Wednesday Action

Here are a few things catching my eye today:

Question: How do you increase your ADW's handle by about $1.4 million in a flash?

Answer: Give your customers a quick $280,000 by depositing it in their betting account.

That's what Twinspires.com did recently, to pay back the NYRA takeout snafu. Expect this week's betting to look a little higher than usual, with any churn rate approaching 5. This is a de-facto takeout decrease, or a takeout decrease via rebate. That's how it works, and that's how it ups handle.

On the flipside, it was announced yesterday that Hollywood Park's handle was down. Everyone seems confused, like it's a mystery. Jeff Platt from HANA tries to unravel it, like a modern day Columbo. Ok, ok , I kid.

The North America Cup elims are drawn and if you've seen a better, deeper two races for the Cup, please point me to them. Sure Warawee Needy or Sweet Lou could run away with it, as they are supremely talented, but horses like Rock n Roll Dance, Time To Roll, HKC or Thinking Out Loud would likely have all been chalk in many elims this decade.

Apolitically, I think recall elections were made for another time. If you are a politico and you piss off some powerful factions, by making tough decisions, it's easy in the Internet age to gather signatures to try and get him or her booted. Watching last night it dawned on me how easy it is, and how ridiculous it is (the recalled dude won by more votes than he did in the original election), at the same time. Then I think of racing. We've lost about half our handles. We've gotten killed the last decade. But when I look at the who's who at various tracks and horsemen groups, it's often the same people. Does anyone get recalled in racing?

I researched a piece for HRU this week on 'lack of effort' by riders in different parts of the world. It's eye-opening. The policy of protecting the customer in some jurisdictions is there, and it makes for a better business - for both participants and bettors. We don't do that in North America; maybe because we were a monopoly and didn't have to, maybe because horsemen groups have too much power and hate change, maybe because slots are here, so who cares about customers. I don't know, but there is a disconnect.

From time to time I have seen strange information on takeout. I saw it again last night on a chat board. Some think if takeout was 5% in 1906 and it's 23% now, going up by a factor of 4.5 is less than the rate of inflation, so it's a good deal.  It amazes me how many times I see it. There was a funny line on HD.com about it, namely if takeout was geared to inflation, it would be around 184% now, so if you cash a tri for $1000, you owe the track $1840, creating a disincentive. I laughed pretty hard at that.

Windsor Raceway is finished, and now Fort Erie follows suit. It's a sign of the times in Ontario, and no matter what you think about this business, slots, and all the rest, it's a sad day. That was a storied track, and a beautiful one, with many memories for horsemen and long time bettors. We'll likely see six or seven others follow suit within the next 24 months.

Handicapping: Bucking Convention; The Hardest Thing A Player Can Do

The best handicapping column I've read all week - maybe all month or all year - came from an unlikely spot. Bloomberg business had a Black Swan story about betting the Belmont, and it described the chaotic results of the race of late, with ROI numbers betting horses blindly. The fact is apparent: Some bad horses - on paper and in reality - won the Belmont.

• Look at the last 10 winners. They raced 43 times after their Belmont victories and won just five of those races, or 12 percent. Four horses in that group went a combined 0-for-28. By comparison, the past 10 Preakness champions won 29 of their 74 subsequent races, or 39 percent. Gamblers who anticipated the Belmont chaos were well rewarded. The winner paid 21-1 on average over the past decade. The exacta ticket -- where a bettor predicts the first two finishers of the race -- returned an average of $233 for each $1 bet. 

So, we must bet some bad horses - horses that look like they have little shot - work a little magic and we make some money.

Not so fast. Even the writer of the column says something that we all say, almost all the time:

" While I understand the principles of chaos laid out above, I just can’t get myself to wager on bad horses."

There's the crux of the problem in taking advantage of chaos races - we still look at the horse, his speed figs, everything else the public is looking at - and we discount them, and throw them out. Even when we get hit in the noggin with what's been happening, we handicap traditionally.

If we do that, we're less and less likely to make a score.

I remember a few years ago sitting at Woodbine, and I was watching Mountaineer. Top pace figure horses were winning almost every race the past night or two, or coming second. 10-1, 40-1, 1-5, it didn't matter. If your pace horse was aggressively ridden, he was going to be there. I found a horse in one race who looked horrid, but he had speed, and sported the #1 pace fig. Sitting with a very good traditional handicapper, I expected him to be on board, but he wasn't.

"That horse has backed up by fifteen the last two. He's an impossible bet"

I wouldn't tell the story if he was right, so you can guess what happened. 22.1, 46 and an easy winner at 12-1.

Not too long ago I hit the largest superfecta I have ever hit. It was a day where outside speed was winning everything. The 11,10 and 9 had outside speed, and they all looked like crap, but they were capable if they ran out of their skin. I bet it, and it came in.

I called someone who was live at the track who is a very good player who plays chaos and bias really well. He had the winner and a couple of the exotics. He was there with another player and I asked what he hit in the race. It turns out, like my traditional handicapping friend in the Mountaineer example,  he simply could not bring himself to bet the bad lines on those horses.

"They looked too bad" he said.

A lot of people who have been handicapping for a long time are married to their angles, married to a PP, and married to conventional thought. It is simply the hardest thing to expunge from your brain memory, when handicapping chaos, bias, or random type events. In fact, it's hard to get out of your mind in any race; that's why, with so many betting horses with obvious positives, they cash winners, but lose money.

It's easy to pick winners. I can give you 4 of 10 of them by touting the post time favorite each race. You can do that too. You can also find bombs when looking at those traditional angles and other things that help you. But if we cannot bet the unconventional, bet that ugly horse, bet a one post because the inside is good, bet outside speed on a biased track, closers in every race when they've been winning at huge numbers  - no matter what the horse looks like in the PP's - we're missing out on chances at a lifetime score.

Brennan Not Welcome at Meadowlands

In a rather curious twist to the Pena saga, Meadowlands owner Jeff Gural has told driver George Brennan to not come to the Meadowlands - or after this week Tioga and Vernon - to drive horses. This on the heels of Brennan's pro-Pena comments in the New York Times.

Gural:

• “I was very offended by [Brennan's] remarks about the Pena suspension in the Times. It seemed he was saying it is alright to cheat because the object is to win and this is not my philosophy or the impression I want my customers to have. While I agree the rules are confusing and should be uniform, there is no room for Mr. Brennan’s views on this subject.”

I have no staunch feeling either way on this. Gural, as a private operator, can do whatever he wants. I respect that. However, comments in a paper? This feels weird.

One thing I do agree on though, is that participants in our sport should always be professional with public comments to a newspaper like the Times, or on television.  Golfers don't publicly question rules, NASCAR drivers can't do it with infractions, pitchers with suspensions, lineman with penalties, and on and on.  It's the way major sport is structured. If a fan swears at a driver or jock for a bad ride, the driver can yell back, while a player in the NHL or his coach can't. If a driver has a buddy that gets suspended, he can stick up for him all he wants. If an outfielder starts excusing a guy who got caught with steroids it's a different story.

We're not that type of sport though. We don't have set rules, or a commission. Our participants do not have media training. They, like Gural, can do what they want.

Like I said, I have no real feeling on this either way, because it simply feels very odd.  However, I have a sneaky feeling that within a few weeks we'll see George driving in an NYSS at Tioga, or the Meadowlands Pace. That's what my gut tells me.