Rachel Alexandra: Too Many Ways For Her To Lose Today

No denying that Rachel Alexandra is a super filly. No denying that the Preakness field is pretty weak. Still, Rachel Alexander will not be worth the price today, and I can see her off the board.

Here is what I don't like: She is racing back a bit too early off a lifetime high speed figure. She is a filly coming off a great race. Her post is only going to hurt her. She will be chasing boys this time, though the boys are inferior to boys from years prior, she won't be chasing inferior girls this time out. In other words, she won't be superior enough to stalk from the chasing position....she'll be chasing, and that isn't the best position today as the race is full of chasers.

Big Drama, from the one hole, is who Rachel will be chasing. Big Drama is making his first start in 40 odd days, and I expect him to get an unchallenged lead for around 4 furlongs, but I think he'll be forced to exert himself too early from there, and he is expected to be short on fitness today for the full distance. Still, when he picks it up, it will take a toll on Rachel and the other lesser chasers, setting the race up for a sustained pace horse.

Mine That Bird has bounce written all over him. After destroying the field in the Derby, I don't expect the same peak effort today. Though he will be coming from the perfect position, I look for him to maybe be third or fourth today.

Musket Man has yet to be off the board in 7 lifetime starts. It is a bit concerning that he is making his 6th start this year already, but he just seems to show up every time he runs. His jockey knows him by now, and he looks like he can handle any distance.

Luv Gov is coming off a maiden win with the same type of great trip The Bird had on Derby day. He was a perennial maiden too, before that win. Speed numbers look inferior, and that usually does matter, though it didn't in the Derby.

Friesan Fire is making his second start off a bit of a layoff. He ran predictably (by me) disappointing in the Derby, and supposedly grabbed himself. How he is able to run back so quick after losing part of his foot in a major race is beyond me. I wouldn't be surprised if he is scratched today. If he runs, I'll just watch him. If he runs good, I'll just turn the page.

Terrain looks like he'll enjoy the distance, and he looks like he has a future, and the pace will favor him today. But the 35 days off means that he shouldn't be good enough to hit the board.

Papa Clem looks to have good tactical speed. If he can run back to the Arkansas Derby he has a fighting chance today. He will be compromised a bit if it is a deep closers track. His post could be the key to him being right there.

General Quarters is making his 13 lifetime start and 13th race in the same racing cycle. This is a work horse. You can take a black magic marker and eliminate his last running line, as his post and the trip killed his chances. His running style is perfect for today's race. I think his preferred distance would be a mile and a sixteenth or a mile and an eighth. But he does represent a value play if his odds are close or higher than his morning line.

Pioneer of the Isle ran better than I expected in the Derby. He can handle the dirt. But I still think he is a few lengths inferior to today's main contenders. He will probably wait for Rachel to make her move before he tries to fire today. I just see him bidding and hanging today.

Flying Private had no chance in the Derby thanks to his trip, but his best race to date was on the poly, and a repeat of that race wouldn't win today. Can't see here.

Take The Points is another layoff horse (42 days). Other than that, I thought he was an actual contender for the Derby this year at one time. Looks like he may force Rachel out an extra path in the first turn, but figures to chase and pack it in.

Tone It Down is the home team horse. I've seen these types do well against inferior type fields in the past at long odds. He doesn't have the speed to be on the lead, and it wouldn't surprise me if he is seventh or eighth around the backstretch. He is an improving sort, but when taking the post into consideration and a compromised running style, I'm not expecting much.

Rachel Alexandra will be a beaten favorite most probably. I've already explained why.

My top four:

General Quarters
Musket Man
Mine That Bird
Papa Clem

Remember, I'm a value handicapper. I'm pretty much making a statement today that Rachel Alexandra does not represent value.


Chantal Sutherland has given Mike Smith some tips on how to ride The Bird:

"(Talk with Chantal Sutherland, girlfriend and former rider of MTBird) -- Actually, I have. She's given me a lot of insight about him. She told me he's really rider-friendly. He'll do anything you want him to do. One thing she did tell me which is kind of a key and I saw it in the Derby is when he first leaves there he might want to go with you but once you let him know that's not what you want, then he seems to settle really well. So I should have no problem with that."

I wonder if Chantal would rather have that first line read "rider of MTBird and former girlfriend."


Lots of talk on the blogosphere this week of the negative effect that slots have had on horse racing growth. My two cents:

People only have so much disposable cash, and the "dummy slot" bettor of today, was yesterdays dumb money at the race track. Sure, they lose more per capita on slots than they did on horse racing in the past, but racing hasn't been able to make up for the loss of the dumb money bettors. And more importantly, for today's player, armed with a racing form or computer generated selections, now for the most part, it is good handicappers versus real good handicappers, who compete against each other at a slightly higher takeout than what was out there 15-20 years ago. So it is much easier for good players now to be discouraged from betting, because it is so difficult to win, much more difficult than 20 years ago. This causes many to just leave. Because there aren't very many winners (especially who do so without rebate), there is no buzz from winners. This means there is no lure to newbie gamblers to try horse racing because the game can be beaten, like there is in sports betting, or poker or exchange betting.

One more thing. John Q Smith goes to the track with $200. On average it takes him $1000 worth of bets to go broke. The track winds up splitting the $200, with, depending on jurisdiction, about $90 going to the track, $90 going to purses, and $20 going to taxation etc.

When John Q Smith goes to the slots with $200. On average it takes $2000 worth of betting to go broke. The time it takes to lose on either horse racing and slots is probably around the same depending on how the individual bets. But in the end, the track winds up with $20, and the purses wind up with $20.

To a racetrack, it would have been more prudent to convert these potential slot players to horseplayers before slots came along. Even if they could convert 1 in three or four, they would wind up further ahead. But they didn't because they refused to compete by not making the game more affordable when they could have.


See also Slots Are Poison For Growing Demand In Racing and Slot Machines Spreading Disease

Field Size

WHAT FIELD SIZE DO YOU PREFER TO BET ON?
I know there is a correlation between field size and handle. Just take a look at any result charts and see which races get the largest handle at any track.
But as a handicapper, too many 12-14 horse races can be quick bankroll killers. Personally, I prefer races with 8-11 horses in it. 8 horses are OK for exactors, doubles and pick 3's, and when it comes to supers and tris, 9 horse races are OK, but I tend to want 10 or 11 horse races for those type of bets.

Large win bettors probably feel more confident when there is less horses in the race, and may make bigger wagers. But $2 win bettors probably like bigger fields.
It is very tough to properly predict how a race will set up when there is 10 or more horses in it. In 6 horse races or less, the early speed horse usually can be predicted.

I know that horsemen prefer really small fields, and I know that the closer one comes to a two horse race, the more devastating takeout becomes to players. The house advantage on a football game is less than 5%, and betting football is a tough game to beat.

Woodbine prides themselves on big fields, but I don't see their handles doing all that great. I think a lot of players are aware of their high takeouts, and many players avoid polytrack. But definitely, the races with the highest amount of betting interests usually attracts the biggest pools. But at a price:

Larger fields do not attract new money. It just gets some of the money that might have been devoted to smaller field races.

They don't make a difference on the bottom line. If horse racing were to have an average field size of 11 tomorrow, the amount of money lost by patrons would be the same as if the average was 7.5 collectively in the industry.

They just might be more appealing to existing bettors, but that is it.

The only way to increase the bottom line is to attract new players, and it is broken record time: Takeout needs to be reduced and/or rebates need to be higher so that winners are created. Word of mouth that the game can be beat will create new players and/or bring back players who are betting offshore.

I started a thread on Pace Advantage regarding Field Size, and it became pretty active.

A point I made in the thread:
I still say that too many 12-14 horse fields are bankroll busters. It does create more chaos because of traffic jams, so if anything, a lower takeout is required. These races also kill churn.
But on the positive side of things, if you do hit an exotic in a 12-14 horse field, you might get enough to keep your bankroll alive for a week or more.

I look back at my most successful cashes, and I think they mostly occurred in races that had 8-11 horses though.

I always look at the Derby as a crap shoot.
I liked Bobphilo's comment (I think he represents quite a few horseplayers with this):

I see both sides of the argument. On one hand the larger fields bring larger prices but bring lower strike rates. Smaller fields give smaller prices but also a higher win percentage. Now these would even things out except for the fact that the lower win % you get with larger fields is not something that can be compensated with better handicapping. They are more difficult because the larger fields also cause more traffic problems and are therefore less predictable out of proportion just to the increased number of horses you have to beat – they add an increased element of chance. That’s why I personally prefer small to medium-sized fields of 6 –8.
I also prefer smallish fields because I employ comprehensive handicapping and they give me more time to devote to each horse and make it less likely that I’ll miss an important factor.

Of course these are just general rules. I make exceptions in large fields where many of the horses can safely and quickly be eliminated.

Bob

Imriledup pretty much shares those views:

Here's 4 reasons why i prefer 8 horse fields over 12 horse fields.

1) It doesnt' take as long to handicap an 8 horse field. Time is money and a 12 horse field might take me 33% longer to handicap.

2) I bet more than 2 dollars. If you are a 2 dollar player, you need that 12 horse field so you can hit the trifecta that pays 1500 for 1 dollar. But, for me, i'd rather have a tri in an 8 horse field that pays 500 for a dollar and have it multiple times. I don't need the tri to pay 1500 for 1 dollar, i can have a tri that pays 500 for 1 dollar and have it 3 times (or 30 times). Those 4 extra horses cause you to spend much more money chasing down that illusive tri score.

3) Much less of a chance that my horse will get bothered or disqualified. Its a 'truer' race because horsepower matters more than racing luck.

4) In the shorter field, you can really make a concentrated score if the heavy favorite is a dog. In a 12 horse field, you still have 11 bodies to navigate thru.

 What Field Size Do You Prefer To Bet On?

• 
  
  7 or less horses


• 
  
  8-11 horses


• 
  
  12 or more horses

view results
Free vote poll

BUYER BEWARE
Testing for anabolic steroids in Ontario will commence on June 1st. Those claiming horses right now need to watch out. Steroid testing doesn't happen during private purchase or on new claims right now, even though steroids could remain in a horse's body for 45-60 days from their last injection. Trainers could feasibly be using steroids right now, and racing horses on steroids, with an eye towards giving them a couple months off, which means that they know the horse is on steroids, but if the horse gets claimed the new outfit won't. And if the horse comes up with a positive after May 31st, the new outfit will face fine and suspension for using a Class III drug.
It costs around $150 to test to see if it is on steroids right now.



Free Past Performances For The Preakness
From Brisnet
From DRF



Delaware senate approves sports betting
This is the type of competition that can only hurt horse racing more. Not that sports betting is more appealing to horse racing customers to handicap, but it is a much fairer gamble. House take is much much lower, and guess what? Gamblers have a chance to become long term winners.
Racing needs to compete instead of hoping alternative forms of gambling just go away.
HT/HANA's Blog


FORT ERIE HANDLE IS STILL IN THE CRAPPER
Sunday, they barely did over $300,000. They only average around $75,000 a race on Monday and Tuesday. It is imperative that the have 10 races on both Monday and Tuesday, even if it means scrapping Sundays altogether.
Meanwhile, what could this track be worth? It seems to be dropping in value every day.
In July the Passport issue won't help. How many Americans who go to the track over the border have Passports? I guess we'll find out soon.
Also, with the Stonach tracks going on the market, the price of all tracks wind up going down. There are only so many race track buyers out there, and once a buyer purchases one track, the chances they buy another are drastically reduced.



Empire Resorts Close To Bankruptcy
They own Monticello Raceway in New York state. Gaming revenues are off, as they appear to be everywhere.


Great Canadian Gaming Posts a First Quarter Loss
Their stock is on a roll though. It has gone up close to 50% in the last month. The company has been treading very carefully in light of the recession.



Cobra Venom Vet Gets 5 Year Suspension In Kentucky

HT/Equidaily


Barney Frank's new bill to regulate on-line gambling, throws sports betting under the bus


Lebanon Raceway mutuel clerk accused of theft: she came up $31,000 short one night

I'm Just Putting It Out There

I took a little a lot of heat on the Pace Advantage Forum for making the following post:

If Mine That Bird gets a positive, it will be the best thing that could happen to horse racing.

So far the thread is into the 5th page and has had over 2400 views (I'm pretty sure that it counts repeat visitors as a new view).

I went on to explain why, but there are many commenters who still don't get my point:

Drugs are plaguing the sport and regulators have been very slow to fix it.
Hey, I know that a positive would hurt the game short term, but until drugs are out of the game, the game will be broken.

And again, I'm not inferring here that the horse will get a positive. The horse could have been on the best part of the track, the hardest part of the track, and saved the most ground, and the pace of the race helped him too.

Funny things happen in the slop. Again, I've already read many comments from people expecting a positive. I'm not expecting a positive, but wouldn't be shocked just the same.

There is a lot of speculation that at the very least Mine That Bird had something that is not tested for inside his bloodstream that made him move like a monster on Saturday. But it is 2009, and that is the state of horse racing.

Honestly, if I made a quick pick bet and Mine That Bird was on the ticket, I would have canceled the ticket, even if it was a superfecta, and Mine That Bird was in the four hole. His speed numbers weren't high enough going in to win a Non Winners other than Maiden or Claiming race.

He was the only gelding. Was it training in the New Mexico atmosphere that gave him an edge? Did the new Kentucky steroid rule turn the race into a complete crap shoot?

No denying that Calvin Bo-Rail was the best jockey for that particular course on that particular day by a country mile.

Jennifer Morrison reports on her blog that Chantal Sutherland (who rode the horse to victories last year) was considered until Bo-Rail became available. According to Down The Stretch Newspaper, the offer from Playboy that Sutherland refused would have gone up considerably if she just had a Derby mount, let alone won the Derby (which I think would have happened if she had the mount, as Sutherland seems to have a good eye for the track bias). So we can blame the trainer (or whoever made the decision on the jockey) for preventing Sutherland from being in Playboy, for now.

Hopeful Playboy won't make an offer to Calvin Keebler Borel. I know I won't be buying that issue.

Another thing that bugs me is anyone who claims that Mine That Bird is a Canadian. He isn't. Never was. Never will be. With all the money that is allotted to Ontario breds, it was a crying shame that he won the Sovereign Award, but he was better than all the Canadian breds and since he ran here at least three times, he qualified to win. He is a Kentucky bred. A US bred horse, nothing more, nothing less.

I will fairly add though that on his dam's side, especially his third dam, there is a lot of Canadian blood. Looks like a few Display Farm horses are at least related to the Bird.

PETA must be very upset that no horses died in the Derby this year. I'm surprised they don't go after the winner's name. I'm sure they aren't fans of throwing birds into mines to see if there is enough oxygen for humans.

This win by Mine That Bird is going to hurt the sales prices of high end horses for the foreseeable future. The low end horses may get a boost, as buyers see that they don't have to spend much to have a future millionaire. This win, coupled with Big Brown's win last year shows that it is much more prudent to spend a premium after a horse has established himself, at least somewhat. The Green Monkey days are gone.

Finally, it is my contention that after that 7 length Derby win, barring a positive, the Bird should be the favourite or 2nd choice at the very least in the Preakness. Many on Pace Advantage adamantly disagree with me on that. But I just can't see how he won't.

Peter from Family Guy agrees with me on the Preakness. Here is his tip:



KUDOS TO WOODBINE AND THE SCORE
It was nice to see Fort Erie on the Score on Sunday, instead of Belmont. I'm hoping nobody complains. Showing Fort Erie as the second track is the right thing to do in order to help promote horse racing in Ontario.

But it didn't help the betting unfortunately. Less than $400,000 was bet in total at Fort Erie on Sunday (I think the $35 million sales price is a tad too high now. Oh wait, I always thought that). I don't ever remember seeing such a low total in recent history.

I know what didn't help. Fort Erie stopped taking US dollar bets at the track. Patrons from the US have to convert to our funny money before they make a wager on track now. Is it any wonder that Fort Erie is big trouble. And by looking at those betting numbers, I hate to say it, but the end is near.

I know their high takeouts (they are the second worst in North America) are a huge turn off to many bettors, but they need to stop racing on Sunday, and only race when they are not up against any significant competition. Switch to Wednesdays. Let players tap out at the Fort before Woodbine races.