Monday, June 26, 2023

Monday's World Famous Super Spectacular Blog - Lasix, CRW's, Taylor Swift's a Racetrack, Pick 5 Ticket Example, Ascot versus Oak Grove, We Bet Real Money Here, Rebates for Only a Few & We're in the Gambling Business

Good morning and welcome to this week's edition of the World Famous Super Spectacular Blog.  

It's the first week on the SSB without a thank you to the Russian bots because I ain't getting involved in that imbroglio. Instead, here's a cat video. 

Off we go!

Despite his (mostly unfair, they have free breadsticks) disdain for the Olive Garden, I have to side with my pal Chuckeroo, and as sad as it makes me, against our other chum, Brad Cummings protege Ray Bacon here. 

I'm honestly not much for the lasix debate in this sport because it sure gets tribal. But I'm a pretty simple guy: 

60% of horses bleed from their lungs. Can someone explain to me how it's considered cruelty to help them not bleed?

Helluva piece by Pat over at the TIF last week that I figure many of you read. The CRW wagering patterns are certainly formidable in this day and age. 

Some highlights:

  • The big dogs are in the harder to hit bet pools; for example, almost 4 in 10 bucks of the pick 5 pool is teams' money. Wondering why the sequence paid what it did? They probably had it. 
  • If you're trying to avoid the big money and look for value holes, try the doubles. 
  • Crunk proffers they're about topped out at approximately 24% of pools and can't bet much more than they are currently betting. The math seems to say so. Does this bode well or not for handle growth from here on out? Likely the latter in the short term. 
  • Pat shares a rumor they're after better prices in whichever way possible it seems (which could be a signal they're topping out). This makes sense regardless, because when they get a better price they can wager more. For those of you who've said *takeout matters* while shouting into a vacuum, there's evidence point 9 million for you. 
  • I don't tend to agree with the thoughts about CRW wagering hurting purses. Just because the chicken has wings doesn't mean it can fly. Lower handle hurts purses, and we've had lower handle for a long time. California's 2010 takeout hike to "save racing" that people at the CHRB meeting applauded likely contributed massively to this mess.  
  • Pat's ways to improve the situation are tough for me to argue with. 
Podcasts are many, but the hosts doing them as well as Beem (in my humble opinion) are few! Jason is such a personable fellow and seems comfortable with guests from all facets of the sport, and he sure was at-ease with Bettor Chris this week. Fun discussion fellas, I really enjoyed it. 

People outside racing often hear insiders say "they were born to race" and some's eyes glaze over. Those folks should watch this video of a beaver. 

I thought this was  a nice story on World On Edge, who was found malnourished, in some trouble, and nursed back to health to win races.

I'm not sure you've heard of her or not, but there's a woman named Taylor Swift who's having this big concert tour and I read about it in the WSJ today.  The whole she-bang is supposed to generate $1B in revenue, and after paying for all hosting distribution, promoting fees etc, she is left with about 35% or $350 million. 

If she were a racetrack, on a 20% takeout bet her host fee would be 7%. 

We often hear that the tracks should get more and more of the takeout and I get it. But if you're looking for distribution and growth, the business models say you can't do it alone, and that costs money. 

Unlike horse racing (outside the Derby), Taylor does have an edge through alternative revenue streams. The piece notes she can gross a couple million or so a night from merchandise and CD/Album sales, and she has big corporations like Capital One sponsoring the tour. The sport has tried to do a bit of this - especially through sponsorships - but it's not really a big part of anything. 


The new Omni Swinger wager at Woodbine is not doing very well, and I'm not sure it can last. On Thursday a 33-1 shot (6) beat a 25-1 shot (8) at the wire and the 6-8 swinger paid $15.55.  The pool was barely over $500. 

The amateur races at the Meadowlands as a part of their pick 4's and 5's have many shaking their heads, including some of the participants. This racing is moving towards an uncanny valley for me. I expect a harness race and I get to watch, well, whatever some of those races are. We know if you line up a set of horses at any major track it's going to drive handle, but sometimes I wonder how we bet real money on these races. 

So I bought this heat pump a few years ago off the internet and I didn't have the slightest idea how to install it. A buddy says, "I know a guy", so the guy comes over and he's like the nicest dude around. 

While we're installing this thing I have the races on the tee vee and he's stoked - "I bet, too". Since then, every few weeks or so, I get a text from him about racing. This week's:


Since I typed exactly the same thing moments before to a friend, I can only conclude that Larry the Heat Pump Guy is a brother from another mother. 

Marshall chatted about CRW wagering on Pete's pod this week. 

Two Phils won the Ohio Derby and there's a lot of "who did he beat" talk, but to me, coming off the Derby where he was the best of the lot, it's just a win confirming the obvious - he's pretty good. And as I type this, Marcus the Greek reports that he came out of the race with an ankle injury. Gosh, the ups and downs of this freaking sport. 

Tony Z popped into a horse tourney and won. Nice effort for Ed as well. It might be kind of remarkable to some that the exacta was a guy who couldn't tell you what Irad looks like onto a guy who probably knows what Irad had for breakfast last week. It's why the game is big tent, and why I wonder what kind of money we're leaving on the table with bad betting policy. 

The horse racing twitter is having a field day talking about the poor ADW coverage of the Ascot meeting. Watching along, it does feel nowhere near the quality of the work that Ray Cotolo is putting together on the Oak Grove harness feed. 
Mathematically sound tickets can be an exercise in frustration (Chris referenced this on the Beemer pod with betting value in straight pools), because we're not betting to hit, but to hit good tickets. There was a nice example on Tuesday night at Mohawk. 

In the pick five the fields were super short, and even more importantly not deep. We had:
  • A big chalk in leg one who looked vulnerable. 
  • What looked like two contenders in leg two. 
  • Co-six to five shots in leg three and in leg four
  • A spread race in leg five
Every sequence has a story. Going chalk then 2 by 2 by 2 and spread is your square ticket that you will likely hit, but there's probably no way it can deliver long term ROI. We clearly have to figure out something outside that main story. 

One person I chat with liked a horse to beat the chalk in leg one at 6-1, and then keyed, keyed, keyed, in the legs people would go two deep to cover, and then spread to six horses. It was an extremely sound ticket that only cost him $24 for $4. 

The horse he keyed in leg four was much the best, but lost to the other chalk, because of a horrible drive. The pick five paid $500, and my betting pal was sad faced. 

Our mind works in mysterious ways when we lose, and we may say to ourselves, "if I backed it up I would've hit for $500", but you have to back up three races, not one, at least tripling ticket size. And maybe you have to back up leg one as well. 

When we account for this selection bias, the ticket turns into a play defensive hellscape. 

At that point we're probably better off placing our ticket money into a $50 or $100 win bet in leg one on the 6-1 shot (to cash more than the pick five itself paid). 

In a five race sequence things can happen. We'll lose more than we win. And, as above in section two, the teams are firing on all cylinders. But I thought that was a great ticket that just didn't happen to win. 

I loved this interview with Johnny V after winning with Crimson Advocate at Ascot. You can't wipe the smile off his face. I know people in sports media talk about about "acting like you've been there before" blah, blah, blah. But seeing people happy when they're happy after winning a race is why we all get into this game isn't it? 

I saw this tweet from Quantum - a super sharp fellow - this week, and the last line "rebates should only be given to verified long term losing players as was intended" interested me. 

This is an opinion that the casinos embrace, but is it true for parimutuel racing?

I suspect the sweet spot for a rebate is for players who are close, but not quite good enough. I think the teams' volume is testament to that. It's where winning (even some of the time) makes one's wagering explode. 

But I can't argue too much with Quantum in a broad sense. If 99.5% of players lose, then rebates to losers means almost everyone gets one. Something I have long advocated. 

I really don't know, Andrew. When I first saw Flightline trending I honestly thought it had something to do with that sub.

Players like ITP (and it's a fave move of @lesstark88 too) believe in betting against a heavy chalk that shows even a hint of a problem, and players sure got that chance in the first at Mohawk on Thursday. 

The 3-5 shot came out hot, and the driver completely buried the horse, earning a call-up from the judges in the process. This odds-on loser helped the pick 5 pay a whopping $78,000 for a buck. The super in a short field with the chalk third returned $500 for a dollar (and for Swinger fans it paid about $5). 

I did my duty and pitched the horse and was actually alive in the pick 5 nicely; but the horse in the second leg that won I had ranked 9th, and it was only an eight horse field. Never in a million years. 

Like Ray Paulick said on the twitter, I too dreamed of being a professional golfer. Maybe Paulick coulda pulled this off but I couldn't have.

This is not a bad thought for those of us who want things to move along, but the key difference is baseball is in the entertainment business and horse racing isn't.  A race on a big stakes card is like an ice-cream stand on the pier on a hot summer day - if it stays open for 30 minutes instead of 20 it makes more bank. 

As blog pal @epo13 says sometimes, the sport is "gambletainment", and like it or not (and I know some of us don't like it) the gamble part is the one that brings in the revenue. 

Thanks for reading this edition of the Super Spectacular Blog. Just like every week, be nice on the twitter and go cash some big tickets.  


at

1 comment:

Alan Gobbi said...

The Omni/Swinger bet works in places like the UK, France and HK where fields are often full - and much larger than here in North America.

There were races during Royal Ascot where the Omni/Swinger was handling over $1 million, with the help of the World Pool format.

As far as the amateur races go at M1, they need to either go way entirely or be carded as non-betting events. Meadowlands typically only races 26-28 races per week now, and with 4-6 amateur races offered seemingly weekly, cuts into the amount of drives the top professionals can have since they are apparently forced to drive at the track if they want to compete in the big races.

June 26, 2023 at 10:53 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Most Trafficked, Last 12 Months

Similar

Carryovers Provide Big Reach and an Immediate Return

Sinking marketing money directly into the horseplayer by seeding pools is effective, in both theory and practice In Ontario and elsewher...