Each horseplayer has to have an edge, which is a secret only he uses. If other people use it, then he gets underlays and not only does he become a loser, but so do the people who steal his picks. In other words, if Joe picks the 3 horse and bets 5 to win, and Jenny decides to do the same, and she tells Fran and Bill, who each tell two friends, and before long Joe's 5 dollars is represented by 300 dollars, since at least one of those friends is an idiot who bets big money, and there are those at the track who simply bet what they see money bet on, and they can easily turn a 28-1 into a 12-1. Joe's available profit turns from 56 dollars (58.00 payoff) to 24.00 (26.00 payoff). He has to hit this twice as often. He plays it because if he wins one time in 30 he comes out ahead. Now one time in 30 puts him behind, because his own friends cut their own throats just to cut his. That's what it amounts to.

Continue reading "2 year olds at Churchill 11-1-2009"

These 2 days of racing in California, what sticks out the most is the absence of the giants in the industry. The three most respected trainers, McGaughey, Zito, and Nafzger not only don't have any entrants in ANY of the Breeder Cup races, but in none of the other races on the cards.

We know these three don't enter unless they feel they have a strong chance. This year, as we see from the low payoffs, there are too many trainers just "showing up to lose". Theses races are supposed to be the BEST in each race, and logically should be all 7-1 in a 10 horse field. Low payoffs are a sign of dishonest and poor training.

And low payoffs don't mean Good Form. The low payoffs yesterday were all incredible UNDERLAYS, horses who ran the best races of their lives, and who would've been 15-1 or higher to anyone who reads the Daily Racing Form. So, is the Daily Racing Form giving false information? I doubt that. Instead, this means that other trainers in the races are there to booze it up and bet down these underlays.

Continue reading "Breeder's Cup missing the giants"

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.

Continue reading "2009 Breeder's Cup hurt the industry"