Not more than 2 or 3% of the horses racing in this country in a year ever display any real degree of consistency in winning and in running close when beaten. This is true whether each animal normally goes in good races for good horses or in cheap races for cheap horses. The American tracks are full of erratic, in consistent misfits, dragged around from meeting to meet ing by small owners whose aim often is to flimflam friends and suckers rather than to win purses and bets. Horses of this sort win very rarely, and then unpredictably and through accident. It is easy enough to detect them, for any standard racing sheet gives in its past performance set-up on any animal a summary of his racing record for the current and the preceding year, showing the number of starts in each year together with the number of firsts, seconds and thirds, as well as the total value of purses won. With such figures staring them in the face it is be yond an intelligent person’s understanding why so many players persist in backing animals that on an average win only one start in ten or fifteen. But all horses, however inconsistent and in ferior off their cold records, get some backing in the mu-tuel pools and handbooks, with the result that millions of dollars are wagered each month on animals so patently worthless that their backers cannot be classed otherwise than as suckers. If it is part of wisdom to avoid aged horses, it is even more so to avoid betting the obviously erratic and chronic non-winners whose only real functions are to help racing secretaries fill over-long programs.