I was pinged today by Mike on the twitter website about a couple of bomb golfers he liked for this weekend's PGA. I replied offering two bombs I bet at huge odds - Scott Piercy and Pat Perez.
And that got me thinking.
Pat and Scott have, I think, sneaky good form, buttressed by a recent ability to go really low. But, when you think about it, are Scott and Pat likely major winners, qualitatively come Sunday? Absolutely not.
The mindset I have with this angle was borne from the tools I've always used to wager to scrape out some profit.
Playing Betfair from 2003 on, with their deep exchange where I could trade in real time, I didn't need a winner to make money. I needed overlooked bombs who can simply carry their play to the weekend. At that point, if I wished, I could start trading out and going green. It's not about winners, it's about betting a stable of players who are playing well that the public feels aren't potential winners.
That opens up a completely different gambling mindset. Without a tool like Betfair, I probably should not be playing Perez or Piercy outright. But it's a hard habit to break.
The lesson, however, for the growth of betting is not lost on me.
Match-ups, head to heads, group betting - a staple of the modern betting landscape - encourages more play as we see offshore each Derby season.
I might not love a horse in the Derby, but I sure like War of Will to beat Maximum Security (go cash!).
I love a certain pace scenario, and sure I'll bet supers because of it, but why not bet a closer over a front runner H2H to take advantage of it?
I certainly don't like Patch, but he's 100-1 in the markets, should make the Derby, so I'll play and I'll likely lay that off at 30-1 with an exchange right?
These are the exact same questions people have who bet other sports.
Garett Skiba, yesterday on Shapiro's Bet America podcast, noted a couple of head to heads he liked for the PGA this weekend. He didn't go through 10,000 data points or fancy math, he spoke of one factor he uses for head to heads, and it was very simple.
Answering these questions in horse racing does not take a massive learning curve, or a download of 1,000 different betting products, or microscoping a 20 horse field with 10,000 data points either. It just takes some gambling acumen, which, as we see with massive sports betting handles in Jersey and elsewhere of late, is not rocket science.
Churchill Downs - and others - have not embraced offering us this type of play and, in my view, they should be. You can't make a tent bigger if you don't pitch one.
In the end we all have our styles of play, but they key is, it's our style of play. It's troubling in this day and age that we may have to pivot from our styles because the powers that be won't offer us a chance to use them. That's on them.
Have a nice Wednesday everyone. I'm off to cancel my Piercy and Perez bets.
Sinking marketing money directly into the horseplayer by seeding pools is effective, in both theory and practice In Ontario and elsewher...
One of life's many mysteries on gambling twitter is the Jackpot Bet. Oftentimes people like @shottakingtime, echoed by others, will pos...
It's Friday - the weekend! - where the tracks are ready to fire-up some serious betting entertainment. As we know, that's primaril...
Yesterday we wrote about some (many?) inside the business who don't quite understand what we bettors do each day to try and scratch som...
Innovation and horse racing. Put together, the two of them elicit feverish reaction in this sport. One one side you have the customers, alon...
The pandemic and resulting discombobulation has certainly thrown things out of whack in horse racing, and some narratives are being turned o...