36 Minutes of Fame

Andy Warhol said everybody will be famous for 15 minutes. I exceeded that by 21 minutes yesterday, so I guess I can't be too depressed about my off-the-board finish at yesterday's SSC #3 at Monmouth Park.

 You see, I snuck onto the leaderboard after the Florida Derby (12GP), which went off at 6:24, and stayed there until after 13GP, which went off at 7:00. I was 25th on the 25-person board.

How did it all happen?

Well I lost my first 5 bets and my $100 starting bankroll was down to $50 when I put $10W on 8-1 Regalo Mia in GP9. That win -- my first in three contests this year, mind you -- put me at about $140 and back in the game.

I then lost a couple bets before slapping down $50W on Orb in the Florida Derby. He won nicely at almost 3-1, so I was living large with $252 and on the board with one race left. That's all I ask of these contests, to be in it with a shot late.

Alas, it wasn't to be. In the Gulfstream finale I liked 1 Transgression and 9 Town Flirt (in that order) going into the day, but I switched to 9, largely because trainer George Weaver won a race earlier on the card. I went pretty much all in, $200W and $52P.

But my (oftentimes) trusty trainer-recency angle didn't come through for me yesterday, as while Town Flirt ran well, she could only manage 2nd to -- who else -- Transgression.

I cashed out $140.40 on the day thanks to the place bet, better than $0 of course, but it was still a very empty fold of 20s. I 'woulda' probably landed in the top 5 if Town Flirt won at 9-2, also 'woulda' been way up there had I went with Transgression.

It's tempting to lament and beat myself up over switching from 1 to 9, but I'm not gonna go there. I made the best decision I could using all the information I had available at the time of the race. Every handicapper marks up PPs the night before, but I don't think anyone can argue that early picks should be set in stone.

Overall yesterday was pretty good for me in terms of what I could control -- process, strategy and risk management. This is in sharp contrast to SSCs #1 and #2, when I was pretty much abysmal in those areas. It's unfortunate that good process, strategy and risk management didn't produce a good end result, but c'est la vie. Happens sometimes.

So that's a wrap. This is the second year in a row I didn't qualify for the SSC invitational, after doing so in '10 and '11. Poor job me, but great job Monmouth park in pulling off the series with record numbers.

I will offer a bit of advice to the 58 non-NJHorseplayer entrants in the 60-entrant invitational. You cannot stop NJHorseplayer. You can only hope to contain him.  


   

Rock Bottom?

I hope so.

Before I recap my experience at yesterday's Monmouth Park's Simulcast Series Challenge #2, allow me to congratulate NJHorseplayer for finishing 18th of 287 and qualifying for the SSC Invitational in April. He nailed a couple impressive prices, one at Gulfstream and one and Tampa, and it was a well-deserved top-20 placing.

Onto my day.

I did some prep work this time unlike SSC#1 four weeks ago, when I went in ice cold off the bench and it showed. I probably did about 6 hours of reading PPs, watching replays, and doing other research between Thursday and Saturday morning.

It didn't translate into an improved result, but it should have were it not for a couple critical tactical errors in my contest strategy.

Starting with a $100 bankroll, my plays were:

1. GP1, $5WP Smokin Ali, 14-1. I thought the odds-on chalk was crap and this one had an upset chance. He ran okay but managed only 5th. No regrets on this one, you have to take risks and sometimes it doesn't work out. Bankroll down to $90.

2. Aqu3, $10W Your Time is Up, 5-1. Looked like a nice first-time starter and she took some early money -- went to the lead but tired badly. Down to $80.

3. Aqu5, $10W All of the Above, 6-1. Kind of a last-minute play here based on what I thought was decent pace-pressing form, a good appearance in the post parade, and an over-bet favorite. However as Andy Serling tweeted during the race, "How is All of the Above last early????" Down to $70.

4. GP6, $10W Saint of Saints, 8-1. Ran a modestly threatening 4th -- similar to my GP1 play on Smokin Ali it was a decent spec play and I have no problem with the bet in retrospect. Down to $60.

5. Aqu8, $10W Street Lord, 22-1. This first-time starter was a trainer-recency play, as Charlton Baker had won Aqu6. Alas, he had some trouble at the break -- my first of three bad breaks in a very unlucky day -- and didn't really do anything. In retrospect this wasn't the worst bet I ever made but it was kind of questionable/'reachy', especially as I respected the chalk who won. Down to $50.

6. GP7, $10W Exclusive Strike, 5-1. Ran a creditable but not-good-enough 2nd. I'd make this same bet again. Down to $40.

7. GP8, $10W Dyker Beach, 5-1. Equibase: "Clipped heels after st". Eff me. Down to $30.

8. GP10, $20W10P Ore Pass, 31-1. Equibase: "ORE PASS bumped with TRANSPARENT leaving the starting gate, got caught in and amongst rivals and right in the thick of the bumping incident that occurred shortly after the field was sent on its way, was taken hold off after being bumped again, went on for a couple of jumps then clipped the heels of ESCAPEFROMREALITY, raced at or near the back of the pack thereafter, swung five wide into the stretch..."

Then the kicker: "...and had no rally."

YA THINK???

So I was done, out the door, thinking it was a really bad, "one of those" days. In the late-winter twilight I remarked to NJHorseplayer that my day couldn't have been any worse than SSC#1, it could only have been the same, and that's what it was.

I was wrong.

It was worse.

When I got home I scanned the results of the races that went off after I left and I saw that not one, not two, but three of the horses I liked came in, two square prices and a bomb.

Clearly Now, who I liked based on workout reports, paid $16 in GP10. Razzleberry (jockey change) paid $16.20 in GP11. And to make my day totally absurd, Countess Emma (trainer recency) won Tam 11 and paid $67.20(!).

Now I'm not saying I liked those three horses any more than earlier plays. If I did, I would have made a point to have some bullets left for the end, even if it meant betting chalk to show.

But really I didn't like them any less than earlier plays, either. So I should have had some money left for those last races, and I screwed up by being tapped.

I won't lament any of the bets I made. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.

But there were two tactical blunders I made that I blame for my empty pockets at 5:05 pm.

The first was not betting Readtheprospectus. Really there was no reason I shouldn't have. A $9.70 winner at 2:15 pm won't win any contests, but putting a +38.50 in the ledger would have been a nice break from losing, and it should have kept me in the game longer.

My second error was trying to be a hero and betting my last $30 on Ore Pass in the Gotham. At 30-1, a $10 bet would have been more than sufficient to get me back in contention.

If I work a little revisionist history and right those two wrongs, I could have had $58.50 after the Gotham rather than $0. Even with just one wrong righted I could have had $38.50 or $20. Who knows how I would have played the remaining races, which spanned three I probably wouldn't have won in addition to the three I probably would have won, but given the prices, I totally should have finished in the Top 20 with at least a few hundred bucks.

It's pointless to cry over spilt milk and rehash specific shit (which I guess I've been doing for this whole post), but more broadly I have noticed a flaw in my contesting that is worth me thinking about.

When I get down a bunch I get disgusted, annoyed and just want to leave, often before I'm truly out of it. In other words I give up too easily, which crowds out rational thinking to a certain extent.

For example, rather than going win-or-go-home with Ore Pass yesterday, I should have stepped back and assessed my situation and the remaining races coolly and analytically, with the goal of mapping out a reasonable path back to contention. Instead I tried to land a wild haymaker. Stupid.

This poor late-day contesting also manifested itself once last year at Belmont when I inexplicably bet a 7-2 horse with my last bet, which would have done nothing for me, rather than try to dope out a decent price that could have landed me in the top 20. 

Oh well, live and learn I guess. 

   

What Up Wit the NHC? Q&A with NTRA's Keith Chamblin

(Photo forthcoming)

The Daily Racing Form/NTRA National Handicapping Championship will be held in Las Vegas later this month. I won't be there for the umpteenth consecutive year due to tough luck, bad breaks, a limited budget, and general ineptitude (not necessarily in that order), but I wanted to get an update on the state of the NHC and the NHC Tour. Keith Chamblin, senior vice president of the NTRA, was kind enough to answer my questions via e-mail.

Red Rock or Bust: Assess the current state of the NHC Tour.

Keith Chamblin: Overall, the Tour is strong. Prize money offered from the NTRA doubled from 2011 to 2012 to $250,000. Bonuses were added to reward multiple winners. Some 1,000 players earned points in 2012. Nearly 4,500 players competed. Based on research and feedback from players and participating host sites, the Tour absolutely has led to increased participation in the NHC. I wish we had even greater participation by fans and racetracks, but overall we feel that the NHC Tour has been a very positive addition to the NHC landscape since it was instituted in 2008.

RRoB: How has the 2012 NHC Tour season (not counting the Jan. 2012 NHC itself) compared with 2011 and also previous years in terms of interest, number of contests, revenue, etc?

KC: We instituted a number of changes to the Tour in 2012. Total prize money was more than doubled to nearly $300,000. The Tour calendar was divided into two seasons. Significant bonuses were instituted for players who win more than one tournament. A tiered points system was instituted to encourage on-track tournament play. We’re still analyzing the numbers, but it’s fair to say that participation is up, the number of contests is up, total prize money is up, and revenue is up vs. 2011. 

RRoB: How is the Jan. 2013 NHC shaping up? What will be new/different compared with last year's event?

KC: The biggest change at this year’s NHC is the addition of a “Best Bet” wager, whereby one mandatory play each day will count double. We think this will introduce a unique variable that will add another layer of excitement to the NHC.

RRoB: What are the challenges/opportunities involved with getting broader media coverage of the event?

KC: The challenges and opportunities involved with obtaining broader media coverage of the NHC are similar to the challenges we face in obtaining broader coverage of thoroughbred racing in general. We have a great sport with beautiful equine athletes and a passionate fan base, but we are a niche sport compared to sports like baseball, football and basketball. That makes it difficult to attract mainstream media coverage. However, we are making strides. The NHC has been featured in Sports Illustrated, ESPN the Magazine, USA Today, the Washington Post and many other high-profile outlets over the years. We expect to add to that list this year. In some respects, we have better luck with mainstream media coverage than we do with coverage inside our industry. I’d like to see us celebrate the horseplayer more than we currently do.

RRoB: What changes/improvements (if any) are planned for the NHC Tour?

KC: Stay tuned. We are considering a number of changes that we will be announcing in the near future.

RRoB: Are you considering increasing the number of players who qualify via NHC Tour points, to make that more meaningful? Currently it's the Top 100 but the vast majority of the top 100 already qualified via a contest. 

KC: Possibly. Several years ago, there were no players who qualified based on their year-end points totals on the leader board. Now, the top 100 players are guaranteed entry into the NHC regardless of whether they win a spot in a tournament. This year, eight people qualified based on finishing in the top 100.

RRoB: There has been some criticism among players that the NHC Tour favors the most regular (and better-funded) players, not necessarily the best players. How do you respond to this?

KC: Great question. There will be plenty of regulars and plenty of casual fans at the NHC. Almost by definition, a “tour” (be it in golf, tennis, handicapping or any type) is going to favor those who make the commitment to “travel” on it. There is no question that there is a core group of players who play frequently. They also contribute a large amount of revenue to the NHC prize pool. However, with the expansion of online play, the addition of more free tournaments, and the emphasis we’ve placed on trying to maintain and grow on-track tournaments, there is a wide menu of tournament offerings for a variety of players. Plus, only the top six tournament scores count toward Tour points. We like to think that there are ample opportunities for players of any budget and commitment level.

RRoB: There has been some criticism among players regarding a perceived lack of transparency on the part of the NHC Tour with regard to its finances. Specifically, online qualifying contests have comparatively high effective 'take' rates and some say it's not clear where all the money goes. How do you respond to this?

KC: Some online and on-track tournaments have a higher take-out than others. Some have zero takeout. Players can make choices on which tournaments they wish to play in much the same way they decide which races or tracks they like to bet on when they play the horses. For each spot sold to an onsite location/tourney, a total of $3,333 goes toward the NHC and NHC Tour prize pool. The number is closer to $6,500 for online tournaments. There also are variances between what NTRA members and non-members pay. In principle, we like low- or zero-takeout qualifiers better, but plenty of players have told us they’d prefer to absorb more takeout in an online tournament in exchange for the added convenience and reduced travel expense.  Obviously the market ultimately dictates a tournament’s popularity. If players see no value in a tournament, they won’t play it.

RRoB: Will NTRA lobby for New Jersey-based players to be able to play venues such as TwinSpires, rather than be captive to the state ADW?

KC: We only get involved in state legislative advocacy efforts if we are invited in by the tracks and horsemen in that specific jurisdiction.

RRoB: Please mention anything else that I didn't specifically ask about that is pertinent to this conversation.

KC: We truly appreciate the players’ support of the NHC and NHC Tour over the past 13 years, and we are continuously impressed by the people who qualify for the NHC each year. Nothing could more quickly dispel the tired, old stereotype of the “degenerate horseplayer” than to have someone spend a half hour at the NHC. Ultimately it is the players who will determine the future level of success for this event, and so we take very seriously what they have to say. We strive to give them a pleasant and fun experience during the year as they attempt to qualify, and a really stimulating experience when they play for the big money in Las Vegas. It’s impossible to please everyone, but it is incumbent upon us to ensure that we are pleasing most. 

   

Sunday Crummy Sunday

I finished 56th of 224 in the Aqueduct Handicapping Challenge this past weekend. While I'm trying to be positive and revel in my (barely) top-quartile placing, it's a tough pill to swallow given I was 13th with high hopes after Saturday. And in these contests, it's all about finishing in the Top 20, as high up as possible -- finishing 21st is no better than 224th (well, 21st or 22nd would mean a few NHC Tour points, but whoop de damn doo).

Saturday, Sunday

So as Pat Riley might say, there is finishing in the Top 20, and there is misery.

I had a good day on Saturday -- started slowly, but nailed winners in three of the last four Aqueduct races -- Seal Cove ($19.40) in the 6th, Called to Serve ($9.60) in the 8th, and Barrel of Love ($19.20) in the 9th. It wasn't a perfect day (no such thing at the track), but my decision-making was good and luck was good. My only real regret is not deploying my double ($40) bet more wisely -- I coulda/shoulda used it on one of my winners rather than on 9-1 I Fly High in WO9, whom I didn't especially like but I double-bet it because it was the last race I was staying for and I hadn't used my double yet. 

Anyway, I was in 5th place when I left on Saturday, and I slid to 13th on my trip home after a bomber in the WO finale. 

But alas, it was all downhill from there, as Sunday just wasn't my day. The feeling of limitless possibilities I had in the morning dissipated as 0-1 became 0-2, which turned into 0-3 and then 0-4. As it turns out, staying home and watching football would have produced the same notional $0 that I generated by showing up and making my 11 bets (nine plus double), but without the retro fun of using the Big A's 1980s-themed bathrooms. I finished 0-11 on the day, making for my second straight Day-2 collapse in an NYRA contest (Belmont in June, where I dropped from 5th after Day 1 to finish 32nd, was worse).

Whereas my decisions and luck were good on Saturday, I'd rate my decisions just fair on Sunday, and luck was not good. I took my chances and had a few close/close-ish calls, but a couple shitty bets somehow snuck onto my wagering log too, and overall I just couldn't connect with anything. 

A couple notable misses that would have changed the complexion of things were Sex Appeal, who finished a decent but non-threatening 4th at 15-1 in Aqu7, and Wee Freudian, also decent but non-threatening, 3rd at 17-1 in Aqu8.     

But it was the Aqu finale that really killed me as far as landing in the Top 20. I used my precious double on 8-1 Belongs to Dixie -- he had a nice inside pocket trip but got in a bit of traffic at early/mid-stretch; Castellano tried to get him outside but couldn't, then tipped back inside; the rail did open up, but he had lost momentum and meanwhile 5-1 Katie Malone (my original selection in the race) was rolling out the outside with a free and clear run, game over.

Belongs to Dixie "woulda" added 368 and got me to 850, which "woulda" been good for about 16th. For fun, if a photo I lost earlier on a 7-2 horse at WO went my way too, that "woulda" got me to 942 and about 11th. That was my ceiling really, as I think going any further out hypothetically stretches plausibility.

But, of course everyone who missed the cut has a story, just like Mitt Romney had a bunch of theoretical paths to 270. It's a tough game.  

         

     

Want a FREE* $375,000?

Steve Martin had an old stand-up routine that started with
"You can have a million dollars and never pay taxes.
You say to yourself, Steve (which is a funny thing to say to yourself), how can I have a million dollars and never pay taxes?
First, get a million dollars..."

In that spirit, I invite (some of) you to participate in the Red Rock or Bust/HorseTourneys Free* Breeders' Cup Handicapping Contest, which could result in you winning $750,000 (and bringing home $375,000) in the DRF/NTRA 2013 National Handicapping Championship, to be held in Las Vegas in January.  

Here are the specs:

Contest is open to all NHC Tour members who have not yet qualified for 2013 NHC.

Minimum five players.

You must make your selections in the comments section of this blog post by 2:00 PM Eastern time on Saturday, November 3.

This is a bit of a freeform contest -- simply submit your best six plays (plays=single horses) from Saturday's nine BC races, specifying one of the six as a best bet, and one of the six as an alternate.
The horses may be from any BC Saturday race. You may select more than one from the same race.

Each player gets a notional $4WP bet on his/her best bet, and $2WP on each of his/her other four non-alternate selections. The alternate will only be used in the event of a scratch and will always be a $2WP bet -- if your best bet is scratched, the first selection after the best bet will move up to be the best bet. In the event of more than one scratch, the post-time favorite will be used after the alternate.
If a best bet and/or alternate is not specified, the first horse listed will be the best bet, and the last horse will be the alternate.(This contest is really simpler than I'm making it out to be, I'm just trying to cover all bases.)

It's BC day, so let's go with high payout caps -- $75 to win ($150 for best bet) and $30 to place ($60 for best bet).

The winner gets a credit to an upcoming $30 HorseTourneys contest (thanks to HorseTourneys for generously providing this purse). The credit must be used soon, as there aren't many weeks left to qualify for 2013 NHC, especially via HorseTourneys.

If the winner advances to a $140 HorseTourneys contest through the $30 event (1/5 chance), and advances to 2013 NHC via the $140 event (1/60), my oh my won't that be a good story. And it gets better, as the final rule of Saturday's contest is that if the winner of Saturday's RRoB/HT contest gets to the 2013 NHC via this path and goes on to win the 2013 NHC (1/450ish chance), the winner must donate half of the pot (which is $750K I believe) to charity (seriously -- hence the $375K in the headline). Honor system.
-----------
So say we get five players on Saturday, add it all up and each player has a (1/5)*(1/5)*(1/60)*(1/450ish) chance of winning the NHC via this path.

That may be microscopic but it's a lot better than the 0% chance you have if you don't play. Good luck!  

*This opportunity is "free" for those who have paid $50 to join the NHC Tour, so in good faith I had to asterisk the word.

A Decent Last-Place Finish

Is that an oxymoron or what?

I wanted to blog about finishing tied for last place in the Sept. 16 Monmouth/Woodbine handicapping contest with a $0 bankroll, and instead of wringing my hands about how awful it and/or I was as per usual, I've gained some perspective over the past several days and I feel reasonably constructive about my effort. Hence the glass-half-full title.

Rewind to 3:07 p.m. on Sunday, when Barefoot Lady won the Canadian Stakes at Woodbine at a $16.40 mutual. My $10W bet produced a $72 profit, boosting my bankroll to $218 (from $100 starting bankroll) and putting me somewhere between 15th and 20th place in the 185-person contest.

This was a fine spot to be in, as I had ammo to take some shots and try to break into the top 10, the higher-up the better of course. And take some shots I did.

I liked Forte Dei Marmi a bunch in 8WO, and I put down $50W; at 5.25-1, this represented profit potential of $262.50. He ran decently, but got kind of a weird squirrely ride by A. Solis and only managed 3rd.

My next meaningful bet was in the Mth cheapie finale, where I put $20W$10P on Stephanie's Girl at 21.40-1. She ran okay and was in the hunt at the top of the stretch but weakened to 5th. The profit potential on the combined win-place bet was about $500. 

I then put down $40W$20P on Dance and Dance in 10WO. I respected Wise Dan, but he's only flesh and blood and his 1-2 odds made for some juicy prices on some other pretty good horses, including my selection who went off at 16.70-1. However Wise Dan ran like a 1-2 shot shot and my horse finished off the board. Profit potential was about $800 for the combined WP bet.

Then with my last $68 I went all-in on Total Bliss to win in the WO finale. It would have been total bliss if she won and I profited $581.40 on the race, but she inexplicably finished last, so instead of total bliss it was total bullshit. I flung my betting card across the near-empty simulcast room (you can get some good air on those things), and I was out the door with little more of value than the clothes on my back, a few dollars in my pocket, and a digital image of NJHorseplayer eating soup.   

So there you are, and there you have it. I accept that sometimes horses don't win for me despite my best efforts to will them to do so, so I try to focus on the process rather than the product, on the premise that the right process (decent handicapping and sound contest strategy) will eventually deliver the right product (contest glory). I have no real problem or regret with my process from Sunday, as I was in contention and taking shots late, which is all I can ask. If I connected with even one of the four big late-day bets I would have most likely finished in the top 10; if I won on two bets, I probably would be going to Vegas.

Maybe next time on the product.
  

Hoping to Get Back on Track

Three things recently happened that served to remind me that this NHC Tour thing is a humbling game:

1. I recorded a Nowheresville finish in the August 4 Suffolk contest (though it was a fun road trip, as NJHorseplayer recounted);

2. I slipped to No. 99 in the NHC Tour standings, presaging an inevitable drop outta the top 100 (and the NHC spot that a year-end top 100 finish would bring) unless I earn more points; and

3. On a cash basis, I've fallen back to about even for the period 2011 plus year-to-date 2012. Now overall that's not bad, but it's decidedly the wrong direction given that I had been well in the black for a while thanks largely to a $6k score from finishing 2nd in a Monmouth contest last March. Dropping back to even/towards red means I've essentially given all of that $6k back, dashing my dream (at least temporarily) of making my hobby a self-funding one.

Anyway, that's all spilt milk, there's still plenty of action left this year and opportunities to get to Vegas in January.

I expect I'll do two more live contests, Monmouth on Sept. 16 and Aqueduct on Nov. 17-18. Aside from that I'll allow myself one sub-$200 online contest per month, August through December (and possibly January), probably starting with the Aug. 19 HorseTourneys contest.

That's 7-8 qualifying opportunities right there -- if after all that I don't make it to the NHC, I don't deserve to be there.