OCTAVE-the-RAVE

While we anxiously await post position draws tomorrow for Jeremy's BC assignment, here's a quick quiz to test your overall racing acumen.  Before you read this piece, please grab a pencil and write-down your answer to the question posed in the headline.  Simple enough: the best job in racing.  Who has it?

Dah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah ... nah, nah, nah, nah, NAH ... nanahnanahna.  (That's the Jeopardy "final answer" jingle.)  OK, pencils down.  Let's see if your choice is better than mine!

***************************************************************************************

In Donna Brother's excellent entry in HP Magazine's exceptional 2006 Breeders' Cup issue, she makes the following observation v. this Saturday's upcoming Breeders' Cup: "... for whatever reason, CD's track traditionally is quite speedy on big days." 

The optimum words in her most astute observation, to be sure, are "for whatever reason!"  Consider this.

I was in Kentucky in 2001 for the Oaks and the Derby.  On Oaks Day, the track was perfectly normal.  Running times were no different than they had been throughout the week.  The next day, 20+ year-old track records (!) were broken in each of the first two races and a third was tied later on, also in an early race on the card.  In Sunday's Louisville Courier coverage of Derby Day racing, Track Superintendent Butch Lehr was questioned by the press about the dramatic change in the racing surface.  His exact quote was, "The track was watered heavily in the morning because of high heat and humidity.  No doubt that helped horses grab hold of the surface and run faster than normal."

I remember reading Lehr's comment that morning at breakfast and chuckling out loud.  One of my late dad's all-time favorite observations in a lifetime filled with astute (and almost always jaded) observations about the game, was his unwavering belief that the single best job in all of racing belonged to:  (drum roll, maestro) the guy who sets-up the race track in the morning!  The Track Superintendent!

After reading this, I rather think you might agree.

With the advent of Polytrack, I find myself thinking more and more these days of the once glorious, now defunct Hialeah Race Course.  Virtually every retrospective written on its storied history will include some reference to its stellar safety record, and several flat-out will label it "the safest track in racing history."  As conventional dirt surfaces go, statistically it was; and horsemen loved it for that reason.  Only after it had been shut down for years did we learn why; and, as well, why it had the most pronounced "outside" bias of any racetrack in recorded history.  When I say "bias," I mean - and my hand to the Lord, I am not making this up - for the entire last half of its last season, all you had to do in an 8-horse sprint race was box the 5, 6, 7, and 8, then go stand in the cashier's line. 

Before I tell you why, can anyone figure it out on his own?  Here's a quick visual.  Picture yourself driving down Ocean Blvd. with the Atlantic Ocean just outside your car window.  Or the Pacific Coast Highway, with the Pacific Ocean alongside.  Now get on your trusty tractor, and start moving dirt!  Lots of dirt.  From the outside of the track, to the inside of the track.  When you're done, lanes 1-5 should resemble that beautiful white sand beach in your side view mirror.  Lanes 6-12 should resemble the blacktop on which you're driving.  Got it?  Voila!  You just graduated from Track Superintendent school, Hialeah-style! 

And it was brilliant, too.  Whenever the horses turned for home, however many horses there were in the field, that's how many lanes they would fan-out.  Clipping heels?  Impossible!  Bumping?  Couldn't happen.  There NEVER was any congestion at the top of the lane.  Forget the proverbial cavalry charge.  Every race more resembled a Radio City Music Hall Rockettes recital!  And because there was no traffic congestion whatsoever, "pilot-induced" problems on that track virtually were non-existent.  Spills never occurred.

However, there was a slight glitch in the surface - and a huge tip-off to its set-up -- that for years was couched in the press by John Brunetti and his sons as "a minor imperfection in the drainage system."  Whenever it rained really hard, all the puddling occurred smack-dab in the middle of the racetrack!  It was the damndest thing you ever saw.  The inside of the track would be slightly moist to relatively dry, while the center lanes would resemble street flooding.  And because the rains made the inside of the track even slower - in fact, like quicksand - the jocks would aim for those puddles turning for home like kids out of school after a torrential downpour.  Looking back, it really is quite funny.  And while no Track Superintendent ever could get away today with what Hialeah did back in the late 80's - not even for safety reasons -- the extent to which they can alter a racing surface in the morning is staggering to contemplate.  Alter, that is, totally imperceptibly!  You need simply read Butch Lear's comment following the 2001 Derby. 

How many folks besides Lehr, do you think, were aware that "the track had been heavily watered that morning because of the high heat and humidity?"  Betcha didn't see that piece of information anywhere on the tote board!  And even if you had, would you have known that watering the track heavily "would make the horses grab hold of the surface better, and run faster than normal?"  That said, if you HAD BEEN PRIVY to that marvelous information, and did understand what its effects would be that afternoon, how do you think you might have bet the first few races that day?  Think maybe you would have favored early lick?  Front speed?  Clear lead?  Say ... perhaps ... with a small suitcase full of cash?

Then think of all the variations on just that one, simple nuance of which you now are aware that can be applied to change the dynamics of a racing surface! 

Mind you, this is purely hypothetical.  I'm not suggesting Track Superintendents actually do this sort of thing.  I'm merely throwing it out there for contemplation!

It's 10:00 am at your local, hometown track.  For days the heat and humidity have been oppressive.  On track are your TS and his crew.  Everyone else is busy going about his normal chores on race day.  Out comes the water truck, and your TS instructs the operator to "heavily water the track."  The driver makes one complete pass around the track, drenching lanes 1-3, after which your TS shuts him down.  He ... ummmm ... changed his mind!  He ... ummmm ... wants to monitor its effects for the "big weekend!"  He ... ummmm ... thinks the rest of the track looks fine.  Whatever.  Is the Driver going to question the TS?  Report him to anyone?  The TS signs his paycheck!  Helloooooooooooo!

Then the TS goes home, has a nice lunch, heads to the bank, and returns to the track, knowing he just buried every horse in the first 4-5 races, or until the track dries out, that isn't on or near the lead in the 1-3 paths.  You know?  The ones that aren't "grabbing hold of the surface better, and running faster than normal."  Whadda ya think, racing fans?  Think maybe he might have a slight edge on his pari-mutual competitors that afternoon?

One nuance, folks.  One, simple variation.  How many others are there?  How many other subtle ways are there, do you suppose, for an experienced track superintendent to alter a racing surface in the morning?  To help some horses, while virtually eliminating others?  Imperceptibly!  Three?  Five?  Fifty?  Who knows?  And who are you going to ask?  Your local Track Superintendent?  Good luck!  When was the last time they offered one of THOSE breakfast seminars at your local, hometown race track?  Better still, try requesting one sometime, and see what kind of response you get!

DOINK!

Remember that question I asked earlier? Well, the next time you're at the track and hear some high fallutin' handicapper holding court about a "track bias" he's perceived; or hear Steven Crist or Dave Litfin or Dan Illman on the radio warning everyone about a certain track's "dead railing," I want you to picture a lone figure sitting on a beach basking in a breath-taking sunset ... a frosty cold raspberry and key lime daiquiri in one hand, and a Racing Form in the other.  On one side is a huge platter of Alaskan King crab legs with drawn butter and lemon.  On the other, perhaps a mountain of ice-cold, cracked, jumbo stone-crab claws.  Now, picture a small XM SkyFi portable radio sitting in the sand beside him, tuned-in to Mr. Crist, or Mr. Litfin, or Mr. Illman.

That lone figure on the beach?  The one sipping the cocktail in your virtual nirvana?  The one laughing his ass off at the radio?  That, folks, would be your Track Superintendent! 

You know.  The guy with the best job in racing!

Octave-the-Rave

Just hung-up with my brother.  All Breeders' Cup horses have departed Keeneland as of this morning for Churchill Downs.  All final works, gallops, etc. will be @ CD for the remainder of the week, so Mike Welch will be our guy, and folks, he really is terrific.  A quick heads-up.  He knows every trainer of every horse, and all read what he writes.  If a horse is jumping out of his skin and looks spectacular, he'll say as much in spades.  However, he typically is extremely guarded in the language he uses to describe horses that do not look good in the morning, for obvious reasons.  Often, you have to read between the lines of his observations, but there's one thing about his observations you can take to the bank: they're always spot-on.  For this year's Derby, he all but told everyone within ear-shot that Barbaro looked unbeatable; that Bluegrass Cat was jumping-out of his skin; and that Baffert's horses, collectively, were "unimpressive."  Over the next five days, no fewer than 50 "experts" will be chiming-in with their opinions into the Breeders' Cup.  Do with them as you will.  Just keep in mind they are exactly that: opinions, and we all know what they say about opinions!  Mike Welch does not provide opinion; he provides INSIGHT; and his insights, in my opinion (!), not only are invaluable, they should be weighed very heavily into your final wagering decisions on Saturday.

Octave-the-Rave

Oh well, it sure seemed like a good idea when I wrote it this morning.  Just back from a day @ Calder where we spent the day observing/betting the Churchill card, and conversing with lots of folks on track @ Keeneland, including my brother and Mike Stidham, who had quite an eventful day today.  Bottom line re the previous is this: they ALL figured it out, and a couple of weeks ago, at that.  Once they did, the whole complexion in the morning changed.  The horses who were doing 4F maintenance works are now doing 5F; the 5F's are working 6F's; the sixes are working seven, and so on.  Moreover, even though the clock may be stopping at 4F or 5F for the official work tab, the gallop-outs, according to my brother, are at 75%-80% of full throttle.  No doubt we'll be hearing more about this throughout the week from the various websites/news outlets covering the Keeneland-stabled BC entrants.  Plus, most of the horses who have been working exclusively at Keeneland that ran today at CD did extremely well, whether they had a previous race over the track or not, including several winners.  So, from all indications, there should be no "short" horses coming over to CD from Keeneland on BC Day. 

Still, I'll be watching the early races on Cup Day extremely carefully, especially the babies.  I, for one, won't be the least bit surprised if the Polytrack babies going 2-turns aren't struggling through CD's lane late.  If they are ...

Octave-the-Rave

UPDATE MONDAY MORNING:  Marcus Hersh is doing the Keeneland workout reports for the week for the DRF.  While he is no Mike Welsh (no one is as good), his report of yesterday's activity mirrors the above copy.  Hopefully, he will inform us as well throughout the week who's galloping miles between scheduled works.

As you know, my brother is a clocker at Keeneland.  Two days before the meet, he called with a couple of observations that, so far, have been spot-on.  The first was the universal difference he's observed in turf horses on Polytrack as opposed to dirt v. their workouts.  In his words, "the difference is like night and day."  His conclusion was as follows: a horse with confirmed turf form will transfer that form to Polytrack with little or no drop-off. 

The Big Blog Pages - October 10, 2006

*****************************************************************************************

It would have been nice had the above observation my brother gleaned, and that I shared with all early in the Keeneland meet, had not become so obvious, so quickly.  Still, it proved to be one of few reliable angles in a meet filled with unpredictable outcomes.  Now that the meet has concluded, there are even more valuable lessons to be contemplated that could prove enormously beneficial over the next few weeks, including one that could turn this Saturday's Breeders' Cup upside down!

If you followed Keeneland's meet closely, you already are aware that horses improved dramatically in their second race over the surface.  That is not all-that-unusual for any meet.  In fact, it was one of TQ's best angles during the recently completed Del Mar session.  However, the reason for it is vastly different from all other tracks, and very well could make this Saturday a day like no other in history.

On Saturday morning, Dallas Stewart vanned 17 horses 70 miles from Churchill Downs to Keeneland, including Lemons Forever, just to take advantage of Polytrack's "forgiving" surface. Many other Breeders' Cup entrants are doing their final conditioning exclusively at Keeneland, on Polytrack. 

All could be setting themselves up for disaster come Saturday.  Here's why.

While there no longer is a shard of doubt or question that Polytrack is infinitely kinder v. the normal aches and pains in feet, knees, joints, and muscles that typically accompany target-conditioning on dirt -- and that horses and horsemen love it for that very reason -- it also has a perfectly logical drawback v. cardiovascular conditioning.  Because horses do not exert themselves when working on Polytrack nearly to the extent they do on dirt, they do not derive the same cardiovascular benefits.  Common sense would tell you that, even if it didn't prove itself repeatedly throughout the recently completed Keeneland meet.

Certainly the racing surface had something to do with the reason why speed was "death" @ Keeneland.  Not everything.  A huge factor was that speed horses working on that track were getting nothing out of those works in terms of cardiovascular conditioning.  That's why many were stopping like they'd been shot.  Moreover, if you go back and look at virtually every horse that won or improved dramatically in his second trip over the surface, you'll find that every one came-up short his first time out.

Now, if all came-up short after working on Polytrack in their first race back on Polytrack, how do you think that might bode for horses doing extensive conditioning on Polytrack - and in some cases exclusive conditioning -- in their first race thereafter on dirt, when they'll have to exert themselves to an even greater degree?  Should they not come-up even shorter?

Folks, if I'm right - and I have common sense and Keeneland's overwhelming statistical evidence on my side -- this could be one of the greatest angles in Breeders' Cup history.  It seems to me entirely likely that every horse working exclusively on Keeneland's Polytrack surface who hasn't run in the past 30 days will come-up short on BC Day!  For sure, we all will want to pay extremely close attention this week to Mike Welsh to see which horses @ Keeneland are galloping miles on the days leading-up to the Cup, as Barbaro did leading-up to his astonishing Derby victory, and why he looked like he easily could go around again during the gallop-out.  Without these long, routine gallops designed strictly for cardiovascular conditioning, these Polytrack horses seem to me a lead-pipe cinch to come-up short on CD's unusually long stretch.  I know that's a huge limb to traverse, but ours is a game more than any in existence that rewards the application of lessons learned, and this particular lesson is screaming at us from a mountain top!

Still, the BC is a week away.  There are lessons learned from Keeneland to be applied starting today.  Unfortunately, every wise guy on the planet is lathered in anticipation of horses that made the lead at Keeneland and came-up short as sure "follows." We'll know soon enough.  The very first entry of CD's fall meet today, the one horse in the first race, is just such a horse.  He's 10-1 in the morning line.  My guess is he'll open at 6/5!  Despite how horrendous his race looks on paper, we now all know his perfectly logical, common sense excuse for that poor performance.  Hopefully, it will escape the public long enough for us to make a few bucks on these type horses, although it's extremely unlikely.

Finally, if you did your stable mail religiously during Keeneland, then it should be loaded with these type horses.  Where you certainly will benefit is on horses whose next race is out of the states of Kentucky and New York, beyond the realm of the wise guys, and where this angle will not be as well known.

Octave-the-Rave

Following Japanese champion Deep Impact's positive test for a banned substance in the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe, Masayuki Takahashi, president of the Japan Racing Association, issued the following statement:  "I would like to say to all racing fans how immensely saddened I am by this news ... and that I intend to punish without mercy anyone caught using prohibited substances anywhere in the world."

Daily Racing Form, October 23, 2006

*****************************************************************************************

Stand by.  Quiet on the set.  Three, two, one.  Open mike.  Cue talent.  And ... action!

Hello, again, racing fans and welcome to another edition of Trainer Speak.  I'm your host Octave-the-Rave and, folks, we're moving away from the regular format tonight to bring you a candid conversation with one of the most influential figures in the game today, Mr. Masayuki Takahashi.  For those who don't recognize the name, Mr. Takahashi is the new President of the Japan Racing Association, and the game's most powerful figure in a country as rabid about our sport as any on earth.  He's also an old friend I first met 30 years ago when he was attending graduate school at Tulane, and we're in the process of calling him now at his home in Tokyo.  While we do, I should caution everyone that Mr. Takahashi's background is steeped in traditional Japanese values.  In fact, his ancestors were among the original Emishi, forbearers even to the legendary Samurai warriors, so don't be surprised tonight if some of what Mr. Takahashi says, and how he thinks the game should be run, shocks you.  For sure, they do things different over there and ... he's on? ... he's on the line? ...  OK, I'm being told we have a connection now ...

Rave:  Takahashi-son?

Taka:  Sogyantai.  O'tave-son?

Rave:  Hai.  Takahashi-son, konichiwa.  Welcome to the show.

Taka:  Rave, wuzzup dawg?  Howzit in Florida?

Rave:  Yuki, you shifty sumbich, head of the JRA!  I couldn't believe it!  How'd you pull that off?

Taka:  Kicken' ass and takin' names, dawg.

Rave:  Speaking of which, we just read about the Deep Impact scandal over here.  Unbelievable.  Your country's greatest horse caught with a banned substance!  You musta flipped out?

Taka:  Hai, it's been a nightmare.  Wait ‘til you hear the best part.  We had the hearing this week, right?  Get this:  they claimed it was something in the water!  Howzat, homes?  Like it was the Arc de friggen' Mexico! 

Rave:  Yuki, I know that temper.   What are you thinking about doing?

Taka:  Me, I wanted to hang them (bleep) ‘ers on Japan Cup Day.  You know, right in the middle of the infield before the big race, only our lawyers thought it would offend the female patrons.  Can you believe that s**t?  Can't even hang a mutha (bleep) anymore without offending some liberal.

Rave:  So what'd you decide?

Taka:  (Bleep) it, I shot ‘em.  Not bad.  Just knee-capped ‘em.  They'll be up and around in a few months.

Rave:  Yuki, buddy, I gotta ask ya ...

Taka:  Rave, don't start-in with me again on the Smarty s**t, OK?  Whadda want from me here?  I had a deal cut with those Lemonade people for Alex and pulled the plug as a personal favor.  I'm tellin' you, those Shadai boys have Euros in their stool.  Money means nothing to them.  It's done.  Smarty's already vetted-out.  I saw the wire transfer.  He'll be here next month.  Besides, like I'm ever gonna step foot in Philadelphia again?  Have you been to that s**thole?

Rave:  Yuki, I'm getting the "rap-up" signal here.  Give us your best bet on Breeders' Cup Day.

Taka:  Sai wa?  I already bet five dimes on Octave with the Yamamoto brothers.  That filly better win or I'll be knee-capping you, you mutha (disconnect)

***************************************************************************************

OK, that about raps it up this week for Trainer Speak.  I'd like to thank our special guest Masayuki Takahashi for some keen insights into drug infractions in Japan, and remind every one to join us again next Friday night on the eve of the Breeders' Cup when noted seer Madame Q puts us in touch with the spirits of Pete Axthelm and Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder for their exclusive Cup Day analysis.  You won't want to miss it.  This is Octave-the-Rave saying, "'Until next time, may all my photo finishes be winning ones."

Stand by.  Cue music.  Close mike.  And ... that's a rap!

Octave-the-Rave

This time next week is the deadline for final decisions on where horses like Gorella, GW, and Dylan Thomas will run.  After that, official post positions will be drawn.  Almost immediately after that, one of the more bizarre phenomena in racing will take center stage.  If you were not already aware of it, you truly will be amazed. First, does anyone know the answer to the geometric riddle contained in the headline?  Here's a hint:

"My only concern was I didn't want Post 1," said Tom Albertrani, trainer of Bernardini. "I wanted to be outside ..."

The longer I'm around racing, the more convinced I become the answer is "the distance between the left ear drum and right ear drum of the modern-day thoroughbred trainer!" 

Will someone please tell me on what alien space craft I was being violated when the official announcement came declaring the inside-draw racing's "black hole of doom?"  It is unbelievable to me how often we hear or read these days where a trainer is quoted as saying what a bad break he got by drawing inside!  Mind you, Tom Albertrani said it to a DRF reporter with a tape recorder in hand about a 4-horse field.

A 4-HORSE FIELD!!!!  Does that not tell you just how pervasive this thinking has become?

The only race in America where that mentality has any merit is the Kentucky Derby, where the one-hole is positioned directly in line with the track railing!  It IS the black-hole of doom.  The Kentucky Derby aside, the litany of statistical and scientific evidence pointing-out the flaws in this "I'd rather be outside" mentality is overwhelming.  Here are just a few examples:

1) The Simple Math - As everyone learned in geometry, concentric circles are those that share the same center.  Draw a small circle, then a larger one around it, and you will have two concentric circles.  No matter how many you draw, the first one always will have the shortest circumference, i.e., the shortest distance to travel around the entire circle.  That's exactly the same principle on every racing oval in North America.  If you think of post positions as concentric circles, the horse that starts on the wood and stays there always has the shortest distance to run to the wire.  That is an inarguable, mathematical fact!

2)  The Statistics - Here are some 2006 stats on races won by percentage of post positions at five tracks whose names you will recognize, and whose meets already have concluded, or are about to: 

  TRACK                     SPRINTS/POST 1-3       2-TURNS/POST 1-3

CD (Spring)                    63%                                 66%

Keeneland (Spring)          69%                                67%

Saratoga                         64%                                52%                                        

Gulfstream                      48%                                59%

Belmont                          62%                                60%

3) The Bailey Principle - This is the one that truly astonishes.  Do you think the words, "I'd rather be parked outside," or anything close to them, ever once slimed from the lips of Arcaro, Hartack, Shoemaker, Cordero, Baeza, McCarron, Pat Day, or Jerry "It's me, get your ass off my railing" Bailey?  And despite repeated speculation on here, I for one absolutely refuse to believe that today's modern riders have neither the spine for the wood, nor the skills to ride covered-up and exploit down the lane the "shortest distance between two points" advantage of an inside draw, as so many racing folks today believe.  Instead, I think it's the trainer who routinely cautions his rider about "getting trapped inside;" would prefer him to be 12-wide instead; and that today's American riders simply have adopted that style to appease today's trainer colony.

Purely from a wagering standpoint, the most crucial flaw in this "outside mentality" is not so obvious, and is best understood v. a simple visual.  Picture, if you will, a golf ball attached to the end of a 2" long piece of cord.  Imagine twirling the ball as fast as you can in a circle, then hitting yourself in the head!  Will you get a bump?  Maybe a tiny one.  Now, imagine that same golf ball attached to a 12" long piece of cord, twirling that ball over your head as fast as you can, and hitting your cranky-ass neighbor in the head.  You know what you'll get?  Eight-to-15 for negligent homicide, depending on priors! 

The difference in the two is energy, and the scientific principle at work is "G force."  That identical principle applies to race horses, only in reverse.  The same energy you create by twirling a ball from a 2", 4", 8", and 12" piece of the cord is the comparative energy it takes out of a horse to circle rivals while turning in the 2-path, 4-path, 8-path, and 12-path.  And even though they may not know and/or could care less about the principle, I guarantee if you ask 100 astute handicappers whether when turning for home they'd rather have their steed glued to the wood with a ton of horse and tucked-in behind other horses, or flailing away 6-10 wide on the turn, 95 out of 100 - on a fair racing surface and barring a distinct outside bias -- will take the wood scenario.

Not trainers.  They want no part of that plan ... ever ... on any race track, regardless of bias.  Not anymore, anyway, and therein lies the great mystery.  I can assure you this "black-hole of doom" inside mentality is a relatively new phenomenon that simply did not exist as recently as 8-10 years ago.  Moreover, I have no idea who started it, how it got started, or even what the basis was for its origin, since the statistical evidence overwhelmingly refutes it year after year after year.  Nonetheless, it has become totally ingrained in the thinking of almost every contemporary thoroughbred trainer.  And because it has, it has carried-over into the thinking of virtually every one of today's contemporary public handicappers and so-called "experts."

If you weren't aware of it before, pay attention in the days leading-up to the Breeders' Cup.  You truly will be astonished after post positions have been drawn how many times you will hear a BC trainer or read a public handicapper lament the inside draw, and/or herald the outside draw, of a BC participant in total deference to simple math, science, and hard-core statistics. 

Octave-the-Rave

After reading the various BC wagering strategies on here - some of which I enjoyed and absorbed; others I wouldn't follow with Monopoly money - I wanted to share some perspective on a huge factor on BC Day that surprisingly has been completely overlooked: the P6 ticket.

As I have mentioned in previous blogs, 15 years ago a bunch of us (5-7 each year) got together to pool our resources and opinions in a wagering strategy that today has become known as a "Syndicate."  I'm not crazy about the term, nor should you be confused when reading it, as you will often in the days ahead.  A "syndicate" is nothing more than "two or more folks pooling their resources," and its merits on Cup Day are considerable, starting with the "fun" factor.  There's nothing in our sport that even comes close to being live going into the Classic on the P6 ticket on Cup Day.  Fuggedaboutit. Nada.  Zip.  Zero.  It's the pinnacle of heart pounding in our game.

From a personal standpoint, I'd wager that our group owns a distinction shared by no other syndicate in BC history.  We have the rare distinction not only of hitting it two years in a row on the same horse - Tiznow - but also missing it two years in a row on the same horse - Da Hoss, or Bucky F*****g Da Hoss, as we have lobbied the Jockey's Club repeatedly for an official name change!  The second year, he was our final, final - didja get that: FINAL - horse left off the ticket, which is why we "love" him so much!

There's still plenty of time to put yours together, if you haven't already.  I promise, the "fun" factor in the process is without peer, from the handicapping on Friday and all the screaming and hollering, to the play-out on Cup Day.  We have the handicapping portion pretty much down to a science.  It has worked well for us, so I thought I'd share the process with you.

************************************************************************************

STEP 1 - The first step is the elimination round.  We quickly go through all six races.  Any "in" vote keeps the horse in play.  All others are eliminated.

STEP 2 -  Next comes the second round of eliminations.  This is a more in-depth discussion, race by race, of why we think a horse belongs on the ticket.  This is the opportunity for strong opinions v. non-obvious horses, and all strong opinions are honored, and the horse moves on, even if only one holds that opinion, and the rest disagree.

STEP 3 - We have created a simple "points" sheet that we fill-in v. secret ballot.  It takes 5 minutes.  Top 3 choices in each race are assigned point values of 5, 3, and 1.  In addition, Top 3 choices for the entire day v. the P6 races are assigned a bonus value of 5 points each.  (Note: If you love a horse and think he should be a single, put him in the "5" point race slot and the "5" point bonus slot, and leave 2^nd and 3^rd in that race blank!  That way, you do not support someone else's choice that you really don't want to use.)

STEP 4 - Points are added and totaled on a "cum" sheet (pronounced quum, as in cumulative, for you sickos) that we also have put together.  If there are five participants, the max total for any one horse is 50 (5 for first + 5 bonus = 10 x 5 participants = 50 points).  Here's where the final shape of the ticket starts coming into view.  For example, if a horse ... say ... in the BC Turf scores 42 points, and the next highest in that race scores 7, that's clearly a "single." Conversely, we often have races where the top point getter scores 15, and there are four-six others bunched between 10-14.  Clearly a race with no strong opinion, and where we'll go deep.

STEP 5 -  The first run through on the final ticket.  Again, we have put a sheet together that looks similar to a P6 betting ticket, only much more in depth.  (You'll need a bunch of these worksheets, since the first several will be run-thrus.)  It includes the six cup races in order of event; the numbers 1 - 14; a final column on the end with a "X" (times) box in races 2-6; and a final "X $2" (times $2) box at the bottom of the final column.  Very often, the first run through looks like this: 5 x 5 x 5 x 1 x 3 x 4 =  1,500 x $2 = $3,000!  Oooooooooops!  Time to get serious.

STEP 6 - We might invest $3,000 total at the end, but NEVER, repeat NEVER, on one ticket.  The goal should be a MASTER ticket representative of the best numbers and strongest opinions, and at least one other, if not two, back-up smaller tickets, covering strong individual opinions on higher odd horses, assuming of course the opinion is solid and worthy of support.

STEP 7 - Once the master and smaller tickets have been put together, the final step is determining what percentage of the total each wishes to assume, and there's a box on our "Master Worksheet" for noting same.  Don't worry if you have 10% - 15% of the ticket uncovered.  There's always folks you can call or who will be at the track early who did no work, want in on the action, and will be more than willing to buy the final piece(s).  Ideally, the person hosting the handicapping seminar should have a copier, or a fax machine that copies, so all can get a copy of the final tickets that night.  Most important, make sure the final tickets are clean, without mistakes in math, etc., and that the "money guy" (see STEP 8) gets the correct information.

STEP 8 - Having a designee within the group to handle the money, ticket writing, ticket holding, ticket cashing, pay-outs, etc.  One guy, and only one guy, and everyone else stays out of the process and enjoys the day.  (You'll know the guy in the group.  I promise!!!) 

STEP 9 - Taxes.  Make sure before you do this that all participants are aware of the possible tax implications, and that all bases are covered in this regard to preclude problems after the fact.  The good news is, it's the one problem you should hope to have every year!

Finally, if you want copies of our points sheet, cum sheet, and P6 ticket worksheets, send a blank e-mail to: [email protected], and I'll include them as an attachment to the return e-mail.

Good handicapping.

Octave-the-Rave

As I've stated previously, I think The Big Blog pages will become a fixture on the HP website, and in time one of its anchor links.  Assuming I'm correct, one thing I would encourage JP and crew to do when they look back over the entire body of work for Freshman Year - 2006, and in all years here forward, would be to put together a year-end list of the most controversial, most debated, and/or most discussed topics throughout that particular year.  Not only will it serve as a barometer for what was happening in our sport 5, 15, 30 years hence, it will be interesting to look back and see what, if anything, our sport did about these controversial topics.

With only two months remaining in 2006, I have no doubt the #1 Topic on the list for 2006 will be "Disqualifications."  Even before the Nicole's Dream fiasco, there was plenty of discontent with the process expressed here on The BB Pages.  I don't know anyone in the game who doesn't think it has become a giant fiasco.  When you consider that this is the only variable in our game with the ability to alter not only the actual order of finish of the contestants, but also the fate of its pari-mutual participants, it seems to me inconceivable that there remains nothing remotely resembling a uniform code of standards.  Inconceivable.  I thought that even before yesterday, but what happened yesterday - for me, anyway -- was nothing short of historic.  I'm sure it's happened before.  I honestly can't recall ever seeing it.

In Keeneland's last race yesterday, one of the regulars at The Kennel Club not in our group who is a maniac bettor and an horrendous handicapper - and I can say that without worry since I know for a fact he can't turn-on a computer without frying the cat - was holding what appeared to be a nice trifecta ticket.  He wheeled the 4/5 shot 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd with four other horses; caught the favorite in the show spot; and clocked a 15-1 shot on top.  Probably a $350-$500 mutual.  Now, get this.  After all the riders had weighed-out and were proceeding back to the jock's room, the "Inquiry" sign lit-up against the favorite who finished third, followed by an announcement that the trainer of the 4^th place finisher had lodged an objection!  Even though the replay showed what appeared to be substantial interference at the 16^th pole, everybody at the track - and I mean everybody - was reassuring him that he had nothing to worry about.  That no trainer objection in racing history ever had been upheld.

DOINK!

Forget his misfortune.  There's a more pressing question at play here, namely: should anyone other than a jock be allowed to claim foul?  This is an intriguing question.  For starters, no trainer of sound mind ever would do this to a John Valasquez, Edgar Prado, Garrett Gomez, or Rafeal Bejarano.  They might insist that such a rider claim foul after consultation, but they wouldn't dream of showing-up one of these top-flight riders as this trainer did yesterday to Orlando Mojica.  It just NEVER would happen.  So, does that not automatically subject this nuance in the process to a huge double standard?  Of course, it does.  From that stand-point alone, I believe trainers should not be allowed into this process.  More telling, allowing trainers into this process necessarily calls into question the integrity of the game.  Even an apprentice rider with fewer than 10 mounts knows when he's been interfered with.  Why then would a jock who clearly was the victim of interference not claim foul?  Oh, there are lots of reasons, and we know most of them.  Friendship and respect are the two most prevalent, and they've been around for decades.  The third is the ominous one: the pari-mutuals.  Most jockeys bet, and not always on their own mounts.  Even those who don't occasionally will have bets placed for them.  Not all the time, and certainly not every mount, but who's to say when that dynamic is in play?  Since there's no way of knowing, the semblance of impropriety always must be taken into account v. claims of foul.  And because it must, then giving trainers the right to claim foul does afford them a measure of protection against a pre-determined outcome when they're on the short end of that ugly stick, so maybe this is a good thing after all.

I know how every trainer thinks on this issue.  They all want the right to claim foul.  I have no clue how the avid fan thinks on this issue, mainly because I'm not sure how I think, since it appears to have both good points and bad, and doubtless some I haven't even considered. Anyone care to hallucidate!!!

Finally - per Jeremy's request -- here's my only no-brainer wagering strategy for Kentucky Derby Day and Breeders' Cup Day, based on a most unique and inarguable scenario.  These are the only days of the year when $2 bettors become $5 bettors; $5's become $10; $10's become $20; $20's become $40; $50's become $100, and so on.  That's a fact.  Ninety percent of them are stuck every day of the week anyway going into the race last, right?  Well, on BC Day and Derby Day, they're stuck and hemorrhaging, and all looking to pull the rip-cord on some bombs!  Ergo, don't even think about.  Before you even handicap the last race, just go to the window and make a 3-horse exacta box with the three favorites.  It is astonishing.  Normal $20 exactas with the favorites 1-2 will pay $40.  Catch the third choice on top and the second choice second, and a normal $40 exacta on Derby or Cup Day will pay $80.  The value alone makes it a no-brainer.

Octave-the-Rave

Bill Mott captured his fourth consecutive training title and Frank Passero, Jr., second in the standings, set a North American record by saddling 14 consecutive winners, shattering the old mark of nine.

Gulfstream Park Season Recap - 1996

************************************************************************

Stand by.  Quiet on the set.  Three, two, one.  Open mike.  Cue talent.  And ... action!

Hello again racing fans and welcome to another edition of Trainer Speak.  I'm your host Octave-the-Rave and, folks, what a show we have for you tonight with a rare and landmark appearance by legendary Canadian conditioner Frank Passero, Jr.  It's been almost 10 years since Passero shocked the racing world by saddling 14 straight winners at Gulfstream Park, then admitting publicly he rubbed a Tabasco-laced product called Pepper Jack on his horses' genitals.  Their ... um ... private parts!  When Passero was called into a special hearing, most racing folks assumed he was finished.  Done for good. Instead, he walked away Scott free, exonerated of all wrong doing.  For 10 years now, the transcript of that secret meeting has been filed-away under lock and key and no one, not even Passero himself, ever has spoken publicly about what went on that day ... until now.  That's right, folks, tonite ... right here on Trainer Speak ... for the first time ever ... we're about to unravel one of the great mysteries in racing history, and here to do just that is none other than the man himself, Frank Passero, Jr., who joins us live in the studio.

Rave:  Mr. P., it's a real honor having you here tonite.

Passero:  Damn, Rave, ain't you got no air conditionin' in this dump?  My nuts are on fire.

Rave:  Oh, geez Frank, yeah, sure, I'm sorry ...

Passero:  Relax.  It's a joke.  Get it?  My nuts are on fire?

Rave:  Oh, right, right.  Good one, Frank.  Listen, why don't I just turn things over to you and you can tell our listeners in your own words exactly what happened in that fateful meeting 10 years ago.

Passero:  Sure.  OK.  Well  ... see ... the problem was with this bitch ... sorry, with this broad from the Humane Society named Gladys Dent see, and this Dent woman's carrying-on like a (bleep) maniac about what I done was cruel and inhumane and how I was torturing the (bleep) horses and how they was sufferin and all like she was on (bleep) Oprah, you undastand, only while she's carrying-on, she ain't payin me no never mind, OK, so when I'm sure she ain't lookin, I pepper-up.

Rave:  How's that?  You did what?

Passero: Yeah, well, the judge tells my attorney he wants to see a sample of the stuff, right?  Only my attorney brings in this giant bowl fulla peppa-jack and puts it right on the table where the babe's ranting and when she turns her back, I walked-up and plopped my boyz right in the bowl.

Rave:  No way!  You're jokin? You mean ...

Passero:  Sure, plopped my nuts right in the Jack.  I'm telling you it ain't bad.  Sorta makes ‘em tingle, you know whadda mean?  Look here, I brought some along.  You wanna try it?  Come on, stand up ...

Rave: Nooooooooooooooooooooooo, no thanks.  Really, Frank, thanks, maybe next time, OK?  So ... so ... then what?

Passero: Well, then my attorney challenges this Dent woman to do the same thing.

Rave:  Scuze me?

Passero:  Yeah, sure, my lawyer says to her, "You wanna find out it ain't no big deal?  Come on, lady, putcha money where your bingo card is!"

Rave:  Oh my Lord, Frank, you're not telling us ...

Passero:  Nah, nah, she crapped out.  Instead, she put some on her finger and licked it, and yeah her eyes got a little wet and she drank a buncha water, but ... but ... she didn't spit, see, she didn't spit, and when she didn't spit, that was it.

Rave: I ... I don't understand?  Whadda ya mean?

Passero:  Well, you know, it was like my lawyer told the Judge: "If the bitch don't spit, you must acquit." (Kill guest mike)

************************************************************************

OK, that about raps it up for another edition of Trainer Speak.  I'd like to thank our special guest Frank ... Frank, what are you doing, Frank?  No, no, seriously Frank, I'm not interested ... no ... no (bleep) way ... Frank, I'm telling you, get that s**t away from me ...

Stand by.  Cue music.  Close mike.  And ... that's a rap!

Octave-the-Rave

Wow, I just finished reading Mall's take on "Bad Beats."  It is an outstanding piece of writing and a must read that broaches new and extremely important territory here on the Big Blog pages.  If you haven't read it already, go now and read it.  Slowly.  When done, come back here.  I have another perspective to share with you.

For 28 miserable, losing years, I was only and exactly the person about whom Mall writes in his blog.  Every bad beat put me on tilt.  For the next three races, all I wanted to talk about was the bad ride, the bolted horse, or the rail jumper, and how much my bad luck had cost me.  Two, three days later, I found myself still thinking about it when handicapping.  And sure enough, in late 2001, I had a series of bad beats so inexplicable and devastating that I walked away from the game - not for a week, but for nearly four months!

During my hiatus, I started watching poker on TV.  Two players in particular caught my eye.  The first was Phil Hellmuth.  Within 10 minutes, I loathed the lad.  Insufferable, whining, crude, crass, condescending, ego-maniacal cry-baby who - despite being one of the best players in the world -always was one bad beat away from having his brain turn to s**t.

The other was this goofy-looking little Canadian kid named Daniel Negraneau. He was the complete antithesis of Hellmuth - funny, charming, friendly, but a terrific player with a phenomenal instinct for the game.  One day I'm watching Negraneau at a final table in a big event.  He's holding his own, about mid-pack of eight, when he picks-up pocket aces.  One of the shorter stacks picks-up pocket sixes in front of him, raises, and Negraneau calls, choosing to slow-play his aces.  The flop come A, 6, 2!  The trip 6's bets, and again Negraneau calls.  Fourth street comes a blank, and both players check!  Fifth street comes another six, giving Negraneau aces full, and his opponent quads.  Is this about to be an horrendous bad beat, or wot?  The quads bet, Negraneau makes a nominal raise in an amount he's hoping he can suck out of his opponent with his "nut" aces full, and of course the quads come over the top all-in.  Now listen to this, OK?  Negraneau hesitates ... sits back ... replays the hand in his head ... leans forward ... and says, "You made four sixes, didn't you?"  I almost fell off the couch.  He's actually contemplating laying-down aces full, despite the fact that he can cover the all-in and still have a few bullets left.  After a long delay, he says, "OK, I call, show ‘em to me!"  Bang!  Horrendous beat!  Hellmuth would have turned the place into a friggen' bowling alley.  You know what Negraneau said?  "Hey, I knew you had quads, didn't I?  I'm thinking good tonite.  I'm thinking good.  That's good."

I remember thinking at the time "this kid is off the charts.  This kid's gonna be the best there ever was."  Sure enough, he went to win the event that night after that horrendous beat, and after being the short-stack of eight.  Today, he is one of the game's most successful players, and one of its most admired.  Hellmuth, by contrast, is still its biggest a**hole.

Here's the point, and it is absolutely critical in our pursuit.  In his blog, Mall suggests there are two ways, or rather two ways of which he is aware, to handle a bad beat: walk away for a week, or take a deep breath and remain stoic.  Both are a cave-in to stinkin' thinkin'.  Both play directly into the hands of your opponent.  Both are what Phil Hellmuth would do.  Granted, a well-mannered Phil Hellmuth, but no less inherently self-destructive, even without the tirade.  Instead, I suggest there is a third way.  The Negraneau way.  The evolved way!

Early in the contest at Calder, I used a 19-1 1^st'er on the turf by Middlesex Drive, whom I love on the turf at the claiming level, out of a solid turf mare.  The horse had three consecutive one mile works, and looked superb both in the paddock and on the track warming-up.  I not only used her in the contest, I bet my own money.  At the eighth pole, she was two clear after a ground-saving trip from the 12 hole, so there was no reason to think she'd get caught, only she was green as grass, and still on her left lead which - and gee, what a surprise!! - the jock had no clue about, and commenced to tarring her left-handed!  The chart says, "drifted out!"  In fact, she could have shaken hands with the railbirds.  It was a miracle she finished second.  Not the classic, quintessential "bad beat" by any stretch, I grant you, but in fact every bit bad enough that five years ago, I'd have been finished for the day.  Cooked.  Stick a fork in me!

Instead, I couldn't wait to handicap the next race.  Had I not just scoped-out a firster ignored by the "public" in a field of 12 at balloon odds on solid handicapping work?  On breeding.  On work-out pattern.  On paddock appearance and terrific on-track warm-up?  Did I not find the best horse in the race, despite the bad luck?  Was I not, as Negraneau puts it, "thinking good that day?"  You bet your ass I was.

The thing about "bad beats" is this: they can only occur as a result of good handicapping.  Go home?  Take a week off?  Really?  You tell me which of these two horse players is better suited for that advice: the one who handicaps his ass off, finds a horse he loves, bets his money with confidence, and watches the horse run like a two-ton trotter who didn't belong in the race in the first place; or the one who does the same, and gets beat at the wire after an horrendous trip on a horse that was 10 lengths the best? 

See what I mean? 

Bad beats are bad beats only if you allow them to be bad beats.  Only if you see them as anything but what they really are: good handicapping!  Only if you're prone to one of the biggest deterrents to success in any form of gaming: stinkin thinkin.  If fact, after reading Mall's blog, if you identify with the person about whom he writes, you should send him box of cigars and a "thank you" note. 

Today, he changed your life as a handicapper, and believe me, changed it for the better, and forever.  And how often does that happen anymore?

Octave-the-Rave

BTW, if anyone knows where I can get a copy of that book (The Horse is Dead), please let me know.  I promise, this will be my final take on the Tournament format debate.  It's time to get serious about the Breeders' Cup.  First, a quick preamble.  I got ripped recently in a comment v. the "credibility" issue as it relates specifically to this subject.  Fair enough.  Here's my credibility for debating the relative merits of this format as a platform v. a national championship of handicapping.  After 28 straight years of succumbing to the black hole of mutual doom, this will be my fifth consecutive year of profitability at my avocation.  So that you understand what I mean by "profitable," for the 5^th consecutive year I not only will have taken more money out of the mutual pools than I put in, I will have paid with my winnings every single expense related to my avocation for the entire year.  That includes everything from plane tickets to the Derby and every dime of expense that week, to every pen I have purchased to mark a program, and everything in between.  Better, I don't think I'll ever again have a losing year.  Now, I don't know how the commentator gages credibility in this sport, but that's the best I can offer.  Hopefully it will suffice.

Sensational blog by the too-seldom-heard-from Hoarse Horseplayer on the contest format debate.  To me, it is by far the most adroit compilation to date of the "flaws and fallacies" argument of those of us on the side of a better mousetrap.  As far as His Sharkness's surprising chime-in on this debate, clearly his point is valid and inarguable, TO WIT: it is what it is, so grin and enjoy it. 

If it was only that - a simple contest, or a series of simple contests - I would never have gotten involved in this debate.  It isn't.  In fact, The Shark's very observation lies at the heart of my discord with this format.  Nor is this as much for me a personal issue as it is an issue with my sport.  MY sport.  One of two in which I participate regularly, support financially, and identify proudly as a lifelong avocation.  My problem with this format for MY sport is its audacity to ascribe to itself a level-of-worth commensurate with a "National Handicapping Championship," when in fact it doesn't even live-up to its title!

Anyone who knows anything about our game understands that a horse's odds have absolutely nothing whatever to do with the fundamental art of handicapping.  That is an inarguable fact.  The art of handicapping purely and simply is the determination through analysis of the horse most likely in any given race to cross the finish line first, and the likeliest order of those to follow.  Period ... academic ... and as inarguable as punctuation inside of quotation marks.  After that -- and only after that -- comes odds analysis (perceived overlays/underlays; value determination, etc.) on which wagering strategies are finalized.  Those two disciplines - handicapping and wagering strategies - are completely separate entities.

My problem is that this competition is NOT called the National Wagering Championship, nor the National Horse Playing Championship.  It's called the National Handicapping Championship, when it isn't about that at all, since every tournament qualifier, and the main event itself, rewards the person with the biggest bankroll.  Bankrolls are determined strictly by wagering, and big bankrolls w/fixed, small, wagering amounts and no way to increase them necessarily must focus on big odds. Odds, by their very nature, are a variable.  All variables are subject to luck.  The greater the variable, the greater influence luck has on the eventual outcome.  That is not my opinion. 

"In any contest, there is a fundamental, mathematical truism relative to luck that states: for every percent of luck entered into the equation, a corresponding percent of skill necessarily must be deducted." (Centre for Discrete and Applicable Mathematics; Barry Blight, Ph.D.; Mathematics in Gaming, circa 1997). 

Now, you can debate with me the degree of those percentages relative to this format. Based on my personal experience, I believe it is at best - at best - 60% skill and 40% luck, and I'd bet the bankroll the actual statistics, over the past seven years, will bear-out that percentage breakdown pretty darn accurately.

Here's the deal.  For those of you who like the NTRA/NHC format, good for you.  If you enjoy competitions that inherently level the playing field for all competitors, God bless you.  But please, spare me the cosmic horse s**t cloaked in learned wisdom that conveniently lays waste to common sense and universal practice, both of which dictate that a format with a built-in 40% luck factor is patently absurd v. the legitimate pursuit of excellence in any endeavor, I don't care if it's horse racing or needle point. 

So said, let me reiterate that I do not believe the Calder format is the purely perfect 100% skill format.  Of course, it is not.  What I am submitting is that it reduces the level of luck inherent in the pursuit, and increases accordingly the degree of skill required to achieve a representative sample of excellence.  In that regard alone, it is a far more worthy barometer for anything that ascribes to its moniker the words "national championship."  And folks, this IS our sport's national championship.  It is our sport's ONLY recognized national championship.  It got that way ONLY because the NTRA took it upon themselves to assume that lofty mantle.  In so doing, they also assumed the written-in-stone obligation to represent our sport in the highest possible light.  Is there a responsibility more fundamental in that assumed obligation than identifying with care the participants most qualified to represent our sport for that coveted title each year?  Of course there isn't.  To argue otherwise is akin to saying the way our sport does it is right, and the way every other sport in existence today does it is fool-hardy, and a waste of time.

And who that isn't rigor morti even would entertain such nonsense?

Octave-the-Rave

This began like so many do -- as a comment -- and got carried away into a posting:

Rog, I looked up the race and the day's charts.  Speed was IRON, and this horse Xupal went wire-to-wire.  That said, if 2 people in the whole room used him despite dozens desperately needing a bomb, then clearly you'd have needed a giant crystal ball to know he would make the lead.  In fact, w/out seeing the PP's, my guess is he was one of the first horses eliminated even from that possibility, and that makes him exactly as you described: A GIANT CLOSE-YOUR-EYES-AND-STAB!

I don't get it.  For the ever lovin' life of me, I DON'T GET IT! These two guys wind-up going to Vegas on sheer, blind luck, and absolutely nothing else!!!  What the heck does that have to do with a National Handicapping Championship??????? 

You know what I think?  I think a couple of really sharp guys who own a quarterly magazine that caters to some of the brightest minds in the racing industry could increase their magazine and website's exposure a thousand-fold -- and with it, their bottom line -- by creating in 2007 The World Horse Playing Championships, in direct competition with the NTRA/DRF.  It could start out really small ... maybe only a dozen qualifiers and 50 final spots ... with one of these preferred, multiplier formats.  Heck, they could lose money on the tournaments for what they'll gain in new subscribers and new ad revenues for the website.  Still, they won't lose money for long.

In fact, if what I gleaned yesterday is a representative barometer, combined with the general discord expressed on the BB Pages, I'd be very surprised if someone isn't already contemplating this very idea.  For sure, someone WILL do it.  It is the quintessential example of what we all learned in Economics 101 as an "inefficient market."  Inefficient markets rarely, if ever, last.  Instead, they get exploited for gain by someone with the wherewithal to make them efficient.  Clearly the NTRA/DRF never had the desire -- since you know they've heard these same complaints/unfavorbale comparisons a few thousand times -- and arbitrarily chose to ignore them.  Today, they no longer have the ability.  After seven years, they're married to their format.

Yep, it surely does strike me as a no-brainer business model, and one for which I will be among the new entity's first and most devoted clients.

Octave-the-Rave

With apologies in advance to The Charm for sliming-in on his domain, I just wanted to say a quick word about the Calder qualifier today.  It was fantastic.  What made it fantastic was the format.  Rather than the HTRA/NHC format, this was 10 mandatory races, $2 W/P/S, no cap on odds, and a multiplier!  And the tournament was packed, despite the $250 entry fee.  (For my own curiosity, I asked everyone with whom I came in contact -- probably half the room by day's end -- and not a single person ... not even one ... said they preferred the NTRA format over this one.  Not one person!)

To me, comparing these formats is akin to comparing pinnocle to bridge; checkers to chess; or geometry to calculus.  In other words, there is no comparison.  This format towers over the NHC's in every conceivable category.  It's more exciting; more challenging; and infinitely more strategic.  And even if it was none of those things, it still would be by 10 times a more accurate guage of handicapping acumen.  Everyone who qualified had 5 winners; everyone who cashed (top 15 and ties) had no fewer than 4.  There is no question in my mind that on this day, in that room, the 15 best handicappers were identified and rewarded.  I wasn't one of them, but I left completely satisfied with my effort, and with the outcome.  In 15 or more of the other (NHC) formats, I can't ever recall feeling that way even once. 

For those who aren't familiar with the differences, I'll leave that to the Charm to explain its nuances, since I screwed 'em up royally today.  Early in the card (third race) there was a 1-2 shot I knew would have to fall down to get beat.  I went to the paddock, the seven caught my eye, he warmed-up great, so I used him instead, even though I didn't think he could beat the fav.  He ran second at 6-1.  Only after the next race when I hit the winner at 6-1 did I realize what a completely bone-headed move I had pulled by not using the 1-2 shot.  That would have been my second winner, and my entire bankroll would have doubled.  Instead I added like $27 to it!  It was collossally stupid, but a rookie mistake I will never make again, and one from which I never could recover. 

Anyway, after playing this format, I'm astonished the NTRA continues to use the simple minded-by-comparison bombs away crap shoot format they do.  Truly, genuinely astonished.  There's no way you ever could convince me that if this was the national generic for qualifying instead of that other drivel, that participation wouldn't increase dramatically throughout the nation.  For absolute certain, it would put all the best handicappers in the nation in Vegas every year, as opposed to some of the best, and a whole lot of those who managed to get lucky for one day.

Octave-the-Rave

"I think the Mile's coming up real tough, and I don't gain anything by running in it. Even if Showing Up wins it, he's not going to be champion turf horse.  This is an easier spot than the Breeders' Cup Mile."

Barclay Tagg, October 13, 2006, DRF on-line Edition, on passing the Breeders' Cup in favor of The Jamaica.

*****************************************************************************

Stand by.  Quiet on the set.  Three, two, one.  Open mike.  Cue talent.  And ... action!  

Hello again racing fans and welcome to another edition of Trainer Speak, brought to you as always by the fine folks at Sluggo's Slaughter Emporium over on 5^th and Main.  Sluggo's: where the slowest ones always make the best burgers.  I'm your host Octave-the-Rave and this week we're pleased to welcome to the show a man known far and wide as one of the most cantankerous, foul-humored, bull-headed trainers in the business, Barclay Tagg.  First, a quick story.  Thursday before the Derby, I had to go to the Racing Secretary's office at Churchill Downs and folks, I walked into a madhouse.  They were screamin' and cussin' and throwin' stuff at each other, and all because of tonite's guest.  Get this: less than 36 hours before The Derby, and Showing-Up wasn't even on the grounds yet.  Worse, nobody had a clue when the heck he was even supposed to arrive!  Par for the course for our man Barclay Tagg, who joins us now live on the telephone from his home in New Jersey.

Rave:  BT, welcome to the show and how are ya tonite?

Tagg:  Blow it outcha ass, Rave.

Rave:  Great.  Thanks for asking.  BT, I just read where you're passing on the Breeders' Cup with Showing-Up for the Jamaica at Belmont.  Would you mind elucidating on your reasoning for our listeners?

Tagg:  Hallucidating?  Baffert smokes that s**t, not me.

Rave:  Sorry.  Would you mind expounding on your reasoning.

Tagg:  What?  Where'd you hear that?  Weight didn't have nothin' to do with it.

Rave:  Right.  Gotcha.  OK, then, what did?  Tell us your thinking on this decision.

Tagg:  Whadda ya, stupid?  I got some bozos in New York willin' to hand me over a check for 180 grand for whuppin-up on some of their plow mules can't carry my horses' muck tub.  Hell, I ain't nobody's fool.

Rave:  Right.  Good call.  Only, you can make $200 grand in the Cup just for running 3^rd, with a chance of picking-up a million-two if Showing-Up pops.

Tagg:  Wha ... what's that?  Say that again.

Rave:  You know, the Turf purses this year have been increased to $2 million.  10% goes to third, so that's two hundred grand.  I was just wondering why you wouldn't take a shot?

Tagg:  Yeah.  Right.  Uh-huh.  Um, hang on a minute, willya.  Zero, zero, zero, zero ... eight from ten ... carry the one ... zero.  Damn, so that's twenty grand more, right?

Rave: Ahhhhhh, yeah.

Tagg: I gotta go.  (disconnect)

 ***************************************************************************

OK, that about raps it up this week for "Trainer Speak."  I'd like to thank our guest Barclay Tagg, and remind everyone to join us again next Friday, when my special guest will be Hall of Fame trainer D. Wayne Lucas discussing his sensational new best-seller, "Why I no Longer can Train a Starving Rat to eat Swiss Cheese."  Have a great night everyone and until next time, may all my photo finishes be winning ones!

Stand by.  Cue music.  Close mike.  And ... that's a rap!

Octave-the-Rave

This is hot-off the Godolphin News Wire:

Discreet Cat is unlikely to run in the Breeders' Cup at Churchill Downs in early November. The three-year-old will be aimed instead at the Grade One Hill 'n' Dale Cigar Mile at Aqueduct on November 25 before starting quarantine to ship to Dubai for the winter.  Godolphin's Simon Crisford said "Although the colt is really well in himself, the plan at this time is to run him in the Cigar Mile at Aqueduct before he goes back to Dubai. Discreet Cat stays in training next year and will be competing at the highest level." Discreet Cat remains unbeaten in five career starts and was last seen winning the Grade Two Jerome Stakes at Belmont Park by ten lengths on October 1.

Hey JP, how about another contest: "The one horse you think might actually show-up on Breeders' Cup Day!"

Octave-the-Rave

Great stuff by "Charm" and "Ghost" re the over-saturation of Graded Stakes leading-up to the Breeders' Cup.  The real damage is not what they do individually v. small fields, poor betting races, poor fan draws, etc., but rather the extent to which they continue to water-down the Breeders' Cup year after year.  Look at the defections already, and it's still weeks away.  Even with BC purses doubling on average this year, $2M vs. the best in the world holds little allure anymore for owners/trainers with the option to cherry-pick $500K-$1M races vs. four rats seemingly on every other page of the condition book this time of year.  Stupid it surely is; but not nearly as stupid as sad.

Octave-the-Rave

Mighty Caesar, ‘tis I, your humble nephew Caius Octavius, who comes now on bended knee and arms raised in triumph nigh the heavens that I might say unto thee with knowing glee, and thusly:

"For centuries past, the tried-in-battle doth mount their trusty steeds to set upon a race amain, and down a road seemed straight and fair, when, alas, it never was.  ‘Til now, O'Mighty Caesar.  Indeed ... ‘til now!

****************************************************************************

I've been dying to do that!  Of course, yawl knew that Caius Julius Caesar was the first Emperor of Rome, right?  And that he was succeeded by his nephew Cauis Octavius, who later took the name Caesar Augustus, and to whom Caesar's Ghost was known to appear often and give counsel?  You didn't?  You probably didn't give a s**t either, didja?

In any case, the answer to O'Mighty Caesar's timeless query, "Can anyone win consistently betting horses," can be found in the passage quoted above.  For now, your faithful servant Octavius must lay down his quill and tend to the affairs of state.  When I return, hopefully others will have chimed-in on Caesar's query, doubtless the one question above all others that has intrigued and puzzled pundits and players alike since the Darley Arabian first mounted the Byerly Mare.

Or was it the Godolphin Arabian?

Octave-the-Rave

Since we ARE all family here, I wanted to get this on before racing resumes tomorrow at Keeneland.  It is a quick follow-up to The Ghost's excellent piece on Polytrack observations.  It also flies in the face of gambling's #1 by a landslide taboo: when you crow, you blow!  (FYI: I'm writing this with a garlic choker around my neck!)

As you know, my brother is a clocker at Keeneland.  Two days before the meet, he called with a couple of observations that, so far, have been spot-on.  The first was the universal difference he's observed in turf horses on polytrack as opposed to dirt v. their workouts.  In his words, "the difference is like night and day."  His conclusion was as follows: a horse with confirmed turf form will transfer that form to Polytrack with little or no drop-off.  Already I've had three very nice mutuals on this angle.

The second was the astonishing condition of Patrick Biacone's entire stable, and the unusual workout pattern he has developed for Polytrack.  It's far too involved to discuss, and not really relevant.  What is relevant is that Biacone already has had four winners in three days: What a Tale, Pyramid Love, Asi Siempre, and Victory Design, including the late double on Sunday for $25.40, and two legs of a $455 P3.

Just wanted to share that with the "fam!"

Octave-the-Rave

I just got scratched before entries, and never would have known except for The Charm!  The guy is a prince, isn't he?  If he doesn't make it to Vegas, there's no justice in the world!  Out from the back burner comes this:

ASSIGNMENT - PART DEUX

The horse I most wanted to see, SHOWING UP, got canned.  Ergo, a lesson for life instead!  All too often, missing the P6 on Cup Day comes down to those gut-wrenching, final cuts from the ticket.  Last year, 9 out of the DRF's 12 "expert" h'cappers omitted Intercontinental, despite the fact that she was lone speed/clear lead.  Lone speed/clear lead in Leg 1 means you're leading the P6 competition.  Everyone else's horse(s) must now come catch you.  Some omissions from the ticket are unavoidable.  Leaving-out lone speed in Leg 1 is just plain dumb! 

Octave-the-Rave

"Anyone who still thinks that Barbaro is Bernardini's equal should wipe the tears from their eyes and get back in touch with reality."

Alan Shuback - The Daily Racing Form, on-line Edition

**********************************************************************************

Given the depth, quality, and extreme volume-level of The Big Blog pages' initial four-month foray into the world of racing journalism, I have come to two definitive conclusions:  1) It will become a fixture on the Magazine's flagship website, and in time even may become one of its anchor links; and 2) Whoever DOES NOT win the contest, nonetheless should continue pursuing income-generating avenues for his/her musings and opinions.  #1 purely is my opinion; #2 is a no-brainer!  Here's why.

Alan Shuback, you'll recall, is the guy who accused Barbaro's connections in print, without a shard of evidence, of racing with the benefits of illegal narcotics in his three races prior to coming to South Florida.  Even if Barbaro wasn't at the time America's most beloved thoroughbred, speculating as much without proof about any horse is moronic, despicable, blatantly libelous, and an embarrassment not just to our sport, but to the profession of journalism.  Now comes his latest pearl of profundity, captured above for your astonishment.  Here's what I know with absolute clarity: none of you who might have wondered aloud these past few months if Bernardini really was a better racehorse than Barbaro, ever would be stupid enough to make such a blanket pronouncement in print.  That he not only made it, but also couched it ("wipe their tears") with a monumentally insensitive reference to Barbaro's tragic misfortune, and the gut-wrenching pain it caused the Jacksons, their connections, and indeed all who love the game, makes him, by any journalistic standards, an a**hole.  I'm sorry: I could find no more accurate one-word assessment in my thesaurus for such a person. 

Here's the point: Alan Shuback is one of the highest paid, highest profile columnists and journalists in the employ of one of the most widely distributed and profitable daily publications in the world!  Now, if an a**hole like Shuback can rise to these heights, does that not make a "no brainer" out of the income-producing opportunities in racing for folks like you who tower over him?  In my mind, a fitting analogy might be Shuback as Mini-Me vs. you folks as Abdul Jabbar in a game of one-on-one, and only because at this moment, I can't think of anyone taller!

I'm serious about this.  And I think all of you would be well-advised beyond this contest and its outcome to get deadly serious about carving a second-income niche, if not a whole new profession, out of your love for the game, and obvious ability to convey it at every discernable level more adroitly than Alan Shuback.

Octave-the-Rave

Go back in time.  From the beginning.  You'll be amazed how often BC Day manages to shine its light on someone in our sport truly deserving.  So often, in fact, it has become one of the day's most potent angles.  Has anyone in memory come to this day more worthy than the Jacksons?  Add this: "He does real well if you wait six or seven weeks," Tagg said ... and on that perfect timing, good value, and The Jacksons' golden karma, crushing the Cup this year could be as simple as just SHOWING-UP!

Octave-the-Rave

I just read Randy's (HRAW) excellent take on "getting new fans into the game."  It reminded me again how differently the sport is conducted abroad, as opposed to here.  A prime example is ARC Day, which I watched this year in its entirety, and marveled at how interactive the game is over there.  Fans are allowed right on top of the horses during saddling and pre-track entry, and seemingly control themselves.  Ditto the media, who have carte blanche to get extremely close-up views in the saddling area, and to conduct pre-race interviews.  More surprising still was the level of cooperation by the principals - the owners, trainers, and jocks - who had no qualms about the media's presence, and routinely made time for interviews. Most astonishing to me was the discovery that jocks and trainers routinely greeted and mingled with fans between races, and all carried with them pens for signing autographs.  Minor stuff, I grant you, but compare that visual to this one.

A few years back, one of our crew from the Palm Beach Kennel Club had a horse named Tiger Tiger in the Florida Derby.  We rented a stretch limo, and the whole crew went down for the day.  Come race time, we were escorted into the center walking ring enclosure along with the other principals, one of whom was M.C. Hammer.  Hammer owned the favorite and eventual winner Dance Floor, and his presence that day brought-out more young fans than I have seen before or since at Gulfstream.  Everyone remembers Gulfstream's old saddling configuration.  Fans were separated from principals by a long, T-shaped wooden railing that in places put the crowd less than an arm's length from the action.  Nonetheless, Hammer was enshrined by 280 pound body guards the entire time, and didn't get anywhere near the crowd, much less sign a single autograph.  But what really chapped my ass that day and has been burned into my brain ever since was an episode that took place during the long walk through the open chute from the saddling enclosure to the walking ring, where crowds are at their closest.  My buddy's horse was the 13.  The 12 horse directly in front of us on the walk-over was trained by a well-known New York trainer who shall remain nameless.  From the second his horse entered the chute, I began hearing this high-pitched voice in the crowd literally screaming this trainer's name, so loud that almost everyone immediately was drawn to it.  It was a kid who could not have been more than 10 or 11.  He was wearing a Yankee baseball cap, and holding-out his program and a pen, literally fighting his way through the crowd to keep-up with the man whose name he was calling, and who obviously was one of his idols.  Do you know that prick never even bothered glancing in the kid's direction.  Even after the horses entered the covered pavillion heading to the track, I could still see the kid peering through the railing with pen and program in hand.  Mr. hot-s**t trainer was no where to be seen.  We're talking about 10 seconds out of a guy's life to make a kid's dream come true, and he couldn't even do that.  Since that day, it's been hard for me to bet on the guy.  Even when I cash, there's no joy.  That's reserved for when he gets peed-on at 3/5.  That's how I still feel years later merely as a casual observer to the event.  Imagine how the kid felt that day?  Then ask yourselves the obvious: is he still a fan today, or did that one episode turn him away from the game forever?

Again, in the global landscape of racing's PR problems, this is a blip on the radar screen.  Still, it brings into crystalline focus, I believe, a much larger problem lamented so often on here, namely the casual and routine indifference with which fans are treated by management and principals alike.  And what better starting point can anyone imagine for turning-around these PR problems than an attitude enema for some of the game's high profile personalities?  More to the point, can it ever hope to turn around without addressing this most fundamental of all public relations prescripts?

Octave-the-Rave

Some blog ideas come to us in a flash.  Others are prompted by something we read, and either agree or disagree with strongly.  This one has been 48 years in the making, but never was intended to see the light of day because it's personal, and a source of occasional angst in my family.  Still, I find it pouring-out this morning, despite the fact that I have all of 30 minutes to devote to it.

I just read the latest installment on these pages of the running mini-series, "The Art and Science of Creating New Fans for the Game."  If memory serves, it is the third in the series.  The first suggested in-depth marketing research; the second, by Kim French for HP Magazine, extolled the virtues of the on-track experience; and this one, by Mall of the Americas, recommends the "celebrity approach," which I suspect will come as particularly depressing news to Bo Derek!

All are worthy ideas.  All have merit.  None, in my opinion, address the primal problem at its root cause, nor has any marketing campaign of this ilk by the NTRA, NYRA, the DRF, nor anyone, for that matter, with an ROI interest in creating new fans for the game.  In fact, if ever a pursuit for years and years was the embodiment of the time-honored axiom, "Missing the forest for the trees," I respectfully submit this is it IN SPADES.

There's a perfectly logical explanation for the paucity of new young faces at the track: ME!  I'm the reason!  When I was eight and my brothers were nine, seven, and five (!), my dad LOVED taking us to the race track with him, and we LOVED going.  At first, like any kids, the thrill purely was spending time with our dad and with each other.  As we got older, that dynamic changed.  My older brother and youngest brother lost interest.  Today, they wouldn't know which end a horse eats with, nor to my knowledge has either made a horse wager in his life.  My younger brother and I came to love the game.  He made it his profession straight out of college, and by his own admission, "has never worked a day in his life!"  Only the select few in life who do what they love for a living can make such a wonderful proclamation.  He is my idol, and always has been.

I made it my avocation, and would challenge any avocation other than golf to rival it for the lifelong friendships it creates; the mental challenges it embodies; and the sheer joy and passion it provides.  And even if you find one other than golf that thinks it can, I'd love to drag all those "avocates" along just once to a Kentucky Derby or a Breeders' Cup, and ask each at the end of the day how his avocation measures-up to mine.  And here's the icing on the cake: my two brothers who eschewed the game?  The two who have three Ph.D.s and four MBAs between them?  Who looked down their noses at my brother who left graduate school to make racing his career?  If you twisted my arm, I couldn't tell you either's avocation!  In fact, they don't have one, and the reason they don't is because they chose to eschew their dad's, where the overwhelming majority of avocations initially are developed and nurtured. 

Unlike my dad, I made the conscious decision NOT to share my avocation with my boys.  Worse, I intentionally kept them away from the game, and instead steered them toward golf.  It is a decision I do not regret, because golf has provided them virtually everything racing has provided me, including - and how's this for the ultimate irony - the gambling bug!  I kept them away from racing because of its gambling aspect.  Today, they can't tee it up without action!  And I'm sure when I'm not in the game, bigger action than I care to know about.

More to the point of this exercise, NONE of my friends share their avocation with their sons and daughters, either.  Do you think that's an accident?  A coincidence?  It's because, like me, they chose to steer their kids away from the game.  And since their kids do not share their avocation with them, neither do their grandkids share the avocation with their sons and daughters.

It is THIS CYCLE that is at the heart of the paucity of new blood and new youngters in the game to the EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS, and that must be reversed if the trend itself ever is to be reversed.  To me, that is as plain, obvious, and common sensical as it gets, yet no one seems to get it!  Certainly not the "Go Baby Go" ... "Who do you Like Today" ... marketing goober heads!  And, again, this all goes back to one of the most simplistic, time-honored, infallible truisms not just in marketing, but in life: find someone who is doing it successfully, and copy him.

Does everyone know the industry that lays-over the field by 10 times at attracting new blood and young faces to its product, despite severe restrictions with which other industries, including ours, do not even have to deal?  TABACCO!  It's a fact: if you do not develop the habit before your lungs fully mature, you never will.  You may get the psychological addiction, but the physical addiction cannot take hold, and big tobacco has known that for years, and specifically has targeted its marketing at the world's youth.  Mind you, I'm not suggesting racing copy its advertising protocols.  Rather, I'm suggesting racing should hire the people who for years have created those platforms with extraordinary and devastating effects, and allow them the leverage to do as much for our sport.  Sweet Jesus, if they can still make cigarettes attractive to kids despite all kids know today that we didn't when we were kids, does it not make sense they could work wonders for racing?  I guarantee you the entire marketing landscape for our sport will change, with pointed emphasis on legitimizing racing as a worthy avocation to be pursued, rather than one to be avoided.

Instead, you might want to check-out Hoarse Horseplayer's most recent blog about the Ryder Cup, and particularly the comments attached thereto.  That will give you the pluperfect perspective v. the chasm that currently exists between the marketing people I'm suggesting, and the ones currently employed.  They're morons.  As frequently as I use that admonition, NEVER has it been more accurate.  Total friggen morons.

Anyway, I've done this "stream-of-consciousness" and have gotten off the path a bit.  My point is this: even with the brightest minds in the industry marketing the game, it will remain forever an uphill struggle until the day returns when today's dads who pursue the game either as a profession or an avocation, like their fathers before them, share their love and passion with their own kids.  I would not even make that suggestion if I didn't believe with all my heart that the sport of racing is a worthy, lifelong pursuit, and vastly superior to many, many others I can think of.  That is the mentality that will reverse this trend, and ultimately I believe serve as the savior to our game.

Octave-the-Rave

First, I want to thank every one who took the time to share with me his/her learned counsel on the current tournament format. Clearly, no one has near the problem I do with the luck factor inherent in this format.  And while you couldn't get me to admit it was remotely close to "perfect" with a .357 to my head, obviously it isn't nearly as bad as I made it out to be either.  In fact, that pretty much was the gist of every opinion: that it's somewhere in between, and imminently playable.  No doubt had I paid for that advice, it would have come with the disclaimer, "You have been so advised.  I suggest you govern yourself accordingly!"

Well, that's just what I did!  I already have purchased an entry for this Saturday's contest, although I have a wedding to attend, and will have to submit my picks in advance.  Plus, I just mailed a check to Brandt @ Calder for the October 15^th qualifier that includes the $1M bonus.

Point in fact, I'm back on the trail after a too-long absence, happy to be back, and excited about the prospects of meeting The Charm in Vegas. 

And for that, most of all, I thank you! 

Octave-the-Rave

I'm done with my BC piece, and there's still plenty of time before we have to get serious about The Cup to stir-up the pot.  Besides, it's been like an IRS audit on here.  We even have The Mav snoozing!  Well, I'm pretty sure this'll wake his ass up.

First, though, a brief observation about The Mav's comments.  I went back and did a quick body count and ID check on the recently deceased.  I could find only three whom I would consider one-time "regular" contributors.  Then I went back and reviewed their "contributions."  For my money ... and this is just my observation ... I wouldn't trade one LadyBelle, Ghost, Charm, Professor, AirKid, Frenchie, Mr. All Button, Mall of the Americas, or even Mr. Astonishingly Prolific from Another Planet for those three and another six like them.  I will say this, however: one had a terrific work ethnic!

And now for something even more caustic ...

I originally did this piece weeks ago, then filed it in the dead hopper.  Despite the fact that the BB Pages from the outset have been a free and open forum for sharing ideas and expressing opinions, however controversial they may be, I decided this one was just too controversial.  Then something happened recently that caused me to resurrect it, albeit in severely watered-down form.  It focuses on a central theme that resonates throughout Horse Player Magazine and its flagship website: tournament play. 

What caused me to pull the plug on the original was a tete-a-tete I had with a client who is a classic armchair quarterback.  Yawl know what an armchair quarterback is, right?  Someone who doesn't know his ass from third base about an event while it's going on, but suddenly becomes the voice of authority on every bloody detail the second it's over!  It made me realize what a petulant and ignoble trait that is.  It also made me realize that my original diatribe, as penned, was little more than an "armchair-quarterbacking-in-spades" of the current tournament format.  And since the format is firmly entrenched, here to stay, and never going to change anyway, in hindsight I realized it had no real relevance beyond a healthy vent. 

What caused me to resurrect it - beside the fact that it's been so Poppin-esque on here -- was Noel Michael's "Q&A with the Experts" in this quarter's issue of Horse Player Magazine.  You will recall Mr. Michael asked six top tournament players their opinions of the current tournament format, and gave each ample column space to craft a thorough answer.  Frankly, I was astonished by those responses.  All were reasonably satisfied, a few actually liked it, and one even thought it was perfect. 

Well, if perfect means "the absolute best something can be," then whatever word in the English language means the polar opposite of perfect is what I think it is, and always have.  Since I couldn't find that exact word in the dictionary, I had to come-up with a bunch of different ones, like flawed, ill-conceived, and a marketing disaster.

That pretty much sums-up the polar opposite of perfect, don't you think? 

In fact, the original piece was a factual dissertation proving those contentions; and make no mistake about it, folks: those contentions are entirely accurate. If you have a shard of doubt, you need simply contemplate and absorb the following:

Since this "bankroll" format became the generic for all satellite qualifiers that determine the field for our sport's National Championship each year, the largest 2-day bankroll ever amassed in an event with this format (although it wasn't an NTRA event) was accomplished by a bored, middle-aged, neophyte baby sitter who announced to the world after the fact that she picked all her winners solely on the basis of the names and birthdays of her kids!

Is everyone perfectly clear on what I just said?  If not, let me say in much plainer language: the current, reigning World Record Holder in the format presently in use nationwide that ultimately determines the field of contestants each year who compete for our sport's most coveted title is a woman who, by her own admission, couldn't even read a friggen program, much less a racing form!

Sorry, but that ain't exactly my idea of the perfect format.

At any rate, it is what it is, it's never going to change, and we all have to deal with it who hope to take part each year in our sport's National Championship.  Still, what absolutely knocked my socks off about Mr. Michael's piece was this idea being bandied about for a "Final Table" third-day competition concept like the WSOP to help "boost" TV ratings.  I saw the abomination that was last year's maiden voyage!  A third-day microcosm of that drivel strikes me as tedium-on-steroids, and almost certainly would "boost" this event, as Mike Tyson would put it, "right into Bolivian!" 

Instead, if the NTRA is serious about growing the event through television, the simplest way to do that I would submit is by looking outside the box, beyond this event, and focusing instead on what other sports are doing in this vein with phenomenal success.  In fact, in my mind they have no choice, since the event has failed miserably to create the kind of universal enthusiasm one would expect in a National Championship where every single participant is eligible to compete.  In fact, the only other "sport" I can think of besides ours where a 55 year-old ex-jock like me still can compete on equal footing with a 25 year-old punk for his national championship is poker, and look what they've done in their brief history.   In 2003, the World Series of Poker had 800 participants, and awarded a 1^st prize of $2M.  In 2006, they had 8,000 participants, and the 1^st prize was $12M.  That's a 600 percent increase in prize money in just four years; or, more telling, a (factored) 150 percent increase each year.  In its entire seven year history, the NTRA/NHC only has managed to increase its 1^st prize money by a total of 150 percent, from $100K to $250K.  And frankly folks, that isn't a whole lot of money these days.  For a National Championship of a major sport, it's pretty pathetic. 

I know the argument.  I've heard it a million times.  The final field is limited because of logistical problems, and manpower shortages, and organizational problems, and blah, blah, blah, and gimme a break with that garbage, willya?  If people were beating the doors down to participate, then they'd be willing to pay through the nose for the privilege, and the NTRA would be awash in cash. Cash makes all those problems disappear.  There's a perfectly good reason why they aren't, and I would submit to you that reason is the format.  For all the outstanding handicappers I know personally who think the skill-to-luck ratio of the format is completely out of whack and who pursue this quest only on-line, extremely infrequently, and without a shard of passion, I can't even fathom how many there are nationwide who feel the same way, or eschew it entirely, choosing not to subject themselves to its Baron Von Ripcord late race frustrations.

However, I know at least one way to turn them around.  All of them.  Even the most disenchanted.  I know one way to make this event so monumental in import and so irresistible in scope that despite its flawed format, every swinging Richard in the nation who buys more than two racing forms a year would be on an annual crusade to qualify that would make even Silver Charm's itinerary look like a road trip to Publix for a carton of milk. 

Here, then, for your amusement and entertainment only - since, oh BTW His Sharkness, this ain't never gonna happen in our lifetimes either -- is what I call:

The Godolphin Cup!

If this was my baby to Executive Produce - and it is, since it's my blog! - I'd combine the Ryder Cup format with a variation of the World Poker Tour format to create The World Horse Playing Championships!  Each year, the Top 5 finishers from the NTRA/NHC finals would have the coveted honor of representing the United States of America as "Team USA" in a head-to-head competition against the five best handicappers from around the world. (Tell me the thought of representing your country doesn't already give you goose bumps?  Plus, those red-white-and-blue clothes are the bomb!)

Next, I'd round-up the best known, highest-credentialed, most respected English-speaking handicappers from Canada, England, France, Germany, and Dubai (can you say H.H. Sheikh MoMo!  Emirates Airlines!  Title sponsor! Open Checkbook!), dress them in black (Duh!), and designate them "Team World."  Now you have a blueprint for serious television: a real World Horse Playing Championship held every year on a weekend when there are as many group races around the globe as there are graded stakes in America.  A global competition, Team USA vs. Team World, with races beamed from abroad combined with US events, held either on a rotating casino venue, or a rotating host track venue each year.  A 1-day/all day marathon competition starting in England @ 9 am and ending in SoCal @ 9 pm, broken into a "2-day competition" for TV purposes with real money; BIG money; say $100,000 starting bankroll per contestant (that they get to keep!!); 10 races; with the identical Ryder Cup format.  First "day" of competition would be purely team play.  Five races, $50,000 min/max mandatory bet per race, per team, with a "hog-wild" format - i.e., anyway the "team" decides to wager the $50K!  Day 2: singles competition.  First-day bankrolls are set aside, with each player having in his "bank" 1/5^th of the Day 1 Team total.  Singles format means each player starts fresh, on his own, with a $50K bankroll - and, of course, new clothes! -- but still contributing to his team's running total.  Five races; $10,000 min/max wager per race w/a simplified, structured format TBD (W/P or W/P & Exacta) and mandatory 25 percent of the "Day 2" total bankroll on the final race. 

A full-blown production with Kenny Mayne, Randy Moss, and Jerry Bailey; player "bios" exactly like the WSOP does so well with its final table players; actual team handicapping rooms; all players miked, and viewers sitting-in on the handicapping sessions; perhaps even a panel of experts like Bob Neumeyer, Hank Goldberg, and Steve Crist lending insights on the handicapping.  An ever-changing leader board, and all the "guru-izing" a leader board creates v. scenario strategies leading-up to the final race. 

Final edited production = two shows.  Show 1: 90 minutes, recapping the NTRA/NHC and how Team USA got there, player intros, setting the format, etc.; followed by "Day 1" of actual team competition. Show 2: 90 minutes of "Day 2" individual competition, complete with the victory celebration, player interviews, and awards presentations.

Most total team money at the end of the competition (Day 1 team total + final bankroll totals of all Team Members after individual competition) is crowned World Team Champion, and gets to keep The Godolphin Cup - hellooooooooooooooo!!!! - for one year, and display it at their homeland race tracks.  And, of course, an individual competition within the team competition, with the single player having the most cumulative money at the end of the competition wearing the crown for one year as true World Horse Playing Champion, and being awarded the Robert L. Lewis Memorial Trophy - helloooooooooooooo!!!! - emblematic of the World's Best Horse Player, not to be confused with the USA's best handicapper, as crowned by the HTRA/NHC.  And should anyone achieve the rare double of winning both individual competitions in the same year, a $1,000,000 bonus. 

Might ESPN be interested in such an event?  Would you shine your mother-in-law's funeral (bad figure of speech) to watch it?  More to the point, would you hack her off at the knees (really bad figure of speech) to get to Vegas every year for a shot at being one of those five contestants representing your country? 

Or .................... or ...................... or .................... something like that!  Maybe not exactly that; maybe not even close to that; but exactly not that other thing, because who that isn't in prison with one channel ever would watch that Baron Von Crap?

And finally, if my "fixed wagering" format for the World Horse Playing Championships strikes you as hypocritical, then let me state the obvious: wagering, wagering strategies, and BIG MONEY make for more excitement, more drama, more suspense, more pain and anguish, more celebration, more viewer interest, and overall better television; they DO NOT make for a more accurate determination of the five best handicappers in the USA who deserve to be sitting at that final table, and deserve to be representing the United States in the WHPC!  "Why," you ask?  Because no human being of sound mind is going to risk $20,000 - $30,000 of his own money with the same "flyer" mentality that permeates these NTRA events.  He's going to bet it purely on the outcomes of his handicapping, irrespective of odds, and therein lies the ultimate flaw in this current Baron Von Ripcord format.

Anyway, that's my watered-down take on the tournament universe.  Even watered down, I expect it to elicit some strong opinions.  I'm not as closed-minded on this tournament issue as you may think.  To the contrary, I dearly would love to be enthusiastic about the NHC.  At the same time, this is the National Championship of my lifelong avocation, and I believe strongly the current format has as much to do with identifying world-class handicappers as a global Rajib-roundup would have to do with identifying world-class terrorists.  And isn't that what a National Championship should do?  More telling, isn't that what we all really want to know?  Who among us truly is the best, and where the rest of us stack-up against the best in the US?

Ooooops, gotta run.  Nurse Rotyncrotsh here at The Institute is yelling I have five minutes before final spoon-feeding!

Cowboy up!

Octave-the-Rave