January 12, 2024

Since this page was first posted on January 6th I've had some feedback from interested readers, and I wish to thank them. Taking those comments into account I have edited and revised the following article a bit. Changes include renaming the categories into more user friendly terms, expanding the options regarding minimum odds requirements and incorporating the effective B2 requirement. I have also added to the website a worksheet that can be used to quickly mark down relevant CPR information. Feel free to make use of those.

CPR for Handicappers

Or how to effectively use Class, Performance and Readiness as criteria to select and reject contenders.

What I intend to set out for you here is a summary of the ideas I have been developing over the last couple of years into a methodology to quickly and efficiently identify solid contenders and eliminate the doubtful ones in a race. This will take just a few minutes per race.

The CPR Method

All of the necessary information to apply the CPR methodology can be found in our Fast Track Simulcapping race information. Contenders, pretenders and playable contenders We will be dividing the horses that the CPR methodology evaluates into contenders, playable contenders and pretenders. A horse that does not qualify under are method is considered to be a pretender, that is not a valid contender. Horses that qualify as contenders however also have to meet basic minimum odds requirements before they are considered to be playable contenders.

What horses are considered?

To be evaluated under the CPR method a horse must be one of the top three crowd choices, including ties. The standard used is the tote board odds rather than the amount bet on the horse. Thus the third and fourth highest choice may be tied at 4 to 1, but the charts the next day may show them at 4.10 and 4.40 for example. It is important to leave it as late as possible to make sure you have close to the final odds. I usually try to make the final evaluation with 5 minutes to go before the race, but often the crowd choices are clear long before that time.

Contenders or pretenders?

If a horse fits into one of the following categories it qualifies under the CPR criteria as a contender. Otherwise it is evaluated as a pretender

1. Triple Plus (+++) contender.
   • This horse is rated to have a high or top AER score between 90 to 100.
   • It will have demonstrated an ability to run to the group par at the distance and on turf in the case of turf races.
   • The horse must be returning to race within 28 days of its last race, and so its DLR will be 28 or less.
   • It will also have a +++ performance rating.
2. Top AER contender.
   • Must have the highest AER in the race, usually 100 unless there has been a scratch.
   • It must have a ++ performance rating or better.
   • It must have a DLR of 28 or less.
   • It must have a B2 rating in the top 4.
3. Returning contender.
   • The AER must be 50 or more.
   • It must be returning to race within 7 to 21 days of its last race. *
   • The performance rating must be + or better.
   • It must have a B2 rating in the top 4.
4. Freshened contender.
   • The AER must be 50 or more.
   • The TF score must be 12 or higher.
   • The DLR score should not be more than 180. **
   • The performance rating must be + or better.
   • It must have a B2 rating in the top 4.
5. First time starter. ***

* Returning contenders: Although traditionally it has be considered that horses returning in less than 7 days were likely to be ready to go with the trainer trying to take advantage of current form, I am sceptical. In an age where trainers tend to race horses less often and with more days between races this is just as likely to be a sign of desperation or misjudgment. Personally I like to draw the line for returning contenders initially at 7 days and then if it is less take a close look. You may even find you wish to draw the line at 10 days.

** Freshened contenders: The line drawn at 180 days away for freshened contenders should not be etched in stone. A horse may be away considerably longer and perform well with the requisite workouts. However, a line must be drawn somewhere. There is always a concern that a horse away for an extended period of time will perhaps need a race to get racing fit. You are advised to examine the quality of the workouts before making a final decision.

*** First time starters: The well regarded first time starters are horses who have never raced but are still within the top three choices of the crowd must be considered contenders because their is no information to reject them with. However, since they have also not yet proven their performance or class they are to be consider in the non-playable group. The result is to increase the odds requirement for other CPR contenders.

Playable contenders

Once the evaluation has been done to separate the contenders from the non-contenders, it is necessary to determine which of the contenders are being offered at odds that justify them as playable. To qualify as a playable contender the horse must meet minimum odds requirements. Where there is just one qualified CPR contender in the race this will be 3/2, although some readers have expressed the view that even money is probably good enough. Where there are two CPR contenders there are several options and you should choose the one that best suits your handicapping preferences. In How Will Your Your Horse Run Today? William Scott simply played the horse with the lowest odds, i.e. the favorite, if it qualified. If not he moved on to the second choice and so on. You could raise the minimum odds to 2 to 1 or 5/2. Or if you don't mind betting on two horses in the same race you can do that if the odds are reasonable, betting different amounts on each horse as Sartin recommended. In the event that there are three contenders, I would consider that the race should be passed, but you may wish to accept a horse that meets minimum odds of 7/2.

How the CPR Methodology was developed

I have been seriously studying handicapping theories since about 1982, and have read all of the significant authors and experts and considered their ideas closely. In the end it seems to me that three of these authors especially had innovative ideas that appeal to my sense of what is a logical and sound approach to handicapping. The ideas are proven and all the more intriguing for being a little out of fashion perhaps.

Fabricand and the principle of 'Maximum Confusion'

In 1966 Burton Fabricand wrote Horse Sense in which he attempted to show the reader how to make money at the races by knowing when to back the favorite. His statistics verified the general accuracy of the betting public, not only in selecting its favorites to win about 33% of the time, but also assigning odds generally. His approach was to try to find those races where the betting public had been 'confused' a little, not betting quite enough on the favorite because it was distracted by those that shouldn't have qualified. He then expanded his search to look for second favorites in races where the favorite could be disregarded as an underlay. Fabricand's system was verified in his book, but is quaite complicated in practice to apply.

William Scott's investment in handicapping

William Scott's idea in Investing At The Racetrack was to make investments at the race track by focusing on the top three crowd choices since his studies indicated that the winner could be expected to be found among them in about two thirds of all races. He developed a fairly straightforward point system including ability points to separate the contenders from the pretenders. Later in How Will Your Horse Run Today? he looked at the possibilities of just using key form concepts such as the 21 day cycle and workouts to establish readiness in order to predict winners in the top two crowd favorites.

Quirin and computer handicapping

Bill Quirin made the first serious stab at computer based handicapping in his 1979 book Winning At The Races. His findings regarding the use of the earnings box to assist in determing basic class were remarkable especially when combined with other significant factors such as a good prior race. His formula has been adopted in our AER score, although we have turned it into a ratio for consistency.

Assimilation of the Concepts

Assimilation of the above handicapping concepts resulted from my undertaking a detailed study last April. I focused on the results of a random sample of 151 races, looking at just the top 3 crowd choices, trying to determine what themes would arise in the data. In particular I was trying to discover, as Fabricand had sought, ways to both use the wisdom of the crowd in its uncanny ability to select winners and take advantage of those occasions when that wisdom was imperfect or a littled 'confused', resulting in overlays. I chose to use the top three choices as suggested by Scott because it those 3 will provide the winners in two thirds of the races. Scott's findings as to the importance of the 21 day cylce was born out, and I had already had some success with using the top AER angle thanks to Quirin.

For more detail I suggest you should read the study including the analysis which can be found on our website at the April 2005 CPR Study.

Evaluating class

Class is a very elusive concept. I have never read or heard a totally satisfactory definition or explanation of it. I certainly can't define it, but the results seem to demonstrate that it can be measured for our purposes sufficiently. We will build on Quirin's findings about average earnings per race, and rely on our AER measurement. On its own the AER would certainly be insufficient. The average earnings of the horse may well reflect better days when it was healthier or in better hands that got better results from it. That is why you will find many horses on the FTS sheets with solid AER scores and top scores of 100 going off at 20/1. Clearly they are not the current class of the field.

However, when you combine that score with the approval of the crowd it does prove useful. The results of our study in 2005 indicate that where a horse the crowd selects in its top 3 has an AER of less than 50 that it is relatively unlikely to win. There were 17 winners from 106 of those horses, with an average return for a $2 win wager of just $1.40. Horses with high AER scores tended to do much better. Horses with an AER of more than 50 produced a positive return when combined with other factors.

Evaluating performance

In evaluating performance it seems appropriate to require that the horse has shown the ability to perform at the speed of the race par for the group. In 2000 we developed the concept of QCs (or qualified contenders) as horses that have an average B2 equal to the race par. In the 2005 study it was found that the requirement that the horse have the third or fourth best B2 rating was a useful measure of performance, especially when combined with other factors. Our current performance rating system combines these two criteria. If a horse has a + rating it has shown a satisfactory performance ability either by obtaining a B2 rating equal to par or having the third best B2 rating in the race. A horse with a ++ has demonstrated an even higher level of performance having a distance rating (DR) equal to or better than the race par. For turf races the ++ signifies a turf rating (TR) equal or better than par.

Evaluating readiness

As a short cut you may wish to look at the performance column to assist you regarding readiness. If the horse has a minus sign this indicates that it has not had sufficient workouts since its last race, and ties into the DLR.