Finding Prices are a Tough Slog & Wednesday Ramblings

Last weekend was rather gloomy in my part of the tundra, so I had a little time to watch along with the races almost all of Saturday and Sunday. 

For Saturday, I popped on Chris's Sport of Kings pod, and on Sunday, I noticed Ray and the fellas were chatting about the big Chester harness card, and gave that a listen. I found a common theme of late - primarily how difficult it is in today's game to find any prices at all. 

These guys are pretty good cappers, and like many of us who make cases for horses, we find some that have a chance, but in the end, the horses who are bet hard are difficult to beat, and the ones who aren't need a whole lot of luck to win. 

I see this with my Friday night ritual of going through the harness races with a couple of friends. 

The conversation is usually as follows:

"I don't mind the four in the 6th and the nine in the 9th, but I don't think I'll get a price on either"

"I like the five in the 2nd, but no price."

Our three picks will often win and pay $3.00, $3.60 and $4, while we're foolishly hoping for 5-2 (because, well, in 2010 or 2012, they probably would've paid $7 or $8). 

It's easy to blame this on CAWs, but I think that's short-sighted. I think trainers use condition books better now than ever, and racing secretaries are dealing with fewer horses in the pool, so the races themselves are set up for only one or two contenders. And most of us can find them. 

I suspect that's why we get so excited for big days in thoroughbred racing (it's the opposite in harness racing) - the biggest days attract some big fields, particularly on turf, and there are just more horses pointing to them. Big days can still be chalky, and it feels there's a lot of #theyknews, but at least they have a shot to yield some fruit. 

Currently, to prepare for a card in this day and age my handicapping is rather rudimentary. I find the horses who are likely to win are fairly obvious. Where I've been doing most of my betting, and finding most of my success is when I find something that looks interesting during a card. Perhaps it's a live horse I didn't expect to be live; in harness it could be a horse scoring down who looks good, or a chalk who looks bad on the racetrack, and I take some exotics with others. 

Just last week I did the work and found two horses I absolutely loved at the Meadowlands and it was a rarity -  they were so muddy, the prices would be good.  I was planning a sizeable bet on each, and said to a friend, "if these horses lose I am going to be down a ton of money tonight". 

The first one, at 15-1 ran, the second one at 5-1 was a complete no try and got hopelessly boxed. 

But I didn't lose. A horse I didn't expect popped up during the evening; a horse I was never going to bet an hour earlier. And I ended up having a nice night.  

Like most of you who read this blog, we're lifers. And we've seen the game become almost unrecognizable from yesteryear. We have to bob and weave and try to create and manufacture wagers more often and harder than we ever have before. Thankfully a win or two keeps us coming back. 

Notes:

It's human nature to like the home team, especially if you've followed a team (or horse) since they started racing, and this has traditionally been a force in Thoroughbred racing more than harness. From the days of War Admiral against Seabiscuit, to NYRA stans with Easy Goer against Santa Anita's Sunday Silence this has been prevalent and amazingly fun. 

This year in harness we might have one of our own regional battles with the Canadian colt, Beau Jangles, and the Hoosier colt, Odds on Mr. Mamba. Both fan bases are stoked to see their horse beat the other one. To my eye. Beau came back good, and it appears Mamba has as well after Monday's sparkling 1:49 effort. I hope both of them meet and the show ends up being as good as the hype. They look like two pretty good colts.

Leaving aside the top two, I am super-interested to see how Fragment races this season. That is one big, strong horse and he's clearly gotten faster from 2 to 3. This weekend the Burlington Stakes goes at the Hawk with Brandon Blvd, and the Dan Legace horse, who probably needs a little seasoning, but it would not shock me if he's a 1:48 pacer this year. That boy is quick. 

The North America Cup eliminations coincide with what looks to be a very nice Saratoga/Belmont card. This year we don't have the hype of a Triple Crown, which I think we would've, because I doubt Golden Tempo would've not run down Solo. But alas, this is modern horse racing. 

For those worried about prices, the contest space seems to be thriving. I chat with a couple of contest players who swear by them, and Zocalli, when he's not talking about bad 2YO horse of the year votes or the Knickerbockers, pushes the hell out of the Twinspires contests. Where are they for harness? I think it's too small. 

I watched (the injured) Brett Beckwith share some insight on the Big M feed last week. I don't think it's any surprise why the kid has had some success. He knows horses, and knows strategy. In my view, he's a  very smart driver, who has the world by the tail if he keeps at it. Get well soon Brett. 

Over at Mohawk, I'm very glad Mark Mac made the trip back up north. He tries almost every race, and with the addition of guys like Daryl Theissen, we're seeing more aggression at the Campbellville oval. It, most times, makes for better racing. Laying down for the chalk in a sport with already short prices (mixed with the sports' insistence on high takeout) is no bueno. 

Have a nice Wednesday everyone. 

Beating the Game While Never Forgetting We're Betting the Underlying Equity

If you're anything like me, and if you're reading this oftentimes silly blog you probably are, you find this game incredibly fascinating. 

There's just nothing like sniffing out a winner, and there are so many ways to do it; some of which make an already confusing game ever more confusing. 

I was checking out a penny stock last week of a company I was involved with at one time, and still held shares in. 

There was a brief signal that something may be happening. I looked at the "PP's" - previous press releases - and there was nothing too exciting going on, but they did raise some money and were doing work on a project. There was enough in the buy side market depth where I decided to take a shot and sit a bid where I got filled. 

The volume continued, the stock was up about 30%, and I had to make a decision with completely imperfect information. How real was this action? Was it momentum traders trying a flip, was it something more concrete? 

Looking at the project and the work they were doing on it, it felt pretty unsexy, and to my eye, any news that could possibly move the market seemed low probability. I decided to close my trade. 

Today that looks smart. A press release was issued and it is kind of blah. The stock is down. Maybe there is something to the noisy trading, and next week it'll be roaring again, but I sold my flip trade because in my view the "horse" wasn't fast enough, and the price offered didn't match it. 

We notice this exact same thing every single day in horse racing. 

With so little public money, and so little bet early, the odds board is all over the place. Sometimes the pricing gives signal and sometimes it yields noise. It's our job to differentiate which is which.

Make no mistake - just like the trading on my penny stock told a story, so does your average odds board, from TO Elvis on Derby Day to the third at Delta Downs. Understanding how a race is bet is an edge. The people who can read it best are probably playing the game with pocket queens. 

But in the end, yes, we can let the market uncover things we can't see. It does a great job of showing us its hand, even though the sharpest money tries its best not to. And yes, we can let it guide us. But we still have to be able to spot if the market is right or wrong. 

Despite being a big believer in markets, I still live this game with a heuristic: I never forget that the horse I choose is the thing doing the running; it's the underlying equity. 

It still has to be fast enough to win, and I still have to be able to bet them at the price I want them.

Have a nice Tuesday everyone!

Harness Racing Greatness is as Clear as Glass

As we've seen this year and last with Sovereignty and Journalism in the runners - watching a couple good horses go at it is fun. We just wish they'd race more!

Over in harness racing, this year's big expectation falls to two untested three year old colts in Canadian star Beau Jangles and Indiana's World Champion Odds on Mr. Mamba. 

The hype has certainly already started. If you watch the WEG feed you'd think Beau Jangles was the second coming of Somebeachsomewhere. Over in the Hoosier state, the Beach comes in a close second in a match race (with Beau third). 

Everyone has an opinion, and I do too. Mine is: The chances of either of these horses being the great Somebeachsomewhere are between slim and none, and slim left to bet sports because of the CAW's. 

Why am I so sure? Because good horses encourage debate, while great horses end them. 

When Beau Jangles won his first real test by a half a length - the Metro - there was chatter in the handicapping sphere that if Frantic Hanover got out easily (and he reportedly bled) he would've beaten him. Not to mention, is Frantic Hanover even any better than the Ontario breds he's been beating up? Whether that's true or not is irrelevant, it was valid talk from sharps. 

When Odds on Mr. Mamba set the world record in 147.4, there was a horse near him and the talk was about other things as well. "Who is that other horse, was the track souped up, was the time real?" Is this horse that good? Again - we watched a potential freak horse horse freak - but these were questions that were completely valid. 

Meanwhile back at the 2008 ranch, it was just different. 

The Metro Stakes in '08 - the Beach's first real test - was turning to the gate and it featured horses who we didn't have to wonder if they were good or not - including several millionaires, and double world champion Shadow Play - he himself likely one of the better colts we've seen this century. 

Less than 110 seconds later there was no such talk about the big son of Mach Three. 

The talk was instead about how he made those other exceptional horses look like 3 claimers. The talk was about how fast he could possibly go. About the separation, about the rebreak, about how little was asked of him. About how much he could've won by; about what we just watched. 

There were no 'what if' questions because the true greats don't pose questions, they answer them with incalculable ease. 

Three year olds since Beach have gotten their comparisons in the media. Whether they be Rock n' Roll Heaven, or Captain Treacherous, and others. 

Often times we hear excuses for younger horses facing older - about how hard it is to transition from three to four, or how it has to be late in the year for a three year old to compete in these instances. 

While Captain Treacherous was a takeout reduction at 4-1 odds in the TVG against older foes, you can bet your bottom dollar the Beach entering the same race would've been 1 to 5, and probably an overlay. If he raced at four, we'd probably be mortgaging the house each race at 1-9. 

Age doesn't matter. Nothing really matters when you're dealing with a dominant animal with that kind of DNA. 

I'm very much looking forward to this season to watch Beau and Mamba settle this on the track. They're obviously two very good colts. Heck I'm interested to see any new shooters who wintered well join the fight, too. 

But with a full admittance I'm no PTPstradamus, I'm pretty sure that in six months, the Somebeachsomewhere comparisons will be relegated to the dust bin, just like they have every single year since that incredible animal set foot on the racetrack.

Have a nice Tuesday everyone.  

Squeezing Value From Multis - It Changes Over Time

Playing multi-race wagers is a staple in the modern betting game, and like with most things in our vocation, it evolves and changes over time. 

This type of wagering strategy started with caveman tickets where we weighted everything equally. Then after Crist's seminal book, the ABC method took hold. In the late teens of this century, the warm and cuddly one was flamed from just about everywhere and by everyone in racing for sharing his weighted, DFS-type multi-race play, which added quite a bit of game theory to the mix (a lot of which is shared in Chris's excellent book). 

One plank of multi-race betting theory - which primarily fit with harness racing, due to its 20 cent multi-leg bet minimums and short prices - was taking advantage of people who spread, because they are going too deep in each leg, because they're betting not to lose. 

Optimal play meant we'd want to hit a sequence skinny and heavy, especially if you like the chalk. You'd get your value boost from the spreaders. This worked for quite awhile. 

I think that's started to change a little bit.

Last night at Flamboro, with their 20 cent pick 5 carryover, a 2-1, 3-5, 18-1, 1-2 and 4-5 sequence paid $4,405 for $1 (the parlay was about $250). The juicer was the 18-1 horse who was like zero for 30. Zero for 30 horses aren't being keyed by sharps on $10 tickets. 

At WEG, the 20 cent pick 6 with only an $8,800 pool would've resulted on a parlay price of $135 with the big chalk in the last leg, with the bet itself paying $93. The heavy chalk lost the last race, and the payout was still only 20% above parlay because the horse that beat him was logical. 

This is not a new phenomenon (with the shorter prices at the Big A on 50 cent tickets I think we're starting to see a little of the same thing). People (teams, sharps) are getting better and better at *not* spreading 20 cent or 50 cent pools.

Despite this slight pivot, I think ITP's methods still hold. To beat this game we have to "hit them where they ain't".

In a chalky looking sequence that we like (especially with a smaller pool) for a $5 or $10 base play, we have to differentiate when it's apparent, and be willing to lose our bet to gain value. 

Free squares, again especially in a small pool, might have to be sit-outs or be faded, where again we need to be willing to lose. For years I have been fading a 1-5 or 1-9 chalk when they are in leg one, but I'm starting to look at them in later legs as well. 

Time will tell how that goes, but I think there's mounting evidence that with less and less non-sharp money in the pools spreading like peanut butter, it's starting to make a lot of sense. 

Have a great Monday everyone!

The Derby Day Betting Post Script Super Spectacular Blog Post

Yesterday's Derby Card is now in the books. 

DeRosa reported Derby handle was off 2%, and Cherie DeVaux won the big race with Golden Tempo. I like to believe our friend Chuck Simon was looking down on her with a broad smile.

Overall, outside the early pick 5, I felt like many of you that the betting day might look chalky. The Turf Sprint looked like a three horse affair with little to separate, the Pat Day had only two main contenders (and in my view it was tough not to use both), Rhetorical was a super wise-guy lean, especially with the trainer. 

Opportunities I noticed were twofold in the first half of the card. In the third, Vibe was signalled hard in the betting that he was going to be good, and I'm not sure it was CAW money. Ditto Tour Player, who was lights flashing and horns blowing he'd be very tough. Both horses won forwardly and were priced at bettable odds. 

I guess now's the time to talk about Elvis in the Churchill Downs Stakes. 

Earlier in the week I noticed the horse was bet down bigly, and we were looking at a board price of about 10-1. I watched the replays and was interested in the horse, and noticed a few non-CAW type players liked him in this spot. I wondered if this was a separator that could yield fruit. 

As we all saw, it was certainly fruit yielding - he won like a 1-5 shot - but my God. 10-1 was a pipe dream. How about 5.87-1 off a 30-1 morning line, with oodles of money coming in late in these monster pools.  

Caws and @ChurchillDowns raped their customers in the 10th race with the 30-1 morning line winner(8). The winner dropped from 12-1 to 5-1(-58%) after the gates opened. The 8-5 exacta dropped from $259 to $108(-58%) https://t.co/VsLjuynT9V pic.twitter.com/RjrvUlKcQl

— Gulf-SchemePark(Decoupling soon) (@Jackpotkimm) May 2, 2026

I'm not going to berate anyone for being upset at the late odds drop. It's super bad. But the pick 3 did tell us where the horse was going. And as ITP says, everyone playing it outside the US knew too. This is a self-inflicted wound.

When the rest of world knows more about what prices American horses will close at than American horseplayers then American racing is showing it’s incompetence.

— Inside The Pylons (@InsideThePylons) May 3, 2026

However, it was incredibly egregious. In my view it was probably a combination of smart cash on the Pick 3 signal, and the CAW's tripping over themselves being overzealous. 

And, I love +EV's feed and he's a sharp guy, but I have a feeling this wasn't his best work. I'd suspect Zeljko miscalibrated his bet size and bet this too hard. Could be wrong, of course, I'm just a guy on the internet. 

Zeljko is easily top 3 nicest people I've met in my life, but there's gotta be like .01% of him deep deep down inside that is thinking "cry harder you fucking losers" https://t.co/Zhlzpi4hkw

— Plus EV Analytics (@PlusEVAnalytics) May 2, 2026

Regardless, there was some value in the double (the CAW's likely stayed away from that one), but proving once again how difficult the game is - you have a 30-1 ML on Derby Day; you have a live horse; you have the best horse; and if you want to make a score it's not with a pick three or four - those were hammered. It's not with boxing with the chalk, either. You have to be super-creative by say tossing Knightsbridge and hitting a bomb underneath, to snatch an exotic. In essence - the things we do with 5-1 shots. 

I played the harness last evening, and we saw pretty much what we see from time to time on a card. In race two at the Hawk, a horse that was not picked anywhere with competitive but not higher figs, was bet like a sure thing and won like one while being hammered in every single pool. In race four at the Big M,  a horse who was coming off three bad lines, the latter of which was a 152 and change mile where he lost, was bet down to 2-5 like they have tomorrow's paper. He dropped almost 20 lengths and jogged in 1:49.

I get it. We all get it. 

But this is the Derby Card dammit. How much money do these people have in their accounts?

On the other side of the coin, the powers that be plastered the over/under 17.5% takeout bet on screens everywhere; for all I know, maybe even in urinals. 

Why, I really don't know. But as Scott notes, what a disconnect. Selling this to sports bettors is like trying to sell air conditioners in Nunavut. 

The racing was great these last two days at CD and as far as I know horses all got home safe and sound, which is outstanding. But I really hope someone can use logic + reason to convince whomever that posting Odds/Evens in bright lights as the most important thing to see is wrong

— Scott Shapiro (@ScottShap34) May 3, 2026

I watch the feed, not NBC, and I thought Travis Stone's call was awesome. I love people who take their craft seriously, and he does. 

Relive @TravisStone's call of the historic 152nd Kentucky Derby. @Cisco pic.twitter.com/7KUCa4hkEo

— Kentucky Derby (@KentuckyDerby) May 3, 2026

I also thought the CD betting show was superb. Too bad Joe K was ill; get well soon. But nice work everyone. 

The Derby odds board felt a bit better to me this year. Sure the longshots were overbet, and we had the presence of Great White who was somehow 22-1, while being upwards of 150-1 offshore. When he was a late scratch for eating the lead pony being fractious, it depressed some of the pools. But overall the multi-chalk array felt better than usual to me. 

Other than the Land Shark, the only funny many found in the Derby pool was the pick 3 price on Danon Bourbon. Was it because of TO Elvis's win in leg one? I don't know, but whoever was hammering that horse, they were right. He was superb. 

I thought this was amazing. It's what owning or training is all about. 

Full footage of trainer Cherie DeVaux watching Golden Tempo win the Kentucky Derby!

DeVaux is the first female trainer to ever win the Kentucky derby. pic.twitter.com/XS3jFYSKso

— Braden Taylor (@BradenTaylorTV) May 3, 2026

The Super Octofecta - or whatever the hell it's called - carryover brought in like $950k of betting. It must've been Zeljko. 

No networks covered the Derby in Canada. We have like 12 sports networks and not one had it on. It's very odd and above my pay grade. 

Then again, Tony illustrated the craziness even for those south of the border. 

Great news: I can bet the race. Bad news: I’m apparently not allowed to watch the thing I’m betting on. pic.twitter.com/Tghu9TkGTX

— Tony Zhou (@ZhouTony) May 1, 2026

Regardless of the various gripes, I don't think there's anything like Derby Day. The colors, the pageantry, the great horses, the battles, the stories, the crowd... the everything. Win or lose, each and every year I love the Day. It's my favorite card in the sport and it's not particularly close. 

I hope yours fared well. 

Have a great week everyone. 

What Can a Racing Gamblecast Look Like? Last Night Provides us a Clue

Last week after the upcoming demise of TVG (thanks everyone for reading, it was a very well-trafficked post) we spoke about how broadcast is generally dead, and new gambling mediums have continually taken over the space. 

I'm not sure I have ever been hit over the head harder with it than last evening. 

Rob, his young son and the Athletics' Austin Mock

I followed the NFL Draft as closely as I ever have, and I didn't watch one nanosecond of network coverage. While I had the NHL playoff games up on the main screen, I spent three hours watching an NFL Draft gambling stream on my laptop with the guys at the Hammer Betting Network. 

Watching this stream provided me a couple of benefits:

The hosts are professional gamblers who not only had knowledge about the draft and were betting it, they were in-tune with what was going on in real time. The networks were sometimes three picks behind them. They were tied into feeds that were reporting picks well in advance. 

This presented a betting opportunity. While the sportsbooks were changing their picks odds array four or five picks ahead, we were on the same level playing field. They were not ahead of those of us watching. So, if they made a mistake in their lines - which happened several times - we could pounce quickly. In horse racing we battle the CAW's, watching this live-stream, we were the CAW's. 

Of course, like any picks, these were sometimes in the "right Church, wrong pew", but I am pretty convinced I got positive EV on virtually every real time pick bet I made last night. And I am absolutely no draft expert. 

All of this was achieved by a few guys sitting in an office in Toronto talking about the draft for a sport they love to watch and bet. 

I love Mel Kiper, I love the high production value at ESPN, but watching it feels like the stone age to me after last evening. 

I'm sure they will continue to work on this broadcast - one minor criticism I had is they could've had someone scanning the books for lines on picks ahead, and offered flash opinions on prices more often, for example - but it was entertaining and informative, and most of all fun. 

I do feel strongly that in the future (present), network broadcast is not going to cut it for gamblers. It's great as a fan to watch a clip of a faceless offensive lineman doing a pancake after a pick, but to me, if I've seen one I've seen them all. I want to see picks in real time, not ten minutes behind, and most of all - I want to make some money. 

What this can look like for horse racing? As I've noted before, I am not Pocketstradumus here, so I am not really sure. But it feels like there is something there. There's some way to present this in a new way. We play one of the most exciting gambling sports in the history of the world, one thinks there would be. 

If the sport wants to look for a clue, last night's NFL Draft gamblecast should provide a few. 

Have a nice Friday and weekend everyone. Good luck with your bets. 

The Horse Corporation Makes Moves (and so Do the Degens)

Death Star news hot off the presses -- CDI has purchased the 'intellectual property' for the Preakness (and Black Eyed Susan) from Stronach for $85 million (almost a whopping eight Flightline two year olds). 

What's that mean? I'm not totally sure what CDI does with it, but I think it tells us something about 1/ST racing, i.e. the divestment plan is very real. 

Corporate entities have the chops to run with something like this - Sony Music bought Springsteen's stuff, not @angryyankee from Jersey - while single type proprietorships generally don't. In the long-term it's not hard to imagine this working out for the Death Star. 

CDI CEO Announcing New Bets

In other Horse Corporation news, ladies and gentlemen, The Corporation has brought you new bets. To great, or maybe not so great fanfare, we have, for the spring meet, odds and evens and match up bets. 

The warm and cuddly one broke down the math:

That's ummm, not really very good. But in horse racing land, where the sport is scared of its own shadow, it's probably expected. After all, the only way exchange wagering was tried was if the juice was astronomical. 

It's very hard to understand, for me anyway, why each and every time, the sport takes zero chance on a wager. The odd/even bet is clearly targeted to newbies, probably playing the two big upcoming cards which make up most of the meets newbie handle. I get charging some juice. 

But the match-up bets could really attract some gamblers who don't normally play this sport. 

Different cohorts, the same price. I think they should write that on the sports' epitaph.

On the bright side of the moon, we have betting degen, the (second) best racecalling horse driver in the United States, and guy who sold a bachelor pad in Lexington worthy of Charlie Sheen's character in Two and a Half Men - Gabe Prewitt. He runs Hoosier Park, and he noticed (again because he's a degen like us), that the hole giving at Hoosier was startlingly insane. 

Thanks to @RacingBeard for reaching out & a BIG thank you to those that raced Friday night that put on a first class show https://t.co/sBlx2fuexK

— Gabe Prewitt (@gabe_prewitt) April 19, 2026

Gabe, unlike most, decided to do something about it. Because he knows the game so well, and cares about it, let's hope the early reaction from participants - Gabe is a #%$)@*)$ - is more mellow, and they try to comply. 

Change is hard in horse racing. Every new bet has to have the juice of a state lottery; every change to how the game is presented is either dismissed out of hand or considered heresy where the perpetrator should be burned at the stake. 

I don't hold out hope the Corporate Entity will change, but maybe little ol Gabriel can get the job done.

Have a nice Tuesday everyone. 

Lower Juice Never Hit Us Right Between the Eyes

RBC, one of the big banks up here in Canuckland, released a report this week detailing that one trillion bucks left Canada the last ten years. This is nothing new for the movers and shakers, they've known this for many years, and have been warning about the consequences of the lower growth that followed. 

While the headline screamed in some financial papers, a few folks have popped their heads up to notice, but it's kind of a yawn, especially in the MSM. One trillion is a big number that's hard to get your head around, plus what does this have to do with our daily lives anyway?

Likewise, it's kind of the same story with lower takeout. We've talked about it for thousands of posts here alone. There have been seminars and discussions and gambling conferences; just about everyone talked about it, at least intermittently. 

But it's kind of always been met with a yawn. Purses up, handle down meant things were fine. We should be picking winners and not worrying about gaining value with lower juice. "I walked through the grandstand and no one knows what takeout is". The Fanduel bettors are betting higher takeout parlays, take that! The "takeout people" were not sharp bettors, they were "hawks" like we all wanted to invade a track in Grenada. 

Even when a study or some metric was reported that showed how handle could increase, it was summarily dismissed. I remember when the Horseplayer Association arranged a boycott of Santa Anita after their takeout hike, the handle fell. One of the CHRB members blamed the losses on the upcoming Olympics. There was always something to pin something on; to misdirect from an important issue.

Just like a country needs businesses to invest to grow, an industry needs customers to. Lower juice means more money invested into the sport, which means a healthier industry. It's really not rocket science. But when we muddy the waters with nonsense, that simple equation is like fourth year calculus. 

At the conclusion of World War II in Japan, the United States dropped one of two atomic bombs on Hiroshima. Due to the slower dissemination of information at the time, the citizenry primarily received unremarkable accounts and was largely enthusiastic about this new power. Support for the use of another bomb was high in surveys. 

About one year later, as more information became available, a New Yorker article, complete with photojournalism, illustrated the dire reality in a 30,000-word piece. The article presented the facts without any editorializing. This piece hit the public square in the forehead. 

The response was overwhelming. Support for ever using a bomb like it again plummeted. One article changed everything. 

We've never had the "one article".  The thing that said, here's the truth - let's get to building a modern game. 

We've gotten misinformation, misdirection and frustratingly  - modifying a system that says (wink, wink, nudge, nudge don't tell anyone), of course lower takeout works, it's why the CAW's get it. 

It's likely the fight for lower takeout for every day players is over. Seriously, when a track like Kentucky Downs hikes the juice where it doesn't depend on the amount bet, it has to be. But to those of you who tried your best, I suspect you were on the right side of history. 

There just wasn't a New Yorker article to share it. 

Broadcast is Dead for Racing, so What's Left?

With the recent demise of TVG's broadcast arm, we were met with more news that NYRA would be grabbing the ball to broadcast more 'TV type' coverage of the sport. I welcome that, as I am sure you do as a fellow die-hard. 

But I wonder, in the long term, does it matter?

Over the years, I have been a daily reader of Cord Cutters News, and it has become increasingly evident that the broadcast industry is experiencing a significant decline. However, in recent years, this trend has intensified. Whether it is the closure of a popular cable channel or the substantial loss of 40% of its subscribers by ESPN, these events are a clear indication of the industry’s challenges. 

What has taken its place has been primarily community-driven. Individuals gravitate towards a brand or personality they perceive as authentic. These outlets, as you are aware, offer a substantial number of long-form interviews that are generally on-demand and free. 

I think many are very good. For we Canucks, we may have watched the long-form Bloomberg interview with Canada's opposition leader a couple of weeks ago. It was hard-hitting, where we saw a pol answering deep policy questions we don't see them have to answer very often. 

Over in gambling land, this is prevalent. Yes, we still get the pablum of the Michael Strahan parlay brought to you by Draft Kings, but solid gambling content on YouTube and twitter channels has grown. 

Rob Pizzola's Hammer Betting Network is one I follow. Just yesterday their live Masters Betting broadcast had 3,000 views in real time across Youtube alone. Although that might not sound like much for a live broadcast, we can put it in context. 

ESPN, beamed into 100 million homes, had terrible ratings on their similar shows, sometimes averaging well under 100,000 live. Yes, this was during the era where their hosts were encouraged to share their politics that turned so many in their targeted demographic off, but regardless, the numbers were low. Rob's network is one of hundreds, and when you add them all up we see the sea-change.

The problem for this sport, as I see it, is that we were never free to build-out these communities. 

Racing, from the beginning of time, was centrally planned. Want to show a race on Youtube? Roberts would say no. Want to create something - anything - outside the racing politburo, it was near impossible. Even if you showed a past performance screen shot you might get a nasty-worded letter.  

People in our sport today try - and bless you all. But the customer base is now so thin that you find yourselves trying to build a sturdy community out of water-soaked kindling.

Is community building via new broadcast mediums impossible for horse racing? Is it too far gone? 

I don't know, but I do look at what Chess.com has built for that old, slow-moving game. Leaving aside the subscribers, which suggest a net valuation of about $2 billion for their business, live games get thousands of views and the community itself is filled with very good content creation. It's not centrally planned - it never was - and these channels drive defined revenue. So, I guess there's hope. 

For our sport it might be a pipe-dream, a Rick's Natural Star. But I believe, with TVG out of the space, perhaps there is some opportunity to open the sport up once and for all. If we ditch the protectionism and stab the intransigence with a steely knife, who knows, maybe something pops up. 

Have a nice Wednesday everyone. 

No, TVG-Fanduel TV's Demise Wasn't Inevitable

The big news in horse racing land the past week was not the Florida or Arkansas Derby, Repole fighting a two front war while trying to run a football league, or even salt-of-the-earth Marcus Hersh getting flamed on the twitter. It was, of course, the huge news about TVG. 

• FanDuel TV will reduce its workforce by about 60 percent at the end of June, after honoring commitments to Keeneland and Triple Crown coverage. The remaining employees will continue through the end of November.

Horse racing is a tight community, and I, like many of you, have chatted with TVG folks over the many years. This clearly sucks. For them mostly, but for us and for the sport in general. 

What irks me to no end, quite frankly, is hearing people profess about how inevitable this all is. That horse racing is yesterday's sport and that it's a complete eventuality it all goes away. 

That, in my humble opinion, is a pile of horse shit. 

Back in 2012 Kodak went under, years after controlling 80% of the film market. 

Old-school film was replaced by digital, as we all know, and off they went into the sunset. But Kodak's folding wasn't inevitable either. 

Kodak had a massive revenue edge, with money sitting in a bank account to invest. 

Kodak knew about digital and had the technology right under their roof before many others, but they failed to do anything about it. They held the skeleton key to the disruption that was coming, but they didn't have the courage to disrupt themselves. 

They rested on what they had, while the customer was telling them they weren't liking what they were offering. They chose legacy over responsiveness and agility. 

In our sport, we have been gifted billions upon billions of dollars through slots and legislation, and we've watched - meet after meet, month after month, year after year - demand crater, without diversifying and investing where it was most-needed. 

We can complain about the CDI Death Star getting their cut and spending it on historical racing machines and casinos and stock buybacks and making Arlington Park a parking lot, but they're a private company; they're not responsible for the sport. The other half of the slot money went to the various alphabets; they're ones who are tasked with caring about it. 

In our sport, the ubiquitous alphabets knew what was coming - sports betting, digital casinos and everything else we can bet on, including if the President will have a ham sandwich for lunch tomorrow.  

How did they prepare for this, no less while they were given a monopoly on online wagering for years? I'll wait for your answer.  

Kodak (and others) taught us that new technology is important, right? Today, all we read about is Kalshi and Polymarket. They're everywhere, they are the AI of bubbles, the cocaine that fueled the cocaine bear; they're hotter than an otter's pocket. 

Well, TVG is owned by the company that owned the world's biggest, best and most used prediction market - Betfair. To add insult to injury, in 2012, California passed legislation granting monopoly power to racing for exchange wagering/prediction markets. 

If you didn't know that, you read it right. If the sport acted on this 14 years ago, instead of holding on to what it had, scared of "cannibalizing win pools" or whatever else it used to excuse and encourage their paralysis, the private equity folks and the Trump kids would be coming to this sport - horse racing - for a piece of the action. 

Imagine that. Horse racing - you and me, and the grooms, the hotwalkers, the TVG cameraman, the trainers and owners and everyone else - would get a slice of every settled bet wagered for who is going to win the Super Bowl, or what square-jawed, creatine filled headshot king is leaving the Bachelorette next. 

So, yes, it disturbs me that a sport with billions in wagering, with billions in purses, with billions of slot money, with hundreds of thousands of participants and fans and bettors; and farmers, and vets and vet techs and farriers and feedmen, has been represented so poorly. 

And to hear over and over again that this was all "inevitable"? 

Give me a freaking break. 

Record Keeping with Wagers Acts as a Good Mental Proxy

In Chris's newly released book, he spends some time talking to players about the sometimes/often boring task of record keeping. I think most of us know it's important, but it can take a back seat to the work of handicapping, or more often in modern betting, database tweaking. 

To me, one of the best things about record keeping, though, is what it can tell us as in bird's eye view. 

I recently went through my quarterly stats, and was pleased to note that what I was intrinsically feeling about my play was confirmed. 

First, I looked at my pick 5 volume as a percentage of total play. 

At Woodbine, my pick 5 play totaled about 12% of my total play (this may sound high, but in harness with mucho-chalk, it's a lower takeout staple). 

At the Meadowlands, it was less than 1% of my total play (0.7%). 

Leaving aside the fact that Mohawk races more often and they have two pick 5's a night, this volume difference is stark. 

However, those of you who play the Big M know full well that the first pick 5 involves amateur drivers and the cheapest horses on the grounds, often both. 

I'm not consciously trying to play less, but my decision making is forcing me to play less. 

In effect, it confirms my decision making is good. If I was playing a harness racing staple like a pick 5 to push volume, my Big M volume would be greater. I'd be "playing just to play".

A lot of the benefits of record keeping do not have to be stats-laden, mathy, wild exercises. It can be used to confirm if we're seeing the ball well, or not seeing it well; if we're pushing in areas we should not be, or underbetting in areas we need not to be. 

I was chatting with a professional player yesterday and he typed, "really, gambling is just a massive test of curiosity, grit, discipline, and work ethic." 

I think that's right - and monitoring our play, even as simply as above, can help us all become better. 

Have a nice Monday everyone. If you want to order Chris's excellent book, it's at the link above. 

Not to Be Outdone, TSG proposes an Exciting New Bet to Save Horse Racing

Yesterday we all woke up to the exciting news that Turfway Park has created a new wager, the Octofecta.  

This bet involves selecting the top 8 finishers in a race, and if no one hits it, it carries over, and over, and perhaps over again. 

If there's one thing we players have asked the industry for lately, it's more high takeout, impossible to hit bets that the CAW's will swoop in to suck every inch of value out of on a mandatory day. 

Thankfully the fine people at Turfway/CDI have delivered. 

Although we might think "Mission Accomplished", Santa Anita is proposing to make this sport even greater by being responsive to our needs and wants. 

I have it on good authority that for the upcoming spring meet, the Great Race Place has created a new bet of their own. They've called it the Octco Octofecta. 

This bet involves selecting the top eight finishers in a race but you have to do it eight consecutive times. Is your mind blown? Mine is too. 

"We spoke to Alix Earle and other influencers and they loved the idea", said an unnamed Magna TSG, exec. "They believed this will really attack the Gen Zers who love lots of money."

The influencers have also agreed to make some tickets on the Tik Tok. 

"Win-Win for everyone", said the TSG exec. 

There are a lot of people out there on Horse Racing Twitter who are downers about the sport. 

Big Al hasn't posted anything positive in months, ITP is super cranky, Bucky is so sour on the sport all we get from him now are porn references. 

But this, once and for all, in this observers humble view, proves without a doubt that this sport never stops working to grow the bet; to never rest until it squeezes every last living dollar out of everyone. To what, yes, to make Horse Racing Great Again (#MRGA). 

I for one will be hammering the Octofecta at Turfway, and with all my profits? You guessed it, I am going after the octo-octofecta at Santa Anita. Let's roll. 

A Good Pod Listen - A Few Solid Gems for Players

I thought I'd drop a quick note about Chris's Sport of Kings pod drop yesterday for the Fountain of Youth pick 5 with DeRosa. 

With Chris carrying on this pod for Scott, there's been a slight shift where the guest talks about style of play and game philosophy and I thought Ed brought up some worthwhile topics. 

Record keeping can be hard to look at, especially if we're losing, because who wants to revisit a train wreck. But, Ed used Keith Bush's friend Claude to look at his betting from 2022 (downloadable at Twinspires and Xpressbet for example... sorry HPI guys no soup for you) and he says he learned a lot. His tip might help you. 

When it comes to tickets and selection, he also had a neat anecdote regarding his big leans on "A" horses in his grid. These are the horses that stood out to him, of course, and he found (so far, but I imagine this to be the case long term) they are his true best bets. 

I think we know our blink-type horses (if we're any good at all) for pick 'ns' are the drivers of our revenue. Sure we might've got lucky with a spread, but over the many years our pick 4 and 5 hits are horses we liked that we leaned on. Lean-on horses in sequences our experience tells us will be sneaky and good.

What most struck me with the discussion was what I believe wholeheartedly, and what I've spoken about as a trait of a lot of successful players - confidence. 

Ed looked at his record keeping and he knows what he's good at. Steph Curry is confident he can hit the three so a lot of them go in, and horseplayers, in my view, are the same. Ed knows what he is good at, and what he is bad at. It's easy to pull the trigger when you feel right, and know, in the long run at least, you're going to be in good shape. 

It's the same with pick 'n' leans. If you're confident it's a good play, not only do you have a chance at becoming a winning player by learning to construct better tickets, you also handle your losses better. It's an amazing feeling to lose and say "it was a good play that I win at, so it's no big deal I lost."

Anyhow, I thought I'd drop this note today because even if you're not handicapping tomorrow's solid GP card, I think there's some sweet stuff in that pod. 

Have a great weekend everyone. 

Monday's (Tiny) Super Spectacular Blog

Hello everyone. I have not wrote a Super Spectacular Blog © in a long while, and well, this isn't one of them either. But since it's been quite some time, I figure I'd jot down some random things that filled my head. 

The Biz Loves the Hard to Hit Bets

The $1 Big M pick 8 debuted on Friday with around $5,000 in the pool. The bet is seeded with $50,000, so technically, if you are the only winner early on, it's big EV. This is not dissimilar to the one at Scioto a couple of years ago that I and many of you chased from time to time. Regardless, a $1 pick 8 in the Big M races which can be amazingly curious and non-formful in spots, we could see some big pools sooner or later. 

Unpaid Plug

Chris's Bet with the Best book will be available soon. You can keep track of it, and other things, by checking out his website. 

Corporates Everywhere

I missed last night's halftime show with Big Bunny (Gabe Prewitt you're making me mistype this) simply because a guy I never heard of, singing songs I have never heard, in a language I don't understand, seemed negative EV. Plus, I did have some halftime betting to do. 

But, as many have pointed out, it's the way of the corporate world right now, especially in sports, and the NFL is probably the best at it. Namely, growing the game in all parts of the world, or with demos you don't have, is black type for the Wharton grads. We see it with Alix with an i at Gulfstream in our small way. 

I notice the NFL-MBA suits are pushing Germany bigly the last couple of years. If the overlords decide that next year's halftime show is Germany-icon David Hasselhoff singing the hits, it could be hard to pass up. 

It's Early, or is it?

Early Derby top ten lists are generally the worst. The best colts probably have not started yet, and recency bias prevails. Every prep race it seems is the next big thing.

This year, David Aragona popped Nearly into the number one slot, and I wonder, is this season perhaps different? This colt was dominant and seems he can go forever. 

Barn Raids

Rumors usually abound regarding the powers-that-be raiding barns and this past week it was no different. I heard from a couple of folks that they happened. 

I guess these "visits" have to be done in secret, and we're never going to know the details for sure. But they do piss me off. As one of the barns - rumored to be visited - got cold this week, what's real and what's memorex? When will the barn get uncold? If a barn gets cold isn't that an admission of guilt. 

So many questions, so few answers. And as usual, bettors are the last to know. 

Just Say No to Narratives

Trent Dilfer, Jake Delhomme, Rex Grossman, Nick Foles, Colin Kaepernick, Jimmy G and Sam Darnold. It could be a law firm, or could be a "middling to bad quarterbacks who never made it" trivia answer. But of course, each of them either brought their teams to, or won a Super Bowl. 

Embrace of Betting but Only if I say So

One of my favorite videos to watch from time to time, especially for the old footage, is Adam Sandler's (what I think was hilarious) The Lonesome Kicker. The NFL clearly licensed this video, but equally hilarious was their editing. 

"I didn't realize if I shanked one and blew the point spread some drunk guys would throw me into their hibachi after the game" was changed to "I didn't realize if I shanked one because my toe hurt".

 

 Now, of course, we can't turn on the tee vee for the NFL ten seconds without being inundated with gambling chatter. Point spreads were alive and well when Sandler made this video, and they're alive and well now. Nothing has changed, but everything has changed at the same time. Sometimes it feels like we're living in a simulation.

Have a very nice Monday everyone. 

Racing's "Vanishing" Attendance

Bucky shared an interesting graphic today on the twitter - 

This isn't a shock and awe for you and those who follow the sport, but it is interesting to me nonetheless. 

Back in the 1960's, with the emergence of television, Pete Rozelle and the NFL were worried. If people could watch football at home, who would be left to go to the games? That clearly didn't happen. NFL games are, and were an event; Americana if you will. 

In 2025, stadiums are packed with people buying $400 tickets and $12 beer. They're camping out, tailgating, and in Buffalo at least, jumping off stuff to break tables. 

Racing on the other hand, as the graphic shows, has not had such luxury. 

This is primarily, in my view, because it was never a sport in the first place. We aren't tailgating before the third at Aqueduct; we aren't looking for tickets on stubhub for the feature at Mountaineer. Other than a Triple Crown race or a trip to Saratoga, we just aren't doing it. 

We're watching on television, on phones or on a computer .... and we're betting on the same devices. 

In my opinion, the sport has spent a ton of money and thinking and sweat equity on trying to drive people from home to the racetrack. We've paid money to Alix with an "i" Earle and many others my demographic have never seems to have heard of. We have a Youtube dude that owns a piece of Sandman. We had an ABR Bus. We've had kids in suits and hats getting smashed on Grey Goose (hey, it's today's sponsor). 

The sweat equity, cold hard cash and machinery thinking we've exhausted on trying to get people to watch the sport is truly mind-boggling. But, again in my view, it was misguided because unlike NFL football, the reason people packed the stands wasn't to watch the sport. 

No, 37,754 people showed up in 1946 on Met Mile day to bet the sport, not watch it. And the millions who poured into Roosevelt and Yonkers over the next fifty years on cold and rainy Tuesday evenings were there for the same thing. 

The sport of horse racing's attendance never "vanished". It was never real in the first place. The only thing real was the gambling.

When we lost that, as we have the last twenty or so years - I think, in part at least, by spending too much time on buses and suits and influencers and marketing, and neglecting the betting game itself - it's an enormous task to turn around. 

Have a good Wednesday everyone.

Equibase Rating Systems, Dumbed-Down Telecasts? This is a Complex Game, We Should Start Acting Like it

Equibase, to its credit, announced a new rating system for Thoroughbreds last week. This dovetails, somewhat, the rating system in Europe, as well as the Trackmaster rating system in harness racing. 

The reviews are plentiful and mostly not overly complimentary. 

The problem with this rating system, or ratings in general in horse racing, is that the game is really, really hard. 

Pinnacle Sports, which has been around forever with hundreds of billions of betting handle, dipped their toe into offering fixed odds awhile back. It might've been the quickest run to the exits in the history of bet offerings. They couldn't make it work. 

Odds lines, power ratings, how fast is horse A versus horse B with limited sample size is always a problem (especially with lower class stock). The game is difficult, even for the very best. 

Dumbing down such a complex game into a number is achievable, yes, but in most cases you aren't going to end up with an optimal number. 

We as humans like to dumb down just about everything because the human condition wants to live with heuristics or a few simple rules.  It makes us feel better. 

We see a lot of it in horse racing telecasts with rudimentary analysis ("this horse is dropping in class, this horse has a driver or rider change"), easy math ("tough race, hit the all button"), or dumb bets like Racing Roulette (I barely remember what that was, but I remember it wasn't good). 

It's been written here and elsewhere - where people are probably smarter and use better grammar - so I guess it's no use to go over how dumbing down the complex is like sticking a spoke in the wheel of a ten speed. Nor is it any use explaining why a hard game is an edge not a liability. If you read this blog you probably agree already. 

But I guess it could be worth touching on what a successful ecosystem in a complex game should be.

The answer to this question in a twitter thread is, I think fundamentally correct.

In summary, your skill game being hard is an asset and the difficulty of the game provides a breadth - the super sharps, the casual sharps, and the entertainment types. Where your game is sustained is how these three groups are handled. The super sharps can not have so much of an edge that they kill everyone else off. The sharp casuals need to be able to navigate the game in a sharp way, and grind their bankrolls, trying to get better. And finally, the fish can't be led to slaughter - they need to stick around and roll over their banks.

Horse racing clearly doesn't do this well. The CAW's have such a huge edge they're feeding on everyone. The sharps can't complete near as well. And the super casuals, for crying out loud - we're asking them to bet television pick 5 tickets and hitting the all button. 

I believe we need to embrace the toughness of the game, and build the game around it. Equibase ratings are hard. The game itself is hard. If we make this our default, the way we educate new players, adjudicate customer cohorts, run and present the game, sets a foundation that at the very least allows for the game to be responsive to its complex needs.

Have a great weekend everyone. 

Chasing the Steam

The Nobel Peace Prize winner was announced today, and economist Jason Furman had something to say about it. 

The other day a student asked me about the prevalence of insider trading in prediction markets. I now have an answer. pic.twitter.com/CpYLCstLw5

— Jason Furman (@jasonfurman) October 10, 2025

We see this more and more now, especially as prediction markets get more popular; namely, the steam is always right, because it has insider knowledge.

That's kind of the goal of prediction markets - to allow for insider steam to show - and we've been dealing with it for years in some form. 

In 2010, a rule of thumb for a serious player was that the steam was probably fake - a fake rumor, fish betting what they heard somewhere, or what have you. But now I suspect it's different. 

With technology, things move fast. Someone is going to know the length of a national anthem at the Super Bowl, who is going to be nominated for an Oscar, or who is winning a Nobel Peace Prize. And one text to five people can be 50k wagered on one side in a hurry. 

Because I don't bet these markets and ain't a professional I asked one for confirmation. Rob Pizzola, who many of you know, is a sharp and he texted that it is "very, very rare that the steam in these markets loses."

On the other hand, for those of us who play horses we know this to be true... sometimes. And sometimes ..... not true. We know it's much more complicated than steam on or off. And navigating it now in horse racing? I find it pretty difficult and ever-changing, but the lesson from sports bettors is not lost on me. 

If it was years ago, we'd almost always be able to fade steam, because the steam was public money. 

In the Rebel Stakes earlier this spring, after a very public horse like Sandman stumbled in the Southwest, we'd be all ready and firing to fade the early steam when the horse opened at 3-5. But that horse doesn't open at 3-5 anymore. In fact, he opened fairly meh and he closed at I think 3-1, which frankly was probably the horse's true odds. 

Now, with the way the markets are bet, it's hard to decipher what or where the steam even is. 

A lot of the time, I don't even think the sharps know for sure.  

Case in point (or many points), I will look at a win pool and figure out what the board will look like late (to the best of my ability). Sometimes I will see an outlier - on-track steam that says a horse is well-bet and might be going to run well, but the exchange markets (or other markets) say it's dead, square money. 

Honestly, with the sharp money playing an exchange, and with CAW money in the win and multi-leg pools, the breadth of what we see in the odds by market should be small. But many times it isn't. 

I've seen some on-track steam horses at 2-1 who are 10-1 on the exchange markets. 12-1 horses who are 120-1. And on and on. 

Just Wednesday at Keeneland, the Maker steam horse in the 4th - a horse my pal Les Stark likes to say is bet like "they already have tomorrow's newspaper" - was 8-5 on the board, 5-2 in multis, and 7-2 on the exchanges. 

In 2005, 2015 or 2022, or 2024, when I see this I am never betting the Maker horse. My mind can not compute betting a horse at 8-5 that I can get at 7-2 elsewhere. It just goes against everything I believe in betting markets. 

However, in 2025 I have pivoted and I am not so quick to discount it. If CAW's with millions invested in algos have a horse at 5-2; if the sharp exchange action has a horse at 7-2, and strong board action says the horse has a 40% or more chance to win (and the odds board shows signs it will not correct late), I respect it. 

If the horse looks sneaky - say off replay, or a trainer change - I respect it even more, because those types are likely to have the proper, sharp, on-board steam; sometimes much closer to fair odds than the algos. 

Maybe for many of you who just want to bet horses you like or bet against horses you do not, this post reads like nonsense gobbeldygook, and that's okay. The markets are weird, and I am probably weird trying to read them so much. But in 2025, with so many sharps playing this game, they do signal what's happening, and reading what they're saying in plain english can be extremely helpful..... when we get it right. 

When do we chase steam and when do we fade steam in horse racing? In 2025, in my opinion, while it may be clear in prediction markets what to do, horse racing is a kettle of fish. But I do believe quite strongly that insider action with easy to use technology spreading the information has more validity than ever. 

Have a nice Friday everyone. 

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.