Because I am the only racing fan, I enjoy the position of “family expert” in regards to racing in general and the Derby specifically. I use the word “expert” only as a relative term in regards to, well, my relatives. Be that as it may, the position does have the advantage of allowing me to sound, if only for a day, that I know what I am talking about.

Watching the Derby telecast the last few years, we have all been hearing about the “Derby Rules” that keep falling. In 2006, Barbaro won the Derby off of a 5 week layoff, something that had not been done in some 50 years or so. In 2007, Street Sense not only won the Derby as the reigning Breeder’s Cup Juvenile champion, but also did so on only 2 preps as a 3-year-old which broke a 20 year plus “rule.” (Although in 2006, Barbaro’s first prep was on Jan 1 of that year. I doubt anyone would think that Barbaro would have lost the Derby had he started that race 24 hours earlier). And, in 2008, Big Brown won the Derby in just his fourth lifetime start, something that eluded even the mighty Curlin in 2007.

The one rule we keep hearing over and over is that no horse has won the Derby with zero starts as a two-year-old since Apollo in 1882 (also a rule that Curlin failed to break). So, my family is always asking about various rules in regards to post position, jockey records, ownership, you name it. The one thing I always tell them about is how to throw out certain contenders using my favorite “rule.”

It is now going on 64 years since a horse has won the Kentucky Derby with a stupid name. That dubious honor goes to Hoop Jr. who won in 1945.

Ok, I admit that my “rule” has nothing to do with handicapping and pretty much makes no sense, but it’s fun and has actually saved me a few bucks over the years. And, it also has the benefit of allowing me to define “stupid.”

In recent years, horses like Sweetnorthernsaint, Brother Derek, Denis of Cork and Atswhatimtalknbout were automatic tosses regardless of whether they were highly thought of by handicappers or not. Even back in 1973 one could, without studying a lick, determine that a horse named Shecky Greene would never beat a horse named Secretariat. See how that works? Some horses are automatic tosses.

Don’t be fooled by the rule, though. It won’t automatically point you to the winner. Forego, Alydar and Easy Goer are all examples of horses with great names who lost the Derby. Heck, a great name doesn’t even guarantee you a spot in the Derby at all. If it did, the horse bearing the best name of all time, Rock Hard Ten, would have been in and won on the strength of his name alone. But, as I said, it doesn’t point to winners, only to throwouts. Ask anyone who bet on Belamy Road and had to watch Giacomo win at 50-1. As they were tearing up their tickets, one might have heard them say, “Damn, at least Giacomo is a cool name.”

This year I have had to defend and repeatedly define my rule. To anyone who will listen, I proudly tell them that I was able to bet a future wager on The Pamplemousse at 29-1 prior to his smashing victory in the Sham.

“Jim, what about your rule? Isn’t The Pamplemousse a stupid name?”

“No,” I say, “Pioneerof the Nile is a stupid name. That insufferable lack of a space after the ‘r’ will do him in. The Pamplemousse is a cool name.”

I then go into a long talk about how “Pamplemousse” would be a stupid name, but the addition of the word “The” makes it perfectly acceptable. By then, they usually have a far away look in their eye and are sorry they asked.

But, they like my mint juleps, so they put up with me.

Asmussen is the master of understatement. I remember last year during the Triple Crown a reporter asked him if Curlin was the best horse he had ever trained. “That would be an accurate statement,” he replied. And as to what makes Curlin special he said, “He runs faster than they do.” Here’s a guy who I am sure is aware that he may never even see, let alone train, a horse of this caliber again. I’d be jumping out of my skin shouting from the mountain tops, and Asmussen is cool as can be.

As for Jess Jackson; you just don’t buy a potato farm, plant grapes, and become a billionaire by accident. The guy is in obvious awe of Curlin and hopes to cement the horse’s place in history, but he isn’t going to make stupid decisions along the way. Along with Asmussen, he has masterfully guided Curlin through a virtually unheard of carreer. Remember, that maiden victory is still only 20 months in the past. Twenty months and ten million dollars.

Not only have they guided Curlin beautifully, they have been engaging in an ongoing, public dialog with IHEA stables, owner of what most people believe is Curlin’s main rival, Big Brown. Jackson has never spelled out a solid long-term plan for his star, choosing instead to always use the one-race-at-a-time approach while insisting that the horse will “tell us” what is next. For six months he has down-played the idea that Curlin would go to California for the Breeder’s Cup Classic, contested this year on a synthetic surface. “Been there, done that” and “unknown surface” have been terms repeated over and over by the Curlin camp. They’ve even floated ideas that Curlin may go elsewhere, like France or Japan, instead of trying to repeat in the Classic.

Therein lies the clues that these are two men to be avoided at the poker table. While they were nearly coming out and saying that Curlin would not contest in the Classic, Michael Ivarone of IHEA and trainer Rick Dutrow became more and more boisterous. The more it looked like Curlin would not run in the Classic, the bolder they got; stopping just shy of calling Jackson “chicken” and Curlin a “pretender.” At one point Dutrow even said “I don’t know why everone says Curlin is such a good horse. We’re way better than Curlin.”

That is fine trash talk, as long as you think you will never have to back it up.

A couple of weeks ago, Curlin won the Jockey Club Gold Cup for the second year in a row. The very next day, he arrived in California to begin his preparations for the Classic. Of course, Jackson still insists that he is not committed to running Curlin, that the “horse will tell us” what to do. Yeah, right. Jackson and Asmussen have proven over the last 20 months that they do not make rash, from the hip decisions, but they expect us to believe they decided AFTER the JCGC to send Curlin to California? I think the pilots were already doing their pre-flight checklists as Curlin was going to get saddled for the Gold Cup.

I think we all know that Curlin will be in the gate on Breeder’s Cup day. And now, I think Ivarone and Dutrow are starting to see it, too. I don’t know what to call it, but Jackson has done a reverse bluff on them. Instead of trying to convince them that his hand is better than it is, he’s done the opposite. He let them get big-headed and full of themselves, the whole time planning to knock them off. Brilliant.

Culin’s best two races were his ’07 Classic and his ’08 Dubai World Cup. Assmussen executes a training plan that culminates with his horse being at top form on the big days. I hope the cameras are ready on Breeder’s Cup day. We are going to see a horse for the ages.

I can see Jackson and Asmussen now, just a hint of twinkle in their eyes as the horses load. Jackson looks over at Ivarone and says, “Good luck.”

The answer to that last question (and almost all questions like it) is “Yes and No.”

We have to make these comparisons, though. After all, deciding who’s the best, fastest, richest and most talented is why we have sports in the first place. Competition drives us to determine a superior example of whatever interests us, whether it is who runs the fastest or who jumps the highest or who makes the most money.

It is difficult for us to properly compare Hall of Famer Cigar to future Hall of Famer Curlin. They compete in different times, over different tracks, with different training methods, and for different purses. Cigar raced 33 times, won 19 and banked $9,999,815. As of today, Curlin has raced 14 times, won 10 and has banked $9,796,800. Dollar advantage Cigar, win % advantage Curlin.

Of course, neither of those things tell the true story. Of Cigar’s 19 wins, 16 of them came in succession tying the North American record for consecutive wins. Quite extraordinary.  Curlin, on the other hand, went from Maiden to Preakness winner to Jockey Club Gold Cup winner to Breeder’s Cup Classic winner to Bubai World Cup winner in a little over 13 months. Freakishly extraordinary.

Money is one measure of a horse’s performance, but it can’t be the only one. Look at the movie industry. For some reason movies are ranked according to the total box office receipts with no adjustment for inflation over time. I once read that if the adjustment were made, Gone With The Wind would still be the number one movie of all time. I don’t know if that is true or not, but the point is made.

I wonder first if it matters about the dollar amount, and secondly how it would stack up if adjustments were made. Curlin will most likely lay claim to the top spot Saturday afternoon when it comes to total dollars. Cigar can still boast the record tying 16 wins streak.

Somewhere Citation is working away madly at his calculator.

It does a horseplayer no good at all to be able to choose horses effectively if he cannot also manage his money properly. Simply having an idea of a race’s outcome is not enough. An entire strategy of wagering needs to be not only deployed, but adhered to. And, adhering to it might be the most difficult part of all.

How many times at the end of a bankroll-shrinking day do you look around and say, “What happened? Most of my main picks won, yet I still lost money?” This can be caused by sloppy wagering, overbetting or underbetting, or having no plan at all.

Or, does this sound familiar? “How did I lose $200? I didn’t have a single solid pick all day?” This is caused by the very same problems as before. So, it is easy to see that picking winners is not enough. One MUST have a plan and the discipline to stick to it.

So, what is that plan? There is no set answer here. I will tell you that sticking to your plan is every bit as important as having one. Wild and aimless betting in the face of success or desperation is the surest way to ruin. As they say in more traditional endeavors, “Plan your work and work your plan.”

My plan is to take the approach of growing my bankroll. That sounds a little too obvious, though. Who doesn’t want their bankroll to grow? It is all in the approach. Some take the road of forever looking for the “big score” hoping that it will come to them before their bankroll is gone. I take a more conservative and intensely disciplined approach.

While betting a set percentage of my bankroll on each wager (no more, no less), I am able to ride out the inevitable losing streaks while maximizing the equally inevitable winning streaks. As the bankroll grows and shrinks, so do the wagers. During a losing streak, the wagers continue to shrink to stay at the appropriate percentage so as to protect the bankroll. During winning times, the wagers rise with the bankroll to maximize earning power. In a not-so-coincidental way, this approach mimics compound interest. Provided the long-term direction is up, the bankroll can grow wildly.

I learned of this approach after many years of searching by listening to the wisdom of others, those have gone before me. Thanks to the good people at PaceAdvantage, I have been able to develop an approach I can live with, while still enjoying the game and taking advantage of my personal strengths.

As I said, picking winners is not enough. It does help, though! We’ll discuss some of those strategies here and there. I cannot spill all my beans, though. After all, it is still pari mutuel wagering…

At one time or another, every aspiring handicapper has heard this. And, at one time or another, most of us have believed it. I mean, it sounds good and seems reasonable. The “races”, after all, appear at first to be this huge mountain of obstacles all stacked against the lone horseplayer. Then, when he wins a single “race,” the horseplayer may decide that a single race can be beaten, but the races will eventually beat him.

Like so many of life’s so-called axioms that people all over repeat and most believe, the opposite is true (like rubbing snow on frostbite).

First, there are a million or more ways to lose a single race. There is no guarantee that when the bell goes off and the gates open the 3-5 shot that you bet the rent on won’t be startled and drop dead of a heart attack right there on the track. Luckily, I have not had that particular event happen, but I’ve come close. Trust me, a single race can beat you, and beat you badly.

Second, I firmly believe that with proper study, discipline and a sound betting strategy one can, over time, produce a profit and therefore “beat the races.” Of course, beating “the races” is not truly the goal at all. The only goal in a pari-mutual betting system is to beat enough of the crowd to take a larger share of the pool than you put in.

So, can it be done? I believe it can. And, I believe that during any given race there can be any number of things go wrong that are not only out of my control, but also have nothing to do with my handicapping.

So, “You can get beat by a race, but you can beat the races.”