Ok, today I begin my first day of accountability for my contest picks as I will begin filling in that little box on the left hand side.
First, let me spell out my betting rules up front, because there is no way I can possibly know which of my contenders I will play before I can see the actual odds. In fact, there is no way I can possibly know if I am even going to play a race until I see the actual odds.
My betting rules come straight out of Steve Fiero's book "The Four Corners of Horse Investing". I highly recommend this book. You will see two sets of odds for each contender. The lower of the two is what I consider to be the fair odds, or probability of the horse to win; the 2nd set is the minimum overlay odds I require for an investment. My odds line is completely qualitative and based on experience and intuition. If I ever find a reliable method of making a mathmatically sound method of creating an odds line without using a computer program, I'll use it.
I will bet whichever horse among my contenders is overlayed.
If two horses are overlayed, I will bet the horse with the lower odds as that is the one statistically most likely to win.
If three or four horses are overlayed, I will not play the race as that is an indication that I have missed something intrinsically important.
If two horses are overlayed at odds =or> 8:1 I will split my win bet between them.
If I have made my top choice 3-2 or less and the crowd agrees with that assessment, I will pass the race rather than bet against a "Legitimate Favorite". This is not usually an issue when I have 4 solid contenders.
If any contender is < 3-2 and no other entry is < 5-1 I will pass the race rather than play against a "Prohibitive Favorite"
I almost forgot the most important rule: No overlay, no play.
Those are Steve Fiero's basic rules for win betting.
Then what I like to do is play my overlay win choice underneath the other contenders in an exacta. This is not done in every case. For instance if my top choice is just barely an overlay, it is probably not a good value to pile on more with exacta bets. But if it is my 4th choice, many times the exact payout is more than I would've won with the win bet. Use discretion with this one.
Race 9 at GP is the Hallandale Beach Hdcp
#1 Duke of Homburg
3-1
9-2
#5 Tamoborim
7-2
5-1
#8 Lime Rickey
9-2
7-1
#10 Adari
6-1
9-1
#1 ran into trouble while making move in stretch could be first with a better trip. #5 Makes 2009 debut is flattered by win last out win field containing This One's For Phil, winner of the Sunshine Millions Dash #8 Lime Rickey overachieved in the Dania Beach Handicap in finishing 2nd at 17 to 1 last out gets the always dangerous Leparoux for the trip #10 made a big closing rush to finish 4th in the DBH, extra distance may help
Tampa Bay Downs Race 10 Sam F. Davis-G3
#7 Free Country
2-1
3-1
#5 Atomic Rain
5-2
4-1
#6 Cliffy's Future
4-1
6-1
#7 Invaders descend upon Tampa to scoop up some easy Graded stakes pickings. The cream of the GP jockey colony goes to the west coast and Desormeaux on undefeated Free Country is the top pick here. #5 JR Velazquez has eschewed some pricey races at GP for what he must feel is an easy spot here aboard Atomic Rain. However AR may not get an easy lead today with front-running A.P. Cardinal in the field. #6 ships down from Aqueduct and has had 3 weeks to acclimate to Florida's warmer climate. Paco Lopez was the hot apprentice at Calder this summer and has continued to dominate as a journeyman rider at Tampa. He'll be one to watch for the future.
Santa Anita Race 9 Santa Maria Hdcp-G1
#11 Leah's Secret
3-1
9-2
#4 Mistical
7-2
5-1
#10 Visit
4-1
6-1
#7 Bsharpsonata
6-1
9-1
#11 Ended 2008 campaign with two G2 wins and started 2009 with easy win after freshining in a race the connections probably didn't even care that much about. #4 Speed stretching out is always dangerous, I'd be happy to play this one at the right odds and even happier underneath in the exacta. #10 G3 winner in GB has yet to prove mettle in States. Go Go Gomez takes the irons making automatic contender. #7 The other Pletcher entry won't have Indian Blessing to contend with here, but I think the higher contenders may be more accomplished excepting Visit.
Turf Paradise Race 8 Phoenix Gold Cup Handicap
I'm going to cop out and pass on the Turf Paradise race because I don't really know the track, trainers, horses, or Jockeys. However, if you put a gun to my head I'll take the likely chalk, Machismo followed by Northern Soldier, and White Spar. I will use these picks for the publichandicappers contest just because, but will not even think about playing this race.
That's it for today. Good Luck to all you weekend warriors out there
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Book Review!!!
Since I've finished with the Thursday past performances for Fair Grounds and Golden Gate Fields and the Saturday Gulfstream Park PP's are not yet available, I have a little time for another adventure into the world of book reviews.
But first, you will notice a little addition on the left side of the page. I occasionally offer opinions on the outcome of races and decided, in the interest of full disclosure, you the reader should know how much my opinion is worth.
Now, if I may toot my own horn, I told you I love to play the Fair Grounds and came through with two winners out of three races. Out at Santa Anita, I didn't fare so well. I, like many others I've come to learn, thought I could beat Cowboy Cal. Well, I didn't, so sue me. No wait a minute, don't do that!
Todd Pletcher is one of the more confounding big name trainers for me. Don't get me wrong, I love Todd. He even posed for my wife at Gulfstream a couple of weeks ago. That picture is in a previous edition. However, it seems I'm always on the wrong side of the bet when it comes to Mr. Pletcher. If I try to beat him, he wins. If I jump on his band wagon, he's up the track and out of the money. Do you have anyone like that? Of course you do.
Now on to the review.
Today I take a critical look at "The Tuttle Way: Applied Methodologies On "How To" Interpret The Racing Form From A Winning Horseplayer" by Joseph J. Tuttle
In the beginning of the book, Mr. Tuttle seeks to establish is bona fides as a horseman by informing us his father, Seymour Tuttle, was involved in the training of horses. Naturally, I promptly did a Google search which came up empty. It's not that I can't take Mr. Tuttle's word for it, but his credibility would be bolstered if I could have found some reference to a Seymour Tuttle within, say the first 5 or 6 pages of 19,900 results. No, I did not go through all 19,900 results, but you may feel free to, if you must.
The 172 page paper-back consists of mostly large type face, which is easy on the eyes. It's also easy on a writer that really doesn't have much to say.
He opens with a brief history of the Daily Racing Form and dwells a lot on the unreliability of Beyer's figures before finally admitting that he does use them. This in itself is not so bad. I agree that Beyer's figures sort of need to be taken in context of class and pace.
Then we come to something I find particularly off-putting as Mr. Tuttle makes the claim that 81% of all races are won by horses that have had 29 to 119 days off. Is this really true? It may well be, but I'm a scientist by profession, so my first question is "What is the source of this data and how was it derived?" Alas there is no answer to this query. The reader is supposed to simply accept this number on faith. He does allow for exceptions such as the Preakness about which he writes,” You can count the number of Preakness winners on one hand, which won that race after skipping the Kentucky Derby, over the past twenty-five years." Note the excessive use of commas in that sentence is the writers.
He tells us a main characteristic of a horse with "class" is the ability to switch leads and that 90% of all horses switch leads instinctively. I know. A wild statistic thrown about with no validation. However, the real issue is, if 90% of all horses do this instinctively, does this mean that 90% of all horses are classy? That's sort of like saying 90% of all people are extraordinary. If 90% of all people are extraordinary, then that is the norm. Rather ordinary I'd say.
Now this is where the writer really loses me as we move into what I refer to as the,"Old wives tales." section of the book. And we're only on page 22. Watch out for those horses with 4 white socks as they are more likely to turn up lame. More prevalent among younger horses according to the author. Horses with prominent,"Blazes and Stars" on their faces will show or have a lot of front-running speed. Mr. Tuttle tells us that many prominent horseman hold to this belief; however, he neglects to name names. I'll have to ask Mr. Pletcher about this the next time I see him at Gulfstream. Oh yeah, I should add this, and you get this for free, always bet grey horses on grey days. That's a sure winning angle...Puhleeze.
Ahem, excuse my sarcasm.
Now in a portion of the book headed as (The Comment Line), Mr. Tuttle says he puts high value on the comment line because it tells you much about the company the horse has been keeping. Then, tangentially, moves onto video tape analysis and some sort of esoteric calculation involving how many horses a horse passes on average per race. I'm telling you, the book is full these rambling sort of right angle turns with no rhyme or reason.
I asked my wife, a natural handicapper in her own right (if only we could merge my analytical nature with her intuitive sense of body language of both people and horses, we'd be unstoppable), to read the 4 page section on "The Comment Line" and tell me what she learned about "The Comment Line". "Nothing", was her answer.
Chapter 3
We learn about his "universal" number, 20. We learn how to use this magical universal number to make the flawed DRF speed figure and track variant better through the use of a seemingly arbitrary constant. Why not seven? Much luckier than 20. Or three? Holy Trinity and all that. I guess Pi would be out of the question since it’s a non-repeating number, how would we know where to stop? Then we take this number and add it to the Beyer's number and divide the sum by 2 and, voila!, we have a new and improved speed figure. I think not.
Enough of this. The remainder of the book is full of similar nonsense and non-validated percentages and general arbitrariness all written in a very disorganized manner. I cannot bear to go on. Suffice it to say I give Mr. Tuttle's effort a firm up the track and out of the money rating. Save your money and pass this book.
I buy these books because I can't help myself. Use my addiction to your benefit and stay as far away from this book.
FYI. In the Jan/Feb issue of the Horseplayer Magazine there is a nice article by Prentice Manetter on playing the pick four. Since I sort of panned his book in my last review, I thought I'd at least give credit where credit is due.
But first, you will notice a little addition on the left side of the page. I occasionally offer opinions on the outcome of races and decided, in the interest of full disclosure, you the reader should know how much my opinion is worth.
Now, if I may toot my own horn, I told you I love to play the Fair Grounds and came through with two winners out of three races. Out at Santa Anita, I didn't fare so well. I, like many others I've come to learn, thought I could beat Cowboy Cal. Well, I didn't, so sue me. No wait a minute, don't do that!
Todd Pletcher is one of the more confounding big name trainers for me. Don't get me wrong, I love Todd. He even posed for my wife at Gulfstream a couple of weeks ago. That picture is in a previous edition. However, it seems I'm always on the wrong side of the bet when it comes to Mr. Pletcher. If I try to beat him, he wins. If I jump on his band wagon, he's up the track and out of the money. Do you have anyone like that? Of course you do.
Now on to the review.
Today I take a critical look at "The Tuttle Way: Applied Methodologies On "How To" Interpret The Racing Form From A Winning Horseplayer" by Joseph J. Tuttle
In the beginning of the book, Mr. Tuttle seeks to establish is bona fides as a horseman by informing us his father, Seymour Tuttle, was involved in the training of horses. Naturally, I promptly did a Google search which came up empty. It's not that I can't take Mr. Tuttle's word for it, but his credibility would be bolstered if I could have found some reference to a Seymour Tuttle within, say the first 5 or 6 pages of 19,900 results. No, I did not go through all 19,900 results, but you may feel free to, if you must.
The 172 page paper-back consists of mostly large type face, which is easy on the eyes. It's also easy on a writer that really doesn't have much to say.
He opens with a brief history of the Daily Racing Form and dwells a lot on the unreliability of Beyer's figures before finally admitting that he does use them. This in itself is not so bad. I agree that Beyer's figures sort of need to be taken in context of class and pace.
Then we come to something I find particularly off-putting as Mr. Tuttle makes the claim that 81% of all races are won by horses that have had 29 to 119 days off. Is this really true? It may well be, but I'm a scientist by profession, so my first question is "What is the source of this data and how was it derived?" Alas there is no answer to this query. The reader is supposed to simply accept this number on faith. He does allow for exceptions such as the Preakness about which he writes,” You can count the number of Preakness winners on one hand, which won that race after skipping the Kentucky Derby, over the past twenty-five years." Note the excessive use of commas in that sentence is the writers.
He tells us a main characteristic of a horse with "class" is the ability to switch leads and that 90% of all horses switch leads instinctively. I know. A wild statistic thrown about with no validation. However, the real issue is, if 90% of all horses do this instinctively, does this mean that 90% of all horses are classy? That's sort of like saying 90% of all people are extraordinary. If 90% of all people are extraordinary, then that is the norm. Rather ordinary I'd say.
Now this is where the writer really loses me as we move into what I refer to as the,"Old wives tales." section of the book. And we're only on page 22. Watch out for those horses with 4 white socks as they are more likely to turn up lame. More prevalent among younger horses according to the author. Horses with prominent,"Blazes and Stars" on their faces will show or have a lot of front-running speed. Mr. Tuttle tells us that many prominent horseman hold to this belief; however, he neglects to name names. I'll have to ask Mr. Pletcher about this the next time I see him at Gulfstream. Oh yeah, I should add this, and you get this for free, always bet grey horses on grey days. That's a sure winning angle...Puhleeze.
Ahem, excuse my sarcasm.
Now in a portion of the book headed as (The Comment Line), Mr. Tuttle says he puts high value on the comment line because it tells you much about the company the horse has been keeping. Then, tangentially, moves onto video tape analysis and some sort of esoteric calculation involving how many horses a horse passes on average per race. I'm telling you, the book is full these rambling sort of right angle turns with no rhyme or reason.
I asked my wife, a natural handicapper in her own right (if only we could merge my analytical nature with her intuitive sense of body language of both people and horses, we'd be unstoppable), to read the 4 page section on "The Comment Line" and tell me what she learned about "The Comment Line". "Nothing", was her answer.
Chapter 3
We learn about his "universal" number, 20. We learn how to use this magical universal number to make the flawed DRF speed figure and track variant better through the use of a seemingly arbitrary constant. Why not seven? Much luckier than 20. Or three? Holy Trinity and all that. I guess Pi would be out of the question since it’s a non-repeating number, how would we know where to stop? Then we take this number and add it to the Beyer's number and divide the sum by 2 and, voila!, we have a new and improved speed figure. I think not.
Enough of this. The remainder of the book is full of similar nonsense and non-validated percentages and general arbitrariness all written in a very disorganized manner. I cannot bear to go on. Suffice it to say I give Mr. Tuttle's effort a firm up the track and out of the money rating. Save your money and pass this book.
I buy these books because I can't help myself. Use my addiction to your benefit and stay as far away from this book.
FYI. In the Jan/Feb issue of the Horseplayer Magazine there is a nice article by Prentice Manetter on playing the pick four. Since I sort of panned his book in my last review, I thought I'd at least give credit where credit is due.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Public Handicapper Quick Picks
Mundane day for racing at GP today. Could just as easily be at CRC, so I handicapped the day accordingly. Big Stakes day at Fair Grounds, one of my favorite tracks to play, with 3 PH races to pick. Add one from Santa Anita and you have the beginnning of a new contest.
I didn't win, or even come close, to winning The Winter of Our Discontent but did have a positive ROI for the contest.
Time is short and I lost my Fair Grounds analysis, long story, so you'll have to trust me.
Race 6
#8 Honest Man
3-1
9-2
#2 Good and Lucky
4-1
6-1
#1 Secret Getaway
9-2
7-1
#4 Grasshopper
5-1
8-1
Race 7
#7 Demarcation
3-1
9-2
#1 French Beret
7-2
5-1
#2 Jimmy Simms
9-2
7-1
#5 Diamond Tycoon
6-1
9-1
Race 9
#6 Friesen fire
3-1
9-2
#7 Giant Oak
7-2
5-1
#4 It Happened Again
4-1
6-1
#5 Uno Mas
6-1
9-1
And the Strub from Santa Anita where I am going against the favored Cowboy Cal (distance)
#5 Gio Ponti
3-1
9-2
#7 Nownownow
7-2
5-1
#1 Dixie Chatter
4-1
6-1
#9 Wishful Tomcat
6-1
9-1
#5 has demonstrated ability for the distance and the surface #7 I think this race sets up for closers and #7 qualifies on that count #1 Won the G1 Norfolk in '07 coming from off the pace. #9 will want to contend for the lead, but unlike Cowboy Cal, had won twice at the distance.
I didn't win, or even come close, to winning The Winter of Our Discontent but did have a positive ROI for the contest.
Time is short and I lost my Fair Grounds analysis, long story, so you'll have to trust me.
Race 6
#8 Honest Man
3-1
9-2
#2 Good and Lucky
4-1
6-1
#1 Secret Getaway
9-2
7-1
#4 Grasshopper
5-1
8-1
Race 7
#7 Demarcation
3-1
9-2
#1 French Beret
7-2
5-1
#2 Jimmy Simms
9-2
7-1
#5 Diamond Tycoon
6-1
9-1
Race 9
#6 Friesen fire
3-1
9-2
#7 Giant Oak
7-2
5-1
#4 It Happened Again
4-1
6-1
#5 Uno Mas
6-1
9-1
And the Strub from Santa Anita where I am going against the favored Cowboy Cal (distance)
#5 Gio Ponti
3-1
9-2
#7 Nownownow
7-2
5-1
#1 Dixie Chatter
4-1
6-1
#9 Wishful Tomcat
6-1
9-1
#5 has demonstrated ability for the distance and the surface #7 I think this race sets up for closers and #7 qualifies on that count #1 Won the G1 Norfolk in '07 coming from off the pace. #9 will want to contend for the lead, but unlike Cowboy Cal, had won twice at the distance.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Nicanor
Nicanor, the brother of Barbaro, entered the walking ring at Gulfstream Park yesterday to a mild round of applause from the people gathered around the area. Despite the runnings of the Grade 3 Holy Bull possibly the first legitimate step for east coast 3 year olds on the road to the Kentucky Derby, and the G1 Donn Handicap featuring Albertus Maximus and the great Einstein, it was this, as of yet unaccomplished 3 year old maiden that many in the crowd came to see. I make this judgement based on how short the betting lines were for the feature 9th race after Nicanor had done his thing. Funny thing is, I didn't even realize Barbaro's brother was running until the night before when someone had told me.
I thought Nicanor looked to be in good condition, as far as this born and bred city-boy can tell about horses. I heard some people remark about how small he was; however, he didn't strike me as being particularly undersized.
At the first showing of the morning line, I was surprised to see him at 4-5. However, by post time the odds had floated up to a still unrealistic 5-2.
Nicanor was well behaved in the walking ring and has obviously been schooled before this race and had an idea of what to expect. Nicanor was a little fractious in the post parade, but nothing to bad for a first trip in a real race, just enough to show that he is still a little green.
By now, I'm sure you know the story how the race went. Not totally unexpected for a first timer. Even Michael Matz said in a pre-race interview that he felt Nicanor would need a trip around the track before getting serious about winning (I am paraphrasing and interpreting here). I have found that, for big races where trainers are actually interviewed before the race, you can tell alot about a horses chances by how the trainer speaks of him before the race.
Nicanor had trouble at the gate, made a nice run down the backstretch to, at least, make contact with the lead pack and then faded to be 10 of 12. I think his baskstretch move showed he has some potential, but we'll have to wait and see if this is the return of Barbaro.
Here are some pictures from the event.
Walking to the Paddock
Entering the Walking Ring
Taking a few laps
Peeking from behind the palm tree
Post Parade
He at least looks the part.
At the finish line
Time to dismount
Look's good with that Wind-Blown hair
Back to the Barn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
