Stewards Today at SAR

[fkach]

In the 7th race I needed them to take down Country Star and put up Marie Rossa. Personally, I don\'t think the bumping in late stretch changed the order of finish (even though I think Marie was best for other reasons), but I\'ve seen horses taken down for less than that. Close Call.

In the 9th race, I needed them to leave up By the Light to save a fairly large place bet (yes I thought 2.30 or higher plus a rebate was an overlay to place on that horse). Personally, I thought the foul at the quarter pole was probably large enough to have potentially cost the 5th place finisher a shot at some part of the purse (though the angle wasn\'t that clear). So I thought I was a mortal lock to be taken down and have the stewards wrap up a perfect day from hell for me. But they left her up and I escaped.

I\'m not sure what to think.

I think they probably did the right thing in both races by the standard I would like to see adopted. That is, do nothing unless the foul is severe, it\'s obvious whose fault it was, and it clearly cost one of the other horses a position. But I\'m not so sure they were consistent with past behavior.

Any thoughts?

And yes, I was sweating when By the Light stumbled and got bumped at the start, was very wide into the turn, and looked like she was going to have a tough time saving the place. ;-)

[BitPlayer]

Fkach -

I don\'t think By The Light was ever in jeopardy of being taken down.  She was in the middle of a chain reaction on the turn that started when Summer Palace started to back out of the pace duel and then had to check off heels as the outside speed came over to the rail.  Salt Water Reigns veered out to avoid Summer Palace; By The Light veered to avoid Salt Water Reigns; etc.  I thought that if anyone came down, it would be Light Tactic (who came over on Summer Place), but stewards seem generally reluctant to take action regarding incidents on the turn because the camera angles aren\'t very enlightening.

I\'m curious about your theory regarding place bets on heavy favorites.  It\'s always been my view that, if a seemingly dominant  favorite runs bad enough not to win, his probability of finishing second is pretty small.  Do you think that the small reduction in risk is worth giving up the difference between the win and place prices.  I remember reading about your approach in this year\'s Preakness and thinking that it made some sense there because Big Brown was so much more heavily bet to win than to place, but I would think that\'s a phenomenon specific to really big races with lots of tourist money.  Have you found otherwise?

[fkach]

bitplayer,

A long time ago, I looked through my betting records covering several years. I concluded that it was a mistake for me to bet odds on favorites to win.  Typically, I would finish the year with a + or - 5% ROI. So long term, I was spinning my wheels.  

Several years ago, when rebates became available for average folk like myself, I decided to reexamine that notion. In addition to rebates, I was also pretty sure I was a better handicapper and line maker.

In preparation, I examined all odds on favorites at every major track in the country. The general trend was that they outperformed the \"track take\" and their \"win odds\" in the place pool. From there, I was actually able to build a set of rules that would get me very close to break even to place with no handicapping at all. Throw in a rebate (on 2.30 to place and above) and some handicapping and profits seemed assured. The profits DID FLOW. I was winning both inside and outside NY with a decent return even though my handicapping outside NY was nowhere near the same standard as in NY.  

Several things have changes since then.

1. Some rebate shops are no longer available
2. The rebates that are available are lower
3. Most major tracks have implemented Net Pool Pricing. That had the effect of lowering place prices on short prices horses by approximately 10 cents (a long discussion by itself)  
4. NY raised it\'s take 1%

The combination of the 4 put me in a position of having such a small edge it wasn\'t worth the time and aggravation anymore. I still occasionally play one when I feel certain I have an edge, but they are few and far between. I don\'t look for them. They have to fall into my lap.

So far this year I\'ve played 17 horses to place (15 in NY). 14 of the 17 won.  16 of 17 finished first or second. One finished 4th. The ROI has been +19%. IMO, that is not sustainable. I am shooting for a high single digit return over time. I also would have been better off betting them to win this year even though they are typically better to place.

If I tried harder, I could probably add a lot of bets again because I think I\'ve learned some new things about identifying horses that are very likely to fire their top effort and situations where they are more vulnerable. I\'m a pretty lazy guy though. ;-)

[BitPlayer]

Fkach -

Thanks for the info.  I\'m generally a longshot player (Miff might say \"stabber\"), and given what the handicapping literature says about betting longshots to place, I\'ve been biased against place betting.  However, since an underlay in one spot produces an overlay somewhere else, I\'ve occasionally wondered how betting short-priced horses to place would fare, but never done the work to figure it out.

I have a friend who was inspired by Nick Mordin\'s book \"Winning Without Thinking\" to test an odd variety of systems.  He\'s found that some of them seem to perform better in the place pool than in the win pool.

My Dad\'s an engineer and contends that laziness is an essential quality of a good engineer.

[miff]

Hey Bit,

I only refer to \"clueless stabbers\" as those in the so called NTRA \"handicapping\" contests. Someone taking a genuine swing at a price horse or tossing a vulnerable chalk with real money is a player to me. Major difference.


Mike