The Mode Has Left the Building. Zigging in Pick n's (at Some Places, at Least) is Becoming a Minefield

Grabbing value in multi-leg wagers has been spoken about quite a bit in racing in places like Chris's Bet with the Best podcast; after in my view, being partially dismissed for a good deal of horse racing's history. 

In other games this is commonplace, as I was reminded just this week, when Rob Pizzola was talking about NFL survivor. Both the Atlanta Falcons and Indianapolis Colts were 5.5 point road chalk, but data showed 12% of survivor picks were on the Falcons and only 4% were on the Colts. His point, which was an obvious one in the betting space, was to take the Colts, regardless of your handicapping.

This is what most of us look for in racing. Key an even money shot which may only get 38% of the tickets, a 2-1 shot that may only get 20% of the money, etc. We scour for these horses each and every sequence. 

For the past couple of years I think this strategy has been sound. But in harness racing at least, I am beginning to believe it's getting harder and harder. 

Last night I did what I usually do - I handicapped the pick 5 at Mohawk. I got to race three and saw an obvious dropper who is almost assuredly going to be chalk. I double checked the public picks, and even sharps like Rallis had the horse a best bet type in that race. I decided to zig instead of zag, because the five horse looked, to me, to be equally capable. The 5 was the Colts, the one horse the Falcons. There's my key. 

The board opened, and it was clear there was no value, despite my zig. The five was bet to even money in the sweeps, the one to 2-1. 

In the late pick 5, the exact same thing happened. In the 4th leg, it was a quintessential spread race. We had a class riser who has been huge, a class dropper surely taking money, a speed horse with some go. And the horse I liked, rising in class off a nice win I thought was miles better than on paper. I once again checked the public picks and only two of 8 people picked my horse. Once again, I think I am grabbing the Colts over the Falcons. I also believed I'd get 2-1 for a flat win bet. 

The horse was 4-5 in sweeps, and was bet down to 2-5 last flash. The horse won, but not like a 2-5 shot does, like an 8-5 shot does. But such is the way of the pools, even at tracks like Mohawk where $2M per night are wagered, it appears. 

I was listening to a chess podcast this week about strategy. No, I don't play chess, but the top players use many of the same skills we need to use to win at horse racing, so I tend to learn something when I listen. Over the past several years computers have made opening line play bland, where everyone tends to know the proper moves with all popular lines, and an edge is hard to come by. The top players in response have played differently to change the dynamics, and then use their skill to win in the middle game. 

For a couple of years now, many of us have used this strategy in horse racing with regards to pick n's. In general, we've tried to beat the statistical "mode", or the most frequent choices by the mass of bettors. But what I'm seeing now - and I certainly admit I could be quite wrong - is the degradation of the game's pools has been so rapid, that the mode doesn't have near enough money to usurp the bigger players - those whom are fading the mode. 

This results in a lot of horses where we think we're zigging, but we're actually zagging. It's some sort of weird feedback loop that perils a planet in a Gene Rodenberry script. 

I have an idea how to deal with this, and I'm sure many of you do as well. However, for the broader game, it probably means tighter tickets and less handle. These are two things the sport clearly doesn't need. 

One thing for sure, in my opinion at least, is this game is becoming harder and harder than ever. 

Have a nice Tuesday everyone.

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.