface, a change in SC class, to include running style. Even layoffs and drugs are often referred to in this manner.

SWITCHES and MYTHS, along with negative/positive patterns, those across-the-track moves coughed up by the run-slow-run-fast gang, combine to represent the mortar and brick of SC horse racing. Because the latter requires considerable space, an ongoing serialization will begin appearing soon in Understanding Positive Negatives. Only a limited sampling of the former will be addressed here.

Though many gambling fans would be hard pressed to arrive at the same definition of class, they nevertheless use the word frequently, hoping its mere use will somehow qualify them as experts. Of all the contrived garbage coughed up by the game's purveyors, from High Priests down to stable boys, class has no equal in terms of creating confusion. The concept currently advanced in SC horse racing provides acceptance for almost any kind of Form Reversal, however outrageous, as long as a horse has been switched from one SC class-level to another. The notion being that the performance of a horse can be determined - classified - by the amount of purse money offered, and/or by the amount for which it can be purchased/claimed.

Considering horses have no concept of participating in an athletic event, nor of the significance we attach to athletic competition, no idea as to the game's absurd rules and regulations, is it reasonable to assume they understand this class-level foolishness, thus knowing when they should run faster or slower? The answer is obvious.

Human athletes do not run levels or class, or run faster or slower because of the amount of money offered - unless side-gambling is involved, a powerfully corrupting influence with but few equals. Class is a manufactured concept that had to be invented in order to support the Staircase Game and can easily be exploited by those individuals in the controlling position. Just like their human counterparts, horse athletes run elapsed times, the amount of time required to travel the distance between two established points.

If a horse costing ten dollars can run six furlongs in 1:10 flat, it will run the same time, if rated properly, against the likes of Secretariat or a common mule, assuming the running surface - RESISTANCE TO FORWARD MOVEMENT - is the same.

When that frightening bell rings and the starting gate opens with a bang, an interesting situation occurs: While jockeys are supposed to take control and (hopefully) begin racing, horses are merely fleeing from a situation that represents a threatening experience. A horse will instinctively beat a hasty retreat from anything that represents a potential threat, whether real or imaginary, with the amount of effort being governed, to a large extent, by the degree of threat perceived.

This profoundly simple reality explains why jockeys carry whips - to frighten a horse, to maximize its EXCITABILITY TO MOTION. If a horse possessed sufficient intelligence to understand that it was actually the jockey doing the whipping, it would do everything in its power to dislodge the jockey. For those of you who still have doubts, you could always take this simple test, but not before you take out a heavy insurance policy: Place a horse in a sturdy enclosure and then begin whipping it aggressively on the back and hindquarters. The horse will immediately attempt to flee, quickly becoming violent. By now you're probably more frightened than at any other time in your life - but you still have a point to prove. Along the railing several cowboys are laughing hysterically. This could be your defining moment. Your pride at stake, you lunge forward - more for show than effect - and crack the flesh once again. Suddenly the horse rears, bares its teeth and, blotting out the sun at the same time, attempts to drive your head down between your shoulders with its front hooves. If you manage to escape before sustaining serious injuries, not to mention your life, this is indeed your lucky day. And the horse? Well, since it couldn't flee - overcome RESISTANCE TO FORWARD MOVEMENT - it instinctively moved against the source of pain. It's nothing personal.

As much as horses are genuinely loved and appreciated here at Getting Down, for the inclination to assign human characteristics to them occurs on a regular basis, they nevertheless rank very near the bottom of the mammal kingdom in terms of intelligence. They are as dumb as they are majestic, basically grazing animals that have relied for millenia on the instinctive act of EXCITABILITY TO MOTION for their survival. They do display identifiable levels of communication, however, which is often misconstrued as intelligence, particularly when amongst their own kind. But to suggest they relate to anything beyond perceived danger, kindness and pain, hunger and shelter, or the protective relationship that can be occasionally observed between mare and foal, or the aggressive behavior often displayed at breeding time, is sheer nonsense.

In order to fully grasp what is being advanced, one must keep in mind the two terms already expressed: RESISTANCE TO FORWARD MOVEMENT (RFM), and EXCITABILITY TO MOTION (EM).

For example, lets assume that a man and a horse were frightened while standing in the middle of an open field and both had to travel the same distance to reach safety. Whereas human intelligence relates to that portion of the open field between the man and safety as nothing more than distance to be traveled, horse instinct - or horse intelligence, if you must - does not relate to distance, but rather the very ground over which it must flee equates to RFM. Sufficient EM instinctively occurs to overcome RFM long enough to reach safety.

When a horse is standing idle in a pasture, the only pressure applied against its body is that which is created against the bottoms of the hooves, thus a vertical resistance factor. The horse doesn't relate in these terms, of course, because no EM has occurred yet. Once frightened, however, in order to create the resistance-angle required to move forward, a slight crouch is instinctively assumed, enabling the rear legs to move into a semi-cocked position. Having established a more horizontal angle of application, the horse then pushes with its rear legs and the ground's RFM forces the thrust in the opposite direction, propelling the horse forward. This resistance, depending on the degree of excitation, can easily encourage the horse to apply even greater effort.

Fleeing from perceived danger and EM represent two of the most powerful instincts found in a horse, and so closely are they represented that to suggest they are not one in the same contradicts reality. This instinctive, escape-at-all-cost mechanism has served them well over the years; but it also can lead to great harm, both to humans and horse.

If a horse suddenly becomes ensnared in barbed wire, for example, rather than stop struggling and waiting until the wire can be cut away, it will continue until totally exhausted, inevitably causing extensive soft-tissue damage. A person wishing to help under these conditions, if not exercising extreme prudence, could be seriously injured or killed. Since a horse is simply incapable of rationalizing the dilemma, it instinctively attempts to flee, to run forward, as they have done for thousands of years, but the willingness to participate in forward movement is impaired by the barbed wire. The greater the RFM, the harder the horse tries to escape, marked by a substantial increase in EM. Anything that obstructs or hinders a horse's movement translates to resistance, interfering with a profound instinct.

Assuming a running surface could be designed with a consistent RFM factor, irrespective of weather conditions, and all Gambling Tracks (GTs) were forced to comply, this class-switch garbage would be quickly discarded. Elapsed times, with the exception of those situations involving younger horses, where the potential for improvement exists, would quickly become the main ingredient. We would never have to concern ourselves with RFM - because it would be a stable factor, a given. But it will never happen. Why? In addition to propping up, however feebly, the manufactured concept of class, inconsistent running surfaces create an aura of "anything can happen," thus contributing significantly to the acceptance of shoddy Form Reversals.

According to highly reliable sources, even when the running surface is basically stable for a few days, the practice of altering RFM by loosening and/or compacting different sections of the track is not uncommon. Sleazy activity of this nature is referred to as RFM Stripping: sometimes on the outside for a brief period, then switching to the inside, to include any portion thereof, following no particular pattern.

Because of the running-surface inclination, the inside being slightly lower than the outside, loose soil has a tendency to gather at its lowest point, thus creating a faster surface to the outside. This problem can easily be corrected with proper grooming. The outrageous notion that either the inside or the outside RFM factor would suddenly change - without the benefit of human complicity - toys with common sense.

Perhaps of interest to some readers, RFM Stripping, for example, has been reportedly used to build the carry-over pool in the notorious pick-6 farce, where gambling fans try to pick the winner in six consecutive GPs. Why is the pick-six a farce? Because the money gambled on any type of a proposition should always be returned to the persons who gambled - and never should be carried over to another GP as a means to encourage additional participation. The bulk of the money in these pools is supplied by the "little guy (that's us)," enabling the big spenders and syndicates to come in and hit hard with large tickets.

The run-slow-run-fast gang, though contributing significantly to building carryovers, normally leaves the pick-6 gambling pool alone – up to a point - as it provides a great promotional gimmick in terms of "rolling out the suckers."

Because we must deal with inconsistent running surfaces, both planned and unplanned, as they have everything to do with speed and stamina dissipation, it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE to overstate the critical importance of RFM.

That the people who publish the Raging Rag ever thought of a running surface in terms of RFM is highly unlikely, though they do attempt to decipher track conditions by way of presenting numbers that reflect fast and slow – a process known as the "track variant." While the actual concept is reasonably sound, the input is indeed flawed. It's like having a computer with a pretty good operating system that has to rely on bad data to perform a given task.

Since many of you probably don't have the time to develop your own RFM charts, you can actually use some of the figures in the Rag to arrive at a pretty reliable version. Before I walk you through the process, however, be forever mindful that frightened horses don't think in terms of "track variant." But they do produce enough energy to overcome RFM long enough to reach safety, at which point they quickly come to a halt and begin searching for food.

Coming to grips with RFM allows for better understanding of how a horse actually relates to forward movement, amounting to just one more simple reality in a bed of rosy hype. The term "track variant" will not be mentioned again.

Possibly a few words here on the type of activity required to frighten a horse before jumping into speed ratings: While a jockey considers a whip the most "extreme instrument of fright," there exists other methods that work quite well. How can this be? Imagine being blindfolded 24 hours a day and held captive in solitary confinement. Several times a week a guard enters your cell and whistles several moments before delivering a sharp blow to your head. One or two visits from the guard and you quickly learn that the sound of whistling means to duck your head to avoid pain. Horses are trained in the same way. Voice commands and bodily movements are initially used in conjunction with a whip. Education through association I believe it's called. In any event, the whip is most always saved for the stretch – the final moments of terror.

The RFM number supplied by the Rag can be found immediately to the left of abbreviated names that depict the order of finish for the top 3-4 horses. The numbers range from single digit to double digit, the concept being that the lower the number, the faster the surface; the higher the number, the slower the surface. For example, an RFM number of 30 means the track was much slower than the number 10, which in turn was much faster than 30. Considering these numbers are used to represent how many lengths the track was slow or fast, there has to be a number that reflects an even running surface. This - even - number occurs when the composite soils used to construct the running surface attain maximum efficiency for which they were designed, to include progressive density, moisture retention, and concussion reduction.

Getting Down refers to this even number as the breakpoint (BP) - a point from where number movement in either direction indicates a slow or fast surface. For instance, let's suppose, after having conducted your own investigation, you settle on the BP number 15 as being representative of an even running surface. An RFM number of 16 would mean the track is one length slow, while an RFM number of 14 would indicate a surface that is one length fast. Figuring the same numbers of 30 and 10 mentioned in the preceding paragraph, 30 translates to a running surface that is 15 lengths slow - and 10 indicates a surface 5 lengths fast.

To better understand how a jockey and horse last performed, a speed-rating number is listed immediately to the left of the RFM figure. For example, if you saw the number 74 here, this would mean that the horse, in its last outing, was 26 lengths back of the track record at that distance, with 100 being used as the track record.

If a horse and jockey were assigned a 74 speed rating, and the RFM number was 30, you would add 15, the number of lengths the track was slow, to 74 for a total of 89 - arriving at the actual speed rating. If the RFM number was 10, you would subtract 5, the number of lengths the track was fast, to get a speed rating of 69 - assuming you were using a 15 BP.

Getting Down has found the BP number of 15 to be consistently more applicable over the years, certainly a good starting point by any definition. However, because the soil composition can vary considerably, particularly with respect to some of the Eastern GTs, where slower running surfaces are common due to inclement weather conditions, you will find it necessary to adjust the number accordingly, possibly going as high as 20-30 to find the BP. A good example would be Turfway Park, the wackiest place of all, and Churchill Downs. The RFM numbers posted at these GTs are often so ridiculous a reasonably astute observer is forced to conclude that either a moron is in charge...or something far more sinister is involved. On the flip side of matters, GTs with speedy running surfaces will have a BP somewhat less than 15. In any event, the CRITICAL IMPORTANCE of arriving at a realistic BP number simply cannot be stressed enough.

And here's where things go astray – though not to such an extent that an alert gambling fan cannot make the necessary corrections, what with a little seasoning and common sense. In order to arrive at the RFM numbers posted in the Rag, the elapsed times of horses that crossed the finish line first in each GP, on a given day, are combined to produce a number that is then compared to like numbers produced from previous days. In some instances, as crazy as it may seem, only the finish times of straight maidens are used in the above equation. Instead of RFM being the most critical component of the equation, however, these computations are then predicated against preconceived notions of SC class, therein the folly.

For example, lets assume that three of the GPs carded for a given day involved 3-year-old straight maidens going six furlongs, and all of the horses were little more than junk, with the average finish time for the three GPs equaling 1:12. Rather than take in to account the poor quality of the maidens, the SC experts just naturally assume that because they can't run the distance in, say, 1:10 flat, based on their calculations of what this SC class of horses should run, they automatically assume the running surface had to be approximately 10 lengths slow.

There exists any number of variations to this concept, to be sure, but all, unfortunately, rely on preconceived notions of SC class as the prime ingredient.

It would make a good deal more sense to base the computations only on older - more established - horses with more consistent times. This fundamental reality apparently receives little attention.

The above concept, though heavily flawed, can nevertheless provide a reasonably good basis for determining how things "should come together" when approached with a little common sense. You'll be amazed at how much your game will improve by taking time to comprehend and apply RFM when measured against fractional placement - the position of a horse in relationship to fractional calls - and actual finish times.

Andy Byer's speed ratings - intimidating as they must seem to the novice - appear in bold print and can be found immediately to the left of a horse's gate position. To provide such a large amount of reliable information for the number of GTs active at any one time is indeed a task of monumental dimensions, one that has not been kind to Andy, particularly when considering the reliance on SC class figures prominently in the mix. In all candor, Byer must be commended for his willingness to "stand near the open campfire in a den of thieves," so stated one astute player. In a game where the word integrity has become a common whore, be thankful for the likes of Andy Byer, who would like nothing better than to restore the word to its rightful throne.

As is true with all mammalian athletes, horses must be conditioned progressively, knowledgeably, with proper attention given to nutrition. An unprepared athlete, particularly a horse, can experience serious injury if not conditioned properly. The very nature of aggressive competition puts tremendous stress on joints, ligaments, muscles, and tendons, to include cardiovascular and pulmonary systems. For this simple reason, a horse must be worked relatively close to its actual competition time - that is, if you don't mind the risk of possibly injuring the animal on the day when a maximum effort is produced.

For example, it would be next to impossible to expect an average 13-year-old boy to prepare for a record lift of 200 pounds by merely training with no more than 50 pounds. Not only would the boy be unable to lift the heavier weight on the day of competition but the additional effort could likely lead to injury. It would make more sense to train with weight as close as possible to 200 pounds.

With the exception of competent, honest trainers, trainers who are not in search of big odds, and who actually use posted workouts, to some degree, in order to prepare for competition, the bulk of the conditioning necessary to prepare a horse is conducted all the time - and is rarely revealed to the gambling public. Wind Sprints, where a horse is intermittently ridden at increased speed for a short distance, are commonly used within the framework of a 1-3 mile galloping session.

Switching to anteater workouts, for reasons of public consumption, remains an old standard that rarely fails to produce handsome odds at the gambling window.

Unless the amount of effort involved in posting fractional times is legitimately presented, with respect to SC workouts, the task of arriving at a sensible deduction can be most difficult. Since trainers are permitted to display just about any times they want and have them posted in the Rag, gambling fans, for the most part, have little way of knowing what to believe. The only way to overcome this problem is to develop sufficient skills to determine comparative breeding and comparative conditioning, though the importance of understanding the significance of odds, depending on the situation, can be critical.

Breeding is about the only thing that cannot be concealed from the public - along with the actual horse, its physical appearance, and how it visually stacks up against the competition. There are no real secrets to breeding: no legitimate gene-pool concentration basically translates to JUNK. Most of today's popular stallions are nothing more than cross-your-finger mongrels, and owe their speed to recessive genes, along with a few hybrid impostors, thus making it virtually impossible to produce their own kind. If you were to breed the same mare 10 times to one of these stallions, for example, you would get basically 10 different foals – particularly with respect to athletic ability and, to the educated eye, physical differences worthy of note. Some of these bogus sires still manage to occasionally produce a pretty good runner - when bred to mares with good gene-pool concentration, leading many buyers and breeders alike to falsely assign the importance of the breeding to the stallion instead of the mare. The suckers who insist on paying huge sums for a lot of this garbage may be doing as-long-as-it-has-four-legs breeders a huge favor, but the overall quality of the thoroughbred has hit a new low. And the light at the end of the tunnel, Getting Down fears, is many years away.

Before concluding the anteater switch, it should be pointed out that like most of the SC horse breeds around today, the thoroughbred is not a purebred, but a mongrel. Had it not been for the Arabian horse, a purebred, the thoroughbred would not exist. And it all happened because a few Englishmen in the Queen’s Foreign Service saw fit to bring a number of Arabian stallions back to the homeland.

Because of the profound importance of knowledgeable breeding, a lengthy serialization is currently under development and will be mounted at some point in the future.

Another old favorite among the run-slow-run-fast gang, this unsophisticated move has been used with remarkable success over the years. Often used in combination with other positive/negative switches, further hoping to excuse away blatant Form Reversals, it nevertheless remains a powerful ingredient in SC horse racing. Knowledgeable gambling fans are first to admit that while a switch in jockeys can occasionally produce a mild difference in performance, assuming the horse is not of the age where it is still improving, anything beyond a few lengths amounts to a real slap in the face.

The "jockey switch" represents two factors: negative and positive. If a particular horse gets a new jockey that is perceived as having "better riding skills," for example, we have a positive switch; if the new jockey is perceived as inferior, we have a negative switch.

While the Staircase Game is undoubtedly a major culprit in the grand scheme of things - though running a distant second to the easy leader of the pack, the Lack of Legitimate Verification – negative jockey switches, following any number of positive rides that resulted in negative results, have produced a significant number of major Form Reversals.

Jockey switches are commonly employed when in the company of the Staircase Game, wherein a horse is moved back and forth several times within a given range of the purse structure. This type of action is referred to as the PUMP, commonly characterized by notable FADES, some of which have been so shocking as to merit qualification for the Hall of Fame. The word FADE describes a condition whereby horse and jockey, following a halfhearted break, maintain a semi-competitive position for a brief period that is oftentimes underscored, at some point, by a progressive or rapid decline in forward movement. True racing at its best, delivered up by jockeys who always try.

FADES produce SHAKES - which have nothing to do with milk or ice cream. According to knowledgeable gambling fans, the word SHAKE is a popular term which means "scaring gambling fans away," to "SHAKE them off the horse," thus resulting in bigger odds the next time the horse runs. There exists a multitude of angles pertaining to jockey switches, to be sure, all of which will be detailed soon under the heading Understanding Positive Negatives.

Based on statistics compiled over a 15-year period, this cute little mistress plays a leading role in more Form Reversals than any of her associates. She is the quintessential whore of the backstretch, a rather striking individual who, in spite of her tawdry reputation, rarely fails to make the guest list. Getting Down refers to her as the Fat Lady. Unlike the traditional Fat Lady of the theater, who sings as the curtain comes down, this one is most noted for her ability to dance to almost any kind of music.

Her favorite partners are purse switches and negative jockeys, which is not to say she doesn't occasionally engage in positive flings. An extremely engaging creature of unmatched guile, her ability to convincingly socialize among the numerous SC classes often makes her a big hit.

Truly great horses possess one distinction that sets them apart: almost to an individual they have been able to flash the same brilliant speed at any distance. This interesting phenomenon dissipates as one moves down the quality ladder, however, marking roughly 30 percent of those individuals, in varying degrees, considered to be excellent, and can be found, to some extent, in the ranks of the very good. These combined figures represent fewer than 4 percent of all domestic-bred thoroughbreds actually used for gambling purposes. What about the rest? The remaining 96 percent will find their careers more clearly defined by either sprinting or routing - with a few in between.

Assuming you had constructed a quality-performance chart, the speed-at-any-distance flow-line would take a noticeable drop after passing the 4-percent figure, quickly attaining a rapid descent down to the 7-percent mark. The angle of descent would then take a precipitous downward trend until reaching the 18-percent level, at which point the flow-line would become Vertical. Approximately 82 out of every hundred horses used for gambling purposes are characterized by the Vertical flow-line. The term Vertical basically translates to JUNK.

Faced with this incredible onslaught of garbage, GT owners/operators everywhere have had to suddenly become creative: Rather than accept the slow elapsed times produced by the growing number of junk horses, and thus degrade their SC class structure, to include purses, they have attempted to speed up the running surface and simply pretend that everything is just fine. It hasn't worked. Many of the Special Maiden Weight horses are so bad they can't cover six furlongs in 1:13 on a surface that is playing 10-15 lengths fast. In a gambling game literally driven by Make Believe, conduct of this nature hardly comes as a surprise.

For example, in Southern California, recognized throughout the industry as the junk-horse, short-field capital of the world, it's not uncommon to see SC straight maidens of such poor quality they would be hard pressed to win against the weakest company at the local county fair - say, somewhere in Nebraska. Even if by some crazy set of circumstances just one horse was allowed to run in a SC race, and it was one of these California junkers, the odds of it running second would be extremely high.

In addition to accumulated purse money, which often reflects overall quality, the value of the game's top horses can also be dramatically enhanced in terms of breeding. Trainers and owners usually have a very good idea as to the quality of these horses, though unrealistic appraisals are not uncommon, and the propensity to take on all comers is legend.

Established Vertical horses obviously do not share these distinctions: They rarely have any residual breeding value, and lack sufficient quality, for the most part, to be forwardly - confidently - moved up the ladder. While the majority will be most effective at the sprint or the route, some can actually do both rather well. It must be remembered that whereas all horses can run up to several miles, to include natural sprinters, it is the times that separate them. Also referred to as utility horses because of their limited range, the accumulation of purse money, though important, frequently becomes subordinate to money realized at the gambling window.

The art of crossing the finish line first is best served when a horse is placed against inferior competition. Since most Vertical horses are terribly limited in terms of distance and/or speed, proper placement does present a problem. When one considers the inherent cost of maintaining a horse for racing/gambling purposes, such as training fees, veterinarian bills, feed, extra vitamins, plus routine visits from the farrier, placing a Vertical horse in an anybody-can-win situation, where sheer luck frequently plays a major role, does not get the bills paid. It's much easier to place them where they don't belong - than where they do. Sound confusing?

Where they do belong is against comparable, legitimate competition where the outcome is up for grabs; where they don't belong are in GPs where, as a result of the Lack of Legitimate Verification, they appear to be inferior - but are actually superior. The probability of crossing the finish line first under these conditions is significantly greater.

If you don't have time to develop odds by way of a negative pattern, of course, and you just so happen to have access to the right substance, you can always "go to the tank." Talk about a real time saver. W-h-e-w!

Firmly entrenched under the Great Protector, a.k.a. the Lack of Legitimate Verification, the endless supply of Vertical horses provides a natural breeding ground for ANYTHING GOES. It is here where the Fat Lady is in all her glory.

Approximately 90 percent of the game's Form Reversals include the Fat Lady - when in the company of Vertical horses. While most of her work is accomplished following any number of PUMPS (Staircase Game) before going a new distance, negative jockeys are generally along for the ride. As an old friend once said, who took great pride in his self-appointed ability to catch a thief and win big, "Every con man knows that if you do something long enough, and then suddenly change the pattern, money can be transferred from the suckers to your own pocket."

Though the word equipment has attained considerable popularity, items used by a trainer or rider to control a horse are collectively referred to as tack - saddles, reins, shadow rolls, mouth bits, et cetera. Blinkers also are considered tack; leg wraps fall into a different category.

Front wraps extending from the lowest part of the knee joint down to the upper part of the ankle in no way assist or protect a horse's front legs from the staggering power developed during competition. The same can be said with respect to rear-leg wraps that extend from the hock joint down to the ankle. Assuming you had just wrapped all four legs in the manner just described, you would have wrapped the cannon bones. Congratulations.

Considering that well in excess of a half-ton of pressure may be applied to any one leg during competition, simple reasoning suggests that a few ounces of cloth is utterly meaningless. Adding more common sense to the mix, if the cloth is wrapped too tightly, vital blood circulation to the sensitive laminae tissue of the hoof will be restricted, thus easily resulting in the type of irreversible damage that can turn a horse into a permanent cripple.

Attached to the rear of the cannon bones in the front legs can be found two major tendons which control leg movement from the knee down: the superficial flexor tendon; and the deep flexor tendon. Athletic stress occasionally causes any number of fibers in these tendons to tear. When this happens, vital fluids then rush in to repair the damage. The associated swelling which results is called edema. Following an athletic event, and until such time as the horse is asked to compete again, the practice of applying a mild skin irritant to all four cannons, to promote blood circulation, and then wrapping them to inhibit excessive fluid retention is not uncommon. Under these conditions full cannon-bone wraps are understandable. This practice, considering it restricts the body's natural rehabilitative fluids from reaching the injured area, is now frowned upon by a growing number of knowledgeable horsemen.

There are those legitimate instances, however, when ankle (fetlock) joints require protection. The area between the ankle and the hoof, in all four legs, is known as the pastern. When a horse is in a full gallop the natural geometric value inherent in the fetlock-pastern mechanism helps to absorb concussion by flexing in a downward motion, sometimes causing the bottom of the fetlock to make contact with the running surface. When this happens it is referred to as rundown. An unstable or excessively grainy running surface will necessitate fetlock protection for all but a few horses. A horse with faulty joint and/or bone conformation in the front and/or rear legs, in all likelihood, will require some form of protection most of the time.

A highly reliable and inexpensive type of protection is offered in a form of elastic wrap that is occasionally used to embrace only the area involving the fetlock joint. Small adhesive pads are also available that can be attached to the very bottom of the fetlock.

Wraps covering the full length of the cannon bone not only are worthless in aiding or protecting a horse's legs in any way – they can be dangerous. Occasionally they will become unraveled and interfere with forward movement and have been the cause of serious accidents.

Though disgustingly unsophisticated, the use of full-length cannon-bone wraps on the front legs still amount to a pretty good SHAKE. Gambling fans just naturally avoid the horse - wrongfully assuming it has a serious physical problem. And don't you just love some of the bright colors.

But don't go to the window just yet. The presence of front cannon wraps may represent but one aspect of the equation. Often their use becomes part of a pattern, encompassing any number of PUMPS, distance and/or jockey switches.

The fruition of the pattern is when all of the negatives come together to form a positive - that moment when the jockey and horse produce a stinging Form Reversal. The game's Propaganda Machine refers to such activity as being "merely the workings of honest trainers and jockeys in search of a horse's right level." Just another "darned longshot."

Before addressing blinkers be forever reminded that no trainer in his right mind would run a horse with sore deep flexor and/or superficial flexor tendons. If front cannon wraps are present, and they embrace the fetlock joints, the only possible benefit would be to protect from rundown. Full-length cannon-bone wraps on the front legs are but one more negative - but actually a positive - in a bag of plenty. The presence of wraps that embrace the rear cannons and ankle joints are quite common, as they are believed by some trainers to provide greater integrity for the wrapping intended to solely protect the fetlock joints.

Contrary to the popular myth promulgated by many of the game's SC experts, the simple addition or removal of blinkers does not suddenly endow a horse with greater speed, strength, or stamina. If the goofy myth had any validity, human distance athletes would be wearing blinkers.

As was discussed earlier, EM and the threat of perceived danger combine to represent the central mode of operation. In that horses are incapable of considering speed, RFM, and stamina dissipation, as they relate to athletic competition, we rely on jockeys to intelligently blend these critical ingredients.

Once fright launches horses from the starting gate, and the jockeys have them suitably placed, they are generally inclined to settle down somewhat and run with the pack. It is here where an interesting phenomenon occurs. If one horse attempts to pass another, the horse in the lead will increase its speed. The reason for this is quite simple. Horses in general, in addition to having been pasture schooled for several years as to the wisdom of fleet-footed prudence, are guided by raw instinct, to flee first, to stay beyond the realm - ahead - of perceived danger. A horse suddenly rushing up signals the potential for even greater danger still, so the horse in front just naturally picks up the pace. At this point the jockey on the lead horse must take tight hold of the reins. If his horse doesn't respond accordingly, the jockey may well find himself in a speed duel.

When surrounded by the sounds of yelling jockeys and thundering hooves, a horse - because of eye placement that is more to the side of the head than to the front - actually spots the approaching horse peripherally before it necessarily isolates the accompanying sound, which is not to suggest horses don't hear well. They do. If rein pressure alone fails to get an individual under control, blinkers oftentimes can be of great help. A blinkered horse doesn't realize it's about to be passed until the fact is at hand. Though in many cases the tendency is to play catch up, horses with blinkers usually become more manageable.

True, while many horses, young and old, have to be rated even at 6 furlongs, it is at the distance where blinkers prove most beneficial, particularly with respect to youngsters.

Blinkers don't amount to much of a switch, but they continue to play an active role in some Form Reversals. If an individual has displayed good early speed at the distance before fading, and blinkers are added, you can expect a more measured response. But if they are put on a horse that has showed no early or middle speed, and the competition doesn't amount to much, you had better pay close attention. Not uncommon is the practice of adding blinkers several times in advance before a big effort at the distance. The presence of blinkers most always means that the trainer feels the best distance for the horse is going long. Those GPs where a horse suddenly displays early and late speed - merely because blinkers were added - amounts to accidentally showing up drunk at the national Pick Pocket Convention and then going home mad thinking you misplaced your wallet.

When going the distance a good rule of thumb to remember is that blinkers do not allow a thoroughbred to show greater speed at any point up to roughly 6 furlongs when going a mile or more. And in order to be legitimately competitive - assuming the past-performance representations are truthful - at the longer distance, the adjusted 6-furlong time must be run 6-8 lengths slower than previously shown at the sprint, if the horse is going long for the first time. When blinkers are removed, natural EM, aided by the perceived-threat factor, often is a big plus at shorter distances. As horses mature, however, they tend to become more manageable, whether going short or long, and no longer necessarily require blinkers. Much more on the blinker angle later.

Take ten human athletes, have them compete at a mile on a fast surface, a slow surface, and then on the grass, the probability that their order of finish, in all three instances, would change is quite remote - unless, as even the most unsuspecting individual would agree, side-gambling was introduced. The problem would become even more pronounced if the athletes were additionally permitted to gamble, while at the same time, along with their close associates, police their own activities.

In a gambling game where ANYTHING GOES, backed up by a Propaganda Machine that knows no shame, it's only natural to have "horses that have been bred for different running surfaces," amounting to one of the biggest myths ever perpetrated against common sense. Such foolishness plays right into the hands of the run-slow-run-fast gang, serving to make more palatable the endless supply of shoddy Form Reversals. The scenario wouldn't be complete, to be sure, without such ridiculous comments as "his sire was also a big mudder,"or (a real laugher here at Getting Down) "he was bred for the grass."

Horses do not determine whether or not they like certain running surfaces much in the same manner as humans might prefer, say, vanilla ice cream over strawberry. The word like simply does not apply to horse psychology. True, they do express preference in terms of the food they eat, but they do not think about the act, it's all handled in their taste buds.

To suggest that a particular horse was bred for a given surface, when approximately 97 percent of the time the process fails miserably, contradicts the most fundamental level of intelligence. The outrageous notion that horses are bred for the grass amounts to a level of ignorance without peer, just another myth for gullible gambling fans to bandy about while discussing SC class, all the while sucking up overpriced junk-food as they eagerly await the next SC race.

As was briefly discussed earlier, there exists several critical factors in determining how a horse will perform. Whereas stamina dissipation, RFM, and EM are closely linked, they nevertheless fall into separate categories: Stamina dissipation and EM are internal factors that can be altered favorably by a good trainer; RFM is external, given to change.

Breeding - or the lack of, which is usually the case - will always remain supreme in the overall formula; for in its unpredictable embrace lies the secret that determines the type of surface for which a horse is best suited. Are you confused? Aside from embracing gullible notions regarding genetics, the majority of today's breeders and buyers are looking from the ass up - instead of from the shoulder down.

Because a horse's front legs support a disproportionate amount of overall weight (approximately 63 percent), as well as even greater weight when running, they are not attached to the body in socket form, as opposed to the rear legs. The front legs are attached to the scapula bones, large, flat bones that are secured to the side of the chest, preferably at a 45-degree angle, by an assortment of ligaments, tendons and muscles, a complex arrangement which is designed to ABSORB SHOCK during forward movement. If any aspect of bone conformation and/or joint conformation is flawed, beginning with the scapula and extending all the way down to the hooves, the inherent value of the over all mechanism is lessened. The result is EXCESSIVE CONCUSSION, in turn creating the type of PAIN that will cause a horse to instinctively reduce its speed, in spite of what the jockey is doing.

For this obvious reason, some horses prefer a softer running surface. Along with stamina dissipation and EM, the DEGREE OF CONCUSSION a horse experiences in its front legs is also a major internal factor - but one that is set at birth and cannot be favorably altered or changed.

The notion that the great majority of horses that perform well on the grass cannot run equally as well on the dirt is merely another manufactured concept that regularly produces some pretty bizarre Form Reversals. A horse with properly conformed front legs and shoulders will run well on the dirt or grass, while an individual with front-end problems will always prefer a softer surface, which is usually grass, assuming it has been maintained (watered) properly. In this respect, breeders could actually say they bred a grass horse, but who among them would be willing to admit - or is even aware - that it was lousy breeding that made it possible. Because grass can significantly reduce concussion, many trainers and owners, even when they have an individual with good front legs, opt to stay on the grass. The diminished concussion can markedly extend a career.

The dirt-to-grass/grass-to-dirt switch embodies some very interesting qualifications. The term "dirt" includes sand. And almost all dirt surfaces, to some extent, are mixed with sand (or a similar ingredient) for purposes of accelerated drainage. For example, Calder GT has a high percentage of sand, resulting in a very soft - low impact - surface that in turn produces slow elapsed times. Given these conditions, the switch from dirt to grass, assuming the grass is even (normal), can result in what appears to be some pretty big Form Reversals.

At most GTs, however, considering grass generally presents less RFM, to include less concussion, a horse with good front legs will normally improve, at the mile, some 7-12 lengths when compared to its dirt (elapsed time) performance at the same distance, given that both dirt and grass surfaces are average (even). An individual with a bad front, as a rule, may improve up to 18 lengths, possibly even slightly more.

Some gambling fans readily conclude that the length of the grass, and the amount of moisture in the grass, are what determines slow and fast. To a degree this is true. But given the fact that the grass on most North American courses is normally only a few inches high, any change in the RFM due to the above factors is nominal.

In order to maintain healthy grass, common sense suggests that regular watering is essential. This tends to moisten the soil to a depth of approximately 18 inches, and when combined with an abundant root system, produces the type of desirable cushion that actually provides a little spring. A horse will actually pass over this type of surface before the soil has a tendency to stack up under its hooves and present any concussion problems. When compared to a normal dirt surface, where the initial first inch or two is soft, but hardens quickly under accelerated compression, a grass surface, assuming the RFM number is no lower than, say, roughly 10-12, offers an ideal cushion. Once the RFM number gets down to around 4 or 5 on grass, however, one can assume that the soil has significantly less moisture and actually produces a marked increase in concussion, one that would be comparable to a RFM dirt number of approximately 9-12, using 15 as an average (BP) surface.

What's the point to all of this? A horse and jockey that has performed poorly on the dirt, and this can only be the result of excessive concussion due to faulty bone/joint conformation, and then experiences a major Form Reversal on the grass, and the RFM number is 7 or less, thus producing some pretty hefty concussion, is simply not to be believed. It would be impossible for a horse that experiences excessive concussion on the dirt to suddenly overcome faulty joint/bone confirmation and withstand the level of concussion on a fast grass surface. In any event, if a horse suddenly performs better on the grass, it better have some ugly front legs.

If an individual has been displayed as having little or no ability to run on the dirt - occasionally to include one or more instances where it finished up close against modest company, giving the impression that a maximum effort was involved - and the horse is being stepped up against what appears to be much tougher company on the grass, a major red flag should drop in front of your face. This is particularly true if the horse has breeding to get the distance, and the front conformation, shoulders and legs, compare reasonably well with the competition.

Any time a horse dramatically improves its speed rating when switched from the dirt to the grass, assuming the Form Reversal is legitimate, the problems with the front legs are usually pretty obvious. Faulty conformation in the front legs is quite easy to spot, particularly if you are in a position to get a brief look/see. Bad front legs "stick out like a sore thumb."

Learning how to evaluate front-end conformation is actually quite simple. A good way to get started is to study those horses that have displayed the ability to run well on the dirt.

Using the upper-right quadrant of a 360 degree circle, reflecting 90 degrees that read clockwise, a horse with a good front should have shoulders (scapula bones) laid in at approximately 45-50 degrees, and a good length of pasterns in the front legs that are set (angled) at 45 degrees, with the rear pasterns a few degrees less. An individual possessing short pasterns that are set too far forward at the top (called straight), and/or with shoulders set at less than 45 degrees, commonly referred to as straight shouldered, will always prefer a softer surface. Remember, CONCUSSION is what the front legs are all about: the more faulty the design, the greater the concussion experienced, the more likely a horse will not respond with a maximum effort on the dirt. A more detailed study, complete with illustrations, will be presented soon under the heading Looking the Part.

The next time you see a horse bred as well or better than the competition, that is being switched to the grass for the first time, and it hasn't been doing well on the dirt of late, with a good front and big odds, you may well be looking at a Mislabeled Favorite.

It should be noted that most horses with front problems often have brief careers. Many of them experience serious injuries in training, as a good deal of conditioning is restricted to the dirt. Of the few that manage to hang around for a while, a surprising number will actually perform rather well on dirt, provided painkillers are used and the surface is reasonably soft. Additionally, sensible jockeys have considerable reservations about even riding a horse with front conformation problems.

If a dirt surface is designed properly, the level of concussion between an average (even) surface and a slow surface should vary little, though RFM may change considerably. Given these conditions, there is no way a horse can significantly improve its speed rating - when measured against adjusted past-performance representations - merely by switching between the two surfaces. And don't be fooled by any of this class-switching garbage. It's physically next to impossible - unless SC horse racing is involved. However, when going from an average dirt surface to fast, where finish times are 8-12 lengths faster than normal, a horse with bad front legs, assuming no painkilling drugs are involved, will be at a disadvantage when compared to horses with good front legs. A good rule of thumb for the student: The faster the dirt - starting roughly with the BP - the greater the concussion.

Several Eastern GTs have a layer of sand positioned several inches below the surface. During periods of excessive moisture the surface turns into slop. When this occurs, the base tightens up and actually becomes the running surface, hard and fast. These conditions are often used to excuse away Form Reversals. The truth of the matter: A horse with front legs good enough to run on a hard surface - can run satisfactorily on any surface.

There is no such thing as a horse bred for mud, or bred for an off-track. Horses are not bred for bad legs in hope they will perform better on softer surfaces. In any event, there exists an abundance of drugs that will quickly remedy this problem - for a while.

A surprising percentage of horses don't like running in the slop. Why? With each stride on a muddy or sloppy surface, mud explodes in every direction with tremendous force. When this material strikes the genital area, assuming a male horse still retains his testicles, it will instinctively come off the pace, even becoming unmanageable. The same holds true for a notable number of mares and fillies, with the area of discomfort being the udder and teats. A horse that has been gelded, testicles removed, will most always run well on a sloppy or muddy surface.

A topical solution that desensitizes these areas is available to horsemen. Though quite affective with mares and fillies, the solution cannot penetrate, to any real degree, the actual testicle. As Getting Down understands matters, a new and more powerful topical solution is currently available that works satisfactorily on the boys.

We know horses have been running for thousands of years with mud and slop in their faces. As long as conditions aren't too bad, they manage rather well, but sand cuts into their eyes. If a jockey doesn't move a horse to the outside, most horses will indeed balk, come off the pace.

Switching to a layoff mode is one of the run-slow-run-fast gang's most powerful bread winners. Perhaps no other switch in the game's history has risen to such prominence with greater speed and acceptance. In the last five years, this Ruthless Bitch, with her numerous variations, has produced more mammoth payoffs than all other switches combined. Even the notorious Fat Lady, who frequently plays an active role, would be first to admit that she has currently met her match.

Just what period of time must elapse before being considered a layoff? A layoff can run anywhere from roughly one month to approximately one year, occasionally longer. According to Professor Reighberger, a top expert in the field of detecting gambling fraud, "Arriving at the actual reasons why layoffs occur can dramatically increase your winnings." In that 90 percent of all TRADITIONAL HANDICAPPERS go home as losers, after playing just one day, you may wish to pay attention.

Once a horse's career has begun, it's not unreasonable to assume that it will run as often as health and conditions permit, which is normally every 2-3 weeks. This pattern is most notable among Vertical horses and can be observed even among some of the better runners. The few individuals which display upper-crust potential, as they offer residual breeding value, are brought along with greater care, more rest between outings. As I'm sure some of you have observed, many of the best horses only run a few times a year.

The reasons why horses are laid off, with but few exceptions, and only then when involving mostly the better horses, are rarely included in the glorious pages of the Rag. This leaves a great deal to assumption. Most gambling fans are quick to conclude that a layoff indicates physical problems, the type that would permanently diminish a horse's ability to successfully compete - A BIG MISTAKE!

Over 94 percent of all injuries that interfere with a horse's ability to run occur in the front legs. Some injuries can appear almost immediately; others develop over a period of time, such as joint degeneration. The injuries invariably involve one or more of the following: ligaments and/or tendons, to include adjacent tissue; and joints, almost exclusively involving the knee and/or fetlock, occasionally involving related bones.

There exists basically four types of on-track injuries that will legitimately produce pronounced trail-offs. An injury to 1) ligaments will create sudden and sharp pain, causing a horse to instinctively come off the pace, assuming no painkilling drugs are involved. The more serious the injury, the more apt a horse will be to slow to a walk, or even come to a halt. The 2) sudden rupture of the superficial flexor and/or the deep flexor tendons in either of the front legs will also cause a marked decline in forward movement. Bone/cartilage chips 3) that break away under stress and become involved with the actual joint mechanism, occasionally interfering in the complex structure of ligaments and/or tendons, claim their share of the best laid plans. Those instances 4) where cannon bones suddenly develop hairline stress fractures can also be the culprit.

Since the damage caused by the above injuries usually happens in the blink of an eye, the act of stopping the horse by an alert jockey does little in the way of necessarily limiting the severity of the injury.

Just what does all of this mean? In that roughly 87 percent of the on-track injuries just described occur well into an event, with the exception of ligament damage, an individual should have been, at the very least, reasonably competitive - in the early going - on the day of the trail-off, and have no more than one trail-off before a layoff. Given the serious nature of those injuries that produce notable trail-offs, the probability of a horse returning within a few weeks would be next to impossible.

Horses going long or short that display moderate to good speed early before trailing badly, and then show up a few weeks later (or sooner) at a mile or more, are simply not to be believed.

By the time horses have reached the age of four a surprising number will have developed a degree of arthritis in their front legs. This unfortunate reality, in many instances, becomes even more pronounced the longer the career. Arthritis, if not treated with a painkilling drug, will discourage a horse from producing a maximum effort. Over an extended period of time arthritis usually develops into joint degeneration. Aside from performing a neurectomy, a medical procedure where the nerve to the injured area is severed, powerful painkillers have been known to work quite well. Surprisingly, the old practice of soaking a horse's front legs in freezing water is still common.

Horses with advanced arthritis and/or joint degeneration rarely display early or late speed - unless they have been physically altered or hit with painkillers, in which case they will flash speed the full distance. Since a trainer is foolish to run such a horse without temporarily remedying the cause, the likelihood of a legitimate trail-off due to these problems is extremely vague.

Before I summarize the Layoff Switch, and in order to make everyone happy, I should mention infections. Those common maladies involving bacteria can be cured, as a rule, in a matter of days. Due to the fact a virus can actually take up residency in a host cell, rehabilitation often requires a month or more. Because of their insidious design infections of this nature have fooled more than one trainer. They can strike a horse adversely within a few short hours, and their presence is not always suspected until a miserable performance. If the infrequency of such infections were all we had to worry about, and of this you may rest assured, all but a few of us would be making a living playing the horses - instead of gambling on what jockeys and trainers may or may not be trying to do with them.

A layoff provides a great opportunity to rehabilitate a horse - assuming it actually had a physical problem. During this time an individual can easily be conditioned for a new distance, which is most always the case.

Occasionally horses are injured during the course of a workout and have to be laid off, thus their last on-track performance may indicate a full effort. Sometimes quality 2-year-olds, after a winning effort - or thereabouts - are laid off in preparation for a 3-year-old campaign, allowing for additional maturity.

One trail-off prior to a layoff usually indicates a legitimate problem - but not always. Two trail-offs, if not too severe, and they involve a High Trust (HT) trainer, are no reason for alarm. Two or more notable trail-offs, usually punctuated with a few SC class drops, and the activity is underscored by lower-trust trainers and jockeys, should get your attention immediately. Frankly speaking, almost any type of layoff involving lower-trust jockeys and trainers is suspect, particularly if the horse, following the type of trail-off that qualifies as a serious injury, is returning prematurely, and at a new distance - sometimes even at the same distance, and against the same type of company.

At this point pause briefly to study your Rag for any type of guaranty that legitimate horse racing is the true state of affairs, or possibly a few verifiable comments that your horse's layoff involved any type of injury and/or sickness. You're wasting your time if you hope to find a guaranty, to be sure, and the probability of finding any comments regarding the reason(s) for the layoff is rather remote.

Chances are the horse is just fine; and the Fat Lady may be in the stirrups. In that horses conforming to this pattern are often okay at the time of the layoff, based on over 20 years of study, the urgency to score at the gambling window usually brings them back in 2-5 weeks, possibly a little longer - but some wait for several months. Some of you may be wondering why a healthy horse, given these circumstances, would be temporarily removed from competition. The answer is simple. Perhaps the most powerful negative is the layoff. Even the hint of an injury scares gambling fans away. But there is yet another reason.

Speed is classified in terms of NEW and OLD: NEW SPEED involves primarily young horses yet to realize full potential; OLD SPEED is defined as older horses that have maximized their genetic code. The defining moment for most horses is reached by the age of four, usually before. Once an older individual has been encouraged to flash its speed (been exposed), the competition can be rather unrelenting, but not necessarily fast. Finding the right spot to cross the finish line first can be defined in two ways: Either keep trying until you possibly get lucky, knocking your horse out a few times during the process, or employ the Lack of legitimate Verification and the Staircase Game in order to place your horse against inferior company - while at the same time producing big odds.

Considering the serious injuries that cause notable trail-offs, excluding those horses that have been deliberately placed way over their heads, the large number of horses that return right away, in today’s game, should poignantly bring home the term ANYTHING GOES. A comprehensive, progressive evaluation on pattern plays involving every aspect of the game will be presented soon in Understanding Positive Negatives - along with an in depth study of all factors to consider in the layoff switch.

If you've reached this point, and taken the time to read all of the material offered, by now you're probably wondering - given the game's state of affairs - if it's at all possible to make money gambling on trainer/jockey/horse activity. You can make money on just about anything - as long as you correctly interpret the right information. The days of traditional handicapping, however, are basically gone forever, as I'm sure most of you have already discovered.

At no other time in the game's history has patience and selectivity, along with accurate knowledge, been so important. When combined they represent the cornerstone of success. It's absurd to assume you can beat your enemy - if you don't know your enemy. Stables love odds just as much, if not more, than gambling fans. As one astute gambling fan recently observed, "There are two types of odds – legitimate and manufactured."