OT - Preakness

[QuikSand]

If any of you party animals from the mid-Atlantic region are planning to be in the Preakness infield on Saturday, drop me a PM or something. I'll try to find you, and I'll buy you a black-eyed susan.

Oh, if anyone wants to talk about the race - that would be fine, too.

[henry296]

Quiksand,

I will be there.

As for the race, what can you tell me about Scrimshaw. As a Lukas horse with Stevens on board and an inside post, does he have a good chance. The problem is that he is a coupled entry with Senor Swinger which lowers the odds.

For whatever reason, I don't give Funny Cide that much of a chance, but then again I said the same thing about Charismatic.

Since 1984 only once, Red Bullet, has a non Derby horse won the Preakeness. That leaves only 4 horses.

Todd

[QuikSand]

I was among those who didn't give SCRIMSHAW much chance in the Derby - I though he was an underlay there, and I think he will be again here. Yes - Lukas and Stevens, I know. But all told, the horse has yet to really post a race that impressed me much.

Actually, I think the real loser here is SENOR SWINGER, who probably would be at 20-1 or better but for the coupling. His last race showed some nice effort, and I don't think it was solely because he was running on turf. I expect him to make a rally in this race - but doing so at Pimlico is traditionally a tough way to win.

Actually, I don't think the race is terribly attractive from a bettability perspective. I think the odds are about right on the two favorites - both probably should be at fractional odds. I'll give FUNNY CIDE the best shot, but Prado does know Pimlico and shoudl handle PEACE RULES well. If PEACE RULES had drawn an inside slot, I might have been inclined to give him my edge... but with both of them outside, I expect I'll use FUNNY CIDE atop my exotics.

I'll be using TEN CENTS A SHINE in there, too - he'll probably be my "rally for a piece" horse.

[Franklinnoble]

I thought Senor Swinger was Baffert's horse?

Anyhow, I like him, Peace Rules, and Funny Cide. That'd be my exacta box, if I were anywhere near a place to gamble between now and Saturday.

[henry296]

Senor Swinger is Baffert trained but the Owners Bob and Beverly Lewis are also the owner of Scrimshaw.

Todd

[bbor]

7-5 for funny cide?? i imagine there will be a few people getting hurt on that one.

I don't see funny cude being a factor in this race at all.Unless the buzzer is in play again

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by bbor
7-5 for funny cide?? i imagine there will be a few people getting hurt on that one.

I don't see funny cude being a factor in this race at all.Unless the buzzer is in play again

Funny Cide ran a close second to Empire Maker in the Wood, and beat him AND Peace Rules handily in the Derby. How can you say he won't be a factor?

I think he's gettin' dissed because he had the misfortune of having his cajones knocked off.

[bbor]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
I think he's gettin' dissed because he had the misfortune of having his cajones knocked off.

Well...this is one obvious reason

The Wood had a fairly weak field if i do remember correctly.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by bbor
Well...this is one obvious reason

The Wood had a fairly week field if i do remember correctly.

Did the Kentucky Derby also have a fairly weak field?

Granted, Funny Cide may have been the beneficiary of a very smooth trip, but he still beat the best 3YO's in the country, and he did it going away. I'm not saying he's a lock for the Preakness, nor may he be a legitimate 7-5 favorite, but to say he's not a factor at all is to discount him a little too much... gonads or not.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by bbor
The Wood had a fairly week (sic) field if i do remember correctly.

Well, some might disagree. Since the Derby exacta came right out of the Wood exacta, some might say that the Wood was the toughest prep race in North America this year. And since the top two speed figures in any prep race also came from the 1-2 finishers in the Wood (and also the Derby, of course) - there's perhaps a little more support for the argument that it wasn't weak - but rather clearly the best prep of them all.

How good was the sixth best horse in that race? I don't know. How much do we care? We're only talking about those who proved themselves worthy, aren't we?

[bbor]

I guess i should have put an IMHO in front of my statement.I just have no faith in this horse.I think that at 7-5 he is a rip off.

BTW,curse you Quik for pointing out my spelling WEAKness

[FishFan]

Time for me to make my typical "discount the favorite and jock some longshot horse in a Triple Crown" statement....

I don't see FUNNY CIDE getting nearly the perfect trip he received in the Derby. Remember, PEACE RULES spent the majority of the Derby in a speed duel with BRANCUSI (who finished last) and was empty coming down the stretch, giving FUNNY CIDE an oppotunity. Sure, PEACE RULES will be coming from the outside, but there is very little early speed in this race and he will not waste his energy fighting a hot pace. Lukas has noted that he would send SCRIMSHAW out to challenge the pace which would play into TEN CENTS A SHINE's hands, so look for him to pick up ground in the closing stretch.

As for my longshot that I'll jock, it would have to be NEW YORK HERO, who is usually a frontrunning horse who could use a slow pace to score an upset. His trainer, one of the best women in the game, says she would rather see HERO come from off the pace as he usually gets himself in trouble when he's looking to lead.

Also, be careful with SENOR SWINGER with Pat Day aboard. Day is mired in a horrific slump right now. From a jockey standpoint, I liked Bailey on TEN CENTS A SHINE and Prado on PEACE RULES. If I get PEACE RULES and Prado at 9-5 at post time, I would consider that an overlay on this race.

Note: I have not looked at past performances for this race yet and know little about a handful of contender's including FOUFA'S WARRIOR, MIDWAY ROAD and KISSIN SAINT.

I'm thinking something like this:

PEACE RULES

with

NEW YORK HERO, TEN CENTS A SHINE, FUNNY CIDE

with

NEW YORK HERO, TEN CENTS A SHINE, FUNNY CIDE, SCRIMSHAW, CHEROKEE'S BOY

This will probably change after I take a look at some of these other runners, but from what I hear it is not a terrific lot.

[daedalus]

Out of curiosity . . . looking at the track today (some of the races are on ESPN2 at the moment), it looks mighty sloppy. Chances are it'll improve some by tomorrow but it won't be perfect. What kind of difference would it make in the race tomorrow, given the field?

[henry296]

We had the same type of weather last year, and the track was listed at fast by the time the Preakness started. The rain is supposed to stop very early tomorrow morning if not overnight.

Todd

[QuikSand]

Actually, this field nearly all show some ability or breeding over an off trcak, so I'm not making a huge issue out of that itself. However, the track has been playing very biased toward the inside - horses getting the rail have been holding off outside challengers all week, and the rail has just been killing today (MINESHAFT's rally notwithstanding).

If that's the case again tomorrow, it might be appropriate to demerit the outside horses like PEACE RULES and FUNNY CIDE a bit, just because they will have some disadvantage from that perspective. I fully expect Prado to negotiate a rail spot for his horse (PEACE RULES) because he understands this track like nobody else - but overall, being out that far isn't a good thing.

In the very early betting, by the way, FUNNY CIDE is a tepid fourth choice. That's not much respect.

[Honolulu Blue]

This looks like a really weak field beyond the top two. All PEACE RULES and FUNNY CIDE have to do to beat them is do what they've already done. The others have to do something they haven't done - never a good idea to bet on.

Today's bets look like 7-9-ALL and 9-7-ALL. One of the also-rans has to finish third, and it's impossible to tell from here which will do so.

Upset specials: In a field filled with longshots, I like CHEROKEE'S BOY and KISSIN SAINT at 20-1 or better. Dreamers with money to burn might be rewarded.

[QuikSand]

HB, I"m very close to you in this race - I think the top two are farther ahead of the field than they are getting credit for. I though the fraactional odds were pretty fair, and after seeing the early bettinng (esp. on FUNNY CIDE) I think the value is probably at the top.

A 79/79/ALL ticket might be in my future, along with a simple boxed exacta on the top two, if it's paying at least $10.

Right now, the price horses who interest me most are TEN CENTS A SHINE (improving, I think), and FOUFA'S WARRIOR. I'm tossing out CHEROKEE'S BOY, NEW YORK HERO, and probably the Baffert/Lukas entry to try and cut down my ticket.

[QuikSand]

For the early Pick-4, I'm pretty chalky, but will post my thinking.

4th race: The three-headed entry, if they all run, is probably te favorite... I'll use them in my betting, particularly because I like the 1A PIONEER BOY. I do, however, also like #5 THE DEBPUTY IS HOME, and he will be in my bet.

5th race: I like the two classiest entrants, #5 URBAN KING and #12 SILVER TREE, probably using the second one more heavily.

6th race: Tough race, I don't really like th eearly speed inside, and think #6 ONLY THE BEST will get cooked trying to grab the hot rail. I'll go with the stalkers, using #8 GET SMARTER and perhaps #7 MT CARSON in my bets. If someone from the lead wins, it ought to be #3 GATORS N BEARS.

7th race: the money race, as I will be trying to beat a presumed heavy favorite in #9 RISKAVERSE. He may not be sharp today, and I will try to beat him with #6 VESPERS or #12 LA BELLE SIMONE. My co-wagerers like #8 KATZEN, and he will probably be in our community bet, though I'm not that enamored.

So, my main tickets for the early Pick 4 look like:

1,5/5/8/6,8
and
1/12/7,8/6,8

That's only a $16 bet - and with the heavy favorite out of the last race at least, we'd hope to score a decent pull with this. I will probably spread money around in race 7, hoping to cash in on exotics not using the #9 anywhere but perhaps in third place.

I'm not fully through the card yet for the late Pick 4, but in race 8, bet against #4 SINS AND RICHES at your own peril. I think the Sir Barton is pretty wide open, as I don't think #2 DURING is in great form, and can be beaten. I may use Prado on #3 BEST MINISTER to try to stalk the early lead and take it in the stretch.


Here's to a profitable Preakness day, everyone!

[ratpfink]

If FUNNY CIDE remains the 4th choice to post time I think that might be my only pay for the Preakness. I'm more excited about CHANGEINTHEWEATHER in the 11th race perhaps in an exacta with P DAY and maybe ROGER E.

I'll be at Canterbury today, I'm really looking forward to the day of low level claiming races and state bred allowance races.

[ISiddiqui]

WEEEE!

Funny Cide sure pulled away at the end. 10 LENGTHS! Wow... nice race run by him!

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

That rece was pretty good until the end ...Funny Cide just used the draft to muscle his way to the top ....I knew that if he did well in the turns that he would win the race and he did . I also liked that 4 tire pit stop towards the last 50 laps .....oh wait .

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by ratpfink
I'll be at Canterbury today, I'm really looking forward to the day of low level claiming races and state bred allowance races.

I love Canterbury, I make it there about 5 or 6 times a year for the weekend races. I'm not so good at picking, but my girlfriend is. She knew 3 years of being a Equine Science major would help somewhere.

[ratpfink]

Originally posted by The Afoci
I love Canterbury, I make it there about 5 or 6 times a year for the weekend races. I'm not so good at picking, but my girlfriend is. She knew 3 years of being a Equine Science major would help somewhere.

Oh, yeah, it's a great track. I mean, I haven't been to any other tracks but I've heard some pretty bad stories. They want to get slots in there, which would help Canterbury out but I think it would take a bit away from the horse racing experience.

Sort of funny story: My dad bet $2 to show on 3 horses in the last race at Cby, and all 3 finished in the money. If he would have bet a $1 boxed trifecta on the same horses he would have won $290 more. D'oh!

Also, the girl selling beer in front of the grandstands wasn't wearing a bra.

[QuikSand]

An absolutely GREAT race by Funny Cide today... an eye-popping stretch run, probably helped (visually) by Peace Rules's dropping off, but still, most impressive. I ended up playing Funny Cide as my key horse on top - had a decent win bet, but got snuffed on the exotics.

Myannual trip to the Belmont just got very interesting once again - I expect it to be bedlam up there with a local horse (NY Bred, based at Belmont anyway) vying for the Crown. It's always abuzz when there's a TC chance... btu with a horse that the localc can actually root for - it ought to be nuts. Can't wait.

[JeeberD]

I know nothing about horse racing, but I was wondering what the chances are that FC can win the Triple Crown? I know the Belmont is a different race than the first two (it's a longer race, right?). Can FC win this, or will it be really difficult for him?

[daedalus]

Since QS missed the Derby for the first time in years, chances are pretty good. Heh.

[QuikSand]

It's definitely a tough feat.. we've seen four very nice horses in recent years get this far, and all have faltered for some reason in the third leg.

The Belmont is longer - a mile and a half, and it's shocking how so many quality horses who can get the 1 1/4 miles and 1 3/16 miles of the first two races can have a real problem with the added distance of the Belmont. In addition, the Belmont surface traditionally plays different than the other two - it has broad, sweeping turns which make big outside moves a different type of enterprise than on either of the first two tracks. It's just a different event, all told.

In my opinion, FUNNY CIDE has two main things to possibly worry about. The first is distance - his breeding will not be the best among the field for such a long distance, and it's just tough to knolw whether he can really "get" a mile and a half. Yes, he certainly looked great today, and it's hard to fathom that horse running out of gas, but it's possible.

Second is freshness. He has now "fired" (run a very good race) in three straight efforts, and it's very common for a horse doing so to have a dropoff in form after such a good peak. Three weeks from now, he will run his third race in five weeks, all run very hard and contested by quality opposition. Will he be the freshest horse in the field? He'll probably face a few of the Derby also-rans, including EMPIRE MAKER (who has, for what it's worth, positively gallant distance breeding) who will be looking to get him at the longer distance. This is another unknown.

Does he have a chance? Absolutely. The horse I saw today has a damned good chance to beat anything running in this country - that was a simply tremendous run. Will he bring his "A game" in three weeks, and will he be able to extend over the distance? That's what we'll have to find out, won't we?


He will probably be at fractional odds again (depending on the field, perhaps 7/5), and plenty of people will be backing him. He'd be a great story for racing if he did win it - he's a gelding, so his prospects of having a long racing career are pretty bright. And he comes from a fairly humble background - so there are some nice and timely echoes of Seabiscuit in the storyline, which is fortuitous as well.


I can't wait for the Belmont.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by daedalus
Since QS missed the Derby for the first time in years, chances are pretty good. Heh.

*frowns*

[JeeberD]

Thanks QS. One more question for you. FC is a gelding. Why are some horses gelded and some not? How does being gelded affect a horse? Won't his owners miss out on a ton of money in stud fees?

[mrskippy]

Announcers said today that Funny Cide was gelded for a reason. He apparently had some developmental problems and never would have made it as a race horse otherwise. They did cite a few examples of why you would do it.

True the owners will lose out on stud fees. The best they can hope for is getting a sibling or a closely related horse and hope for a winner. Otherwise they take their winnings and buy a horse that can win and be a stud upon retirement.

I didn't write Funny Cide off today. Something told me all day he was going to pull it off. When I saw how he was keeping pace and than made the final push ... I knew he'd win and win big. The jockey didn't have to use the whip that much towards the end other than to keep the horse motivated to reach the finish.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Funny Cide wins the Triple Crown. It would really be interesting to see what the owners would do with the winnings since they'll get no future stud fees. It also would make for a great story, since geldings typically don't win much.

From the sound of things, the owners sound like they have money, but aren't as filthy rich as the other owners. They had to rent a school bus to get the gang to the race, rather than a party bus. They only paid $5,000 for their original horse and from the way things sound ended up with the bottom feeders ...

at least until Funny Cide came along. This horse is much more a Cinderella story than Charismatic (whom I had faith in even before the Derby).

I predict a Funny Cide win in two weeks and a new force to be reckoned with in his owners. With the recognition and financial gain from a Triple Crown win, they'll be able to build quite the stable and give the big guns a run for the roses or should that be black-eyed susans.

Skippy

[mrskippy]

Dola. .. Just uncovered this off the Web and it explains it pretty well, including Funny Cide. Poor guy never would have been able to pluck himself one.

What is a gelding?

Webster's defines a gelding as a "castrated male horse." Castration refers to removing the animal's testicles.

Why is a horse gelded?

In the case of Funny Cide, it was a medical procedure -- he was born a "ridgeling," with only one testicle descending, and he would not have been able to reproduce. But in many cases male horses that appear to have no future in breeding are gelded for behavioral reasons.

How does it affect the horse?

Once a horse has been gelded, he generally becomes easier to handle and less irascible. A horse gelded for behavioral reasons usually shows great improvement on the racetrack.

Do non-gelded horses have an edge over geldings on the track?

No. During prime breeding season, geldings often will have an advantage -- non-gelded horses are interested in breeding; the geldings are focused on racing.

Why has it been 74 years since a gelding won the Derby?

Most of the best young race prospects aren't gelded, in hopes they will become valuable assets in the breeding industry.

[bbor]

I eat my words....i feel shame

[JeeberD]

Thanks for the info, mrskippy...

[Honolulu Blue]

I couldn't decide whether to put this post here or under dynasty reports. Since it's just one post, I decided it's better off here. It'll be a long one, though, so be patient.

I decided to put my handicapping skills to the test by heading to the "local" (nearly an hour away) track, where they would be simulcasting the Preakness.

The experience was quite interesting. A couple of hundred people or so looking at televisions simulcasting races from many of the major tracks - the ones I caught were Arlington, Calder, Churchill Downs, Belmont, and Pimlico. The track also had a bar and small restaurant.

There were several manned betting/payout stations that weren't too busy. There were also several automated betting stations. I decided to give it a whirl by placing the following bets:

$2 TRIFECTA - PEACE RULES / FUNNY CIDE / ALL - 7 bets, total $14
$2 TRIFECTA - FUNNY CIDE / PEACE RULES / ALL - 7 bets, total $14

I got to the track about 5 PM - more than an hour before the big race. So I killed time by watching the people scream and holler, watching the races, soaking up the cigarette smoke, checking my DRF for race 12 for angles that I missed, and most importantly, watching the odds.

When I first got there, both PEACE RULES and FUNNY CIDE were at 3-1 - tempting overlays at that price. I started thinking about placing win bets on both horses.

About 15 minutes before the race, with both favorites at 5-2, I decide to pull the trigger:

$10 WIN - PEACE RULES
$16 WIN - FUNNY CIDE

Those bets were supposed to be $12 and $14 respectively, but I screwed up. This error was in my favor, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

One by one the TVs switched from whatever other track they were carrying to either NBC or PimlicoNet to carry the Preakness. Lots of chatter about the race, but no clear consensus.

Three minutes before post time, the relevant odds dropped for the final time - 2-1 for PEACE RULES and 9-5 for FUNNY CIDE. I groaned at the smart money whittling into my profit margin, but what are you going to do?

And they're off! PEACE RULES got off well, FUNNY CIDE had a little trouble but ended up in good stalking position. For a brief moment I had the tri exactly where I wanted it - PEACE RULES first, FUNNY CIDE second, and MIDWAY ROAD third. The reason I liked Midway over, say, SCRIMSAW, is that MIDWAY ROAD was a 20-1 shot, the longest on the board. That would have paid out around $200 for the trifecta, plus the win ticket. It would have added up to a nice celebration for me.

Anyway, back to the track. FUNNY CIDE started to pull away, so that wasn't in doubt. But could PEACE RULES hold on for second? He could not. Why oh why could he not have hung on for that extra length?

The results were official and I cashed in my ticket. The day's results looked like this:

Bets: $54.00
Winnings: $46.40
Expenses: $7 (entry fee $2, gas $5)

Net loss: $14.60

For a fact finding trip, that's not too bad. My handicapping was sound, at least for this race. I'll have to try this again sometime.

[QuikSand]

HB, your betting strategy for the race was remarkably similar to mine. I bet the boxed exacta with 7 and 9, which was showing a payment of $13/$14, but I only made a win bet on #9 FUNNY CIDE. I tried for the trifecta, but missed there as well. I ended up slightly ahead on the race, since my biggest bet was the win bet.

I did have one nice experience on the day - as my group was working through the raqcing form and our information packets, one guy was reading off the odds from the distant giant screen. When he got to the #14 horse, which I was investigating thoroughly, he said the odds were 11-1. I gasped, and went on to pronounce "this horse *will* hit the board, take it to the bank." (Not something I do very often) My entire group decided to bet him one way or another, and he did actually win the race, albeit at a somewhat pounded-down 5-1 odds. So, most everyone got paid, myself included (win bet and small exacta). It's good to put some money in all your buddies pockets- for two guys, that was the only ticket they cashed on the entire day.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Honolulu Blue
[b]


About 15 minutes before the race, with both favorites at 5-2, I decide to pull the trigger:

$10 WIN - PEACE RULES
$16 WIN - FUNNY CIDE

Those bets were supposed to be $12 and $14 respectively, but I screwed up. This error was in my favor, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

I must be missing something here. What's the logic at 5-2 to bet a near equal amount on these two horses?

It's a 26$ wager to win 23$ if Funny Cide Wins, You've got it at 1-1
It's a 26$ wager to win 16$ if Peace Rules Wins, You've got it at 3-5

And that's only if those odds hold - and they didn't. By the time the race started a 'win' was actually break even.

You'd end up with much better odds on either of them in the show pool - and you'd improve your chances of hitting the bet.

Edit: Hopefully I'll cash a ticket at Belmont this year - unlike last year's shutout.

[Honolulu Blue]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
I must be missing something here. What's the logic at 5-2 to bet a near equal amount on these two horses?

It's a 26$ wager to win 23$ if Funny Cide Wins, You've got it at 1-1
It's a 26$ wager to win 16$ if Peace Rules Wins, You've got it at 3-5

And that's only if those odds hold - and they didn't. By the time the race started a 'win' was actually break even.

Your numbers are a little off. Don't forget that you get the bet amount back when you win a bet.

If Funny Cide had won at 5-2, I would have received $56 - the $16 bet plus $40 in winnings. Net on those two bets: $30.

If Peace Rules had won at 5-2, I would have received $35 - the $10 bet plus $25 in winnings. Net on those two bets: $9.

The odds did drop, but not enough so that the hedge wouldn't have brought profits if either horse won.

If two horses are clearly above the field, and both are offering 3-2 or better odds, a profit can be locked in by betting BOTH horses to win. It's not a big score, granted (unless I put the big money behind them), but I'm not about to sneer at any opportunity to grab my share of the pool for free.

You'd end up with much better odds on either of them in the show pool - and you'd improve your chances of hitting the bet.

No, that would have been a mistake. Funny Cide only paid $3.40 to show, and Peace Rules would have paid less. I thought the odds of either of them coming in 1, 2, or 3 and betting on one of them were actually worse than the odds of either of them winning with bets on both.

[QuikSand]

Each individual bet can be evaluated on its own. I use the following system:

I assign a win share to each horse in the race, ensuring that the column adds to 100%. In this race, for instance, I gave FUNNY CIDE a 45, and PEACE RULES a 30 - I truly felt that these two were well ahead of the field.

A win bet on a horse with a 45 rating is a "value" if the odds are at least 1-1. Personally, I practically never place a bet ona horse in fractional odds, but I too got caught in the late decline in odds... I bet based on the visible 5-2 with only several minutes to go. (It's uncommon to see such late odds movement in a big race)

While I could have justified PEACE RULES at 5-2 as well (based on my rating of 30), it's a much closer call, and I declined to do so. I felt good with my bet on FUNNY CIDE, and decided instead to double that bet rather than spread the money across both. In retrospect, I am glad I did, of course.

Betting two horses to win in the same race sounds like a fool's gambit, but if each bet can individually be justified, then each should be weighed on its own merits. In particular, this gets a little complicated when the win pool is out of kilter with other betting pools - another thing I watch (when I can) to guide my betting strategy. The would-be payoff for the 9-7 exacta of at least $11 was, in my judgment, too generous.

[Honolulu Blue]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I assign a win share to each horse in the race, ensuring that the column adds to 100%. In this race, for instance, I gave FUNNY CIDE a 45, and PEACE RULES a 30 - I truly felt that these two were well ahead of the field.

I did the same thing, only I gave FUNNY CIDE and PEACE RULES 40 each. I figured PR's slight edge in post position offset FC's edge in speed. I thought PEACE RULES was the larger overlay, so by one set of logic, I should have bet more on him, but as I mentioned above, I wanted to hedge, so that meant betting more on the horse with the lower odds - FUNNY CIDE.

On the trifecta vs. the exacta box, I bet the former for two reasons:

1) Bragging rights - it's a lot more impressive to hit the Preakness trifecta than to bet the two favorites in the exacta.
2) Better payout - I figured as long as the 1/1A entry didn't show, I would have made more money with the trifecta over the exacta box. Impossible to know, since they never show the trifecta payouts (unless they hit), but I suspected as much.

[henry296]

I am not an experienced bettor but here was my bets on the Preakness

Exacta on Peace Rules and Funny Cide. I really thought they were the cream of the crop.

Win on Peace Rules

Show on Ten Cents a Shine and Cherokee Boy.

Needless to say, I didn't win anything, however, from my view in the Infield on the backstretch near the third turn, I thought it was Peace Rules that was pulling a way and not Funny Cide.

The only reace I did win on was because of key error in the 10th race. The long shot ended up winning even thought it wasn't the horse I wanted and paid out at about 19-1 which meant I was ahead for the day.

I had another fun time, in the very muddy infield.

Todd

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by ratpfink
Oh, yeah, it's a great track. I mean, I haven't been to any other tracks but I've heard some pretty bad stories. They want to get slots in there, which would help Canterbury out but I think it would take a bit away from the horse racing experience.

Sort of funny story: My dad bet $2 to show on 3 horses in the last race at Cby, and all 3 finished in the money. If he would have bet a $1 boxed trifecta on the same horses he would have won $290 more. D'oh!

Also, the girl selling beer in front of the grandstands wasn't wearing a bra.

Same thing happened to me last year. We showed up late, about the 3rd race and I had a $1 box trifecta that I cancelled to 3 $2 shows. The pay out would have been over $1500. I sat in the stands crushed with the people around me looking at my voided trifecta ticket and laughing.

The lady selling beer last year wasn't wearing a bra either. Maybe the same lady

[Franklinnoble]

The best thing about Funny Cide's run for the Triple Crown is that he IS a gelding. Most top horses are retired almost immediately after a successful 3 year old campaign - there's just too much money to be made in the breeding shed to risk an injury or damage the horse's reputation by potentially "spoiling" a good race record.

This is why there are so few great older horses. Funny Cide has the unique opportunity to be a very popular racehorse for a very long time. There's no reason for his owners to do anything but run him for years to come.

The people who stand to make a killing are the guys who own his sire, Distorted Humor, and his dam, Belle's Good Cide.

For example... Distorted Humor is standing this year at WinStar for $20,000 a pop. If his boy becomes the first Triple Crown winner in 25 years, you can bet your ass he'll cost ten times that much by next spring. The Derby and Preakness wins alone will guarantee his book will be full for the next two years.

His dam, on the other hand, is actually considerably more valuable. There's only one of her, and most experienced horsemen will tell you that the quality of the dam has more to do with the resulting foal than the stud does. Her owners could sell her now and never have to work another day in their lives.

I think Funny Cide's owners will probably run him as long as he can pay for himself - and there's no telling how long that could be. Unfortunately, they won't cash in like the small-time middle class conglomerate that owned Seattle Slew did, because he can't stand as a stud, but I think his career will be considerably longer, and possibly much richer, and, therefore, good for the sport.

After the Derby, I thought he was just a good horse who had a great day and a lucky trip. After seeing him smoke the Preakness field, I think he's a legitimate contender for the Belmont, and I'm definately a big fan now.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Honolulu Blue
Your numbers are a little off. Don't forget that you get the bet amount back when you win a bet.

If Funny Cide had won at 5-2, I would have received $56 - the $16 bet plus $40 in winnings. Net on those two bets: $30.

If Peace Rules had won at 5-2, I would have received $35 - the $10 bet plus $25 in winnings. Net on those two bets: $9.

The odds did drop, but not enough so that the hedge wouldn't have brought profits if either horse won.

If two horses are clearly above the field, and both are offering 3-2 or better odds, a profit can be locked in by betting BOTH horses to win. It's not a big score, granted (unless I put the big money behind them), but I'm not about to sneer at any opportunity to grab my share of the pool for free.



No, that would have been a mistake. Funny Cide only paid $3.40 to show, and Peace Rules would have paid less. I thought the odds of either of them coming in 1, 2, or 3 and betting on one of them were actually worse than the odds of either of them winning with bets on both.

My numbers weren't off - they were calculated based on what you meant to bet (14 and 12), not your mistaken bet (16 and 10).

I'm sure we can go round and round - but I don't think there is any such thing as a 'locked in' profit with that stategy. You end up with a 5-2 shot (Peace Rules) at 2-5.

A 26$ Funny Cide show bet wins $18.20. 2 dollars more then a Peace Rules win and less then five dollars less then a Funny Cide win. With much less risk.

[Honolulu Blue]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
My numbers weren't off - they were calculated based on what you meant to bet (14 and 12), not your mistaken bet (16 and 10).

You're right, and I apologize for that. But...

I'm sure we can go round and round - but I don't think there is any such thing as a 'locked in' profit with that stategy. You end up with a 5-2 shot (Peace Rules) at 2-5.

A 26$ Funny Cide show bet wins $18.20. 2 dollars more then a Peace Rules win and less then five dollars less then a Funny Cide win. With much less risk.

At the risk of boring everyone with one more trip around the bush, let me give a fantastic example....

Suppose you're at the track, and a tipster comes up to you and says that of the 10 horses running, one of two will win - let's call them, oh, Peace Rules and Funny Cide. And he says that at post time, the odds on both horses will be better than 3-2. Oh, one more thing - this guy is perfectly accurate, so don't worry about that. You have your choice of two bets:

1) Win bets on Peace Rules and Funny Cide, or
2) A show bet on Peace Rules OR Funny Cide

So, which bet is less risky?

Obviously, if one of two horses are sure to win, and the odds are right, you can bet on both horses to win and lock in an assured profit no matter what. With a show bet, there is no such assurance. The one horse could fall down, lose its jockey, get stuck too far wide for too long, etc.

This is similar to the situation I found myself in last Saturday. According to my research, Funny Cide and Peace Rules were even, but far ahead of the others. The only ways that I thought that neither would win would be a suicidal speed duel or terrible luck by both. That's pretty close to a lock to me.

Since I had them evenly matched, I would have been as likely as not to bet on Peace Rules in the show pool, which would have been a total loss.

[QuikSand]

And, let's not forget that the payoff in the show pool is unknown at the time of the race, and dependent on the actual top three finishers. The payoff for FUNNY CIDE to show of $3.40 was only as high as it was becaue PEACE RULES didn't make it into the show pool. We can't look at that payout and use it retrospectively as the assumed payout for the bet.

Indeed, had PEACE RULES been in the top three, I expect the payout would have been more like $2.40 or $2.60, which changes the show bet analysis pretty dramatically.

There aren't many circumstances where it makes much sense to make a show bet, and just seeing a horse you think is good but at short odds is never among them, in my book. Betting to show means taking a game that's already stacked against you, and adding to the hurdles you must overcome. It's typically the very worst bet in horseracing.

Again, while I don't think there are many cases where the two favorites are both worthy of a win bet, it can happen. The arguments about "100% lock" and so forth are simply folly - there is no such thin, of course.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
The people who stand to make a killing are the guys who own his sire, Distorted Humor, and his dam, Belle's Good Cide.

For example... Distorted Humor is standing this year at WinStar for $20,000 a pop. If his boy becomes the first Triple Crown winner in 25 years, you can bet your ass he'll cost ten times that much by next spring. The Derby and Preakness wins alone will guarantee his book will be full for the next two years.

His dam, on the other hand, is actually considerably more valuable. There's only one of her, and most experienced horsemen will tell you that the quality of the dam has more to do with the resulting foal than the stud does. Her owners could sell her now and never have to work another day in their lives.

While I agree with most of your comments, Franklin, I would take issue with one thing, emphasizd above.

I suppose it may be true that "experienced horsemen" might believe this to be true, but it quite clearly is not. The genetic contribution to a particular horse is split evenly between the sire and the dam - there's really no misunderstanding allowable there.

To the extent that we think the rearing itself is meaningful (not a widely held opinion) there's potentially some role for the dam, but with broodmares, it's statistically impossible to tell much about them.

...tangent...

It's mathematics, not sexism, that explains why so much more attention is paid to male breeders than female (and why we always hear about the horse's dam-sire, or maternal grandfather). A given stallion can cover over 100 mares a year, and might have 20 offspring a year enter theracing world. Over a career, that can really add up to some big numbers - think of all the Mr. Prospector get out there, or Storm Cats, or Deputy Minister. And think how many Indian Charlie is going to get in his time ahead. With that many direct offspring, we can quickly build up a meaningful statistical sample - how many win their first time out? How many win ever? How many win at a meaningful distance? How many win a stakes race?

With a mare, you just don't get this luxury of numbers. Over her career, she might have 15 foals. Even when she's no longer productive, we still have little idea what her real contribution was - the numbes are still too prone to distortion. We can see half of her presumed genetic code from her sire, though - and since we know a lot more about males than females, that's frequently where we focus.

In breeding analysis, we focus on males not because they are more frequent racers, but because they are more frequent breeders. It's a perfectly rational bias, simply because of the numbers involved.

The traditional quick analysis of a given racehorse is to evaluate the breeding of the sire and damsire, and to lend half-weight to the damsire (for obvious genetic reasons). If you want to do a more rigorous analysis, like the chefs-de-race analysis that results in things like the "dosage index" or the "center of distribution," then you look at seveal generations of sires only, and weight them in geometrically descending amounts for each generation back (16, 8, 4, 2, and 1).

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
I'm sure we can go round and round - but I don't think there is any such thing as a 'locked in' profit with that stategy.

Actually, there does exist the possibility for a "locked in" profit at the racetrack. The circumstances are pretty rare, but there are opportunitites for a sure thing, assuming that you do indeed know the final distribution of the pools involved.

It comes up when a single horse gets bet mercilessly, typically in the show pool. When that happens, the track carries what it calls a "minus pool" - meaning that its guaranteed payout of $2.10 on every $2.00 bet (used to be $2.20, but this sort of thing has changed that in most places) actually results in them giving back more money than was wagered. Mathematically, this means that a single horse must represnt well over 95% of the betting pool - and that doesn't happen all that often.

When it does, though, there is a chance to make a "can't miss" bet. It involves a large bet on the favorite, large enough to cover the smaller bets on the other contenders. If the favorite pays, you gain a small profit. If it fails, you cash tickets on the other winners, which typically pay huge sums - and mathematically will cover your original stake as well. Again, if you know that the final pools are heading this way, there is a hypothetical possibility to "bet the ranch" and be certain that you'll come out ahead.

I have bet against heavy favorites in the show pool a couple of times in the past... and have seen some remarkable payouts (in other races). A few years ago, in the Black-Eyed Susan (the big fillies race the day before the Preakness) the payouts on the winner were somethign like $18.00, $12.20, $142.00 - all because a super favorite in the show pool failed to hit the board. The three show payoffs were all far higher than the win or place payoffs, and all at or near triple digits.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by QuikSand
While I agree with most of your comments, Franklin, I would take issue with one thing, emphasizd above.

I suppose it may be true that "experienced horsemen" might believe this to be true, but it quite clearly is not. The genetic contribution to a particular horse is split evenly between the sire and the dam - there's really no misunderstanding allowable there.

To the extent that we think the rearing itself is meaningful (not a widely held opinion) there's potentially some role for the dam, but with broodmares, it's statistically impossible to tell much about them.

...tangent...

It's mathematics, not sexism, that explains why so much more attention is paid to male breeders than female (and why we always hear about the horse's dam-sire, or maternal grandfather). A given stallion can cover over 100 mares a year, and might have 20 offspring a year enter theracing world. Over a career, that can really add up to some big numbers - think of all the Mr. Prospector get out there, or Storm Cats, or Deputy Minister. And think how many Indian Charlie is going to get in his time ahead. With that many direct offspring, we can quickly build up a meaningful statistical sample - how many win their first time out? How many win ever? How many win at a meaningful distance? How many win a stakes race?

With a mare, you just don't get this luxury of numbers. Over her career, she might have 15 foals. Even when she's no longer productive, we still have little idea what her real contribution was - the numbes are still too prone to distortion. We can see half of her presumed genetic code from her sire, though - and since we know a lot more about males than females, that's frequently where we focus.

In breeding analysis, we focus on males not because they are more frequent racers, but because they are more frequent breeders. It's a perfectly rational bias, simply because of the numbers involved.

The traditional quick analysis of a given racehorse is to evaluate the breeding of the sire and damsire, and to lend half-weight to the damsire (for obvious genetic reasons). If you want to do a more rigorous analysis, like the chefs-de-race analysis that results in things like the "dosage index" or the "center of distribution," then you look at seveal generations of sires only, and weight them in geometrically descending amounts for each generation back (16, 8, 4, 2, and 1).

You know, I tried reading up on the chefs-de-race and figuring out what a dosage index meant and all that... and it gives me a splitting headache.

All I know is this - when I breed my paint and quarter horses, I definately want a good sire - there's no doubt about that. But a great sire can be pretty well wasted if the mare is no good. If my mare is conformationally sound, athletic, and fit, she's more likely to produce that kind of offspring.

My point is, you could take Funny Cide's dam, Belle's Good Cide, and breed her back to Distorted Humor or any one of dozens of studs who are Mr. Prospector/Danzig crosses (a statistically good match, in my observation), and have an excellent chance of getting an outstanding foal as a result. Good broodmares are hard to find in any part of the horse business.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by QuikSand


There aren't many circumstances where it makes much sense to make a show bet, and just seeing a horse you think is good but at short odds is never among them, in my book. Betting to show means taking a game that's already stacked against you, and adding to the hurdles you must overcome. It's typically the very worst bet in horseracing.

I agree with this and would have never made the show bet in that position. Although - many of the big 'players' only make huge show bets, FWIW.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Actually, there does exist the possibility for a "locked in" profit at the racetrack. The circumstances are pretty rare, but there are opportunitites for a sure thing, assuming that you do indeed know the final distribution of the pools involved.

Your example does happen pretty often. However, it's very different then what we were debating above.

I guess it just comes down to your attitude towards gamblings itself. I don't see the strategy of betting the two 3-2 favorites as 'dumb' or 'stupid', I just see it as a very low reward scenario. I guess if you are up $6 or $8 on a race you 'won', but it doesn't really fit my definition of 'winning'. If you are so sure that one of those two horses is going to win, simple exacta keys will almost always pay (much) more. It this case it would have paid a lot more.