Something more like the work of Steve Davidowitz.
There are aspects of analysis to parimutuel selection that can lead to a "p", the propensity to win, better than .5. Davidowitz, in the second edition of his principle hardcover, makes only the slightest, one sentence, passing allusion to an area almost untouched in racing literature. [Davidowitz, BTW, is indispensible reading for anyone considering wagering upon a thoroughbred.]
How important is p, the propensity to win? Let's look at an example. If one is winning (and we are talking about wagers in the win pool here) one third of one's wages, and is able to restrict these wagers to those which will pay at a mutuel price of 5:2, meaning a $7 payoff on a $2 wager, the expectation of this collection of wagers is about 17%.
Let's now assume that, through some means, p can be increased to .55, slightly better than half winners. An aggregate price of 8:5 now returns an expectation of 43%. A higher win rate reduces the need to dismiss shorter priced horses. And if you are unaware of it, most races are indeed won by shorter priced horses.
As significant as this appears, its significance is much more profound than this. The reason is that the risk involved in this sort of endeavor determines the proportion of bettable bankroll that can be devoted to a single wager. By the algorithm propounded by the late Huey Maul, the largest wager that does not endanger the bankroll at a p of .33 and an odds payoff of 5:2 is about 7%, or 1/15th. For a p of .55 and odds of 8:5 this safe proportion is 27%.(!)
This arithmetic of betting, how to achieve the high win percentages, how to structure trifecta wagers so appealing that the IRS would be holding a lot of your wealth, how to evaluate the prospects of a race horse by visual examination (barely usable in simulcast wagering, unfortunately) and more, the fruits of literally a quarter century of my middle adulthood spent in Florida racing, would be the content of this tome. Considering this, while the effort is hardly on the same scale as Gibson's history of the Roman Empire, this project would consume me, because of my anal, painstaking bent, for literally years. And with no prospect of a grand author's royalty, why bother.
A cheap hustle? A shoehorn for a touting service? No. Not hardly.