tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-85608988235126271142024-03-13T15:24:05.534-04:00PTPPull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.comBlogger3010125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-1692316134332784392024-03-12T14:55:00.007-04:002024-03-12T15:00:19.039-04:00Big Pick 5 Payouts Are Not Always Inscrutable<p>If we see a $25,000 pick five in the throughbreds we can often look back at the sequence and make a case for a hit. Thoroughbred racing often has fields where four or five horses can look completely logical in a sequence, yet it can pay boxcars. </p><p>Harness racing is different. The fields are rarely deep, and the racing is often formful, with 50% or higher chalk hit rates occurring at a track near you. Often players make scores in harness racing with $15 pick five or $10 pick 4's hit with chalk or near chalk, and twenty cent tries are completely fruitless. </p><p>Last night at Mohawk, however, I think we had a $0.20 pick five hit for $5,100 that was completely logical. </p><p>Recognizing them might help us hit one of these again. </p><p>Race 1 was what I would describe a bit of spread race. The ten was taking money off a driver change from Renaud to James MacDonald - this angle as a key is fine, but as we'll see, we wouldn't hit this pick 5 if we applied the same logic. Regardless, if we're trying to hit a price, we're not using an angle that everyone at the OTB is using, so we'll spread with three horses. </p><p>The second race is a puzzler, but if we're sharp we're probably going to look at doubles. What we would've seen is a horse not picked much anywhere, off terrible form, being bet. This barn is known to bet, and if this horse is ready he has a class advantage. For 20 cents we can swing. </p><p>In the third race we had a horse who everyone on replay said qualified badly, but the horse - who started in the Hambletonian last year - was better than all of them if sharp. And, the trainer just sent a horse off a meh qualifier last week that crushed; was seriously 20 the best, and dropped a few seconds of time. </p><p>The fourth was a spread race, a cheap claimer, no angles, with three contenders I could see. </p><p>The fifth - and here's where we're at it again - was a Renaud to James MacDonald driver change on a nice horse, but one who is woefully inconsistent. Since we didn't key this obvious change in the first to gain value, we could look elsewhere here. </p><p>Interestingly, there were a couple of others in there, including the seven horse, who has been great but hasn't been put into play in the Opens. In my view, this is because the Open's have had two huge speed horses who the driver has not wanted to challenge. Tonight, maybe he tries this sharp horse, although beating the two horse at 1-5 seems tough. </p><p>So, we might go 1710-6-2-156-2 for $2 ($18 total)</p><p>And 1710-6-2-156-37 for twenty cents ($3.60 ticket)</p><p>The setup, steam horse in two won. The off qualifier horse in three dropped time and won, just like the same barn did Friday, and in the last leg, the 1-5 shot got off several lengths back and the seven horse did take a shot to the lead, and went wire to wire. </p><p>Our second ticket for $3.60 hit for $5,100. </p><p>The sequence was two chalk, a $9 winner, an 8-1 winner and the seven in the last leg at $30. </p><p>One mistake players can make is to look back at a pick 5 or 6 and reverse engineer and backfit, but in this case I do not think we're doing that. </p><p>This was a logical way to hit for huge money for $4 or $5 in a pick five by being just a little creative. The teams were playing $20 pick 5's and those can be perfectly fine in chalky harness racing. But if there's an angle to be had against them and it can cost us only a few dollars, the leverage can make a boom goes the dynamite. </p><p>I hope everyone is having a nice Tuesday. </p><p> </p>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-11429518501747640382024-02-25T16:31:00.010-05:002024-02-25T16:53:51.161-05:00Recognizing Market Moves in Racing Are Never Easy<p>Crunk <a href="https://twitter.com/Pullthepocket/status/1761848212627833158" target="_blank">noted the offshore pricing on Tarif in the Rachel Alexandra at FG</a> a couple of weeks ago in an informative tweet; namely, the horse was never 6-1 like she was on the tote. </p><p>Learning how a game is played in today's world is really important to our ROI and it's important to work on these things, in my view. </p><p>But, it isn't easy, even if mediums like Betfair and others are available. Markets do all sorts of things, because in the end they're still a collection of opinions. </p><p>Around 13 or 14 years ago when I was playing seriously, I would get ready every year for the Woodbine meet opener. It was a collection of 4.5 furlong affairs. </p><p>Going through back data I found that pace figures worked because most races went gate to wire. You needed early speed. CJ's old pacefigures were a good input, as the Timeform ones would be in the present. </p><p>I had a proprietary workout score - something @dennycaps talks about being important even today - and that was indicative of success. </p><p>Last up, old trainer data was important, because some barns had their horses ready to fire and some didn't. </p><p>It was a simple model, but it did work fairly well in previous years. The ROI was in the 1.20's if my memory is right. </p><p>One year I handicapped and had the collection of horses I liked. I opened Betfair and started playing. </p><p>Almost immediately the markets were really weird; unlike I've ever seen before. </p><p>A horse I had as a slam dunk early leader that fit my criteria was 6-1 on the tote and 15-1 or higher at Betfair. Keep in mind there weren't rolling doubles or pick 3's to check pricing. Regardless, I wondered if I had done something wrong or if the horse was a dud. </p><p>I started betting the 15-1's and the bots - a precursor to the CRW models of today - kept lining up offers. I took a few more of them and fought this market. </p><p>The horse won. </p><p>In the second and third and fourth races the exact same thing happened. The "CRW" bots hated my horses, and they won. </p><p>I telephoned a friend who had a sizeable bankroll (over $500,000) at Betfair and told him what was happening. The bots were freaking out and I could get more and more money down, but I rarely overbet a bank. He could join in. Knock himself out. </p><p>By the fifth race this was still going on. A filly from the outside which was my best bet of the day was 5-1 on the board - locals sure knew who was live. We got filled at 18-1, then 20-1, then 22-1. The bots just kept putting money up and we took it. The horse won by daylight. </p><p>If I remember correctly, ten of eleven first call leaders won that day. I can't remember what I ended up, but I do know my friend talks about it as his first $100,000 profit betting day. </p><p>We fought the market, we fought the CRW's, and somehow we won. </p><p>Meanwhile, the bots and other sharps are never that bad. Something very weird was going on in this market and fighting it is normally almost impossible. Case in point - I kept track of my wagers religiously at this time. When I fought a market - outside this one time - in the exact same way (with CRW's lining up to take my cash) my ROI, which I quickly checked for this missive, was $0.52. I fought them, and they kicked the living shit out of me. </p><p>We've all been at this game for a long time. In my view, in today's game, market moves to fade or hop on or ignore completely are some of the toughest decisions we have to make as bettors. </p><p>As a rule I listen to the market more than I ever have. I check everything I possibly can. I'll never be an expert, but if I feel if I am not doing my homework to at least understand what's happening in the markets, I'm never going to be able to win at today's game. </p><p>Thanks to Crunk for sharing his two tweets. There was a lot of wisdom in them. </p><p>And ya, I bet Tarif even though I didn't like her much and had no intention of betting her. I had to abandon much of what I've believed over 35 years or so of betting to place that bet. I listened to the market and that time it was right. </p><p>Have a great day everyone. </p><p><br /></p>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-81640982963179738962024-02-23T13:27:00.008-05:002024-02-23T13:31:26.723-05:00NFL Salary Cap Increases, Kinda Like Purse Increases, Not Really<p>They announced the NFL salary cap has ballooned to $255M in 2024, an increase of about 100% since 2014. It's staggering. </p><p>This increase has its pluses and minuses. </p><p>The good:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Teams can spend more on their star players that were destined to leave, if they wish. If there's enough cap room to sign a Gabe Davis or Danielle Hunter who are very happy with their teams and city and life, Buffalo and Minnesota fans can be happy. If it adds to stickiness of rosters, it's all good. </li><li>Athletes can choose many sports to play. If growth is happening it means more opportunity. Growth is always good. </li><li>A rising tide floats all boats. Viewership up, ticket sales up, everyone benefits. The salary cap growth helps the $1M per year player, and the $50M per year player. </li></ul><p></p><p>The bad:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Ticket cost has increased, TV deals are splintering the viewer landscape angering fans, player jerseys cost an arm and a leg. </li><li>The higher the labor cost the lower the spend on the ancillary, some of it very important. </li></ul><p></p><p>The bottom line with the NFL, however - things are growing, the ecosystem is healthy, and it's reflected in the cap. </p><p>In horse racing, we've seen purse increases which many may think means things are okay, but these have not been driven by a healthy, sound business. </p><p>Handle is not increasing; revenue from handle has gone down, not up. </p><p>Outside the Triple Crown, the sport pays television to show it, not the other way around. </p><p>We don't sell Irad Ortiz jerseys. The sport's popularity is not rising. </p><p>Maybe we should just be happy purses are up, because they have to be doing something positive, right? I really don't know about that. </p><p>On the low end, inflation has been deadly to the small trainer. They can't make enough money. Purses have not gone up enough, and sadly, if the purses do rise to high levels - say where a 5 claimer has a purse of $15k or $20k - the supertrainers swoop in, crowding out the small timer.</p><p>On the high end, how many barns with fifty or more big priced horses does the sport need? Clearly more than one or two. Hong Kong horse racing has barn caps for a reason. If horse racing was the NFL, and Todd Pletcher was Patrick Mahomes, he'd be making a billion a year, and Joe Burrow four million. </p><p>The NFL has ended up with a growing business fuelled by revenue growth. Its foundation is not without problems, but it is sound. </p><p>Horse racing has not put that money to good use, because the foundation is not sound. In some spaces it's downright unbelievable. </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Yonkers $35,000 race with a $19,207 handle.</p>— harnesstimes (@harnesstimes) <a href="https://twitter.com/harnesstimes/status/1760823808078880871?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 23, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
The answer to all of this is beyond my pay grade. But, the NFL's model of revenue up purses up is what horse racing has to show some semblance of. Purses up handle down means the present is okay, but there is no future at all. Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-54469070499892266022024-02-16T14:34:00.007-05:002024-02-16T14:42:42.655-05:00Bettors are Easier to Find When You Know Who You Are<p>Penn Gaming recently signed a deal with ESPN, booting the previously partnered Barstool Sports. Leaving aside the megabucks involved, it's appeared to have paid some dividends. </p><p><a href="https://www.legalsportsreport.com/167180/penn-earnings-stock-tumbles-on-larger-than-expected-espn-bet-loss/" target="_blank">Today, they announced ESPN Bet drove about 1 million first time sign ups in Q4</a>, which is more than they budgeted for the entire year. If, and I don't know this, they generate $400 of lifetime customer value from each on average, it would be a $400 million dollar jump for one quarter, which seems not bad. </p><p>Penn saw some value in the ESPN brand, and pounced on it. And I think it made at least some sense. ESPN and betting is closely linked. Probably more so than Barstool or others. </p><p>Meanwhile back at the ranch, we continue to talk about the big branding story in horse racing: Alix with an i and Gulfstream. The tik tokker (I can't believe I typed that at my age) who<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/AlixearleSnark/comments/15gm7ld/alix_earle_charges_250k_per_tiktok_post/" target="_blank"> reddit says charges</a> $250,000 for a post, went to the track, and we haven't heard much about increased ADW signups or track visits, but I'm guessing we're not because they haven't happened. </p><p>Honestly, how could they, with branding that shows Alix with an i losing all her money betting horses?</p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">couldn't have come up with this level of marketing if I tried <a href="https://t.co/PFE5sCR9g2">pic.twitter.com/PFE5sCR9g2</a></p>— Mayhemily (@EmilyOptixEQ) <a href="https://twitter.com/EmilyOptixEQ/status/1751999808871465166?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 29, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
Horse racing is constantly confused as to what they are. <div><br /></div><div>Is the sport a day to look at the pretty horses and colorful jockeys or is this a gambling game that makes money that way? </div><div><br /></div><div>Some people say both stories should be told, but without unlimited money, and a sport that seems to focus worse than a dude after a three week meth bender, at some point you have to pick one. </div><div><br /></div><div>Penn Gaming picked one, and it seems to have started out well. </div><div><br /></div><div>For those waiting for horse racing content like a Youtube show where a horse bettor teaches Daniel Negeanu how to wager a mathematically perfect pick five, I think you'll be sifting through a whole lot of Alix Earles before then.</div><div><br /></div><div>Have a nice weekend everyone. </div>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-37369101196146308032024-02-06T14:17:00.013-05:002024-02-06T14:35:59.815-05:00There's a Place for Sharp Bettor Education, Sharp Money and Sharp Action<p>Back in 1998, when the online sportsbook boom was in its nascent stage, Pinnacle Sports was created in Curacao. This online sportsbook was different, because it didn't push signup bonuses or anything flashy, it simply decided to offer high limits and good odds. </p><p>For a hundred or more years -110/-110 odds were commonplace, and in most of the betting space it's the same today. It's not uncommon to see football games priced at -108/-108 or baseball posted even lower at Pinnacle. </p><p>And over time, despite zero advertising, everyone knew the place. </p><p>In a long ago episode of the Sopranos, Tony overhears someone that got a great bet down for $50k on a boxing match. Surprised at the good price, Tony asks where he got the bet down. "Pinnacle", said the bettor, much to Tony's chagrin. </p><p>Interestingly enough, as per a conversation on twitter yesterday with Crunk, ITP and others, Pinnacle is the place that, despite these great lines, wants you as a bettor to get better, not worse. </p><p>They have <a href="https://www.pinnacle.com/en/betting-articles/educational/to-bet-high-volume-or-high-value/ueh2jtz9rg3cf84e" target="_blank">articles like this</a>, on if you should bet volume or edge, discussing EV, right in the limelight. There are many of them. </p><p>Pinnacle works on high volume, low margin. It educates customers of this. It offers the lowest prices around. There are no, or few, gimmicks. There's no promotions. There's no fancy hat parties. There's no ABR bus. There's no barstool guy drinking beer, eating pizza and swearing at a receiver. There are no pick 6 tickets with ABC's. </p><p>If they wanted to why can't horse racing achieve this type of medium, when their system - pari-mutuel - doesn't even have bookmaker risk?</p><p>The reasons are numerous, and they are nothing new. Too many fingers in the pie, a lack of willingness to accept price as an important variable, to name just two. Even when they're handed a medium for high volume-low margin, like betting exchanges, they're sabotaged with high hold and lack of a push. </p><p>But in my view it's probably more than that. </p><p>As Rufus Peabody today scribed on the twitter, <a href="https://twitter.com/RufusPeabody/status/1754897503793889298" target="_blank">sportsbooks are corporations</a>. They are burning through cheap money, hiring everyone everywhere, and are 100% focused on growth. With growth comes same game parlays and casinos and high vig and everything else. </p><p>And as Rufus notes, bloat is normally associated with big government, but it works in today's corporations as well. Bloat is so inexorably tethered to inefficiency, a place like twitter can fire 75% of its staff and ostensibly work the same as it always did. </p><p>Horse racing betting, like the firms Rufus references, works similarly. They aren't nimble. They can't experiment quickly and pivot, offering things quickly like Pinnacle can, or eliminating them when they don't work. </p><p>It's at least partially why we're stuck with one-week takeout experiments, or countless meetings to offer bet $200 get $200 promos. Even those simple promos seemed to take a decade with horse racing corporate owned ADW's. </p><p>There's a place for sharp money, sharp bettor education and sharp action. But it has to have certain characteristics. Those traits are at a place like Pinnacle, and for horse racing it remains elusive, and in my view, probably always will be. </p><p>Have a nice Tuesday everyone. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-61739667002707512042024-01-31T17:06:00.003-05:002024-01-31T17:16:28.819-05:00Remind Me Because I'm Dumb - Why Does The Sport of Horse Racing Need "Influencers" Again?<p>I'm the first to admit I don't get this trend of tracks hiring influencers to, do what I am not certain, but this week's chatter about Alix Earle (yes, I had to google this person) made me want to at least think about it a little. </p><p>I did. And I have come to report, I still don't get it. </p><p>Out of all the things I can list that I believe horse racing needs to improve upon, hiring someone on tiktok might be about 289th. </p><p>Let's think about this audience target. </p><p>I've scoured twitter and I have not heard one complaint that there are too few hats on Derby Day. Hell, turn on the teevee, all we see is hats on Derby Day. It's a freaking hatapalooza. </p><p>I'm not sure there are too few plastered kids at Keeneland. </p><p>No complaints that there are too few people dressed like Michael Iavaronne at Gulfstream. </p><p>I have not heard what the Derby telecast needs to turn horse racing around is more Johnny Weir. I like Johnny Weir, don't get me wrong. His sidekick seems nice, too, but I don't think more Johnny Weir means a bigger foal crop. Do you?</p><p>Frankly, if there's something that doesn't need fixing in horse racing, it's the on-track crowd for the big events. </p><p>TV ratings for the Derby are massive, crowds at big events are still good. Saratoga rocks. Even Kentucky Downs raised takeout because apparently a hundred million in free subsidy money couldn't pay for tents. They really wanted those tents. Maybe they're going to fill them by hiring more influencers.</p><p>Regardless, here's what the smart marketing people think we are all supposed to believe in this fantasy land -</p><p>i) One in like one million people will see Alix (not with an "e") on tiktok, and it looks like she's having fun with all the pretty horses. </p><p>ii) This tiktok unicorn person lives in Pittsburgh. </p><p>iii) She or he and a few friends will be "influenced" and hop in the car and go to Mountaineer, and they get the bug. They become regulars, bettors and possibly even new horse owners!</p><p>We were born on a day and it wasn't yesterday (well except for those of you reading this who are one day old). We know that even if this black swan event happens, these kids will take one look at Mountaineer, see a bunch of people that look like me, and immediately leave for the casino and play blackjack and drink free drinks. </p><p>Influencers. Out of all the boneheaded and bizarre things horse racing does, this one is so bonkers I think all the other dimwitted ideas orbit around it. </p><p><i>Notes:</i></p><p>For a more nuanced take on this, <a href="https://andrewchampagne.com/2024/01/30/alix-earle-went-to-the-pegasus-horse-racing-twitter-lost-its-mind/" target="_blank">try Andrew Champagne</a>. </p><p>If you haven't seen the interview with Chris Larmey, which in my view does have actionable intelligence in growing the sport, <a href="https://harnessracingupdate.com/2024/01/28/a-conversation-with-bet-with-the-best-podcast-host-chris-larmey/" target="_blank">click here.</a> Thanks to Bacon for re-running it. </p>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-24112247828534666202024-01-29T14:07:00.011-05:002024-01-29T14:49:32.289-05:00Navigating Those Damn Models<p>Models and math geeks can be infuriating, and for some fans of yesterday's Lions-49ers slugfest, that was on full display. Making decisions that just don't "feel right" do not sit well with us. We're emotional beings. And we sure had alotta feels yesterday, especially on 4th down calls. </p><p>For football, or as we wager on horse racing, modeling helps us learn something by taking the emotion out of it. I think we all know that. But, according to many that's the problem - models can't account for a lot of things outside the numbers. </p><p>As for Dan Campbell's aggression, the pure numbers did say he made <a href="https://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/insider/story/_/id/39412841/nfl-playoffs-how-lions-lost-49ers-chiefs-beat-ravens-advance-super-bowl" target="_blank">the right decisions</a>. The win probability gained definitely shows it. </p><p>But what about game state, and momentum and everything else we use as a crux to be anti-model?</p><p>That's where we can use some of the qualitative (and for anti-model people, in this instance, this probably isn't going to make you feel any better).</p><p><a href="https://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/insider/story/_/id/39412841/nfl-playoffs-how-lions-lost-49ers-chiefs-beat-ravens-advance-super-bowl" target="_blank">As Bill Barnwell notes</a>, should Dan have been less aggressive or more aggressive based on these (mostly) unmodelable factors?</p>
"Absolutely (more aggressive). There's hardly a question. The strength of the Lions is their offense, especially their offensive line and ability to overpower opposing defenses. Their weakness is their defense, particularly their pass defense. They should be more aggressive than the numbers suggest on fourth down because it aligns with the strength of their team."<div><br /></div><div>So, long story short, yes, we don't have to be married to the numbers. We can pivot and adjust, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck. At that point, no emotional factors or stubbornness or feelz should cement us to go against it. </div><div><br /></div><div>Switching over to horse racing, we hear much the same about the "models" - they don't factor in 'stuff' - and that can be true. This gives us an out to hold on to some old angles, or things we think or does work, but the same prescription should apply. </div><div><br /></div><div>We may notice, say at the Big A, a 0-11 horse taking money in pick 3's and doubles to 3-1. He's on the board at 3-1, as well. We've watched replays, it ain't our first rodeo and we're convinced this horse simply isn't a "winner". </div><div><br /></div><div>We may be right and it's an auto-pitch, but the modelers are telling us he has a 25% chance. Here, rather than just relying on the 4th down decision bot, we can go deeper. </div><div><br /></div><div>Is the horse dropping? Did he lose the races simply because he was against better horses? Will he get an easy lead today, where as we all know that can turn perennial losers into winners?</div><div><br /></div><div>Rather than sticking what makes us feel good and relying on base cases that may or may not be correct, we keep open minded and can pivot. No, we may not bet the horse, but we might decide to sit the race out, or not go all-in on the 9-5 shot, because we convinced ourselves the 3-1 loser has "no shot".</div><div><br /></div><div>I've changed my horse racing play dramatically over the last six months or so. </div><div><br /></div><div>Just recently I loved an animal for a sizeable wager. Just loved the horse. When the board opened and I checked will-pays, a horse who has a high ceiling but has been racing terrible was completely hammered. I watched replays, I looked as hard as I could for something I missed, and nothing. Meanwhile the horse I loved was not being bet. </div><div><br /></div><div>Five years ago I bet the horse I love with both fists. Two years ago I bet my horse with one fist. Six months ago I might sit the race out. </div><div><br /></div><div>In this case I didn't just sit the race out, I actually bet on the horse I was confused about. He won by 8 and paid $5. </div><div><br /></div><div>The bottom line is that models work. No not all the time, but they work. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's why NFL coaching is getting more efficient, and at least partially why we're seeing more close games. It's why every topic under the sun in racing involves "CAW" teams winning too much. </div><div><br /></div><div>No, they aren't the be all and end all, and knowing and learning when to add data and pivot is important. But they aren't going anywhere, and if we're sticking with emotion or feels, or any other heuristic that's married to old mindsets, in my view we're not doing ourselves any favors. </div><div><br /></div><div>Have a great Monday everyone. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-61486426282848394012024-01-26T11:43:00.013-05:002024-01-26T14:02:25.651-05:00(Somewhere Else) Horse Racing Has "Been There Done That"<p><a href="https://twitter.com/Tinky47flat/status/1750894265645871239" target="_blank">The Tinky-Mike Repole King of All Horse Racing battle</a> on the twitter is kind of interesting. </p><p>I guess battle is not the right word, since Tinky's blue checkmark 3,239 character missives are usually met with one word replies. But they're interesting to me nonetheless. </p><p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiy-wIWl_tJnn0blubEniaUQLVE1rRLdijDyP0crkqthirE-XHoPVBKPql5ZYKWR5Yq-j_9Wnyh8m96MnPz5IcaDvYRGjJdQr4LCZ6I6XyH1EfHFTkMBhvsWYayM_J4NQg9YGSc90y8p7IunbXEn5TPJ_pWYkuXlPJFGkc7UZkZIDCh_oswWn8sSB-u5g0/s400/5588a318d4d68419ec1a21c7665311b8_400x400.jpeg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Tinky" border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="400" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiy-wIWl_tJnn0blubEniaUQLVE1rRLdijDyP0crkqthirE-XHoPVBKPql5ZYKWR5Yq-j_9Wnyh8m96MnPz5IcaDvYRGjJdQr4LCZ6I6XyH1EfHFTkMBhvsWYayM_J4NQg9YGSc90y8p7IunbXEn5TPJ_pWYkuXlPJFGkc7UZkZIDCh_oswWn8sSB-u5g0/w200-h200/5588a318d4d68419ec1a21c7665311b8_400x400.jpeg" title="Tinky" width="200" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Tinky</td></tr></tbody></table>Most of what Tinky and the rest of the horse racing world talks about, in my view, is what Crunk calls "Groundhog Day". We've been through this many times before. It's rinse-wash-repeat. <div><br /></div><div>And it truly confuses me. <p></p><p>I got an email today from Microsoft detailing a new feature. Microsoft owns Bing, which is a search engine like google's is, and they have their own ad platform to drive search revenue, just like google does. For 15 years or more, Microsoft tried to create their own "thing" to deliver ads. They spent money, they experimented, they created various iterations of platforms. </p><p>However, over the last six or seven years, their big corporate change is to do whatever google does. If google changes an ad type, they do. If google creates a new set of audiences, a month later they do. </p><p>This change is not because they're lazy or dumb. They realize that google will i) try and maximize their ad serving revenue (it was over $200B last year) and ii) have reams and reams of data and engineering to support the change, so the change is probably right. </p><p>The thing is, horse racing has that, too. </p><p>We argue about fixed odds, like it's something new, like one of those Stanley tumblers everyone wants. Fixed odds for horse racing has been around for three centuries. </p><p>For a dozen years we argued about exchanges. Betting a horse to lose, cannibalization, revenues, margins, blah blah. Meanwhile, it's been running for over twenty years already in several parts of the world for horse racing. </p><p>Fixed odds has been perfected over the years. Sure people can get tossed if they win too much, but it's a vital part of the ecosystem in places like the UK and Australia. It drives reach and revenue, and it's there if people want to use it. It's changed over the years and continues to. It's profit driven, and for the most part taxed on profit so it drives near optimal revenue. </p><p>Exchanges are like some new bogeyman in 2024 in North America, but they happily drive reach and revenue just like fixed odds do. And they innovate and change as well with regards to prices and profits. </p><p>A bunch of years ago Racing Victoria downunder wanted more money from exchanges, so they increased the hold. This brought in less profit, so they reversed their ask and went back to the hold around 7%. How many times have you ever heard a racing jurisdiction ask to l<i>ower the takeout</i> to a bet taker with data to back it up?</p><p>This goes for a lot of other things in this sport. Field size, driving horse ownership, allocation of purse funds. Many places have "been there done that". They are more centrally run, they have the data, they have tried things over and over. </p><p>The UK, Australia, Hong Kong are not perfect and everything isn't wine and roses, but they have done much of the work for you. No one is starting from scratch. </p><p>The job of "racing" in North America, whether it be the Jockey Club, or Repole, or the Tinkster, is to create some path that allows the sport to use the work that's already been done by others. </p><p>For Microsoft it's easy. They simply create a platform with an ability to mimic another. </p><p>For racing, it probably is another Groundhog Day moment. But it sure would be nice for them to focus on that side of the issue, than to start from scratch when much of the data is only a google (or Bing) search away.</p><p>Have a great weekend everyone!</p></div>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-74826528215429095292024-01-02T12:05:00.009-05:002024-01-02T12:20:14.602-05:00Interesting Nuggets from the Much Talked About Bloodhorse Wagering Survey<p>Twitter, or X or whatever, was abuzz with the <a href="https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/274048/bh-survey-industry-panel-discusses-wagering" target="_blank">Bloodhorse Industry Wagering Survey</a> article. It, for those who didn't read it, asked questions about racing to various stakeholders, most of whom have some power in the sport. </p><p>Unsurprisingly, I have some thoughts. </p><p>First, a shout out to the "I don't know much about this topic so I'll just say this" responder, Dr. Dionne Benson. Dr. Benson knows her lane and simply said sound horses and full fields surely help wagering. Kudos!</p><p>Most know Dennis Drazin of Monmouth. He's the one who pushed and implemented fixed odds betting through Monmouth Bets dot com. So, we'd expect to hear about fixed odds, right? </p><p>Nope, Dennis noted "we need to increase and expand entertainment opportunities at our venues to encourage live attendance." That probably tells us how fixed odds wagering is going. </p><p>Another Dennis, this time Cornick of West Point, had a great answer in my view. He touched on all the wagering bases including the simple fact the industry has to be responsive to the customer base when it screws up. It's remarkable to me that he was the only one who spoke about this. </p><p>I thought Michael Mulvihill of Fox Sports had arguably the best big picture comment.</p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>
Horses and horse racing are soulful. Online sports betting is frankly soulless. Racing has to emphasize the qualities that are more satisfying than just staring at your phone. Racing can't compete with sports betting on either takeout or volume of betting opportunities, so fan satisfaction has to come from other qualities: the art of handicapping, the unrestrained fun of a day out at a good track, the enjoyment of being around the animals. Horse racing has to build its brand on the unique qualities that make it more than a digital roulette wheel. </li></ul><div>Some might roll their eyes at that but there's some meat on that bone in my view. </div><div><br /></div><div>I think it was Mike Maloney, many years ago now, that said "we can't out casino a casino". Currently, casinos are not trying to out casino online betting either. To put another "00" on a roulette wheel you better be attracting people with something else. </div><div><br /></div><div>After 3,000 posts you know this isn't me advocating for putting another 00 on the horse racing takeout wheel, I am speaking about the top funnel which the sport (and us as bettors) are dependent upon. Differentiating your product in the current gambling landscape is not a weakness but a strength, and exploring that is smart business. </div><div><br /></div><div>I thought Elliott Walden made a strong point about bringing "inside racing" to the masses. I've believed in this for a long time. The more open and transparent you are, the more chance you're giving people a new data point, or reason to wager. </div><div><br /></div><div>Most of the rest I found frankly wishcasting, which can be prevalent in the business. </div><div><br /></div><div>I suppose the underlying point about these stakeholder thoughts should not go unmentioned.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>I listened to a podcast recently about tech bloat at Twitter. They over hired, and project managers were paralyzed to do anything because you'd have to speak with so many others to get approvals (for sometimes the simplest of things). This was a privately run, public company with management under one roof. It was a company who just a few years before was smart and nimble. </div><div><br /></div></div><div>So, let's say we wanted to change wagering because we had the <b>Best Racing and Wagering Idea of All Time™. </b></div><div><br /></div><div>Every person on that list. From horsepeople groups to HISA, from NYRA to Stronach, from Dennis Drazin's fixed odds platforms to 1/ST racing's pari-mutuel, from the COO to the Jockey Club to a wife of a trainer who has an idea or two. All of them would have to sign off. </div><div><br /></div><div>Wagering ideas are great. Some of the respondents to the survey were quite thoughtful. However, as someone I read somewhere wrote, "you can do anything but not everything". </div><div><br /></div><div>Horse racing's structure proves that wanting to do everything with people who are focused on 'their thing' is a ball and chain so big that other ball and chains orbit around it. Fixing that? Maybe we need another committee. </div><div><br /></div><div>Have a nice Tuesday and all the best to you and yours in 2024. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-6340255525774012982023-12-29T10:22:00.012-05:002023-12-29T10:31:08.569-05:00ADW & Distribution "Fixes" Aren't Complex, They're Made that Way<p>I think Mencken wrote "for every complex problem there's a simple solution that's wrong," and for the most part I think that's pretty sharp, especially when it comes to horse racing. We often, on twitter and elsewhere, reduce the complex to the simple, when the simple could never work. </p><p>However, sometimes the problem itself is not complex, it's the system. And for those, the simple solutions can be the best fixes of all. </p><p>I think most of the distribution problems in racing (i.e. ADW's) are mostly self harm, and for those there are some truly simple fixes.</p><p><b>One</b>, the current practice of signal hoarding or side deals between tracks is a handle killer that's purely self inflicted. </p><p>Big signals like those from NYRA and Churchill can be withheld from ADW's or are priced like a King's ransom for virtually anyone new. This shrinks the distribution end of the business, stuffs players into high cost, no rebate ADW's and the most perverse point - these players subsidize the teams. </p><p>An "easy" fix for this clear - if you are a licensed ADW you should have access to every signal at the exact same price everyone else does. </p><p>This simple solution opens up the market, and gives price sensitive players a place to play. Those players did have choice at one point, until this avenue was mostly closed due to these protectionist, short-sighted practices. </p><p>This doesn't address the fact that the signal makers can still cut side deals with their own slice, but for the casual player it's a start. </p><p>Once all signal fees are placed into an open market, the <b>second fix</b> happens - signal fees based on "blended takeout" goes the way of the do do bird, or for those born in post-Victorian times, New Coke. </p><p>It's absolutely mind-boggling, with disparate bets and takeout rates, that signal fees are not based on these constructs. This fix could also pave the way for harder to hit bets moving up in juice, with lower to hit bets moving down, which would increase churn, theoretically at least. The market would become more efficient. </p><p>Demonstrating more pain for a customer base is the self-harm the hoarding of replays has caused and that brings us to the <b>third "fix"</b> - a clearing house for replays, say via Youtube, is something whose time has come. </p><p>Clicking an Equibase PP to a replay link and needing an account? </p><p>Clicking a TimeformUS past performance for a replay and seeing "Sorry, the track doesn't allow us to show this thing you need for handicapping and to give us money" (I only partially made that quote up)?</p><p>Seriously, what are you thinking? The only way this makes sense is if you have a business goal to annoy people. </p><p>Mencken's quote is probably correct in the broad context of horse racing. But why fixes like these aren't implemented isn't because the cookie recipe is too complex, it's that the cooks in the kitchen bake them that way. </p><p>Have a nice Friday everyone. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-52625943882381082492023-12-18T16:15:00.004-05:002023-12-18T16:24:28.634-05:00Gambling Gut Feels are Worth Something<p> One of my <a href="In 1983 a gentleman brought a statue to a museum that he said was from 600 B.C. Of course, the museum took this claim with skepticism. The asking price was 10 million, and not one of these statues had surfaced in years. It was thought by experts and historians alike that they were all discovered. So, the science began. 14 months later, after a battery of scientific testing, the museum said the statue was real. After it was purchased, when it was placed on display for experts to see, one watcher took one look at it and blurted out “I hope you didn’t pay much.” Another said, “there is something wrong here. I don’t know what it is, but there is something wrong.” All reported a subconscious, visceral reaction to the statue. They thought it was a fake, but they could not tell you why." target="_blank">first gambling posts on this blog</a> about fifteen years ago was about Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink":</p><div style="text-align: center;"><i>In 1983 a gentleman brought a statue to a museum that he said was from 600 B.C. Of course, the museum took this claim with skepticism. The asking price was 10 million, and not one of these statues had surfaced in years. It was thought by experts and historians alike that they were all discovered. So, the science began. </i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>14 months later, after a battery of scientific testing, the museum said the statue was real.
After it was purchased, when it was placed on display for experts to see, one watcher took one look at it and blurted out “I hope you didn’t pay much.” Another said, “there is something wrong here. I don’t know what it is, but there is something wrong.” All reported a subconscious, visceral reaction to the statue. They thought it was a fake, but they could not tell you why.</i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: left;">Later on through new testing, the statue was deemed in fact to be fake. The experts, through their unconscious competency, just knew. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I was watching The Forward Progress channel last night for the upcoming week in football (if you bet football and don't watch this show, in my humble opinion you're missing out). This show looks at the early lines and Rob Pizzola and Clive Bixby give their thoughts on each of the early sides and totals. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Rob - a seasoned line-watcher and football bettor - got to the Broncos-Patriots game and said, with regards to the 36.5 total, "this just feels too high to me."</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">He then said he had to do more work on the game, crunch numbers etc, but it still felt short. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It felt short to me too (as an amateur football bettor; I don't trust my gut yet), and I immediately bet the under. It's already moved to 34.5. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Rob "blinked" and his unconscious competency kicked in. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">In my original piece I tempered the use of "blink" in gambling, because frankly it can be dangerous. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">If we don't use this correctly we can get into results bias, or confirmation bias, and we end up "trusting our gut" when we need analysis, because our gut isn't good enough. We also just might not be good enough to have a gut. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Fifteen years later, however, I find myself swaying a bit more to the Gladwellian blink end. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://harnessracingupdate.com/2023/12/17/late-odds-shifts-make-their-way-to-the-meadowlands/" target="_blank">In a recent piece in HRU, the late odds shifts were examined</a>, which are coming primarily from late CAW money. Seasoned players I speak with talk about how this doesn't look orderly and there are holes in the final odds. They have gut odds boards and the gut doesn't match the betting. They are right. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I'm a huge numbers guy and have been for a long time. But in football, leaning on "blink" helps there too in my view. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">For me, there's nothing more fun in football than wondering if a young quarterback is going to be good or not so good. Looking at EPA per play, Jordan Love or Justin Fields or Bryce Young are being evaluated each week and have been for some time. Hell, pre-season Justin Fields was being talked about as an MVP bet. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But don't we lose the "blink" of watching how they play the game when we are so married and dive so far into the numbers rabbit hole?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I got a clip pinged to me about Kirk Cousins, one of my favorites, primarily because everyone thought he stunk and I couldn't figure out why, because he looked pretty good to me. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">If you like comparing young quarterbacks, look <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrmb7T7XU3Q" target="_blank">at this three minutes of his first start</a>. Washington was a mediocre team, the OL was meh, receiving core was okay, and the offense was built for a running QB, but he stepped in and let it fly.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div>
If you watch a ton of football you know what a decent QB looks like. We don't need EPA/P, or CPOE, or aDot, we can "blink". Compare those throws in that link to what you've seen over the years from rookies, and that's what a potentially good QB making his first start should look like. It's more CJ Stroud, and less Justin Fields.
<div><br /></div><div>Being a student of gambling over the many years I am surprised I originally discounted using "blink". I believe if you know how to use it, and don't overuse it, it's something worth leaning on, whether it be for sports or horses. </div><div><br /></div><div>Have a nice Monday everyone. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-2349671017755126062023-12-13T12:37:00.004-05:002023-12-13T12:41:40.930-05:00In Horse Racing it's Always Been About Doing the Doable <p>If you're on Horse Racing Twitter (or X, formerly known as twitter, or something) you've noticed big-time owner Mike Repole's new venture and quest to be Commissioner of All of Horse Racing. </p><p>Being open and transparent is pretty cool, but reading the replies to his feed is a tremendous education into how much cat herding has to be done in this disparate, fractured sport. He's getting it from all sides. And probably 99% of what he hears is simply undoable.</p><p>From the horseplayer end, the cries to lower takeout are sincere, and certainly (in my view at least) just fine. Unless your parents let you drop math in grade three, you know the sport is priced indefatigably wrong. It's a complete mess. </p><p>But Lowering Takeout in the Sport ™is one of those undoable non-starters, too. If they tried it in Russia, Putin probably couldn't make it happen, no matter how many people suddenly ate bad clams. </p><p>The only avenue that's achievable in this realm that I see, is rebating. </p><p>Twinspires, TVG/Fanduel, NYRA Bets and maybe a couple others who aren't already doing it, should be compelled to rebate action to any and all account holders. A 5% daily national blended rebate (they can go higher if they wish) is an immediate reduction in juice, but because this is done directly in ADW's it allows these companies to enhance their offerings, for those both inside and outside the sport. </p><p>If there's ten million bet on a day, the next morning account holders have balances of $500,000 to play with, instead of zero dollars to play with. And if the sport tries to get on the lower takeout train, zero dollars to play with is exactly what will happen. </p><p>I use the word "achievable" with little confidence, of course. These businesses could've done this 25 years ago and they haven't. However, if Repole does ever get some power, bringing a couple corporations aboard something that can be achieved at the flick of a switch seems a hell of a lot easier than committee meetings with dozens of state commissions, racetracks, and horsepeople groups until about 2045. </p><p><i>Note --</i></p><p>Have we read anything funnier lately than <a href="https://paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/view-from-the-eighth-pole-california-racing-heal-thyself/" target="_blank">Paulick's report</a> that California wants purse subsidies from ..... Kentucky? It makes me wonder just how bad the horse racing lobby has been in the Golden State. California is a place that taxes anything that moves, and gives out the proceeds like it's a game show. And they're begging Kentucky for money?</p><p>It's about 12 years to the day where I read this quote from a California trainer after the takeout hike which he was for. "We have to get while the getting's good". If you're seeking cash from Kentucky, I suspect the getting is definitely not good anymore. </p>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-39730087795456554312023-11-24T10:21:00.002-05:002023-11-24T10:23:29.099-05:00Horse Racing's Black Friday<p> On this Black Friday it's impossible for me to not share this gem from Bucky. </p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Lots of great horse racing <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BlackFriday?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BlackFriday</a> deals so grab them before they sell out<br /><br />Deposit bonuses, free bets, discounted merchandise, memorabilia, etc.<br /><br />Great job by the horse racing suits to attempt to capture market share on an unofficial US holiday</p>— Buck Swope (@ShotTakingTime) <a href="https://twitter.com/ShotTakingTime/status/1728037116490273064?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 24, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
We get he's poking fun and joking around, but satire only works if there's some truth to it. <div><br /></div><div>Over in Canuckland I noticed a very enticing Black Friday deal on something you'd never get a Black Friday deal on - sports programming. This programming has been costing more and more, and high carriage rates have followed. Online live streaming cost in the U.S. for example, with Fubo or Sling have been going up and up, primarily due to expensive live sports. ESPN have cut staff because of it. </div><div><br /></div><div>TSN in Canada, with TSN+ is discounted 40% - it's only $119.99 for an entire year. $10 per month. I'm honestly not sure how they did this. It was very surprising because this feels not only poor business from a CLV perspective, it feels break even at best. </div><div><br /></div><div>This is probably a much better deal than a horse racing ADW having a Black Friday sale of deposit $1,000, bet it, and get $200. There we'd bet $1,000, contribute $200 in rake anyway. We'd win, theoretically $960 back, and rebet that four or five times. And we'd be stickier in the ADW, playing more and more, exactly what we're supposed to be doing. </div><div><br /></div><div>You'd expect a quasi-monopoly in sports programming like Bell in Canada (who owns TSN) to find it incredibly hard to offer 40% off a years programming. But they did. </div><div><br /></div><div>Horse racing (not a monopoly in gambling) can't even enter the same zip code. In fact, even with a hundred million or so of subsidy, like at Kentucky Downs has, means a Black Friday increase in prices, not a reduction. </div><div><br /></div><div>If you're looking for a Black Friday deal in the sport I noticed Horse Racing Nation had one on content. But if you're betting into an ADW, pony up the big rake for another year. It's just the way things are run.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Notes: </i></div><div><br /></div><div>Chris is hard at work at his Bet With the Best pod. <a href="https://bet-with-the-best-podcast.simplecast.com/episodes" target="_blank">He had Emily from Optix and Steve Crist the last couple of weeks. </a></div><div><a href="https://bet-with-the-best-podcast.simplecast.com/episodes" target="_blank"><br /></a></div><div><br /></div>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-69446729876038275702023-11-20T14:51:00.006-05:002023-11-20T14:51:54.992-05:00"We Watch the Races"<p>I was listening to the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ski60jjSzCE" target="_blank">Forward Progress show on the NFL today</a> and they were talking about end of game time management and why many coaches have real trouble optimizing the clock. </p><p>@clevta made an interesting point. He said he actually talked to a coach about it, and the coach told him they're weaker at it because they only watch their own games. Meanwhile, people who wager and are fans watch every game, with every situation. This is especially done now, with Red Zone and Sunday Ticket, as well as all the analysis that follows. </p><p>That makes perfect sense to me. Head coaches are CEO's who are extremely busy with game plans, injuries, television, etc etc. How could they possibly watch every end-game scenario like we do?</p><p>This in my view is similar to racing, and why we catch things your every day track exec might be late to the game on. </p><p>Scratching horses at the gate and not delaying a pick 5 wager? The latest barn that's hot? Slow quarters, or favorites stiffed? Betting odds changes? The list goes on and on. </p><p>We watch them in real time, each and every day. And we have money on them, so the profit motive - something that's made this world work for 300 plus years - is alive and well with us. </p><p>I remember years ago chatting with a track executive (who was really talented and one of the good guys) and mentioned this new barn that was a probable front for a suspended trainer. The new trainer barely made three starts, but anyone who bet the game knew the score, and was cashing at 5-2 or lower on these horses (today these horses would've probably been 2-5 with so little public cash in the pools). He didn't even know what I was talking about. </p><p>He's working 8 to 5 dealing with governments, horsemen groups, spreadsheets and everything else. </p><p>NFL bettors watch the games and we watch the races. We need to remember, not all are able to in the same way. </p><p>The NFL has partially addressed this by hiring people who understand the clock who advise the coach. It appears horse racing hasn't bridged this gap the same way........ yet. </p><p>Note- <a href="https://harnessracingupdate.com/2023/11/19/this-weeks-tote-problems-illustrate-racings-innovation-black-hole/" target="_blank">The FanDuel tote snafu was talked about at HRU</a>. The lack of innovation in the game was the focus. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-18706687583771508542023-10-17T12:00:00.004-04:002023-10-17T12:03:56.200-04:00Mike Florio Uses Favorites Defensively & Other Notes<p>In football, using math runs the same gamut we see in racing when it comes to making the right play, or constructing the right ticket. </p><p>Case in point, NBC's Mike Florio:</p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">"A coach doesn't have the benefit of thousands of opportunities to do that where the trend favors him."<br /><br />I hear this argument a lot and it never made sense to me.<br /><br />The existence of variance in small samples is not an argument for making bad decisions! <a href="https://t.co/VHDq71NGRO">pic.twitter.com/VHDq71NGRO</a></p>— Computer Cowboy (@benbbaldwin) <a href="https://twitter.com/benbbaldwin/status/1341170161429196802?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 21, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Leaving aside that thousands of data points is the whole shebang of the matter: If you watch the clip, Florio explains his opinion about how the math can be right, but if you're a coach and you blow the calls in these certain situations (leaning to the 'risky' call and having it not work), you don't have a job anymore. <div><br /></div><div>His odd diatribe (and this is not uncommon with old school folks) is totally beholden to not logic or math or doing what's correct - but for self preservation. </div><div><br /></div><div>This is exactly the argument about playing a chalk defensively in a pick 5. It's all about the preservation of the ticket, even though the math says if we add favorites to every leg, our chances of winning long term is precisely zero. </div><div><br /></div><div>We all hate to lose. A coach doesn't want to look like a fool on 4th and three too often to save his job, and we want to get through leg four by adding this horse, and this horse and that horse to "save" our ticket. </div><div><br /></div><div>But in the end, if we do that - coach or horseplayer - we're both still losing. </div><div><br /></div><div><i>Notes:</i></div><div><br /></div><div>My lunch time listen - <a href="https://twitter.com/derby1592/status/1714271660482978152" target="_blank">Chris has a good guest, Sean</a>, on his Bet with the Best pod. Interested to hear how he's moved his play to Hong Kong racing. </div><div><br /></div><div>20 cent Jackpots are slowly dying, with Del Mar joining the $1 pick 6 category this fall. It's one of the weird items where tracks have listened to folks. </div><div><br /></div><div>I <a href="https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/2093/how-high-takeout-ruined-italian-racing/" target="_blank">read an article from a few years ago again recently</a>. It's where Italian racing raised rakes to around 30% from 15%. Of note to me i) It didn't die in year one, it took about 20 years. This is drip, drip, not an avalanche, ii) They finally, after 22 years tried to change taxing to GGR, to stem the tide and make life better for customers and iii) our takeout in NA, when we factor in the teams, etc, is probably approaching 30% and has for a few years. </div><div><br /></div><div>Will racing pivot at all here? As we saw this summer when Kentucky Downs raised takeout, not likely any time soon. </div><div><br /></div><div>Have a nice Tuesday everyone. </div><div><br /></div>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-88019717654020114102023-10-13T14:33:00.005-04:002023-10-13T14:38:33.354-04:00Is Morning Line Making the Toughest Job in Racing?<p> I saw this tweet by Nick yesterday. Nick is the morning line maker at Keeneland.</p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">I promise I’m not being a smart ass. I clearly made a horrendous line there on Toupie. It’s embarrassing and I hate it. But what did those of you who bet her like? I use every fig available in making lines and watch replays. She was too high at 20, but how could she be <10-1?</p>— Nick Tammaro (@NTamm1215) <a href="https://twitter.com/NTamm1215/status/1710396907036537082?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 6, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
"How could she be less than 10-1?"<div><br /><div>She was, because despite Nick's due diligence, some are playing a different game when it comes to handicapping, and assigning probabilities. </div><div><br /></div><div>Pick virtually any random race in this day and age, and we'll see two horses that meet the co 7-5 shot eye test - and sharp players like Nick will have them 9-5 and 8-5 in the morning line - but one will be 4-5 and the other will be 5-2. </div><div><br /></div><div>Rewind the clock 20 years, and we could predict this hot trainer, with a hot jock, with a horse who has won three in a row will be 4-5. "The public is gonna be all over this horse" and that was more often than not an accurate prediction. Now it's supremely difficult because oftentimes this is not the case. </div><div><br /></div><div>Just last night at Mohawk in race five there was what looked to be a two horse race. One of the horses was a likely 3-5 shot. He had won in 1:54 in nw2 already and was eligible in the same class. The other was beaten in his first try in nw2, and had never gone speed the chalk has already been in. 5 of 6 track handicappers picked the obvious chalk on top.</div><div><br /></div><div>He lost, which happens. But he <i>wasn't even the favorite.</i> The other one was, at even money. </div><div><br /></div><div>How can one predict this? We can't. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now, put that into the context of a morning line maker - they're up against things like this each and every race. </div><div><br /></div><div>Most professionals in the game will tell you that the odds board does the handicapping for you, and they're not far off, either logically or in reality. It's all the sharp money from a lot of you, inside money, or outside money from people who have an expensive algo that's gone through billions of simulations that produces profit. Every single eyeball, every single dollar is represented, and the money is sharper than it ever has been. </div><div><br /></div><div>Morning line makers (no matter how skilled) are having to make these lines themselves, days before race time. It's an almost impossible job, and those skilled enough like Nick and David at NYRA for example, are bringing a pea shooter to a gun fight. Frankly, they even being as close as they are, is something I marvel at. </div><div><br /></div><div>Have a great weekend everyone.</div><p></p></div>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-553739819037367002023-10-02T12:19:00.005-04:002023-10-02T12:22:15.399-04:00The Ryder Cup Slot Money. Racing Could Learn a Thing or Two<p>This weekend's Ryder Cup in Rome was probably not quite as exciting as it could be, with the U.S. in a deep hole going into Sunday singles. What happened on the course might've not been overly interesting, but off it, sparks flew. </p><p>Reports noted that <a href="https://twitter.com/chambleebrandel/status/1708120574201872650" target="_blank">one U.S. player was almost kicked off the team because of a protest</a> (likely involving the want for more compensation), and "rifts" were pretty much the story of the weekend. They all appeared to involve (some) players wanting to be paid in cash for the week. </p><p>The Ryder Cup's revenue is not unlike slot money in horse racing. It's a cash infusion outside its main events to organizations that run and grow the game. </p><p>Where <a href="https://twitter.com/chambleebrandel/status/1708120574201872650" target="_blank">does the money go?</a></p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>20% of TV revenue goes to the PGA of America, this funds player pensions. Not all pro golfers end up rich. </li><li>Revenue funds programs for junior golf, and college golf. It helps keep the pipeline of players going. </li><li>Programs like Drive Chip and Putt, inner city golf for young people, and international golf is also funded. It helps golf become more of an inclusive and worldwide game. If golf is taken up early, people can play it for 50 years. This obviously helps the long-term health of the industry, like for example, demand at your local golf course.</li><li>Each player is given $200,000 ($4.8M total) for the charity of their choice (half of which is earmarked to be golf related). Since this is a tax write-off, that's some direct compensation. </li></ul><div>Regardless, the cash certainly doesn't go to some old rich guy in a top hat and a cigar, nor does it just go for "purses".</div><div><br /></div><div>When we contrast this with horse racing slot cash, it's a different story.</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>20% doesn't go to horse retirement, or jockey and driver pensions, or trainer pensions.</li><li>Millions don't go to cultivate the game; to engage the public, to grow horseplayers. Horseplayers are reached pretty young too, and they can play the game for 50 years or more. But with slots, they still play into 25% takeouts, making this a difficult pursuit (especially in the new world with 4.54% sports betting and everything else). </li></ul><div>In this sport, the slots money tends to go to two places - to purses and corporations that own the racetracks. </div></div><div><br /></div><div>Ironically, the money in horse racing that does go for things the Ryder Cup funds -- retirement, backstretch items, workers comp, promotion etc -- are taken from the betting dollar. The thing that <i>they don't use slot money to directly grow. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-style: italic; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjgk5uqwd3Ank4DAYxBjgJOqi30SxXIW_johBMl7DYiutiYeCTyA4hFlwxIV3IQG8ON5u-npIET5ijClNiPAclmNRZu4xAfXhXr8DCscZj-l_ui4zI8EFkEKOzBDeL1mjlg_SEkw65404cmdzRh802Zo8M4b9DG9o2amZqRbL3nhrZeNpUy4O2YGzkdgTE" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1420" data-original-width="1436" height="395" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjgk5uqwd3Ank4DAYxBjgJOqi30SxXIW_johBMl7DYiutiYeCTyA4hFlwxIV3IQG8ON5u-npIET5ijClNiPAclmNRZu4xAfXhXr8DCscZj-l_ui4zI8EFkEKOzBDeL1mjlg_SEkw65404cmdzRh802Zo8M4b9DG9o2amZqRbL3nhrZeNpUy4O2YGzkdgTE=w400-h395" width="400" /></a></div><br /><br /></div><div>No matter how we feel about players getting paid to play the weekend in a Ryder Cup, they are certainly doing their part to grow the game. Can we say the same thing about slot money in horse racing?</div><div><br /></div><p></p>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-39790245975211647662023-09-22T14:11:00.002-04:002023-09-22T14:22:21.614-04:00Sports Bettors Arguing About "Peripherals" & They're What Horseplayers Use Every Day to Seek an Edge<p>Like most of you I enjoy looking at the gamble, and that's brought me into the sports betting world for some time now. </p><p>As betting on, in this case, football is concerned, we've seen more and more interest with the proliferation of legal gambling in both the U.S. and Canada. This interest has spawned a lot of discussion. One of those recently struck me.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">That’s the ENTIRE point of this discussion, to predict future success. PFF and other sites/metrics don’t exist to tell you “X had 2 sacks” we already know that. They’re trying to fight through the randomness and tell you who’s actually producing. Simple stats tell untrue stories. <a href="https://t.co/gviTpbEHVZ">https://t.co/gviTpbEHVZ</a></p>— Mitchell Schwartz (@MitchSchwartz71) <a href="https://twitter.com/MitchSchwartz71/status/1704711550429286700?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 21, 2023</a></blockquote><p>Here we have a bettor discount metrics that go beyond the published statistics. These are advanced metrics, like pass rush win rates, yards per play, removing turnovers from expected points or yards, etc. Mitchell forcefully says "simple stats tell untrue stories."</p><p>Of course that's true! Yet time and time again - peruse the interwebs for these discussions and you will find them from all types of sports bettors - you'll see or get an argument. </p><p>Meanwhile back at the track, Andy Beyer was writing about fancy stats and the untruth of the top line wins and losses or final times since the 1970's when he devised a better speed figure. These final times have morphed into performance figures and more with Thorograph and others. </p><p>Everyone with a hope to beat the game has been looking at trips on replay and adjusting final times and figures based on it. </p><p>The often used TimeformUS pace projector is <i>exactly about projecting future success</i> and we'd never think of arguing about it. </p><p>*Everything* we do as horseplayers is about predicting future success based on the event (i.e. the race), and discounting (or enhancing) previous factors in the PP's. </p><p>I think horseplayers can learn a lot from good sports bettors. Even many casual sports bettors pay attention to 4.5% win takeout and line shopping and money management, for example, and we all should too. </p><p>But boy can sports bettors learn a lot from horseplayers. When it comes to match ups, unique race modeling, hidden positives and scoping what's *not* in the PP's, in my view, from the most casual player to the most seasoned, we're light years ahead. </p><p>Have a nice weekend everyone.</p> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-35086105549374054492023-09-05T11:07:00.002-04:002023-09-05T12:36:22.556-04:00Thoughts on the Spa Meet that Was<p>I, like many of you, watched most of the Saratoga meet this season. I figure I'd jot down a few thoughts. </p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Handle was down only 9%. Considering the weather, the scratches and all the rest, this is a strong number. Many years ago I turned to a NYRA card, saw off the turf and a three horse scratched down turf to dirt field and it generated more than almost every other track I was watching. That brand is bonkers. But still, only 9% is surprising to me. </li><li>The pick 5 debacle and the response to the breakdowns, to me, is a symptom of on the fly confusion in a sport such as ours. The left hand often doesn't know what the right hand is doing when things are happening fast. I'd hope, and expect, they work on a plan for upcoming meets and this gets better; including updated protocols on scratching, which even after the breakdowns seemed somewhat capricious. </li><li>The stewarding is a sore spot, and it'd be foolish to say these are just whiny bettors whining. I'd love to see an overhaul to breed more consistency in the judges room. A good place to start - if a horse is getting herded or bumped near a wire and he or she loses by a nose or a head, it's by all logic and reason a toss. You can't let some go and some not go when the margin is so thin. </li><li>NYRA's team and those who follow it continues to be pretty awesome, in my view, <a href="https://twitter.com/IsolatedTops/status/1699068071024132337" target="_blank">and Phil's. </a> Aragona's lines were solid, his analysis strong. Say what you want about Serling, and most of us do, but he adds sizzle and sharpness and thoughts to his picks. The paddock crew is very good because they obviously do the work. We can tell when we're getting the right information and what's being mailed in and there's no mailing it in with Maggie and Acacia. </li><li>I don't think Frank had a super strong meet, and I know some agree. But with race callers it's simply someone's opinion more often than not. Maybe I'm still smarting when he pretty much called my pick 5 key home when he was staggering and I got beat and it's jaded me. </li><li>Short stakes fields can be the norm and I doubt we're doing anything about that. But one thing I'd like to see a powerful entity like NYRA spearhead, is building a system where the takeout is directly correlated to field size. Two four to fives, a six to one and two twelve to ones is silly. They're big enough to do this and set a new market for others in the sport to follow. </li><li>I was not overly sold on the whole kicking CRW's out at two minutes to post thing, but after watching win prices and betting accordingly, I was pretty pleased with this change. It did affect the changing of prices near the bell and I was confident that when I bet I was going to get my number. </li><li>I was down this meet, which started well with a nice pick 4. I handicapped well and was on a lot of the right horses, but I simply couldn't get rid of the seconditis, and failed to convert way too many last legs of the multis. The biggest kick in the ass - a $20k score on a skinny $10 pick 5 ticket with the chalk going, and a $10k score on the third choice in the same race with a $4 ticket. They ran third and fourth. Oh this game we play. </li></ul><div>For a full recap of thoughts on the meet, Chuck and Barry's pod is up and fresh <a href="https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-going-in-circles-83893010/episode/going-in-circles-big-monday-show-122483479/?cmp=ios_share&sc=ios_social_share&pr=false" target="_blank">this morning here.</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Chris's Bet with the Best pod <a href="https://twitter.com/derby1592/status/1698865799514173842" target="_blank">has Dan on here.</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Beem has some <a href="https://betamericarn.libsyn.com/jason-beem-horse-racing-podcast-9523-weekend-recap?_ga=2.236399363.306232089.1693858187-118726848.1681695728&_gl=1*ho2a5q*_ga*MTE4NzI2ODQ4LjE2ODE2OTU3Mjg.*_ga_6MD8SMG8NT*MTY5Mzg3MTEyMi40NDIuMS4xNjkzODcxMjcxLjYwLjAuMA" target="_blank">Spa talk this morning as well.</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Have a great Tuesday everyone</div><p></p>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-51367482046221292962023-08-28T13:15:00.008-04:002023-08-28T13:27:45.367-04:00Horse Racing - The Sport that Loves Data, and Then Never Uses it. <p>After a disasterous couple of weeks at NYRA, on the heels of a disasterous run at Churchill, there ain't been much good to talk about. And the response, so far at least, doesn't amount to much. </p><p>It's a sport that says it has data to make these tough decisions. Here's some of that data:</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Here is the relative risk ratio for US racetrack fatalities:<br />RR = 1 means that track does not affect outcome<br />RR < 1 means that risk of fatality is decreased by the track, so a "protective factor"<br />RR > 1 means that the risk of fatality is increased by the track, so a "risk factor" <a href="https://t.co/H2nUvPVKzE">pic.twitter.com/H2nUvPVKzE</a></p>— Performance Genetics (@Perf_Genetics) <a href="https://twitter.com/Perf_Genetics/status/1695870710101553387?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 27, 2023</a></blockquote><p>That data is not the right kind of data, so the sport looks for other data that fits better, or something. </p><p>There's plenty of data on lowering takeout to increase handle and make the sport more popular. In fact, Magna, or whatever we're calling it these days, certainly has some. They're the home of Elite Turf Club, which hits everyone right in the face with their massive volume with lower takeout. </p><p>There's also the same set of data that shows increasing purses to be much less effective to increase handle. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUzcrkoAwIgy2oyghbIW6dAyriaV0V_lyD8yLJHWTYLlaW8XlfQUKi-se0_m7kDLBbL593Urvmo-3BN0iOcsU9ItaJfhCKJOvv4qJNvrYdp_0PYa6_db75_7TKvb8827vKpdApo1NZzcrIr1d-3AmdYpuV6Z5K0uWTX0chjvWZa2aNOydLPhH8p31uYcY/s666/uofl.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="215" data-original-width="666" height="129" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUzcrkoAwIgy2oyghbIW6dAyriaV0V_lyD8yLJHWTYLlaW8XlfQUKi-se0_m7kDLBbL593Urvmo-3BN0iOcsU9ItaJfhCKJOvv4qJNvrYdp_0PYa6_db75_7TKvb8827vKpdApo1NZzcrIr1d-3AmdYpuV6Z5K0uWTX0chjvWZa2aNOydLPhH8p31uYcY/w400-h129/uofl.PNG" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p>I'm sure Kentucky Downs has seen that data. Hell, the above even came from a university in Kentucky. </p><p>Then why did they cry poor and increase takeout <i>while increasing purses?</i></p><p><a href="https://www.drf.com/news/racing-officials-consider-postponing-saratogas-sunday-card-following-two-more-breakdowns" target="_blank">Matt wrote a piece about the issues at the Spa for the DRF last week</a>, and this line caught my eye. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGIi_qLyTTSHY8LoRLfLWY8toBdp73nj8U2NUNAF2Q-PjJzCYQQSyOl6On5zwGMKoHKEZe-xjpsmTs60TAFIsSNMlG0sX8FnE7WNTyZyfFMBGkGuMA3v7N3hh4Io3MeRP11hYSnLq2J1tqp_j63Ooceh1EHWfPTd6OIn-QOPYgbLPS-sc0O_HHuU33BeM/s1597/drr.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="489" data-original-width="1597" height="122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGIi_qLyTTSHY8LoRLfLWY8toBdp73nj8U2NUNAF2Q-PjJzCYQQSyOl6On5zwGMKoHKEZe-xjpsmTs60TAFIsSNMlG0sX8FnE7WNTyZyfFMBGkGuMA3v7N3hh4Io3MeRP11hYSnLq2J1tqp_j63Ooceh1EHWfPTd6OIn-QOPYgbLPS-sc0O_HHuU33BeM/w400-h122/drr.PNG" width="400" /></a></div><p>It's 4th and four from your own 38 with three minutes left down 8. The data guys have run the numbers; they've placed them into a real time algo, and it shows a clear answer: Go for it. </p><p>If you're the sport of horse racing, you do what you always do. Ignore the data and punt. </p><p>Have a nice Monday everyone. </p> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-86534718826505048962023-08-25T12:37:00.007-04:002023-08-25T12:53:50.934-04:00Is it Time They Investigated the Mohawk Betting Pools?<p>Peruse twitter for only a moment the past couple of years and you'll find tweet after tweet about some of the odd payoffs at Mohawk. </p><p>But last night it probably reached its zenith. </p><p>Race 3, a horse with one flat line took boatloads of money in one flash, moving from 5-1 to 2-1 and crushed at 5-2. <a href="https://twitter.com/WoodbineSB/status/1694840299976012186/photo/3">One handicapper on the Mohawk feed had the horse third</a>, the rest not in their top four or five. </p><p>A race later, another horse with a flat line was bet from the off in all pools and closed at 4-5 and crushed by many. <a href="https://twitter.com/WoodbineSB/status/1694840299976012186/photo/4" target="_blank">Again, these seasoned handicappers on the feed were in the dark</a>, with not one of them even having the horse in the top four. </p><p>Race 7 a 10-1 morning line horse <a href="https://twitter.com/WoodbineSB/status/1694840370843079142/photo/3">who again was not even in the top four of any handicapper</a> closed as chalk and won easily. </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The money is so good at Mobine. Almost There Boss 1 for 17 in 2023 goes off favored from a 10/1 ML and just crushes.</p>— Buck Swope (@ShotTakingTime) <a href="https://twitter.com/ShotTakingTime/status/1694891246567776370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 25, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><p>Then the coup de grace. A horse not on anyone's radar, crushed in the last setting a new life's mark by three seconds in a driving rainstorm. Not only did the horse take money from the get-go, he actually went down from a crazy 7-5 to a completely inexplicable 3-5 the last couple of flashes. </p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">As soon as the will pays were posted we knew two things for sure. The 3 had zero chance. The 6 was winning. They just make it so obvious many times on not only what’s probably winning but also on what has no shot. That’s what happens when they’re all betting.</p>— BradA (@BradA53472906) <a href="https://twitter.com/BradA53472906/status/1695106730420576740?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 25, 2023</a></blockquote><p> What in heaven's name is going on there?</p><p>We all know math, and that the pools are fairly efficient. Most of us who've played the game since we were 12 years old can spot a 4-5 shot or a bad line. Linesmakers like David Aragona for many years has never once been so far off a horse who is bet down from high morning lines to 3-5 or 4-5. Never once would be so far off that it stretches all credulity, at places like Belmont or Saratoga. </p><p>At Mohawk this seems to happen on a regular basis. </p><p>Customers, in my view, deserve to know what's been happening. I'd hope a professionally run racetrack would want to know, too. </p><p>Have a nice Friday everyone. </p> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-36650433881022215642023-08-21T14:45:00.004-04:002023-08-21T14:52:03.154-04:00Companies Making Sports Betting More Complicated is a Problem for Customers, But It's Life<p>I noticed a tweet today from the CEO of a new betting exchange. He was illustrating that even making a bet on a "square" side - in this case the Ravens - can get you limited.</p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">I tried to place a bet on the non “whale, sharp, people who can change lines” side of the market. <br /><br />Am I doing this right? <a href="https://t.co/yn2QigdxHL">https://t.co/yn2QigdxHL</a> <a href="https://t.co/bxXPgzBCPz">pic.twitter.com/bxXPgzBCPz</a></p>— Alex Kane (@a_kane47) <a href="https://twitter.com/a_kane47/status/1693631203721585095?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 21, 2023</a></blockquote><p>Sports betting through Fanduel or whomever, I think we all agree, should be pretty basic. They have millions on account, they take bets and if you want to bet the Ravens, you bet the Ravens. But it's not the case. </p><p>Exchanges were created about 25 years ago, and the simplicity of them were apparent from the off. As long as there was someone on the other side, you'd get filled, and with a worldwide market, it wasn't hard to get filled. The exchange took their 4% or 5% and off we went. </p><p>This was true for virtually any event of any size. </p><p>Back in 2004 I remember playing the US election markets on Betfair. Because of the curious nature of Florida's results in 2000, the networks were loathe to call the state quickly and the markets were vibrant. Eventhough George W. Bush was in the driver's seat from the data if you dug even a little, I sat across from my playing partner as he bet $75,000 on Bush, in-running. </p><p>That bet didn't need an approval from a CEO. It didn't need a board of directors to manage the risk. It needed a market and a click of a mouse. And this was <i>2004</i>. </p><p>Betting markets today have been bastardized, likely in my view, because of corporatization. The pure exchange model, a shake hands event, doesn't deliver lifetime value needed to sustain revenues. The corporates need you betting parlays, the online casino or blackjack, or online poker. Getting 5% of winning bets? It's just not enough to feed the complex, bloated beast that is <insert ticker symbol here>. Hey, they aren't a charity. </p><p>We lament a great deal about betting in horse racing and we should. 20% win juice on a five horse field is like flushing money down the toilet; massive rebates for a few tilts the takeout rates not our way. Corporates who want to curtail signals, raise fees etc, are not on our side, they're just trying to squeeze lemons. But it's all we have. </p><p>It appears, at the present time at least, it's all sports bettors have, too. They've shuffled out a pure, almost perfect handshake medium in the quest of ever more customer lifetime value. Maybe the market will shift once again, and this model can return en masse at places like Sporttrade, but it seems pretty doubtful. </p><p>Have a great Monday everyone. </p><p><br /></p> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-89002015834556816702023-08-16T15:22:00.007-04:002023-08-16T15:23:55.471-04:00We Can Still Bet a Little to Win a Lot in Pick 5's<p>The game is tough now, no doubt about that, but if we're smart we can still find overlaid payoffs that can keep the lights on. </p><p>There's a narrative abound (although, I think it's just a critique of warm and cuddly ITP from some of his many fans) that chalk somehow has to be thrown out like an old pair of socks to make a score. That's certainly not true; bettors who throw out good chalk are at the ATM, hoping not to see zeros. </p><p>No we have to not like the chalk, for whatever reason. And with smaller ticket cost, for smaller players it's easier to capitalize on that more than ever. </p><p>Case in point, Tuesday at Mohawk. </p><p>The 6-5 chalk won leg one, a 24-1 shot won leg two, a 3-2 favorite won leg three, a 2-1 second choice won leg four and a 5-1 shot third choice won the last leg. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyEVEToULZJVXAItIuY214Yoh-UqygD-cKMTL_BlVngWAasIHXyjAwUZEC9gUtFIvR444BGQeyd72JKHcT38qqjHmVxVI51Fky7Qg7gVkTQrg_U0Iwwp-1V3XXR_OJHj9aPDFRl4nQ59kwFSIxTO129havKTUss-E8Triosylx7HUI0QILxsqWtZtxuQQ/s650/p5.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="495" data-original-width="650" height="305" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyEVEToULZJVXAItIuY214Yoh-UqygD-cKMTL_BlVngWAasIHXyjAwUZEC9gUtFIvR444BGQeyd72JKHcT38qqjHmVxVI51Fky7Qg7gVkTQrg_U0Iwwp-1V3XXR_OJHj9aPDFRl4nQ59kwFSIxTO129havKTUss-E8Triosylx7HUI0QILxsqWtZtxuQQ/w400-h305/p5.PNG" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p>The pick 5 paid $21,000 for $1, or about 8 times parlay. I bet eight billion of you had 4 of 5, because the four legs were as easy as pie. </p><p>The sole reason that occurred was because the leg two chalk was a 1-9 shot. But this 1-9 shot could be one of those favorites we don't toss out like a pair of old socks, but one we strategically try to beat. She was coming out of the Hambletonian Oaks elim and final where she was torched with hard, hard fractions. She shipped back and she was jammed back in. It's perfectly logical to think she might be vulnerable, as a lot of trotters are after taxing efforts. </p><p>And she was. She was on one line and appeared sore, she was overdriven and lost to a nice horse who just happened to be 24-1, but certainly was a contender. </p><p>If we felt that way about the chalk in leg two, the leverage was massive. </p><p>We could play: 1-45710 (contenders outside the 1-9 shot)-5-3-2579 for $16 or $3.20 for a twenty cent ticket. </p><p>We can't thread the needle completely perhaps, so let's spread the other races with likely winners. We're still probably at $14.40 or $21.60 for a twenty cent ticket. </p><p>How many times as a small player have you thrown away ten or twenty bucks on a win bet or tri or super? I'm sure many. This is just another case of it. </p><p>On the excellent Bet with the Best podcast, Chris and his guests often speak of situations like this. It's tossing a Cody's Wish or a Baffert strong chalk that you see might be doing something they've never done before, or who looked a little off in last week's work, or whose barn might've gone completely cold. We're not tossing to toss, we're tossing something we don't like for tremendous value. </p><p>We won't see this often. and it won't cash a significant percentage of the time even if we do recognize it. But for a relatively small outlay, it can result in $20,000 scores. And that's a whole lotta $10 or $20 stabs when you see the phenomenon potentially come up again. </p><p>Have a nice Wednesday everyone. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /><br /></p>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-30334681835728652202023-08-10T10:19:00.005-04:002023-08-10T10:25:39.473-04:00VP of Wagering<p> No Monday blog the last couple of weeks with a lot going on, but...... </p><p>Most <a href="https://www.nyra.com/saratoga/news/%E2%80%8Bnyra-to-seed-saturday%E2%80%99s-late-pick-5-with-additional-$100k" target="_blank">everyone saw the debacle</a> that was the Saratoga late pick five on Sunday. With the super-late change to off the turf, about $1M in wagers became a total mess. Someone then dropped the ball and didn't delay post time so people could cancel or change their tickets. To make things as right as they can, there's a $100k pick five seed slated for this Saturday. </p><p>How do things like this seem to continually happen in this sport? </p><p>Sure there are a lot of moving parts in getting a race card, or race off. Mother nature and acts of God certainly play at least some role at times. Sometimes things are nobody's fault. </p><p>However, a good deal of the time they are someone's fault. And I think it's because no one is employed in virtually in any of these corporations-run-as-racetracks that's there to mind the betting store. </p><p>When <a href="http://pullthepocket.blogspot.com/2016/06/churchills-pick-6-same-stuff-different.html" target="_blank">Churchill quickly cancelled a last race on a card</a> with a customer having a chance at $700,000 as a sole ticket jackpot winner, no one was there to say "we owe it to the customer to wait it out and get this race off". I doubt anyone who made the decision<i> even knew about </i>the will pays. </p><p>When the Kentucky Racing Commission allowed Churchill to take half a carryover pool - something <a href="https://www.drf.com/news/crist-sumptuous-feast-fans-and-players" target="_blank">Steve Crist called the "Sick Six"</a> a day later - and use it for an upcoming card, there was no one there to say, well, Steve Crist is going to write about it tomorrow because it stinks. There was apparently no one employed who even recognized this would become an issue. </p><p>The list, of course, goes on and on. </p><p>There are people out there, perfectly capable to say, "let's give bettors five minutes to change their wagers", or "hey, can we wait for this cell to move through because one of our customers has a chance at $700,000", or "let's not card a 12 horse field maiden claimer on synth as the third leg of a pick six mandatory", or "hey, these will pays are weird we need to look into this race" or ..... you get the picture. </p><p>But the problem is, there's no job opening for them to do it. </p><p>Without someone minding the wagering store these things will happen again and again and again. It's fixable, but for decades they seem unable or unwilling to address it. It completely boggles my mind. </p><p>Have a nice Thursday everyone. </p>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560898823512627114.post-68435505376034143462023-07-24T10:47:00.004-04:002023-07-24T18:28:19.981-04:00Monday's Super Spectacular Blog - The Way I Wake Up, Old Time Comparison Stats, CRW Op-Eds, CJ Dressed for the Spa, and Goodbyes<p style="text-align: left;">Welcome to this Monday's edition of the Super Spectacular Blog! </p><p style="text-align: left;">In honor of CJ Milkowski this week's SSB will have no run up. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Let's go!</p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">F</span>irst, you're all on twitter so no doubt you've read about the "Deep State" conspiracy. I have never been a proponent, but this week I began to believe it for horse racing. </p><p style="text-align: left;">My blog has been - as you all know - under a lot of scrutiny; from people like Scott Daruty, Fred Pope, Russians and especially TVG. We Rock the Boat like Hues Incorporated here. </p><p style="text-align: left;">TVG must have a bug in my house. Because, yes, this is the way I get prepared for the races each and every day. They saw me doing this, and stole it. It's the only explanation. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Folks, beware of the Deep Horse Racing State, and even though Jason Beem has an Alexa in his North Tampa Bay mansion and we all wanna be like him, destroy yours immediately. </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Are you READY for Haskell Day?! <br /><br />We have a full team at both <a href="https://twitter.com/MonmouthPark?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MonmouthPark</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/DelMarRacing?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DelMarRacing</a> today for a stellar Saturday of racing! <a href="https://t.co/rhGy3hTFbp">pic.twitter.com/rhGy3hTFbp</a></p>— Christina Blacker (@ChristinaFDTV) <a href="https://twitter.com/ChristinaFDTV/status/1682761402606551040?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 22, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">J</span>erry Brown <a href="https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/letter-to-the-editor-existential-crisis-no-hyperbole/">wrote an oped in the Thoroughbred Daily News</a> about the computer teams that generated a ton of chatter this week. He made several points, most of them that we've spoken about here on the blog, and have made the rounds on twitter. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Primarily, Jerry suggests the sport lower the teams' rebates and not allow them to bet into the pools when three minutes to post is hit. </p><p style="text-align: left;">That's fine I suppose, but I don't know what that would do, frankly, because it's more than just the teams betting with models and with rebates at places like Elite, but his two points do seem to have some backing from inside the industry. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Regardless, industry arguments tend to be circular, because they are talking about symptoms and don't in my view address the real problems with pricing. Couching them into "this hurts the retail player too much" when the industry has killed the retail player for a half century with usurious takeout feels completely disingenuous to me. </p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">H</span>ot take here. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Australia horse racing is currently not the Titanic, because years ago they added new avenues to bet while offering better pricing for those who are price sensitive. Broadening the tent and modernizing an industry that was protected is not in the harvesting phase of the product life cycle. </p><p style="text-align: left;">The industry in North America, unfortunately as we all know, never really stopped steering towards the iceberg, and we see this take. And with the way the game is run here, it's not necessarily wrong, in my opinion. </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Biggest takeaway for me - people are arguing about the size of the plates in the dining room of the Titanic. <br /><br />Takeout is a bad argument. Always has been. And it’s irrelevant now. <br /><br />When these tracks are gone in 3 years folks will say “wow maybe they should have taken more.” <a href="https://t.co/kk4B7eodlT">https://t.co/kk4B7eodlT</a></p>— Stetson Wilson (@stet_dot_net) <a href="https://twitter.com/stet_dot_net/status/1681627715860930562?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 19, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">I</span> was messing around with "X" start off layoff last month; particularly interested in comparing older data (in this case 2006) to newer (2022). </p><p style="text-align: left;">First, here's a snip of 2006 data (courtesy jcapper.com) sorted by start off layoff. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPw-l3YtiseuujXWRZR2-kEPI75t78SyaQySgKmRUL1bLDHfiNM8voaz4NBJn-HRgndqg6hWD7tQOh8F--pHNhwv26_I_ou5xkXXKHdbpyHQdYw_faZ8OK6_Ug6FKdDfeHZumOLFk6-ymvv9Z0WjvexseqQBJ0n9GfuINPWApZHvG_XpTrU6-jDE0uIqE/s571/2007.PNG" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="221" data-original-width="571" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPw-l3YtiseuujXWRZR2-kEPI75t78SyaQySgKmRUL1bLDHfiNM8voaz4NBJn-HRgndqg6hWD7tQOh8F--pHNhwv26_I_ou5xkXXKHdbpyHQdYw_faZ8OK6_Ug6FKdDfeHZumOLFk6-ymvv9Z0WjvexseqQBJ0n9GfuINPWApZHvG_XpTrU6-jDE0uIqE/w549-h213/2007.PNG" width="549" /></a><br /><br /></p></div><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">Notice the first start impact value is low, second start higher. Sweet spots were 4th and 5th off the layoff, with correponding ROI boosts. </p><p style="text-align: left;">And here's a snip from last year. </p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqUjO_3i4Qfy3-v-H0l2zRHIMaLOsIq_7spLGPCXEgxnraksDA_L6I2navnOFUd9Pz-n1ikw8AQLxkSnqTRnOtXosx0oQpYHny9Rbqqy0s2krvJSQLLxSguCb21g-l1IU0qdG1Rz87Gb5v43o8wfCxqxpunj3KYW8oO59EcxR8xH6BQMWqBTv1nIZzAzA/s873/lo2022.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="624" data-original-width="873" height="401" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqUjO_3i4Qfy3-v-H0l2zRHIMaLOsIq_7spLGPCXEgxnraksDA_L6I2navnOFUd9Pz-n1ikw8AQLxkSnqTRnOtXosx0oQpYHny9Rbqqy0s2krvJSQLLxSguCb21g-l1IU0qdG1Rz87Gb5v43o8wfCxqxpunj3KYW8oO59EcxR8xH6BQMWqBTv1nIZzAzA/w560-h401/lo2022.PNG" width="560" /></a><br /><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Perhaps remarkably the grids look very similar. However, one striking difference is first off layoff in 2022 versus 2006. This could be partially due to sample size, but in 2006 first off layoff horses won only about a half a percentage point less than non-layoff horses. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In 2022 this jumped to 1.8%. The impact value in 2022 was only 0.84 versus 0.91 in 2006. </div><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Second start off layoff returned to, may we say, normal. the IV was 0.9462 in 2002, about the same as it was in 2006. </p><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Bettors (or should we say teams who model) seem to be in tune with this, as the parimutuel price of the first returning horses in 2022 was $12.28 - the highest of any subset. </p><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I have to double check to be sure both these sets of data are using the same layoff dates, but I think they are. If not, it's close. So, if someone said to me that trainers are not cranking up to win first start now as much as yesteryear, I'd have to say there is at least some glimmer of truth to it. </p><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Note - Crunk (protected account but many of you can see it) <a href="https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/1683548405740478469" target="_blank">has some super cool stats </a>on how layoffs have changed in horse racing since the 1990's. </p><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Another item I found interesting was blinkers on versus off, versus no change. Here's 2006's data:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjl_B9g_WeN-xPdMPilx0gTwcv9c-rWirkRxwJM1F_sBkQdpB-DJuybLGR8laxWwNZuEiJ0Un5k4BUV950s9fEtkFSs-xasuBGg7vm8gc6ZPObDgJ5_5WYda6TKVrbuV8pPR9Z27omX3OPOOZt19IzCiDI3k-JeWInhtbGAscetmGdDNq6Z5Qzgq_cyUrU/s681/quip.PNG" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="111" data-original-width="681" height="95" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjl_B9g_WeN-xPdMPilx0gTwcv9c-rWirkRxwJM1F_sBkQdpB-DJuybLGR8laxWwNZuEiJ0Un5k4BUV950s9fEtkFSs-xasuBGg7vm8gc6ZPObDgJ5_5WYda6TKVrbuV8pPR9Z27omX3OPOOZt19IzCiDI3k-JeWInhtbGAscetmGdDNq6Z5Qzgq_cyUrU/w582-h95/quip.PNG" width="582" /></a></div><br /><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">And here's last year:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQfrIPXuYYT58cnZaLnBpHanqro0HVw0nQ_ynwjD-LZpb0ivaW3YyeT3JohYKF5d3y7961F2A6X1Gk-LjCc5-Hz_FAZEb5QyqShivaZYzllfIAiImTkm-uBX32PQn4BBFzBT084x0TcS3ZKnDyqdf1VCpE8fIQ2uMHQTZev1KT-fFyOnH9VPsQEzIu0sk/s986/blink2022.PNG" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="155" data-original-width="986" height="88" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQfrIPXuYYT58cnZaLnBpHanqro0HVw0nQ_ynwjD-LZpb0ivaW3YyeT3JohYKF5d3y7961F2A6X1Gk-LjCc5-Hz_FAZEb5QyqShivaZYzllfIAiImTkm-uBX32PQn4BBFzBT084x0TcS3ZKnDyqdf1VCpE8fIQ2uMHQTZev1KT-fFyOnH9VPsQEzIu0sk/w564-h88/blink2022.PNG" width="564" /></a></div><br /><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Blinkers on has long been an overbet angle and in 2006 it was a good fade with a poor 0.71 ROI. In 2022 it's still a bad wager, but it appears the bettors have woken up to it at least a little. The ROI is about 5% higher. </p><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Amazingly, blinkers off continues to roll with a 0.86 ROI, which is down from the whopping 0.9080 in 2006. </p><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This is why model building could be so lucrative. Do some handicapping, weed out what needs be, add a 5% win rebate, and you could literally just flat bet blinkers off horses all year in 2006 and make bank. </p><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">T</span>he thing I love most about the Spa is not the great horses, big pools or colorful jockeys, it's the insider tweets where we learn something new about the participants of this fine sport. </p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Gary Stevens & I tend to use the same bathroom so because I typically drink 12-14 beers I have stood shoulder to shoulder with him many times. Maybe he is packing heat but he two hands It & stands like 4 feet back from the urinal. One of the most distinct techniques of any man</p>— Buck Swope (@ShotTakingTime) <a href="https://twitter.com/ShotTakingTime/status/1682139363541413896?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 20, 2023</a></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">M</span>an of the people. <a href="https://twitter.com/ceejayjohnsen" target="_blank">CJ Johnsen</a> had a huge maiden winner this week at Saratoga with Sugar Hi, yet there he is, looking just like us regular folk. </p><p>On the off chance it's not CJ, delete (and it's a shame). </p> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">You have to wonder why they don’t break away to Johnny and Tara to assess the fashion at Saratoga like they do on Derby Day. <a href="https://t.co/0rLr98duBL">pic.twitter.com/0rLr98duBL</a></p>— Starzatoga (@joel_starz) <a href="https://twitter.com/joel_starz/status/1682133278986207232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 20, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><span><div><span style="font-size: large;">C</span><span>hanging of the game tweet by Tink which is in keeping with this week's comparison theme. </span></div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="pl">Stymie and Tapit<a href="https://twitter.com/Pullthepocket?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Pullthepocket</a> , <a href="https://twitter.com/racetrackandy?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@racetrackandy</a> , <a href="https://twitter.com/craigb1818?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@craigb1818</a> <a href="https://t.co/4FQ9M3ESDd">pic.twitter.com/4FQ9M3ESDd</a></p>— Tinky (@Tinky47flat) <a href="https://twitter.com/Tinky47flat/status/1683112218903162881?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 23, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><div><span style="font-size: large;">W</span><span>rote a little piece on potential changes to the Amateur series <a href="https://harnessracingupdate.com/2023/07/23/amateur-races-at-the-meadowlands-need-a-tweak-or-two/" target="_blank">at the Big M here. </a></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Q</span>uick note about the blog itself - it will not be the Pullthepocket Blog any longer, it willl just be a big letter P. </div><div><br /></div><span style="font-size: large;">
A </span></span><a href="https://vukman59.blogspot.com/2023/07/champ-in-house-jose-arias.html" target="_blank">very nice piece from Leo about the loss of his friend and NHC Champ Jose Arias.</a> It sounds like Jose was a great guy. <div><br /></div><div>As always, thanks for reading, and may all your tickets be cashes this week. </div><div><br /></div>Pull the Pockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05082676049275768769noreply@blogger.com0