Page 1 of 19 "The Bal Chatri Technique" First of all, where in the heck did the name come from?! The original Bal Chatri technique was developed by certain tribal peoples in India for netting/catching birds that fly at high speeds - birds of prey like falcons. They then trained these birds and sold them to falconry enthusiasts. So - what's the connection with horse racing? Not much - except that to stay alive in this game you need to learn how to 'catch' the speed horses. Speed is everything in a horse race. Lots of talk and study about class, pace, incremental velocity, etc., etc. - but in keeping with the theme of the last module, "simplicity," - let's step back far enough from all the complexity of horse racing for a long enough moment to agree that, yes, the fastest horses win the most races - period! But 'speed handicapping' involves a bit of a vexing dichotomy. It is, at the same time, the factor that is the most over-used and accessible to the casual and novice player... while it is also very often an undervalued factor for the serious player and long-time handicapper. In the last module, "The DA Key," we looked at overall speed and how to use final speed ratings in a new way in order to get us to the cashier's window more often. In this module, "The Bal-Chatri Technique," we'll use early speed potential for the same purpose. The premise of this module is that early speed in U.S. dirt racing today (and even turf racing) is as important - even more important - as it ever has been. The tricky part is: How do we measure early speed? How can we predict it in a way consistent enough to help us identify potential winners of horse races? Beyer Numbers, Quirin Speed Points, velocity analysis, (and many other approaches) have all attempted to measure/predict the potential overall speed and/or the early speed of horses. I have another idea. Rather than trying to impose our constructs of what early speed is, why not let the horse do it for us?
Page 2 of 19 Horses are visual creatures - to the max! They notice everything - any slight movement anywhere in their field of vision. Also, of course, they are herd animals. In the wild, for thousands of years, they have evolved while running in closely packed groups - wheeling, swerving, and jumping to avoid rocks, ditches, and pursuing predators. They have a finely honed sense of visual/spatial awareness. They just 'know' how far they are from another animal running near them, or anywhere in their field of view. As stated by some sharp, anonymous, observer of animal intelligence and horseflesh... "horses can't tell time." Uh, okay - agreed. Some of the great jockeys have been said to have clocks in their heads... maybe, but in my experience, that clock - even in the greatest of them - often malfunctions. The concept of timing fractions has been one way of assessing who has the early speed, but it doesn't relate to the 'natural' proclivities of the horses. I think, in general, horses run where they feel comfortable running. If they like to be a couple of lengths behind the 'leader' while running the early part of the race - that's where they will naturally place themselves. Whether the leader runs the first quarter in 22:2 - or 23.2, this horse will fall in about two lengths behind. This natural predilection of a horse can be somewhat altered by the trainer and jockey, but not much - and usually when they try to modify a horse's 'style,' the results are terrible. So how do we use this? This module could be used as a stand-alone approach, but it's not really meant to be a full-blown method. I hope that you will use the ideas to augment what you are currently doing, and to enhance the ROI and/or consistency of some of the other modules. You have enough material from the Money-Capping series, and knowledge you already had, to now enable you to compound and create approaches of your own. A "hybrid" method that will be completely unique to you. This is what can separate you from everyone else, and if there is anything in the world of horse wagering that will make you a consistently profitable player, it's having a solid, unique approach to the game.
Page 3 of 19 Okay, ready for another example of just how simple this game can be? We are going to look at the number of lengths a horse is behind the leader - on average - at the second call of its races - that's it! One-factor handicapping that will verify that this game is based on one over-riding element - the need for speed. With just this, you can narrow almost every race down to 3 - then a bit of common sense, and minimum odds requirements will get it down to 2 or 1. If you could narrow the contenders down to 3 before ever doing any other handicapping - can you see what an incredible advantage that alone would be? The process: 1. Look at all the races showing in a horse's past performances (don't go back past last 10). - If the horse has only a few races - use what it has. - Do not use turf races if today is on dirt - line them out. - Do not use routes if today is a sprint (using sprints for a route is okay) - line them out. - Other than the above line-outs, then also line out the 'slowest' race - the race where the horse was the most lengths behind at the 2nd call. If the horse has only one races, of course we have to use it - if it has only two races, use them both. 2. Now get the average # of lengths the horse was behind at the second call in the remaining races after the above line-outs. - Where the position is listed as a neck "nk" or a head "hd" or 1/4 length - count as 0. - Where the position is listed as any half - or 3/4 of a length - round up - i.e. 2 and a half lengths will be counted as 3. 3. Write this number by the horse's name. 4. Consider for win only the low 3 numbers in the race. * Pass races where a first-time-starter (or first-time-in-u.s.) is going off at 4-1 or less. 5. If there is a gap of 2 or more average 2nd call beaten lengths to the next 'fastest' horse - use only the one or two horses that are the 2 lengths faster - not the one that is 2 or more lengths slower (ignore this guideline in turf races). Below is an example race...
Page 4 of 19 The remainder of the pp's need to be on a separate page to fit, so continue on below...
Page 5 of 19 You're looking only at the 2nd call. The past performance data you use may be in a very slightly different format, but it will be essentially the same and have the same beaten lengths and fractional calls information. See the horse above, Mark Aim Fire - scan across past the boxes with the class and speed ratings. You'll see the first column of multiple numbers (actually the third col. over from the boxes). These show that in it's last race this horse was 6th - 2 and a quarter lengths behind the leader at the 1st (quarter mile) call. The next column shows that it was 6th - 11 lengths behind at the 2nd (half mile) call. This 2nd call column is the only column - the only figures - you will be using for this approach. In the 4 races showing for this horse, its 2nd call performances were; 6th by 11 lengths, 3rd by 3 1/4 lengths (you'd count as 3), 2nd by 2 lengths, and 4th by 8 1/2 lengths (you'd count as 9).
Page 6 of 19 Okay - do the race above and see if you come up with the numbers below... #1 Lasik: line out the last-race route (today's race is a 6f sprint), line out the race where she ran 4th by 6 lengths, that leaves 2 races to average - she was 0 and 2 lengths behind at the 2nd call in those races, so the average is 1. #3 Zelna: line out the route mile race, line out the 9th by 12 lengths race - that leaves 2 races at 10 +10 = avg. 10 #5 Deputies Notebook: line out the 10th by 11 lengths race - that leaves 3 races where she was 11,7, and 11 lengths behind at 2nd call, so avg. is 9.3. #6 Homegrown Queen: line out the 8th by 9 lengths race - that leaves 3 where she was 0, 2, and 3 - so avg. is 1.7 #8 Mark Aim Fire: line out the 6th by 11 lengths race - that leaves 3 races at 4, 2, and 9 lengths behind = 5 avg. Which are the runners with the lowest average lengths behind at the second call? #1 Lasik at 1 beaten length average, and #6 Homegrown Queen at 1.7 are the only two to consider (because there is a gap of more than 2 to the next). Homegrown Queen won at $6.00. Another example follows:
Page 7 of 19 The remainder of the pp's need to be on a separate page to fit, so continue on below...
Page 8 of 19 Very quickly you will be able to scan and see if a horse is going to be under consideration or not. Horse #1, Abbeys Runner, above - even after lining out the turf race - has no races where it was very close to the pace at the 2nd call. Unless you scan the race and see that none of them have any speed (but horse #2 here already shows that's not true in this race), these types do not fit our profile. No need to figure out the average number - just go on to the next horse.
Page 9 of 19 #2 Populuna: line out the turf race, and the 5 and a half lengths back race - that leaves 4 races; 0,1,0,4 = 5 divided by 4 = 1.3 #3 - Another you can eliminate with a cursory visual scan. #4 Peace Pledge: line out the 2 turf races, and the worst race where she was 11 by 6 and 3/4 - that leaves 3 races; 5,1,4 = 10 divided by 3 = 3.3 #5 Racing Sundown: line out the turf race and the 8th by 8 3/4 race - leaves 6,8,1,0 = 15 divided by 4 = 3.8 #6 Spacious: line out the worst race where was 2 lengths back - leaves 4; 0,1,0,0 = 1 divided by 4 =.25 #7 Velvet Angel: line out the turf race and the 4 1/2 lengths race - leaves 4; 3,2,0,0 = 5 divided by 4 = 1.3 The three to consider are #6 Spacious at.25, #2 Populuna at 1.3, and #7 Velvet Angel at 1.3. The odds at post time were; Spacious at13/1(from a 4/1 morning line), Populuna at 3/1(from an 8/1 morning line), and Velvet Angel at 19/1 (from a 6/1 morning line) - who would you bet? The 3/1 horse, Populuna won and paid $8.60. In this race, #1 Abbeys Runner went off at 3/5 and ran second. Like most come from farther back types - she often gets close, yet rarely wins. Another example - a turf race:
Page 10 of 19 The remainder of the pp's need to be on a separate page to fit, so continue on below...
Page 11 of 19 Below is the workout for this race...
Page 12 of 19 #1 Porrada: doesn't look like it will be a qualifier, but - line out the 8 1/2 lengths race - leaves 3; 6,3,4 = 13 = 4.3 #1a Pe De Chumbo: line out the 2 lengths race - leaves 3 races; 2,1,1 = 4 = 1.3 #2 Playful Pat: line out the 5 lengths race, leaves 3; 2,0,0 =.67 #3 Potomac: no need to get fig #4 Money Makes Money: no need to get fig #5 Freedom Cat: no need to get fig #6 Gotta Bin To Win: line out the 5 lengths race - leaves 3; 0,2,4 = 6 = 2 #7 Serekali: no need to get fig #8 Bravo's Gold: no need to get fig The three for consideration, then, are: #2 Playful Pat at.67, #1a Pe De Chumbo at 1.3, and #6 Gotta Bin To Win at 2. Playful Pal was a 2/1 morning line horse going off at 6/1 (maybe you are familiar with my stand of "triple over-lay" horses?), Pa De Chumbo was a 3/1 ml off at 9/2, and Gotta... was an 8/1 ml horse off at 9/1 - How would you bet? Pa De Chumbo won and paid $11.00. A last example - one kind of for fun - see if you're salivating after this one!:
Page 13 of 19 The remainder of the pp's need to be on a separate page to fit, so continue on below...
Page 14 of 19 #1 - only 1 race - 10 lengths back, so his number is 10. #2 - only 2 races - 12 total, number is 6 #3 - line out the 18 lengths race - leaves 4,6,0 = 3.3 #4 - line out the 17 lengths race - leaves 10,0 = 5 #5 - line out the 5 3/4 lengths race - leaves 5,3,0 = 2.7 #6 - pass #7 - line out the 10 lengths race - leaves 8,2,7 = 5.7 #8 - line out the 9 1/2 lengths race - leaves 2,6,0 = 2.7 #9 - pass #10 - line out the 8 3/4 lengths race - leaves 5,7,6 = 6
Page 15 of 19 The three to consider are; #8 at 2.7, #5 at 2.7, and #3 at 3.3. #8 was a 9/2 morning line horse off at 7/2, #5 was a 12/1 ml horse off at 31/1, and #3 was 30/1 on the ml and off at 64/1. What would your bet be? #5 won and paid $64.20! These horses are very consistent. I'm sure you've heard all the reasons why a horse that stays near the front has a better chance to win the race: They tend to avoid trouble because there aren't many horses in front of them, so there are far fewer opportunities for something to go wrong. They don't as often... - get stopped, blocked, stymied, - have to check or take-up - get dirt and mud thrown back in their eyes - find themselves at the mercy of the pace in front of them - etc. etc. So that you can get a good visual picture on how consistently these types of horses run, below are tables with all qualifying race for three successive days at three tracks; Aqueduct, Gulfstream and Oaklawn. The horses will be listed left to right, low average-length horse first. If ties, I list the lowest odds horse first. Look at Aqu 1st race below. Under the "avg." column, you see two numbers;.7, and 1.7. That indicates that for the two horses that qualified in this race, the best 2nd call lengths behind average was.7, and the other horse averaged 1.7 lengths behind. The next column shows the final odds for those same two horses (same order, leftto-right). the next columns are obvious - the payoffs for those two horses.
Page 16 of 19 date 3/8 race # avg. odds win pla sho win2 pla2 sho2 win3 pla3 sho3 Aqu 1.7-1.7 8/5-2 x x x 6.00 3.40 2.40 3 2.5-2.5 2-5/2 x x x 7.00 3.90 2.60 4 1.7-2.5-2.7 4-2-8 10.00 4.70 3.50 x 3.40 2.40 x x 3.80 5t 1-1.2-1.2 7-3/5-9/2 x x x 3.20 2.70 2.10 x x 2.60 6t 1-2.3-2.3 2-2-9/2 x 2.90 2.50 6.20 3.30 2.40 x x x 8.33-1 5/2-2 x x x 6.80 5.60 2.40 9 0-.33-1 3-6-7/5 x x x x 7.90 6.60 x x x Gp 1 2.5-2.8-2.8 5-7/5-5/2 x x 4.00 x x x x 4.40 2.80 2 1.7-1.7 2-6 6.60 3.40 2.80 x x x 4 0-.2-.2 10-8/5-3 x x 4.60 5.20 3.20 3.00 x 4.40 3.40 5 1-2.7-2.7 5-2-7/2 x x 4.60 x x x x x x 6t 1-1.4-2 9/2-3-8 x x x x x x x x x 7.75-1.2-1.7 9/5-6/5-9 x x 3.00 4.60 3.00 2.40 x x x 8.5-.5-2.3 5/2-12-9/5 x x x x x 5.80 x 2.80 2.60 9t.5-2-3.3 1-9/2-5/2 x 2.40 2.20 x x 2.60 7.80 3.20 2.20 10 1-2-2.7 5-7-5/2 x x x x x 5.60 x 4.00 3.40 Op 1 1.6-2.6-2.7 6/5-14-8 x x x x x x x x x 2.25-1.2 13-3 x x x 8.60 3.60 2.80 3 2.2 5/2 x 4.20 2.60 4 2.7-3 31-9/2 64.20 20.80 10.80 x x x 5.2-.5-1 2-8/5-33 x x 2.40 5.40 3.40 2.40 x x x 6 1 9/5 x 3.80 3.00 7 1-2.3-3 11-10-2/5 x x x x x x 2.80 2.40 2.20 8.2-.4-2 6/5-3-7 4.40 3.00 2.60 x x x x 5.80 4.80 9 1.4-1.5-1.5 9-3-9 x x x x x x x x 3.80 10 1.5 3 x 3.60 2.80 Next day follows...
Page 17 of 19 date 3/9 race # avg. odds win pla sho win2 pla2 sho2 win3 pla3 sho3 Aqu 1.8-2.2-2.4 2-3-9 x x x 8.70 4.80 2.80 x x x 2.8 1 4.00 2.70 2.20 3 1.3-1.7-2.6 5/2-15-2 x x 2.40 x x x x 3.70 2.50 4 2.2-2.2 5-6 13.60 5.40 3.70 x x x 5 1.5-2.2-2.6 4-16-11 x 5.00 4.10 x x x x x 4.50 7 1-1.5-1.5 24-4/5-9/2 x x x 3.60 2.40 2.20 x x x 8 0-1-1.5 7-7-2/5 x x x x x x 2.80 2.10 2.10 9 3.5-3.5-5 2-10-10 6.60 3.90 2.50 x x x x x x Gp 2.2-.2-1 1-2-9 4.00 3.00 2.50 x x x x 8.20 4.40 4 0-.2-1 4-5/2-7/2 x x x x x x x 4.20 3.20 5 1.4 7/5 x 3.20 2.60 6t 1-1-2 9/2-6-9 11.00 5.60 5.80 x x x x x x 7.2-1.2-1.5 1-9/2-9 x x x 11.00 5.40 3.60 x x x 8t.5-1.2-2- 11-15-5/2 24.00 13.00 5.40 x x x x x 3.40 9.5-.75-2 7/2-8-2 9.40 4.20 3.80 x x 4.20 x 3.60 3.20 Op 1.8-1-2.2 1-10-5/2 4.00 3.20 2.20 x 6.80 3.60 x x x 2 0-.5-1.5 1/2-6-9 x 2.20 2.20 15.80 4.40 4.00 x x x 3 1-1.7-2 2-9-2 x x 2.60 x x x 6.80 4.00 2.60 4.5-2.2-2.2 2-5-6 x x 3.20 12.60 6.80 4.60 x x x 5.6-.6-2 3/2-5/2-9 x 2.80 2.20 7.60 3.00 2.40 x x 4.20 6.5-1.7 7/5-3 x x 2.20 8.40 4.20 2.60 7.75-1.5-1.5 5-2-8 x x x x x 3.00 x x x 8 1.5-1.7-2.5 12-8/5-2 x x x 5.40 3.40 2.40 x x x 9.33-1.3-1.3 2-7-8 x x x 17.20 7.80 4.40 x x x 10 0-0-0 9-13-13 x x x x x 3.20 x x x Next day follows...
Page 18 of 19 date 3/10 race # avg. odds win pla sho win2 pla2 sho2 win3 pla3 sho3 Aqu 1.6-1-1 2-9/2-12 x x x 11.00 5.30 3.20 x 11.60 5.20 2.5-1.5-2 14-14-1 x x 5.10 x x x 4.10 2.60 2.10 3 0-0 1-8 x x 2.20 19.20 7.60 3.70 4 1-1-2.3 1-2-7/2 x x x x 4.90 3.60 x x 3.50 5.1-1-1.2 5-23-1 x x x x x 5.10 x 2.50 2.20 6.5 9/5 5.70 3.50 3.10 7 0-.1-1.3 8-7/2-2 x x x x x x x 3.20 2.40 9 1.3-2-3 9/2-1/2-8 x x x 3.00 2.20 2.10 x 4.60 3.60 Gp 1.1-.3-1.1 8-2/5-4 x 4.40 2.10 2.60 2.20 2.10 x x x 2 1.7-1.7-2.5 2-3-7/5 6.20 4.20 2.40 x x 2.60 x x x 3 1.2-2 7/2-7 x x 3.00 x x x 4 0-.5-1.5 6-2-7/2 15.80 6.80 4.00 x x x x 6.60 4.40 5.7-2-2 7/5-7/2-13 x 2.60 2.40 x x x x x x 6.7-1.5-2.2 9/2-5/2-2 x x x x x x x x 2.60 7 2.5-2.7-3.3 6/5-5-2 4.40 2.60 2.20 x x x x 3.20 2.80 8 0-0-0 6-6-18 14.40 7.40 5.00 x x x x x x 9t.6-1.3-1.6 7-9-11 x 7.20 4.20 x x x x x x Op 1.5-2.3-3.7 3-11-6/5 x x x x x 6.00 4.40 2.80 2.40 2 0-.5-.6 9/5-4-6 x 3.80 2.80 x x x x x x 3.7-2 5/2-8 x x 2.60 x x x 5 0-1.7-1.7 3/2-4-10 x 3.00 3.00 x x x x x x 6 1-2 6-3/5 x x 2.60 3.20 2.40 2.20 7 1.2-1.5-3 12-7/2-8 x x x x x x 18.00 8.60 3.80 8.5-1.4-2.7 8/5-6-14 x x x 15.20 6.40 4.60 x 11.40 7.60 9 0-1.4-1.5 5/2-6/5-3 x 4.40 2.20 x x 2.20 8.60 4.60 2.60 10.5-1.3-2.5 9-9-4/5 x x x x x x 3.80 3.60 3.00
Page 19 of 19 So - here are some figures from the above results... If you bet every single top ranked (i.e. lowest average lengths behind at the 2nd call) horse and every single 2nd ranked horse above (throwing out the $64.20 winner race on the first day) - you would have had $292 in (at the $2.00 test level), and $331.60 back out for an ROI of +15.5% (before any rebates). If you don't think those results are outstanding for a ONE FACTOR handicapping approach - playing almost every race - then you might just be in the wrong game (?!). But - I wouldn't advocate playing like that. Let's make a basic logical adjustment: Bet only horses at odds of 2/1 and higher. Now the figures become $226 in and $278.90 out for an ROI of +23.4% That's an ROI that most "pros" only dream about. How about only wagering on horses at 2/1 to 12/1? The figures become $206 in $278.90 back out for an ROI of +35.4% You are remembering, I hope, that this is an approach that takes 2-3 minutes per race, gets volume, and isn't even being advocated as a stand-alone method right? And these three days were chosen absolutely at random - any three days - or 30 days will show similar results. Think about it. And what if you limited it to speed favoring tracks? And what if you got creative with the way you combine this info with other factors? And what if you searched for sub-groups (did you notice the place and show results when only one qualifier?)?. And... Well, I'll leave the other 'ands' to you...... but here is what I think: If some uneducated tribals in the backwoods of India can figure out how to make a living "catching the speed" - by golly, so can you! Best of fortune with it - Gary