Phil of course was George Smith, who was written about a few postings back. He is the legendary horseplayer from whom all horseplayers, whenever temporarily smart, are descended from.
I haven't yet gotten my used edition of Phil's 'Maxims,' but I strongly suspect that one of the maxims is to never bet on a horse trying something for the first time. I know from my friend, who spent significant time being mentored by one of Phil's adherents, that betting on a horse at any odds, let alone short odds, in an event that represents something the horse might be trying for the first time, is never a good bet.
This usually relates to weight, distance, surface, and sometimes the actual track they're running at in the day's race. When these qualities present themselves at the same time, it is smart to look elsewhere in the field and see what other betting opportunities there might be.
Hindsight is not 20/20. It is 20/10. Even given that, yesterday's 9th race at Belmont, the Bed of Roses Handicap, could have been spotted as a bed of thorns, that could turn into a wonderful array of dollars and a lifetime of storytelling for some temporarily smart people. Geniuses, actually. And it did.
The favorite ran out of the money. And not just a lukewarm favorite, or a regular favorite-type favorite, but a heavy favorite, a so called "odds-on" favorite, a horse that was going off at significantly less than even- money, which meant on winning it was going to return less than a dollar profit for each dollar bet on it to win. This is a so-called "short price" horse, "chalk," and is often avoided by horseplayers as much as they might avoid work.
In the case of Hilda's Passion, the short price was 35 cents to the dollar, meaning an expected return of $1.35 for each dollar bet to win. As "short" as that is, if Bernie Madoff could have honestly returned money to all investors at that rate he would certainly not now be in prison and would be the subject of far more complimentary comments than he's lately been hearing. But that's finance, vs. horseplaying. And even after all these years, people continue to confuse the two.
That's the "win" payoff. Place and show routinely pay less, and when you start off with a short win expectancy, the place and show prices are just about guaranteed to pay even less, often only $2.20 or even $2.10 (the legal minimum). There are those who still see finance in this, and that truly, mathematically translates to a 5-10% return on "investment."
Looking at a four-legged animal with a head, heart and lungs carrying a human and trying to run fast as they can on spindle legs as an "investment" is viewed by many as a stupid thought, perhaps as risky as thinking Greece will repay the money. But risk drives the world, so we have situations like yesterday's 9th race.
Hilda's Passion does deserve to be a short price. In 2011 the filly has never been out of the money, meaning it's never been worse than third. And in Hilda's case, it's never finished worse than second, winning five times and finishing second three times. The horse is trained by Todd Pletcher, and is being ridden by John Velazquez, a trainer/jockey combination that regularly puts people in the winner's circle, where being asked to smile is never needed. Many, many positives that point to what some refer to as "the mortal lock."
But, the practical people will always remind you they run the race on the racetrack, not on paper. Hilda's Passion has never shown a win at today's weight, 124 pounds, picking up a pound from her last outing, when she ran half a furlong shorter than today's seven furlong distance. She has won at today's distance, but at lesser weights. She has won at today's track and surface, but not at today's track with today's distance. So, there are a few things she's being asked to do in the race that she hasn't done before. And the odds are short--very short. A recipe that would send Phil and others into another restaurant.
Extremely short-priced horse seldom run out of the money. I don't really know what the numbers are, but their tendency to at least finish in the top three tends to bring out those who are referred to as "bridge-jumpers." These are people who wager, "plunge" huge amounts of money into the show pool betting, "investing" that they will be returned at least the legal minimum that will guarantee a 5% return on their quick "investment." The "mortal lock."
In yesterday's 9th race there was a total of over $300,000 in the show pool, much of which was bet on Hilda's Passion, with the expectancy of an easy, minimum 5% profit. Cash. No 1099s.
The term "bridge-jumper" is attached to these people because it is theorized that if their bet doesn't return the hoped for result, they will become so depressed that they will suicidally jump off a bridge. What really happens to these people who lose is not reliably known, but the stories persist.
My friend and I used to meet a fellow at the races who mentored us. He had a name, but we nicknamed him Mr. Pace, for his devotion to his self-created pace figures. Anytime there was a short-priced horse, and it was generally a filly, who was set to go off at some un-Godly short price, Mr. Pace, Les, would just say "Twilight Tear."
We had become acquainted with the story of Twilight Tear, a filly Les told us that went off at 1-10 (10 cents to the dollar) and finished off the board.
Twilight Tear was a sensational filly that ran in the 1940s and would have certainly been a horse Les saw race. The horse had an outstanding record: 18-2-2 for 24 starts, thus leaving only two starts that didn't result in an in-the-money finish. Twilght's last start was its nightfall. The horse did not finish its last race, being eased before going over the finish line.
The other out-of-the-money finish has to be the race Les referred to. It was two back from the last race. Whether Les was there or not is another story, and if what he said happened did happen after the official sign was posted, is another story. But on that fateful afternoon, Twilight Tear encountered a muddy track at Laurel, in Maryland, on a surface condition it had never encountered before, let alone won on, and went off at 15 cents to the dollar in a six horse field. The distance was a mile and a quarter, something handled in her past with a win, but the 130 pounds was new a boundary. As was the "off-track" surface. Twilight finished fourth, with the past performance trouble line reading "quit badly." As for the gunshot, further archival research will be undertaken.
When odds-on horses finish out-of-the money funny things happen to the payoffs. Because of the pool system and the parimutuel structure, winning bets are paid off with money from the losers in their respective pool, after take-out taxes, of course. This can produce some very lopsided payoffs when there is heavy concentration on an expected result that doesn't occur.
Years and years ago I was at Belmont with a friend at the 1979 Beldame Stakes, a race for older fillies that had two great ones in it that day, Waya and It's in the Air. It's in the Air was heavily favored at 2-5 (40 cents to the dollar) in the seven horse field.
From a handicap point of view I liked Waya to win. It's In the Air had never won at today's one and a quarter distance or won over a sloppy track. My $4 bet on the 3-1 Waya was what today's wiseguys would call "value."
I explained my reasoning to my friend who declared he had put $2 "across the board" on Waya, meaning a $2 bet in the win, place and show pools. I questioned his wisdom because if the 2-5 shot finishes other than first, gets in there at second or even third, his non-win bets on Waya will return next to nothing. My $4 straight Waya win bet was a better bet.
Ask a short-priced horse to do something they haven't done before and the result can surprise you. Waya did win, and paid the expected $8 and change for the win bet. But It's In the Air, at 2-5, with heavy show money wagered by the suicidal, finished out-of-the -money creating some terrific place and show payoffs for Waya. I got back $16 for my $4 bet, and Tom got back something like $80 for his combination $2 across the board bet. Tom was a finance guy, by the way. I'm not sure, but I think I made him buy me a drink.
And as for yesterday's 9th at Belmont with Hilda's Passion finishing off-the-board? The winner, Tamarind Hall, a legitimate longshot at nearly 16-1, paid $33.80 to win, $13.80 to place, and a lopsided $53.00 to show because of the heavy, heavy show money that was NOT going to be returned, at any percent, to whomever backed Hilda's Passion.
And the show prices on the second and third place horses? Kid Kate paid $53.50 and Spa City Princess paid $64.50.
I wasn't at the races yesterday and was not part of this action. But others were, and I'm sure some were temporarily smart. Geniuses even.
They've got something to remember for the rest of their lives.
Pittsbug Phil is smiling.
http://www.onofframp.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment