In Thoroughbred Handicapping: State of the Art, Dr. William Quirin uses the expression "race shapes." A  "slow-average" race is one in which the winner was able to finish strongly and record an average final speed figure in spite of a slow pace, slow being less than a pace par time or speed figure. 

I am NOT writing about this type of race shape!

Forget pace and time for a moment. What I'm talking about is the actual, literal, what-your-eyes-show-you shape of the race. Something that I'm guessing most players don't really see. 

A common race shape of the kind I'm taking about might be referred to by expressions like: 
 

"Wire-to-wire winner"  "Winner came from just off the pace, a presser"  "Winner came from way off the pace, a deep closer"

But the shape is much more than simply how the winner ran. 

Let's talk first in general terms about how races "shape up." 

Several things can happen at the break to begin setting up the shape of the race. 

* A need-to-lead horse can break out to a quick lead, forcing the other early runners to play a little (or a lot) catch-up game in order to be where they want to be. 

* Two fairly equal early speed horses will assume the lead right away and set a pace for the rest of the field to run at. 

* Three or more fairly equal horses will break pretty much together, establishing the "first tier" of runners, usually with another two "tiers" defining themselves,  plus a straggler or two, depending on the size of the field, with this "shape" holding up until just before the turn for home. 

You can probably come up with several other shapes yourself. 

Now, putting pace and speed aside for a moment (AND the inevitable unexpected wild card, such as the time a confimed lifetime closer bursts from the gate to set the lead and screws up everything), let's assume that you can perform a "how the race should run" analysis based on preferred running styles often enough to comfortably cash win bets. 

How do you construct your exacta tickets on such races? 

Many players start by selecting a "second choice," which is their other contender to win the race. I submit that if there are two (or more) such "contenders," that the chances are good that in a head-to-head battle late in the race, unless they are top-flight horses, the "best of the best" will win and the others will pretty much give up, quit, fall back out of the money, when it becomes obvious that they are beaten. 

When this happens, a horse (or two) from the second tier--and in some cases, the third---will seemingly rally or just be close up enough to "inherit" the place position. Many times, this type of horse is also in the "second tier" of odds, meaning that the exacta can be pretty decent. 

Here's another example: the last race shape race I mentioned above, in which there are three or more frontrunners of fairly equal ability. While pace and speed would certainly be a huge help in sizing up the results, this is the type of race in which a presser, the horse who continually lays just off the pace, waiting for the speed to fold, has an excellent chance of being first at the wire. Textbook example: Kona Gold in this year's (2000) Breeders' Cup. The question then becomes: from which batch of horses is the likely place horse going to come? 

The choices are: (1) the best one or two of the early speedsters  who can't hang on to win but may hang on to run second by virtue of their desire to be first in the herd; (2) another strong presser who is not quite as fast as the winner (a second tier horse), or (3) a closer (a third tier horse) who is slowing down less quickly than the exhausted front-runners who are gasping for air before the finish line. 

Because the public usually bets front speed, the usual thinking is "Who is the most logical horse, after the winner, to WIN the race?" in designing exacta tickets. In your handicapping, assume that the horse you've handicapped on top is NOT IN the race. After you select the winner in that scenario, then which horses are likely to be exacta candidates? Now, put your original "win" horse back in. Are the horses you selected as exacta candidates still likely and logical? 

If not, maybe you'd better review your handicapping. 

I realize that part of this may seem a little vague. The reason why is that it's hard to quantify neat, precise "shapes" for the horse who runs second, although there are basic patterns, such as those suggested here. When you feel comfortable with those patterns, the tote board become your guide to betting, especially when there are, say, three to five "second-choice exacta" candidates. Some quick math will even help you to decide to play or pass. If you like a horse to win and see three others as exacta contenders, you must check the projected payoffs to determine what your odds are using $6 as the base bet (winner on top of the others). If the payoff is not enough to warrant the risk in terms of odds, forget it. 

If you want a great real-life lesson in how to see the types of race shapes I'm talking about, and you have access to a simulcast facility or live racing TV signal, select a track you do not normally play. Handicap as many races as you can on one full card casually, based entirely on how you think the horses will run based on their running styles. Then spend the day just WATCHING both each live race and replay (no bets!) and making notes to summarize what you see, such as: 

"3 tiers of horses. 3 frontrunners. 1 chased other 2 halfway. 2 horses from second tier came up by leader, one battled, other took lead, won, leader barely hung on for place. Second and third tiers fell apart, strung out, did not stay in clusters." 

Just one day of this practice will open your eyes to the variations of race shapes that many handicappers never realize are there in front of their eyes because they watch only the horse they bet on, ignoring the dynamics that are repeated in similar races. 

Learning to spot and identify recurring race shapes can lead to healthy exacta mutuels for the truly savvy player.