Yes, Chess Has CAW's and its Share of Cheaters, but They're Handled Much Differently

Chess is a fantastic, old, heady game that has stood the test of time. 

But, one thing some might not know, is that they've worked pretty hard to ensure this immutably true statement hasn't been sabotaged. 

Magnus Carlsen, the world number one in chess, was asked by Joe Rogan on his podcast recently about computer engines. Carlson replied, "Elon Musk tweeted out that my iPhone can beat Magnus Carlsen at chess, and he's correct". 

In 2025, humans are not the best chess players, computers are. 

Chess engines like Swordfish - alogs that suggest moves that are perfect play - are prevalent and easy to use; so easy that one can use it while playing chess online. 

Sensing a threat to the game, chess took an interesting approach. 

When something statistically looked out of whack with a player, not only did the top players mention it, the organizations in charge of the game acted swiftly. Players were under scrutiny immediately, their old games were analyzed for wrong doing, and security at live games was enhanced. Some players with obvious cheating based on these engines and analysis were banned. 

The engines - the black box to win, the algo for perfect play, the holy grail of chess - that could beat Bobby Fischer, Gary Kasparov or Magnus Carlson, was completely eliminated from the game. And the people that would use it to hinder the game were also sent to pasture. And and all permission structure regarding them didn't exist. 

Meanwhile, in horse racing - and I realize this is news to no one - this has been handled much differently. Or maybe more apt, has never been handled at all. 

Back in 2007 or so, trainers that had 8% or 9% win percentages for years - the proverbial "couldn't teach a poodle to piss" types - suddenly starting winning at 20% 30% or 40%. Horses in harness racing were dropping four or five seconds in a two or three weeks when entering these barns. 

These statistical anomalies that were noted and acted on swiftly in chess using logic and reason, were mostly excused, and when one brought them up, you were called "jealous" or other pejoratives. What probably made it most maddening, was that the industry itself would have these trainers on the cover of the trades, and give them year end awards. They created a permission structure, didn't eliminate one. 

Only later of course did we learn of the presence of EPO and it's other name Aranesp. Some trainers were nabbed, but in my view if we caught 10% of them it would be surprising. Some in the industry still cling to the fairy tale that for those who weren't caught they magically improved virtually every horse that entered their barns with shoeing changes or some other such nonsense. 

The game has suffered because of this. When you can't compete you either cheat, or leave the game. Foal crops and horse ownership; the number of trainers competing, etc, have all fallen, while slots and purse money have still flourished. 

Meanwhile, this same braintrust has done almost exactly the same with another element of the game, the CAWs. CAW's created and developed a "Swordfish" for racing, and they are allowed to use it, which is fine. No one is saying smart people can't win. 

But instead of leaving it at that (and this is what angers most, in my opinion), they not only create a permission structure, they pour gasoline on it, by giving them obscene pricing that the rest of us have no hope of getting. 

Think about it for a second. It's like chess inviting me to play a regular player where I can use an iPhone to beat him while he can't, they charge me $1 to play the game and him $20. How long would that sport last?

Chess is a healthy game despite technology and cheating readily available to it, but it's that way because they took it seriously as a threat to the game. They don't allow someone to beat Magnus Carlsen for a World Championship cheating with an algo, and then put that person on the front page of their marketing materials. They don't allow one group with an edge to get more of an edge and more of an edge, chasing away new and old customers, leaving computers to play themselves. 

Racing did that. It did it to themselves. And in 2025, they continue to do what they've always done when pressed with a threat - ignoring it and hoping it goes away. 

Have a nice Tuesday everyone. 

Racing's Weekend of 'Disruption'

Hello everyone. That was a really quiet holiday weekend, wasn't it?

All that happened, by my count, was a horse race occurred where one of the leading jocks in the nation almost met his maker, a horse worth many millions was running loose around a track, and owner and defacto Horse Racing Commissioner Mike Repole went on video tirades on twitter. He also hammered Andy Serling who blocked him (ok, maybe this isn't too out-of-the ordinary). 

In my slice of the world, y'all were big time banging on the twitter pretty hard on this. I got flamed almost 3% as much as Jessica Paquette does, Zocalli was firing guns as the President of the God Bless Rabbits Committee. Thank goodness Beem's communist captors kept him shielded from all this. 

The thing that confuses me most about the reaction to this race was, in some quarters, the "surprise" it happened. 

Rabbits have been entered since bloodletting times in blue blood events with one sole purpose - to disrupt a horse race. 

When disruption happened in the JCGC, it's a natural and logical progression. It should be nothing to be surprised about. 

We can't challenge Mike Tyson to a fight and be dumbfounded that our jaw is broken. 

The broader question, I think, is why this phenomenon even exists. 

I've seen the whole "Frankel had a rabbit" thing referenced, but why did he have one? Would the world stop spinning if he didn't have enough pace to chase and he ran second? No. Would we as bettors be inconvenienced by him running third? Certainly not, we deal with analyzing pace in races 50,000 times a year and bet accordingly. 

As I see it, rabbits are entered particularly so blue blood pedigrees, owned by many people who make more money by noon than I will in my lifetime, can maximize the value of their bloodstock by earning black type. 

I don't think there's anything more to it. 

Rabbits aren't entered in February at Laurel; the trainers don't have enough money to enter another entry to kill off the lone speed and set it up for their closer. It won't happen at Mountaineer tonight either. In fact, if it did happen at Mountaineer tonight, the trainer of the aggrieved party might meet the other trainer behind the barn for a talking to, and it would never happen again. 

Even Sherrifs with Zenyatta didn't enter a rabbit in the Clement Hersh, where they went 3/4's in like 1:17 in a eight and a half furlong race to try and beat her. So what, if she loses she loses. That's horse racing. 

No, this is a part of the one tenth of one tenth of one tenth percent of horse racing; it's their world not ours. 

Until this tiny group gets together and wants to end it by putting restrictions on entries, horses who don't belong in a race will be there to disrupt the race. And in some cases, like on Sunday, they will succeed. 

We can be happy the disruption didn't reach its zenith because that would've been tragic, but when you inject chaos into a race artificially, things can turn bad in a hurry. 

Have a great Tuesday everyone. 

Optix - A Useful Tool to Battle the Sharps

I'm always looking for new ideas or mediums to learn in the game (in that evergreen quest to get better) and I'd been meaning to dive into Optix for some time. I finally bit the bullet over the last week, signed up, and took it for a test drive. 

For me, whether it be for DFS software, or a football handicapping medium, or for horse racing, I want a package to do a few things - i) save me time, ii) be easy enough to use and understand and iii) give me something I won't get in the PP's. I think Optix delivered on all three counts. 

"The Plot" 

Represented by squares and circles, the visual plot represents a neat way to look at the horses based on their running styles and early and late pace figures. It takes a bit to get your head around, but once you do, it can help confirm or deny what you're seeing in the PP's, and I found it to be remarkably accurate. 

Using this in tandem this week it helped me solidify a lean, or opened my eyes to using a horse who would have a favorable set up that I might've not uncovered. It worked well with another package I use. 

In fact, I was ambivalent on a longshot at Colonial that my own research found, but when I was able to see the Optix plot it gave me confidence that I should play the horse. The race played out as the plot detailed, and the horse paid $50 or $60. That was a nice bet. 

Notes

I found the notes feature incredibly useful. There are a lot of races to watch, and replay watching is time consuming. The notes alerted me to races where I may want to look at a replay, or encouraged me to look closer at a running line. It'd take me all day otherwise, and I don't have all day. This is one of the better features I've seen in any sellers' package. They definitely do the work.

The races are also (at several tracks) rated with a grade. I also found this helpful. 

Did this horse who ran eight points slower do so because of raceflow or kickback or a bad trip? There's no need to guess - the notes right beside the horse tell you.

The Horses, and the Data

Optix is not all circles and squares, but a past performance where you can drill down to look at any horse. Their figures, running lines, are all there. It's not hard to get used to and I didn't have to bring up the PP's to confirm or deny anything, really. Reading the lines and other pertinent information is sleek and easy. 

"The Green Report"

This report summarizes trip notes that can portend a good effort. 

Just on Sunday I knew I didn't love Fort Nelson in the 6th at the Spa, and lo and behold, the green report showed a possible bet back on the Bauer horse. I quickly checked out the horse, and thought the 9-2 looked pretty juicy for a possible live bet against a horse I wanted to throw out. He won going away. 

This saves you a lot of time. No, the green report horses aren't locks, but they are possibles. And because some of them are sneaky, they aren't hammered by a CAW 100% of the time. 

The Odds Line Interface

If you're handicapping live, the interface pipes in live odds, and shows you daily double odds. If you wonder if the 20-1 shot you like is going down to 6-1, chances are you'll know. 

In addition, and to me this is a tremendous service to players who don't make odds lines, you can contender rate your horses and the interface will make an odds line for you. You can compare that odds line to the board, double check if you missed anything, and fire away. I think this would be fantastic for, for example, a Breeders Cup card. 

Misc

The above just scratches the surface. There are many other reports, including a hot pace or slow pace report, which is kind of cool. You can sort or search the reports for races you may be interested in. There's a lot here I need to still look into. 

Summary

Sometimes I think there's a misconception that these packages, whether they be HTR or jcapper or Optix, that they will flag horses that simply win. That's of course not the way they work. We have to put in the work and make the decisions. 

But I am of the opinion this package is worth looking into. In fact, for a sports bettor or new player, I would not tell them to read 100 books or download the PP's, I'd probably point them to something like this. I think it would give them a fighting chance. The package uncovers enough nuggets of info that aren't overly public, and everything is linked, so if you're a numbers person that likes to visualize how a race may go, you can weave an opinion. 

I'll go off on a tangent a little now.... this business bothers me. 

Optix is a good package (and there are others), but what's their market? It's the $25k a year player that wants to be a $125k a year player. It's the $125k a year player that wants to be a million dollar a year player. What has the business done to this market? They've destroyed it. The CAW's feast off it, and a barrier to entry is 15% rebates to CAW's, while if you live in a "bad" state, you're screwed and getting nothing back. 

This is a great game, but the pricing and the way it's structured with short-sighted alphabet entities and horsepeople groups does it no favors. A strong ecosystem helps resellers like Optix. It helps third party promoters. And that in turn helps the business.

I wish the sport realized this long ago. It would help just about everyone, and the business might have fifty Optixs to choose from, because the demand would be there.

So, those are my thoughts. And a quick note - I know John a wee bit, and Chris Larmey I think mentioned on the twitter box he does a little work with Optix, but they didn't give me a free look or anything to write a post. I paid my $50 for the week.

Have a great Sunday evening and Monday everyone!

A Vital Listen for Everyday Players (& You too, Track Execs)

I spent a couple of hours the past few days listening to the Bet With the Best podcast with guest Marshall Gramm.  

In my view, it is one of the most informative and educational resources one could ever hope to hear on the topic of Computer Assisted Wagering teams. 

And as an added bonus, it's super educational for players who are not seeking lower takeout (if they can find it) and for those track execs (yes, especially you Kentucky Downs people), who can't seem to grasp or understand how betting functions and grows. 

CAW-Land is an odd place where much is nebulous, and where conspiracy theories can move faster than a knife fight in a phone booth. Marshall breaks down what, in his view, is real and what's Memorex and I think it's a huge service for players. We lose a lot in horse racing, and there's a lot to complain about, but being an informed complainer is always preferred; for me anyway. 

The early section of part one could be dry for some, but it does explain how models work. Marshall has done a lot of work on this, including research on one of the best computer gamblers in history, Bill Benter. 

The sections on price discovery are valid and informative and should help players navigate the board better. 

The rants on source market fee madness and the inability to lower takeout to help the ecosystem at the base are quite well done. For those who don't know how the system is built to function, it's very educational. 

The tips on keeping things simple in our betting against these teams is what I've long believed, and it's nice to hear that someone(s) smart like Marshall (and Chris) also adhere to. If we have not developed an edge to price discover and to construct tickets correctly - Herculean tasks in this day and age - how can we beat the pick 5? Superfecta? Super High Five?

The latter part of the pod struck on something I believe 100% to be true. Yes, if we try and beat sharp teams betting into 5% juice for 150 races this weekend we can not possibly win. But if we try and compete where they are not sharpest, we can. 

I've opened up probably ten two year old listed stakes or restricted stakes for winners the past few months where they were wildly off in their pre-race pricing. Can you watch a work? Read the way a young horse moves? Have an opinion on talent? I truly believe you can crush them, and when you crush them in a race you can make your entire month, simply because of the math. Those races are there. 

Our game has a real problem. Some people at the top, in my opinion, don't know what they're doing when it comes to pricing. As Marshall noted, a place like Keeneland can change the game tomorrow by, say, dropping takeout to 12% win and 15% all exotics with little risk. But as we've seen, Keeneland actually increased takeout and went the other way. Kentucky Downs' policy has been what I'd describe as obscene. 

Until they get with the program (if ever) we'll have to navigate this market by making it, in some cases, our entire routine. Chris and Marshall's pod has helped with that. A sincere thank you to both of them.

Have a nice Tuesday everyone. 

For the Future, it Appears Kentucky Racing is Just About Everything

While I was waiting for the Spa races to be moved off the turf (spoiler, they just were), I noticed a lot of chatter about Keeneland getting the Breeders Cup in ’27.

My first thought was, we better get used to it because I don’t foresee Kentucky racetracks not getting the bulk of the BCs anytime soon. And to me, it makes perfect sense.

When we were kids, we might have learned about comparative advantage in school. For example, a country that makes bread really well and cheaply exports it to others who can’t make it nearly as cost-effectively. It’s a simple concept. Lately, that seems to have gone out the window. 

Canada, with its vast natural resource edge, has been met with policies that have made it harder and harder to extract that advantage. In the US, where technology, innovation, and IC rule the roost for their massive productivity edge, they seem to be focused on trying to make textiles great again.

Meanwhile, Kentucky said (in Gabe Prewitt’s drawl) “not on my watch.” The Bluegrass state knows it’s the horse racing state and seems to want to keep it that way. The state and its lawmakers have poured almost everything into the sport.

Kentucky Downs has taken horses from almost everywhere with its massive purses. Ellis Park holds $100,000 maidens. Even Turfway Park has juiced purses and handle. In harness land, it’s almost obscene what they’ve done to grade 1, 2, and 3 stakes at historical and storied ovals. The entire two- and three-year-old stakes season is an abomination, as Kentucky shovels millions into purses at places like Oak Grove.

We can complain about it—I, and many of you do—but at the very least, we have a horse racing state hell-bent on, well, horse racing. That’s not all bad.

This is why, in my view anyway, the biggest events in this sport will be held in Kentucky. And frankly, would it surprise anyone that the state might be the only one holding horse racing in fifty years? I wouldn’t be surprised. 

I understand our frustration with the Death Star’s takeover. It’s concerning that they’re repeating the same mistakes everyone else has made by solely focusing on increasing supply and neglecting demand. The potential to change takeout rates, develop new mediums, and restore fairness with CAW’s is real and available, yet they dismiss it, throw another few million dollars into a purse, while raising takeout to “pay” for a trackside tent.

However, it’s important to remember that this is the place for horse racing, and they actually know it. They’re constructing something substantial and leveraging their edge. In that sense, it’s refreshing.

Have a nice Thursday, everyone. 

Old Timer Memories of Gate Break Inquiries and "Post" One

Hello everyone, I hope the week is treating you all very well. 

I was feeling a little nostalgic today. If you're interested I will share my thoughts on a couple of items. 

First, for the thousands and thousands of new racefans who read my blog (many from Russian link farms), let me tell you a tale about a gate break. 

It was many years ago now at Santa Anita (I doubt you'd find any even grainy footage on Youtube), and there was a horse named Bayern. 

Out of the gate, the story goes, he veered wildly and slammed into several horses. Two of the horses, again as told by old timers, jumped into the infield and had to be caught by outriders. One horse, owned by a media mogul, was slammed so hard he got down to the quarter in an estimated 37.3 (hard to tell, racing wasn't in-tune with runups way back then). One of the horses with an open bridle that could see it all coming, said "frig this" didn't even leave the gate, and headed back to his stall for a drink. 

Bayern was crowned the winner. 

Meanwhile in the same jurisdiction on Saturday, this happened. I won't elaborate on the commentary that's already been assembled in virtually all corners of this sport, but truly it is one of the most bizarre rulings I think I've ever seen. 

Over in harness racing land, here's another old timer story. 

"What post you got for Saturday?"

"Post one"

"How do you feel about post two?"

"It's pretty good"

Now it's all changed. Everything is a draw. 

"How do you feel about the inside draw, what draw did you get, this horse drew outside, that draw was bad."

Maybe this is what the MAGA guys get excited about when it comes to globalization. Maybe it's Dexter Dunn's fault. Or Andrew McCarthy, or his brother (aka the rightful driver of this year's Big M Pace champ). Blame it on the Kiwis and Aussies. 

Regardless, let's all call draws post positions again. I'll even make up a catchy phrase - LACDPPA - and print red hats if I have to. Please make it so. 

Speaking of draws posts, another old time harness racing truth is under assault - and I don't have the foggiest idea how it got narratived so fast - the rail post at Mohawk and the Meadowlands is a "bad draw".

This is all over the harness press; analysts ask questions about it. Some drivers even talk about it now. 

The thinking seems to be that the turn comes up too fast and it's crippling. Weird, because you know where the turn comes up really fast? Yonkers. You know what post you want at Yonkers? Post one. 

The difference of course is that at Yonkers, drivers push out from the rail to use it as an advantage, whereby at Mohawk (maybe from reading the press, I honestly don't know) drivers outside probably JJ and Louis Roy don't push out from the rail. 

You know when drawing the wood sucks? When you don't push out because you have your head looking right to let five horses in front of you. Then it sucks bad.

I'm a degen bettor, so what do I know, but I had a chuckle a couple of weeks ago. 

Driver Yannick Gingras was being asked about having post one with a trotter in an upcoming race, and if he was "worried about his 'inside draw' because it was so "tricky". He looked a little surprised at the question, politely said no he wasn't worried about it and that he'll probably push out like you have to from there. He said post one was "fine". 

I guess he doesn't read the internet. 

There's my old time whip around racing, where gate breaks were part of the game, draws were called posts, and the rail in harness racing wasn't horrible. 

Have a super day everyone!

Good Morning Racefans. A Post Filled with Bad/Good Opinion on What the Hell Happened in Racing This Weekend

Good morning everyone. I hope the day is treating you well. 

So much happened this weekend, and much of it stuck in my craw (or in my amazement) in various ways. So I decided to take a few moments and jot a few things (and some rants) down. 

The Adios was won by what will now be referred to as the horse who crossed the wire first in the Meadowlands Pace, Prince Hal Hanover, and it was a pretty decent tilt. I thought at least. DeRosa reports the handle was quite good, with the race being televised for the first time. 

Credit where due: total handle on Adios card up about 16%-17%. Considering @TheNYRA Saratoga was down 9.9%, that’s not bad! https://t.co/lPSzEeRwkN

— Ed DeRosa (@EJXD2) July 27, 2025

Adios day is a great day; throwback in many ways, and it's nice to see them have a good result. 

The Meadowlands held the Hambo and Hambo Oaks eliminations, and I wondered if i) horses were replaced with other horses, and ii) if some drivers didn't make it back from the Adios and the amateurs took their place, unbeknownst to us bettors. 

Pre-race Oaks chalk Lady Landia went to the back and missed the final at 2-5. 

Ake is the best. He drives his 3/5 shots like they are 25/1 and he drove Nordic Catcher like a rocket ship with blah PP’s

— Buck Swope (@ShotTakingTime) July 27, 2025

Pre-race Hambo chalk Go Dog Go raced like well, Stop Cat Stop. 

I have a theory on this, actually, which may or may not be true. When Dog beat Maryland easily last time and looked like the second coming of Muscle Hill, he veered a hard left in the lane. I wonder if he tweaked something. He raced like something was bothering him, and driver Todd McCarthy drove him like he'd be no good. Who knows, but it was quite disappointing.

Kevin Oscarrson drove the Lady Landia race like he was 2-5, wanting to pull two holes at 70-1, and various other moves. Prediction - I'm pretty sure he's gonna do something wild in the final. 

Aside - I don't know what to say about Scott Zeron and R Lady W, but I swear I'm gonna be so broke betting this horse until she's 12, or until they list Gingras. 

I'll switch my Hambo pick to Miss Belmar and hope she's not chalk. I have no idea what to do in the Hambo, but I assume Maryland will be my most likely winner, barring a bad post.

In the Jim Dandy, Sovereignty proved without a doubt (in my mind anyway) that he is a tremendous racehorse. It seems like years ago he was a fade because he could only be a closer. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they're pointing him to the Breeders Cup Turf Sprint. 

I wish it was 1990 again and we'd see him race throughout his 4 year old season. He just keeps getting better and better, in my view. 

Speaking of 1990. Communism is in the news, particularly with Gen Z types who don't know which side of the city people ran to when the wall came down. The old Stalinist saying "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" I believe works with the harness judges, too. Namely, the longer you look for an infraction, the higher the chance you'll find one. However, what happens when they don't even look?

In the WEG Open last night Taurasi definitely ran over or went inside pylons. How do you not tell the public you're looking at it. The official sign went up, nothing burger. This sport can have 20 minute inquiries or no inquiry. It seems there is no in between. 

I get it, it sucks, but I wish the industry types would stop doing this:

We have a clubhouse leader for most significant late odds change on a winner at Del Mar. As the field for Saturday's 6th was loading, Nanci Griffith was 19-1. Her final price was 6-1. She rallied wide and won. Folks who hoped for approx. $40 on a $2 win ticket, got $14.80. #drf

— Steve Andersen (@DRFAndersen) July 26, 2025

The horse was always 6-1. She just wasn't six to one when the tote board was made up of gobbledygook.  

Back in 1904, Tony the Nose hung the Giants by 4 over the Eagles in the Bronx, and Pete the Leg hung Eagles - 4 at a barber shop in Philly. The price was phantom, and Tony Zhou/Keith Bush/Rob Pizzola syndicates mowed into town and banged the price into shape. 

This happens every race in racing. The tote board is a barber shop. These prices are not real. You're making people dumber.

Speaking of dumb, I was not playing seriously during the day yesterday - a few supers, ex's, reverse pyramid things for 20 cents etc, and I looked up and had a super day. I cashed 68 out of like 200 wagers, which for my style of play is like running the table. I texted a friend before the harness races this info, and then went 11 for my next 200. Never tempt the gambling gods. 

Last up - to the content makers in this sport - Scott, Sport of Kings guys, picks platforms etc, I commend you. I listen to what I can and it amazes me this is all free. I can't believe this sport isn't more popular.

Have a great rest of the day everyone. 

Is the "Intent" Handicapping Variable What's Driving Up Chalk Win Rates?

Handicapping horse racing would be pretty easy if the fastest horse won every race, but betting what horse is the fastest in this race, on this day, is our main goal. 

To find that horse we can use intent handicapping factors, and they can include basics like a rider or driver change, a drop in class, or an addition of lasix. 

Finding hidden intent factors - that is, things that aren't in the PP's - can be a holy grail for us. Long ago, bike changes in harness racing was one that could particularly yield fruit. 

Also in yesteryear, there would be information outside the form that we'd get while at the track. 

I, and I'm sure many of you, would hear that a horse was ready. The trainer got some vet work done, and the hock that was bugging him was on tip top shape. The horse in training blew away a top horse in the barn on Wednesday afternoon. 

Oftentimes we'd hear this and look up and the horse we figured was 10-1 was 7 or 8-1. It would close at 6 and win going away to pay $14. Many times you'd squeeze an exotic bet in that would pay, because every pool wasn't covered. 

These horses of course exist today just like they always have. But while I'd get this information at ten minutes to post, run over to a friend and whisper what I heard, dissemination is much, much different. 

In fact, these tidbits could've been texted 500 times over the previous two days. 

The horse that was 10-1 is not 6-1, but likely opens at 9-5. It may be chalk or second choice in the pick 3. And, in 2025, when the CAW live play algos catch this, they factor it in as well, driving down the price only as they can when you pay 5% win juice. 

One simple bit of "hidden" intent information in 2025, with cellphones, being able to easily bet multiple bets (exotics and otherwise) on your ADW, and in the age of so little public money in the pools, snowballs into a whole lot of hammered horses. #theyknew horses were #theyknews because #theyknew. 

It doesn't mean these horses always win; just like 25 years ago they didn't either. But I'd argue with some of these horses, it has become as obvious an intent factor in the pools as a driver change in 1994. 

There's a lot of reason for the sharper lines we see today and surely the computer wagering is a big part. But hidden intent factors that aren't as hidden in the modern game in my view are pouring a lot of gasoline on that fire. 

Have a nice Tuesday everyone. 

Three Things Harness Racing Judges Can Learn from the Thoroughbreds

Judging in horse racing is subjective, imperfect, maddening, and many times an unenviable task. But it's a big part of this sport and I think, like with other sports, it should evolve and continually try to improve. 

In many ways I believe judging in the thoroughbreds has improved over time; they've added some logic, reason and guardrails to the imperfect. It's not perfect, but I believe it's getting better. 

Typing that I believe the thoroughbred stews aren't too bad at their jobs might get me blocked and reported on the twitter, but yes. I believe there are several things our harness racing judges can learn from them. I'll list a few here. 

Tic Tacs

Thoroughbred judging deals with an immutable truth about this sport we all play or participate in - with thousand pound animals going full speed around two turns in big fields, stuff is going to happen. 

There's variance, there's path adjustments and bumping and all the rest. It's just the way it is. And unless something is egregious, the horse is staying up. 

Nowhere is this more apparent than the start. The start is a particularly violent event, where fractious horses, ready to go at top speed immediately can hammer the hell out of each other. 99.9% of starts aren't even looked at because they're a part of the game. 

Harness racing could not be judged more in the exact opposite way. Every horse is expected to have wide berths. Every driver and horse are expected to keep perfect straight line paths. 

If a horse breaks in front of another horse and a driver pulls a horses head sideways costing him a foot, bye bye to the breaking horse, even if he wins by 25 and the offended horse loses by 50. A horse simply making another horse veer off a straight line course is considered a violation. 

Harness racing, because of race bikes and the threat of accident surely should be called closer than thir runner cousins. But, it's bonkers just how close the game is called. The judges leave nothing to be desired when it comes to the vagaries of the game. 

Angles are Imperfect, Hence it Better be Clear

In thoroughbred racing they are loathe to throw out a winner unless the evidence a foul occurred is pretty overwhelming. One of the reasons for this is the available angles on replay. 

Just like in hockey replay (before the camera was placed directly on the goal line, it was pretty impossible to tell if a puck crossed the goal line), in racing we're dealing with a pan shot that might be at a 15 or 40 degree angle to an infraction, and the head on doesn't show depth.  

Was the hole there? Did this horse crowd another? Unless you have a drone shot directly over an infraction, you might never know for sure. In harness racing, judges seem to happily guess, and then revert to the tic tac point above. 

Thoroughbred Stews let the Jocks Jock

Racing is (or should be) a tactical game, and it's ruthless. 

When Fierceness had the rail recently at Saratoga everyone thought he'd have trouble being pinned in. Right on cue (the jocks read Marcus Hersh or read Tinky posts) not one but two jocks race-rode him into the rail. They knew they had a job to do to win that race, and they also knew they weren't getting pitched for a tic tac for a tactical ride. 

Jocks show a lane, then close it. They drift to show a horse an oncoming one. They're allowed to, well, be jockeys with a functioning brain. The best at it get paid millions. 

In harness racing if a driver briefly and tactically shows a hole and the following driver is dumb enough to try and take it and it gets shut, you're likely tossed. If he (rare at Mohawk that's for sure) swings three high early because they're walking and a horse behind him tosses his head, (because that horse's driver doesn't have a clock in his head) it's a tic tac toss. 

In thoroughbred racing, riding brilliance is respected, in harness racing, driving brilliance can get you suspended. 

I remember a bunch of years ago now it was Breeders Cup Saturday and I bet a horse in a turf race where (it mighta been Goldikova) the rider forced his way out, because a horse beside her was dying and wouldn't get out of the way. The judges didn't even look at it. 

Later that evening I made a bet at the Meadowlands on a horse that I thought was super-talented but completely wonky. He was being driven for the first time by Yannick Gingras, who even then showed no fear with such horses. The horse was 5-2 and Yannick set sail. Leading at the half by six he went offstride and immediately pulled right. The driver of the horse six back in second, veered out, not because he had to, but because he got scared. 

Yannick, with the driving brilliance we see nightly with him now, got back on stride, swooped the field and won by five in a completely remarkable performance. 

The Meadowlands judges tossed him, because of the actions of the driver six lengths behind him who got scared. 

Harness racing and thoroughbred racing has to be judged differently. But to me anyway, the gap is too large. And harness racing has to move more towards the thoroughbreds, not the other way around. 

Have a great Monday everyone

Saratoga & Economic Realism

Happy Monday everyone.

There's quite a bit of twitter chatter about Saratoga this past weekend; about both its meagre attendance numbers, and its stout YoY handle for the Belmont (at Saratoga, which isn't usually at Saratoga) racing festival. 

I, like everyone, loved the Saratoga meet of years past. Six days a week, very, very good horses, riders and trainers plying their trade, even on a Wednesday; and strong attendance numbers, with happy racegoers wanting to be a part of the spectacle. 

I also, like most of you, enjoyed Sunday afternoon football, the specialness of Thanksgiving Day football games; Wild card weekend over my Christmas holidays, ending the season before January 15th. 

I enjoyed the pennant run; a sport where for a bazillion years 162 games were enough to decide who the four best teams were. And baseball ending before my birthday each year, so much so, that I could go outside and practice my Kent Tekulve throwing motion in my backyard in the tundra during the playoffs; where remarkably there was no snow on the ground yet. 

I enjoyed the NHL playoffs where the Stanley Cup Final ended while there was still ice on the lakes, Saturday at 8PM puck drops were the staple; March Madness when I actually knew what time the games were going to be played and what network they were on. 

Watered down Saratoga is, as they say, just the way it is. It's just how things are done. 

Saratoga is not about the past, the tradition, the fans, the horses, the events or making it special. It's CAW and handle per entry; it's CAC and ROE and P and L and all the other neat acronyms they teach us in business school. And it's just catching up to everyone else. 

Have a great Monday everyone. 

Three Cheers (Well, Maybe One Cheer) For HISA

If you ask someone's opinion on HISA, it's either gonna be good (rare), bad (sometimes) or ugly (most of the time). I generally like to look at things like this on a case by case basis, and in one aspect, I can clearly say I think it's good. 

That aspect is increased oversight. 

Yesterday at Monmouth a horse who appeared lame was scratched, as the even money favorite, with a couple of minutes to post. This has been nothing that new the last few years certainly, but I think we forget sometimes how it used to be. 

When I was playing races on Betfair - where you could both back or lay horses - keeping tabs on how a horse looked (especially if it was a short price) was something to pay attention to. And there were several folks doing just that. 

One gentleman from the UK that I ran across in my travels only layed horses at the exchange, and it was almost solely based on their looks. He had a very sharp eye, growing up with horses, and it's all he did to make his living. He played mostly UK racing, but pivoted to "cowboy racing" as he called it, when the exchange carried massive numbers of North American racetracks. 

I'd get a call or email from time to time asking if I saw the six, and if not I should pitch him in the supers. He was usually right. 

One day for a Grade I race I watched a filly in the walking ring who appeared to be walking a little short.  Not long after, the post parade pretty clearly showed that something was amiss - the horse looked pretty awful. If my memory serves me, she was 2-5 on the board, and I think 1.57 on the exchange. 

I put an offer to book the 1.57 and it went away, I moved it up a couple of times and got filled at I think an average of 1.66. It was one of my bigger lay bets ever. 

I got pinged on email from my UK friend. 

"I bought up to 1.8, that's all me," he typed. 

She actually ran credibly, coming across in 5th or 6th, and the crowd (again if memory serves) saw what most saw and she closed way up at 4-5. I think it may have been her last race. 

Fast forwarding - the game has changed. 

Despite costing the track megabucks, we see gate scratches (sometimes even two horses like yesterday's Monmouth 5th race, which followed a horrific breakdown on Saturday; sometimes in the Breeders Cup). And we see even money shots scratched in claimers. 

But it's more than top-line data, because that is muddied. 

The culture change, and through perhaps better diagnostic testing, we see many of these horses don't even enter the box. The Teardrop situation likely happens less and less. I suspect the I Want Revenge type scratches don't make it to Saturday morning to the same extent anymore. 

Even void claim rules have protected horses from those who may want to unload a lame one. 

There are several reasons for this change, but I think one of them, in 2025 is the presence of HISA. 

There's hierarchical oversight that this sport never had before. 

Trainers are more vigilant because the track vets are more vigilant. The track vets are more vigilant because the track execs are more vigilant. The track execs are more vigilant because the Commissions are more vigilant. 

And, from the top rope, they're more vigilant because HISA is watching all of them. 

For that - in this instance at least - I give HISA a cheer. I suspect the horses probably thank them, too. 

Have a nice Monday everyone. 

Should Racing's Television Coverage "Flip the Script"?

 I saw this post from NASCAR Buck Swope today. 

Horse racing could learn something here (but will not). The Amazon Prime race analysts and live coverage overall have energized the base by simply flipping the boogity boogity boogity “audience is braindead” script that the other networks have been dishing out for over a decade. https://t.co/xUxBhzxDBi

— Buck Swope (@ShotTakingTime) June 2, 2025

He's referring to the new NASCAR coverage on Prime, which apparently differs wildly from previous iterations of the coverage on Fox Sports and others. 

Although I take Bucky's word for it on almost everything, especially Kirkland brand drinking products, I did dive into the cockles of the twitter interweb in trust but verify mode. And I conclude the Swope is onto something. People are loving this non "dumbed down" coverage. 

Who knows if racing could benefit from such a shift. We've got our Alix Earles and the like, and it seems the sport is convinced this is how to present racing to the masses. And frankly, television ratings for the big races have been decent. 

But I think the NASCAR coverage on Prime tells us something. 

In 2025, covering events for the masses almost doesn't exist, because nowadays it doesn't need to exist.

I started recently going down a chess rabbit hole. I don't know much about chess, other than I know how to play it, but got hooked watching speed chess games on Youtube (and it appears I am not the only one; these things have millions and millions of views). I find them fascinating. 

What the coverage - if we want to call it that - doesn't do, is dumb things down. When they mention a "Sicilian defense" opener, I don't need to know what it means because I can google it. Ditto a hundred other things. I can learn on the fly (imagine how much better this gets with AI). 

If they're explaining handicapping on a Derby show and want to attract people to "google" something complex, I don't see that itch scratched very much. It feels rudimentary. 

Maybe it's just the way it is, and has to be; I'm not smart enough to know. But as the world grows more and more specialized; where people can find unique perspectives on virtually anything on Youtube or with AI; where analytics, high level gambling concepts and the like are more and more common; dumbing things down seems like an anachronism. 

Have a very nice Monday everyone.

A Message from Melissa Nolan's Husband Patrick, to Horse Racing Twitter Regarding Her Passing

With the heaviest heart I am reaching out to all who are saddened by the news of Melissa's recent passing. I've seen and heard the kindest words reflecting what Melissa never wanted to hide, that horse racing was the great passion of her life. She could pick winners with the best of you, but even a bad day at the windows never tempered her joy from being immersed in the spectacle and camaraderie of the track. For the past 21 years I was lucky enough to experience horse racing firsthand with one of the sport’s most loyal and ardent disciples, and through that entire time Melissa never lost her childlike wonderment for the beauty and grace of the equine athlete. Nothing was more exquisite to her than witnessing those majestic creatures flawlessly perform what they were born to do. 

All of us who love this sport long enough remember our bad beats as vividly as our triumphs, and experience tragic lows intertwined with those incredible highs. It becomes an integral part of our lives, and we accept the pain it can cause because we also witness breathtaking magic. Now that Melissa is gone, I worry I may never feel the same levels of agony and ecstasy. Her pure emotions contributed to my own, but I will never give up my love for this sport even if the sensations are less intense. I know that I will always be closest to her when I am at the track, among her racing family. 

Because she was so young, it is natural for people to have questions about her unexpected death. I don't have any explanation, and it's possible that the specific cause will never be known for sure. Melissa loved having a good time, but her father's passing in 2019 was difficult and she struggled with alcohol at times. We went through some rough patches this past winter, but I really believe that she was looking forward to her favorite time of the year as summer approached. Melissa could accomplish anything she put her mind to, and although she didn’t tell me what she was doing, my fear is that she too drastically stopped drinking. The autopsy revealed an enlarged heart, and with it a likelihood her body was not strong enough to handle the shock of withdrawal. It pains me to share this, in part because she concealed her problem well and would be devastated by its revelation, but also because I am ashamed that I let it happen even though I don’t know what I could have done differently. My sole motivation is the hope that it will encourage the idea that you don’t have to do something that hard on your own even if you know you can. 

I wish that it hadn’t taken so long for word of her passing to become known to all who knew her through racing. I lost my wife and partner, but as the touching words you have shared reveal, she meant a great deal to many of you. Please know that your interactions with Melissa, virtually and in person, added to the happiness racing brought her. Thank you for stimulating her insatiable desire to expand and share her knowledge of the sport. Please do what you can to continue her advocacy for what she held so dear.

Thinking Through Pick n's

Good day everyone!

This week on Chris's podcast, I broke down how I try and do better making pick 'n' tickets today, from yesteryear. 

Most of this is influenced by Inside the Pylons and the arguments that ensued on the twitter for so long. The warm and cuddly one gave as good as he got, of course, and it was a fascinating discussion. 

ITP has five hours of discussion on Chris's podcast explaining it better than I could, so I recommend listening if you haven't. But, here's another example that I hope shows, i) building proposed value in a pick 3 and ii) how you're not upset when you miss, because you, in effect, built it to miss (a lower price). 

In Ralphie9's debut yesterday as a guest analyst at Mohawk - where he gave out the pick 5 that paid a whopping $3k for a buck - I wasn't in the same vein. I did not like the pick 5, primarily for the 4th and 5th legs. 

But in the first leg, there was a horse I liked, and in the third leg there was a favorite I did not like. 

The first leg was a perfect pick three key horse, in my view. She was coming off a race where she finished her mile well signalling she was in form, but she was dead on the board at 13-1 the whole time. Around her, the horses who were taking money had a lot of question marks. 

I was going to bet win and exotics, but I wanted to find some gravy for this meal. 

I looked at the double onto the chalk in leg two, but I don't like playing those because any sizeable double in those smaller pools just ups your takeout. Plus they get hammered late so often you never know which way they're going. 

Since I did not like the chalk in three, but did like the chalk in two, there was probably enough for a pick 3. I took two price horses in the third leg. And after I got there, the payoffs were fairly solid (although less than I thought, because of the smaller pick 3 pools this can happen), around $200 for a dollar. 

The favorite I disliked won by an inch, after a perfect trip at 4-5, and it beat my $200 horse. Other than losing by an inch, I didn't care. Why, because I specifically targeted that horse out, to make my ticket pay something worthwhile. 

When ITP and others who have played like this for a hundred years with success get their backs up with the word favorites "defensively", this is kind of why. I'm not upset I didn't use the favorite defensively in the third, because *not* using her was the sole reason for taking my pick 3 ticket. 

The reason I brought up three (legs) being a "magic number" is because it's pretty easy to explain, and it's pretty seamless to do in our heads. Many of you, I bet, would make the exact same pick 3 ticket above when you were presented with the same opinion. When we add 4th legs or 5th legs, it can mess us up. We can get into, "holy hell, I can't miss this ticket, so I better throw more horses in" territory. 

For those that are unhappy with their pick n play, using the ITP "hurdle" method in only three legs, not five, in my opinion, can be a worthwhile exercise. 

It gets us into some good habit forming, and helps train our minds. We are looking to drain opposing money in each leg, while we keep it simple in our working memory. 

And when we get beaten by a chalk we don't like, we simply don't care. We control the tickets we make, and when we create them to avoid a chalk, it's a feature not a bug. It's exactly how we designed them. How can we be mad at that?

Have a very nice Tuesday everyone. And, hell of a hit Nick! Great debut on the telecast. 

Paying Attention to Betting Markets

I think we all pay attention to betting markets in some shape or form. 

If the horse we like is 2-1, we think it has a good chance because the markets agree with our assessment. 

If a Saffie Joseph horse off the claim, picked everywhere, with Irad up off a 147 pound journeyman and 4% trainer, and the horse is dead at 6-1, we pay attention to that, too. 

Where the markets, in my opinion, work for us, is where there's something we don't understand. And that happens in this new world a lot. 

About ten or fifteen years ago it was around 7AM and my phone rang. 

"Are you watching the speed skating?", said a friend on the other line, watching I think it was the Olympics. 

"I'm watching the inside of my eyelids, why are you calling me?" I said. 

"Hans Franzenhans [or whatever] just did a fast time, and I just got filled at 6.0 on betfair, go bet some, he's going to win."

At this point I have FOMO on this, so I get up. 

"Why exactly am I supposed to bet Hans Franzenhans in speed skating again?" I asked. 

"There's moisture coming and it's warming up in there. The favorites will have a tough time on a slower track. The same thing happened in Stuttgart a month ago," he retorted. 

Dumfounded, I make a coffee, open my laptop and see that Hans Franzenhans (or whatever) is down to 4.2 on the exchange. He's not even remotely close to being a pre-race chalk, but he's bet. I pop in a wager, because at this point, how can I argue with this. 

I watch a couple of skaters and no one is close to our bet Hans. 

Then the commentators throw down to the on-ice reporter. 

"I have some news. The Dutch team are worried the track is slowing. It's getting warm. The same thing happened in Stuttgart last month"

I'm like, you have to be kidding me.  

Hans Franzenhans, or whatever, moved down to heavy chalk soon after, and he was the Secretariat of speed skating winning by like 31. There wasn't even a Sham in the race to worry about. 

Hans Franzenhans was never supposed to be bet. He wasn't supposed to be bet when I got him, or probably when my (incredibly sharp) friend got him bet. 

But someone knew this "Stuttgart" thing was possible, and it was reflected in the price. 

This is always tricky for us in horse racing. What money is a real signal led by my friend who wakes me up and other sharps fading this chalk, and what isn't? What's Hans Frazenhans money and what's not? It's up to us to use our detective skills in the game to try and figure it out. It's not easy, but no one said this game is easy. It's just another element of this incredibly interesting game we play. 

Have a great Thursday everyone. 

Preakness Results Bias, Angles, Larmey, Weekend Notes

 Hello everyone!

A few notes from the weekend action, and various other topics. 

First, how about that Preakness ride on Journalism? It's been analyzed on the twitter and elsewhere, so I don't have much to add to that, but it always strikes me how the result dictates how we tend to feel about an occurrence or event. 

Let's for a second forget we saw something absolutely special from the excellent McCarthy colt, but instead saw the horrible side of this move. That is, a horse went down. On national TV. 

The topics today would, of course, be much different. The New York Times would be calling for an end of the sport, NBC News would have a nightly feature. Rispoli would be hammered at least as much as Paco Lopez on a random Wednesday. 

To me, the result doesn't change much. 

If the sport is trying to get rid of dangerous riding so the horses and riders are protected; is worried about the public being able to count the number of whip strikes over six; if raceday meds are a no-no; lasix is cruel; if Kentucky Downs needed to raise juice to pay for "HISA bills" ..... then how is the sport not giving Rispoli three months off?

Is forcing your way out of a bad spot and putting other horses and riders in a dangerous situation only bad if it goes wrong?

"Angles"

I had a fun discussion with one of my most favorite people in racing this weekend - Chris Larmey. The podcast is here for those who might want to listen.  We talked a fair bit about angles, both past and present. 

In the age of Formulator, and CAW bankrolls as large as the real estate value of Santa Anita, angles are sometimes as obsolete as my family's first 237 pound microwave oven, but massaging and subsetting some data (if it's totally logical) can still, in my view, lead us into spots.

Today I find I get some angles to try based on whatever I can find that is outside formulator, or sometimes on a complete whim. Case in point, trainer John Ennis. 

I heard Ennis get interviewed on TVG during the Keeneland meet and he noted his horses weren't fit enough because of a lot of bad weather. It's logical to think - with a little recency modification - that I can flag those this month. 

I'd like to say I am swimming in cash, but only one or two converted. Again, however, the result is not a damnation of the little goofy angle. His horses have run well, and I almost scored big, with some of you I imagine, on Abbi Fede Saturday night at Churchill at 13-1, losing a bank breaking head bob. Epic Ride ran his eyeballs out at Pimlico on the weekend, too. 

CAW's and computer players have a lot of things covered nowadays, but sometimes things as simple as a quick quip in a TVG interview can give us a little info outside the PP's. 

"If it's in the PP's it's in the Price"

This is a Larmey quote that I will modify for one racetrack. 

"If it's in the Aragona odds line it's in the price" is, in my view, as rite as rain. 

But what happens when Aragona, who is very rarely wrong, wrong and the board says his 9-2 morning line horse is a 2-1 shot? It's one of the weird questions I wrestle with as a player. I've gone with the last few - even if I considered them underlaid - because I believe what we were seeing was not in the PP's and it was important. But I have no idea if following the 'against' money with Aragona is wise or stupid. 

Shout out to CDI

How do I give a shout out to the Death Star racetrack?

CDI board meeting today

I do when I find the on-track feed coverage is so damn good. Way to go Tony, Joe and Kevin. Fun discussions, I love having you on in the background while I am navigating a few tracks. 

Smaller Bank, Wanna Play ITP tickets?

I am an unabashed fan of "ITP tickets", and fully realized from talking with many of you that they can be hard to get our heads around. 

In Part II of the discussion with Chris Larmey, I discussed the "Magic Number of Three (legs)" and some practice we can put in, for low stakes in low bankrolls, to embrace the ITP Way. If you're not happy with your pick n's and wanted to dip your toe in with the warm and cuddly twitter poster we call ITP, maybe you'd find it helpful. It helped me. 

Side note -- I had to chuckle this weekend, as when I turned on the Preakness coverage on TVG, Todd immediately mentioned ITP tickets on the telecast. I like Todd a lot, I have heard and believe he's a good guy, and it's cool to see him having fun with the whole ITP thing. It's what the game is - opinions. 

Have a great Monday everyone. And if you're in the Tundra, can someone remind me why Woodbine doesn't race a card on Victoria Day again?

It's Always a Good Time to Play Vertically (Even on the Derby Card)

In the age of pick 4's and 5's and 6's and TVG tickets (and ITP ire), sometimes we have FOMO in not playing them. But most times, for me anyway in this day and age, verticals are where it's at. The transparency of the markets teaches us so much. 

Even on Derby cards. 

In the 9th on Derby Day, the board opened and Zulu Kingdom was bet in almost every pool. I saw a good many comments on twitter that they didn't have the strong open on the Bingo card. Frankly, looking at my numbers, neither did I. 

But there it was. And the funny thing? The exact same phenomenon was noticed in the horse's last at Tampa. The 'afterthought' was bet well and delivered. I suspect this is one of those horses that is better than we can see as handicappers. 

After being hit with the board for the second time in a row, I keyed the horse in the pick 4. 

In the pick 5 which was the previous leg, I spread the race. 

Even after watching the horse win again, I still don't think much of him, but I am clearly missing something, right? 

The vertical markets again helped. 

Flipping to the next, I was on Kopion, like many of you, including Chris at the Sport of Kings pod. It was apparent the morning line was wrong. 

However, the markets again helped me make a betting decision. It was still a soupy track where Kopion had no experience, he was inside. If the market opened soft I'd have to reevaluate, but it didn't. I keyed in the pick 4, and was happy, not sad to see the market confirm my beliefs. 

I don't want to misconstrue that somehow the market is always right; if it was we'd never bet a longshot, nor would favorites be beaten 60% of the time. But on plays like this, they help me decipher things more and more. 

For horizontals three races out we don't have the benefit of an odds board, and it makes things very tough. Sure the CAW's and sharps make good lines, but even they use the market to evaluate if their opinion is sharp or weak. And they pivot in real time just like we do. 

For any new player, or anyone looking to get better, I wholeheartedly am behind honing your skills in the super-tough 2025 game by playing more vertically. Transparency never goes out of style. 

Have a nice Monday everyone!

The Racing Betting Market Gets Sharper, Even with Bombs

Great post I saw today (h/t to @dennycaps) about the favorite-longshot bias. The author looked at over 32,000 races run in Australia and New Zealand, and their expected wins by odds level at the exchange. 

It found what's historically always been found about the favorite-longshot bias in racing literature - longshots are terrible bets. 

It's funny because coincidentally I noticed this yesterday watching Keeneland. Someone on the teevee noted they didn't mind a certain horse (I can't remember which one) who was 15-1 on the board. On the exchange the horse was 80-1. According to this study, he should've been even higher. 

Historically on the exchange I don't think it's always been like this.

When I was playing full time for almost ten years I played betfair religiously, until it was pulled in 2013 here in the Tundra. I kept my personal statistics by bet level and was lifetime ROI positive on horses over 20-1. 

This, of course, had selection bias. I built longer shot models, which clicked just enough to be profitable. I generally played longer horses who could show speed, and the dirt tracks at the time were harder and somewhat faster where speed could carry. Klein's DRF book "The Power of Early Speed" with stats from the 1990's were kind of still relevant in certain subsets. Getting these horses at 70 when they were 20 on the tote board was something good. 

Clearly today that would not work. But it doesn't work with even more longshots than yesteryear and I think this study proves it. 

Why?

I think the CAW's know that field size doesn't equal field depth, and the 9 or 10 horse fields today are peppered with some serious no-hopers. These horses are literally 1000-1 or more to win. Sharp players are fading them to more reasonable levels, and no doubt making a profit on them on the exchange. 

As @quantum_sport noted to me on twitter awhile back, and I think he's super sharp, the teams do not use these horses at all, and it's reflected in exotics. There's no alls for fourth in their super tickets. 

As usual, I think they're onto something. 

Does this mean we should never use longshots? Returning to subsets, not on your life - because these horses are not covered by the teams. 

Longshots clunk up supers. And when they do, they pay, so if you're on one you love, using them in the two-three slots on supers is gangbusters. 

Just yesterday in the 6th at Keeneland, the super paid $10k for $1. Logical horse in first, logical horse third. The two bombs in the two and four slots resulted in a monster payoff. If you liked one of those bombs and swung them 2nd, or 3rd or 4th, for a modest 10 cent ticket investment you got paid. 

Markets move and adjust over time, and our betting markets have done exactly that, exchanges or otherwise. Yes, longshots - whether it be in exotics, on the board, or even on exchanges - are terrible bets if you bet them all. Fortunately for us though we don't bet them all and if we like one, we can still take a poke, and bet a little to win a lot. 

Have a great Monday everyone. 

There's More Top-Notch Betting Content Than Ever in Racing

 Hello Friends (I'm in Masters mode, sorry @barchyman). 

I find myself on a different horse racing betting journey than I am used to. Namely I am not grinding away in jcapper, or watching replays, looking for horses I can make some scratch on. 

No, now, I find myself consuming more and more horse racing content. It's simply fitting my current process, and for me, process is just about everything in this difficult game. 

Here's a few things I currently look at. 

First, the best podcast for selections of a big day or a big sequence, in my view, is the Sport of Kings podcast, featuring Scott Carson and Chris Larmey. I start my Fridays with this pod, and as I listen it forces me to handicap each race in real time with the guys. I have the lay of the land on a sequence after the episode, and am prepared to how I may want to bet it. This can change as I analyze prices and other factors, but it's lays a solid foundation for me to build upon. 

Oh, and the selections are often quite good. The two pod hosts and guests are very smart players. I have gotten an idea or two over the years that I wouldn't have come up with myself. Tossing in a neat bomb you may agree with is rarely a bad idea on days like these. 

For Keeneland, I often find myself checking Eric Solomon's analysis over at the inthemoney blog. Eric puts effort into it, and he's quite sharp. I don't dedicate the time it takes to wager the tough Keeneland cards like I used to, and Eric gives me things to think about. 

I am an unabashed Hawthorne fan. When I was playing full time I built some models for the start of the spring meets and had some success, so year in and year out it stuck in my mind, and was a part of my play, full time or casual. 

When I open the form in the morning, I follow it up reading Emily Gullikson's analysis on the Hawthorne website. Emily might talk in boxes and circles (Optixspeak) but it's clear, concise and sharp. If I like a trainer move, a perceived bias horse, or something a little sneaky and she's open to the same horse, I am definitely more confident wagering a few dollars. 

Others in the space - 

In the land where trackside tents are apparently very expensive despite subsidies that would make the Canadian dairy industry blush, Marcus Hersh's Kentucky Downs thoughts are welcomed. Marcus watches races I can not. 

David Aragona is one of the best handicappers in the country. I'd use "in my view" as a qualifier on that usually, but this is too obvious for that. His NYRA analysis is interesting, informative and offers players some good alternatives in a tough (especially in the winter) short field circuit. I'd rather eat a plate of thumbtacks than use a chalk defensively, but I use a David Aragona bomb selection defensively very often. 

Kevin and Joe at Churchill and various tracks in their Death Star Evil Empire (sorry, you know me, I can't help myself CDI) are sharp. They offer alternatives to the chalk and you can tell they work at it. 

CDI Board Meeting

Over in harness telecast land - it pays to pay attention to Chad Rozema over at Mohawk-Woodbine-WEG Park (or whatever the new branding is calling that place). Chad takes his work seriously and is often chatting backside, watching qualifiers and adding some very interesting ideas to the mix. 

So friends, as I watch my Masters bet on Colin Morikawa go up in smoke this weekend, I'll be leaning on my other friends - a few of them above - to help my process to hopefully get back a little scratch. 

Have a great day, and good luck at the windows. 

How Hard is it Mentally for Bettors to Pitch the Obvious?

I sat down and listened to the Bet With the Best podcast yesterday, which was a (part one) revisit with warm 'n cuddly ITP. 

One area I think it's worth looking at again here on blog has to do with a big, huge, everything of ITP - being able to take a stand against the common funnels in pick n tickets. 

ITP talks about this almost casually, like it's an immutable truth, and if you can't see this strategy as positive, you're from a different horseplayer planet. 

The issue many have, from what I see, is that we are from a different horseplayer planet. Doing what he prescribes and does so easily as a learned heuristic, goes against human nature. 

This isn't the only game where we see this phenomenon. 

In DFS, we'll read the fantasy websites, turn on NFL.com or ESPN or Matt Berry and we'll hear all week how the top-rated running back of the week is Saquon Barkley against the Giants. It's anchored in our minds, and if we don't use him, we feel we're losing something. And losing something so obvious is pain. 

Smart players, as Garett Skiba talks about in DFS and has won million dollar tournaments using, think differently. 

They say there's a chance in a -16.5 chalk game that Hurts gets three TD's with tush pushes and Cooper DeJean returns Gabe Prewitt's buddy DeVito for a pick 6 in the first half. And then Kenneth Gainwell gets the carries in the second half. He pitches, and doesn't care if he loses. 

Kahneman and Tversky won a Noble Prize in 2002 exploring this phenomenon in cognitive bias and behavioral economics; namely, "EV" that everyone talks about is really, really hard to take advantage of, because of the way we're wired.

For example, if people are given the choice to get $400 or a coin flip for $1,000, folks choose the bird in the hand. The bird in the hand is Barkley, the Pletcher firster everyone is talking about on TVG, or the stumbling Sandman in the Rebel. Our mind simply melts if we miss those. We want to avoid this risk because losing is more painful than winning is joy. Self preservation is a reason the human race has been around for 200,000 years. 

ITP's mind, I believe from having success with this strategy for a long time (including just after he taped Chris's pod this week), doesn't melt, it gets excited for it. Skiba's does too. 

There's a lot that goes into making a mind-pivot like this, where it's second nature. You need good bankroll management, a mindset where when the chalk you pitched does beat us, we don't go into regret mode and let if affect our play. We, of course, need the requisite skill to find horses that maximizes our chance to cash outside that one Barkley race. We need to make great tickets. Putting that all together isn't easy. 

But the fact remains. When everyone is funneling a sequence through a set of horses, and we see a different path, we have to at least be open to training our minds to take advantage of it. Accepting that $400 is okay, when a 50% chance at $1,000 is available, is no beuno in a 20% takeout game. 

Have a nice Tuesday everyone. 

Making the Right ADW Choice. The Choice (for many of you) is Right in Front of You

 I flipped on Yonkers last night and saw their promo that they run most nights for their ADW. 

• 8% rewards on all Yonkers wagers
• 10% winning deposit bonus, so if you spend $10 on a bet, get back $100 for $90 profit, they give you another $9. 
• 100% deposit bonus (up to $100). 

No, this isn't CAW stuff, but frankly it's pretty damn good. 

Let's go through it for a second. 

Let's deposit $1,000 at Yonkers, which is $900 plus the $100 bonus. 

Let's pretend we don't know much about handicapping but we have some betting skill. Here's the post index at the Hilltop oval:

Posts outside the top, say, 4 are not great. Posts 1 through 4 beat the average loss by a few points, generally. 

With our $1,000 bank, let's bet every rail horse to win. 100 bets of $10 each. 

We cash around 20 out of 100 bets; these bets are eligible for a 10% bonus. 

Our $1,000 bet returns us 8% back ($80). 

And we got started with a free $100. 

We're pretty much beating the takeout and we haven't done anything but take advantage of a promo and better pricing.  

If this sounds rudimentary it's because it is. 

But it's also what CAW teams do. They do it with scale. 

Why, if you play this track, do you not take advantage of this? It's a potential thousands and thousands of dollars a year for your bankroll. They even have 5% rebates - regardless of volume, yes, even if you bet $25 a day - for many other tracks. 

It's good for Yonkers - they get pool sizes up - and it's good for players - they make more money. 

They aren't the only ones if you shop around. I don't know for sure, but I believe Iron Bets probably offers cash rewards. So does Horseplayerbet.com. There are others. 

I know the CAW debates get people in a tizzy, but they're not going anywhere and the real betting world is what it is. We have to adapt the best we can.

Canadian players with HPI have zero choice in this country, but players who play at the big track ADW's who do not offer rewards do have a choice. What in the world is stopping you from making the financially correct one?

Have a great Thursday everyone. 

Uniform Judging is (Unfortunately) a Pipe Dream

When you see a potential riding or driving infraction that affects the outcome of a race, how many of you are confident in the ruling? Show of hands. None, okay, me neither. 

Brett Sturman wrote an article on HRU this weekend that focused on a few rulings of late (this case in harness racing) where he was completely confused. One of them (about going inside pylons) was bonkers and the other (I was involved in this one, and it cost me a lot of scratch) regarding the breaking rule that defied everything we've been taught to believe. 

Both of the sports we bet seem to be discombobulated with the rules. 

In runner-land things like herding are let go (at times, sometimes not) where the outside horse loses momentum and loses the race by a foot. It kind of depends on which track the infraction (or non-infraction) occurs. All I know is when I see the inside jock yank the horses head right to make contact or stall the outside runner (and I bet the outside runner) I start having some very bad feelings. Again, at some tracks the feelings are more frightening than a Wes Craven movie, at others I am only mildly terrified. 

In harness-land, things can be, like Brett wrote, like living in Blair Witch, where your next door neighbor is Regan from the Exorcist. Depending on the track, things can be called almost the polar opposite. 

At the Meadowlands it's not uncommon to see a horse pitched who alters a horse who is nowhere near the action involved, simply because a driver gets antsy and changes his path. At Mohawk, things are called much more in-tune with the Thoroughbreds (mostly) where it needs to affect the finish. 

I think we bettors do not expect to agree with every decision. Much of it is subjective. But is it too much to ask for the sport to take it seriously? 

As Brett alludes, on the ruling at Batavia Downs, the real judges were out of town, and were replaced by out of state judges who judge at a country fair circuit. No, I'm actually not kidding. How is this possible in a sport with billions shoved into the windows?

Flip on twitter and you'll hear a lot of gripes about the sport. Some can surely be invalid or sour grapes. But can we blame anyone for being negative when a billion dollar sport treats these decisions involving a ton of money with such carelessness?

I was asked to help with this issue years ago in Canada, and we did bang out some uniform rules. It didn't work as planned but I can say, at least in this country, we see better than most. In the U.S. with all the jurisdictions it was a different story and I think it's a complete mess. 

Whatever the case, the problems seem so systemic that confidence can't help but wane when we talk about a sport professionally running its judges booth. It's a pipe dream, and as long as it is, we'll continue to gripe about it, almost on a daily basis. In my view, it's not a bug anymore, it's a feature. When we open a form or program, it's simply a part of our world. 

Have a great Monday everyone. 

Winning Player Post Follow Up - 3 Building Blocks to Win More Often

I got a lot of horseplayer feedback on this weekend's post about how often different subsets of winning horseplayers end up green. Thanks for that!

I promised a follow-up, so here we go. 

I'd like to leave aside the volume players in this discussion, because let's face it, most people aren't going to start playing $4 million a year through the windows. It's hard enough to compete nowadays with CAW's flooding that zone anyway. 

I'd like to examine the lower volume spot-type players. These are very seasoned folks who've developed a way to beat the game. We can, in my view, learn a lot from them. 

Picking Spots, Keeping an Even Keel

First, these folks win only around 40% of racedays, which means a couple of things, i) they aren't hammering the chalk and ii) they have developed a winning mindset that allows them to lose more frequently than they win and still keep playing week by week. 

Finding spots where the betting pools have made a mistake - playing horses from say 3-1 to 7-1, and in many cases higher - is a big part of their games.  It's definitely a learned skill, but in my view, many people on my twitter feed have this skill. Keeping an even keel (and executing these opinions in the proper way) is the bugaboo.

The Defensive Trap

Despite strong handicapping skill, many are still underwater and I believe this is where the second point comes into play -- they've developed the winning mindset. And because they win, this mindset allows them to play free. 

What do I mean by playing free? It's quite a bit about what ITP got flamed on twitter about for so long - they don't care even one iota if they win or lose the bet, they just want to ensure they bet their opinion properly. 

That involves, as I see it, not falling into defensive mindsets. 

Here's an example:

When a good (but not winning) player sniffs out a 9-1 horse, he or she often plays it defensively. This involves boxing up the horse with the chalk, taking chalk underneath, or in supers, or tris, or trying to group it with a chalk double to get "extra juice" on the bet. I can't tell you how many times I see this.

It's exactly wrong.  

When I ask a player I know who is sharp who he likes in a certain race and he tells me a 15-1 shot that ends up winning, I look at who ran on the bottom. If it's a first or second choice, I know he's dead. If it's a 6-1 or 10-1 horse who looked like they could clunk it up, I ping him to see if he scored and I usually get back, "I got the exacta". And he doesn't bet it for $3 or because he bet a wheel. 

When we think about this mathematically it makes sense. We like a 9-1 shot, so we probably don't like the chalk. Even if we like the chalk some underneath and don't like anything in the ex, we should just be betting win. Why have a $20 winner and a $40 exacta with a short shot we don't really like? 

For further evidence of this, listen to the Sport of Kings pod with Chris Larmay sometime. When he has an opinion on a 10-1 shot, when do you hear him say he's going to bet exs or tris with the favorite? Never. 

The defensive mindset is strong and it's very hard to shake. These players never acquiesce to it. 

We Need to Learn to Race

For many folks, winning 40% or less of the days is not a viable path in developing the winning mindset skills the great players tend to have. Bankroll management and emotional control is a steely beast to stab on the jump. 

I have a couple of (stolen) suggestions that may help.  

Mike Maloney (for my money one of the greatest to ever play this game) has spoken about not having to big game hunt. With limited bankrolls so many players seek glory in pick 5 pools when they should be betting their opinions in pick 3 pools, or doubles. 

Personally, I have pivoted from spending $X in pick 4 and 5 pools to maybe 1/10thX on those pools. I play pick 3's, doubles or vertically at much higher rates in this new CAW land. The nearer the pool the more transparent they are, and I am eliminating some risk. 

The effects of this are obvious, and twofold, i) You cash more tickets, giving you added confidence in your play, and ii) your bankroll is less swingy, reducing the probability of tilting, and overextension. 

Second, and this one is partially stolen from ITP:

No matter how much we like the horse, we don't have to bet every pool around him or her, searching for glory scores. If the bet - whether it be an ex, tri, double or pick 3 or pick 4 - is not there, it's not there. 

This tip is personally difficult for me, even to this day, and I have to continually check myself. 

Recently I loved a horse which I considered one of those "bet of the year" things we tend to prattle on about. He was 5-1, and I frankly hated the pick n's around him, and didn't really like anything underneath. I spent oodles of cash on exotics anyway, because well, I'm dumb. 

The horse won. I didn't cash a single exotic. I wasn't even close. I made money on the race because a $12 winner is good, yet felt I lost miserably. I don't know why I still put myself through it, but no one said this game was easy. 

In the end, I believe that before we reach the Groovy sprinting skill and Affirmed mental toughness of the 40% winning days player above, we have learn to race. Learning to race means (in part) more winning days than losing days to give us confidence we can do it.

Sure we can split pick 6 tickets with friends, or take stabs at carryovers, but big game hunting or having to sweep pools because we love a horse tends to lead us into some very bad places. 

Summary

First thanks for reading and please share your thoughts on twitter or elsewhere, and second thanks to the players who chatted with me. It's a weird game. We compete, yet we're open to talk about this difficult, passionate game. 

Have a super rest of the day everyone.