This means that the 2009 Breeder Cup Races overall were not successful.
First, the absence of the three greatest trainers meant that they didn't feel they had entries worthy. From my earlier posts, I did warn the public that this meant many of these more common trainers were just there to booze it up and bet other trainers' horses. This is very bad for the industry. It is corrupt.
It was obvious the fields were substandard for the Breeder Cup races. I pegged Go Ponti for the classic because of the average field. He ran second, which poroved my point.
Now for a realistic evaluation of why this year's Breeder's Cup was a failure. Not a bad failure, but undeniably not a success.
From past Breeder Cups, the ones which were legitimate, with trainers running to win, we see usually decent payoffs. Low payoffs are the first sign of dishonest backsides. It means, as I said, that people backside are boozing it up and betting other people's horses. Some races are "training" races, once common, but almost nonexistent now are the need to get about three races off a layoff before a horse is ready. Nowadays, most trainers do so many workouts, they are ready right away, and with the hard surfaces of tracks that don't care a bit about a horse's health (like Churchill Downs), one race may be enough to break a horse down again.
But the Breeder's Cup races are not "training" races. This year, however, many trainers just went there to party. When sportswriters and trainers are winning money at the windows from their inside information, it's another sign of crooked racing.
Proof is in the payoffs. A fair analysis of Payoffs would categorize them into different categories. The more average or the higher the payoffs, the more honest you know they are running. Favorites win about one time in three, and we all know that most race track stewards and most race tracks try to make favorites win. So do jockeys. They know when they win with a low price horse, they can bump and veer out a lot more without being punished. A high paying horse can't even touch another horse without being disqualified by stewards at race tracks as crooked as Churchill, for example. Jockeys are pressured to lose with longer paying horses. Contrary to what the uneducated think, being a favorite or a long shot has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how good a horse looks on paper. It is determined SOLELY by the money bet to win on him. If crooks rig a horse to win, they BET him with BIG money, so it is impossible for a fixed race to pay over $35.00 or so to win. Crooks have no self control. If the odds on a fixed race are 15-1, they'll keep putting more money to win on the horse. Jockeys who beat favorites with their long shots are sometimes in danger from these crooks. Not often physically, but financially.
What's a realistic analysis of payoffs? Breeder Cup races, we're talking about 12 horse fields, so we start there.
There are some gamblers so ate up they think 3-1 is "good" odds. This mind set guarantees you to lose, unless you are blessed by a higher power with more dumb luck than 99% of the other people have. 3-1 should never be considered anything but chalk, particularly in 12 horse fields, even if it is second choice. We're going with realistic payoffs. If the horses are all entered in a Breeder Cup Race, 90% of them are accomplished enough to be genuine threats. With a 20% or so track takeout, everyone should start about 9-1 in a 12 horse field.
GROUP 1: Heavy Chalk and Extremely Low Payoffs would be from $2.20-8.80 (1-20 to 3-1)
GROUP 2: Low price payoffs would be $9.00-15,80 (7-2 to 6-1). This is very generous to chalk players. Gamblers who actually win money will think Group 2 should be higher prices.
GROUP 3: Average payoffs in honest Breeder Cup races would range $16.00 to 29.80 (7-1 to 13-1) Again, it probably should be higher. I'm being very generous here, giving the insiders some benefit of the doubt.
GROUP 4: Better than average payoffs would be $30.00 to 59.80 (14-1 to 29-1).
GROUP 5: Long shot prices would be $60.00 and over.
The Breeder Cup races had this result for payoffs:
Extremely low payoffs: 7
Low payoffs: 1
Average payoffs: 3
Better than average payoffs: 2
Long shot payofs: 1
That is just a little too heavily unbalanced towards insider crooked policies to be accepted by those in the public with IQs over 40. This is giving the Industry every bit of the doubt, and still the payoffs were unusually low. In true statistics, averages are rarely met, and there is some discrepancy, but for half the winning payoffs to be that extremely low can't be accepted as coincidence by intelligent people, and only one long shot payoff, that one being only $63.20, means that this year's Breeder's Cup was a disaster. It could've been worse, and it's very likely the corrupt officials of Churchill would've made it worse.
Keywords: 2009 Breeder Cup low end disaster for the industry
