Blood Horses by John Jeremiah Sullivan

I read various things online about books. I'm always on the lookout for something new and interesting to read, something out of the ordinary, or just plain old good writing. Everyone is doing their end of the year reviews (don't worry. Mine is coming soon.) and time after time I have been coming across the name of John Jeremiah Sullivan. I don't think I have read a single negative thing on his newest book, Pulpheads, which is his second book. Blood Horses is his first and given my love for the horsies, I thought I would read it first.

If you couldn't care less about horsies, you'd still love this book. I've been trying to communicate my feelings about this book to a few people and I haven't been able to adequately express it. Reading this book made me feel smarter. This is different, I think, than what you think. There are many books that I read where I learn something. That makes me more knowledgeable. Sullivan makes me feel smarter. It's as if he found a way to ignite my brain cells to understand and explore things in ways I never have.

I think a lot of this comes from Sullivan's style. While this book is about horses, it's really about everything. Sullivan grew up in Kentucky and his father was a sportswriter so he has had a lot of personal connection with the sport of horse racing. He weaves his own personal history into his own personal present and ties it in with historical and current equestrian issues. He'll be talking about his Dad and next thing you know he's talking about Hitler. And even though you're suddenly reading about something you don't think you were reading about a page or two ago, you really are. Sullivan entwines everything marvelously. The changes aren't jolting. There are no non sequiturs. The transitions are smooth.

Sullivan does fantastic research and tells great stories. He has a gift for detail which is just amazing. After finishing the book, I found that I had made note of four books he referenced in the text that I wanted to read some more. Two are on their way to me now through Interlibrary Loan. And readers of this blog know that one of the things I look for in good non-fiction is how much it makes me want to learn more about whatever it is the author covered.

The book itself is really comprised of a lot of different essays of various length. They work so well together, you don't even realize that these are all separate components. It reads like a book, not a collection of essays, if that makes sense.

The only downside of the book were the illustrations. There are a large number of them but they are all in black and white and very little, if anything, was done to them to enhance the image quality. Some are so dark as to be undefinable. There are some neat photos and some interesting piece of equine art pictured and it would have been nice if more effort had been made by the publisher to showcase them rather than make them seem like filler.

If you received an Amazon or Barnes and Noble's gift card for the December holiday of your choice and are looking for something on which to spend it, it will be well worth using your card on this book. As for me, I'll probably try and read Pulpheads in 2012 and will review the two books that Sullivan led me to sometime in January.

90TH!!!!!!

I hadn't done any horse racing in July until today. I entered an online tournament and did well. Eight races. I had three wins and three places and finished 90th out of over 2600 entries. Quite pleased with myself. My ROI for the tournament was 107%. Love to be able to do that every time out.

Quick Derby note

Not really on top of horse racing at this point of the year. But the Derby is the Derby so I figure I need to say something.

Right now it looks like rain. If this is the case, I'm avoiding the race if for no other reason than every time it rains in a big race friggin Calvin Borel wins and I can't bear to wager my money on him. But there's prediction one. Wet track, Twice the Appeal takes the Derby.

On a dry track, I'm going with Comma to the Top. I like Dialed In a little better but he'll be bet down as the favorite. Comma to the Top should offer tremendous value.

This is one of the worst Derby lineups I can recall. Uncle Moe was clearly the star of the field, by a margin. In a sense it's a shame he got scratched but kudos to his connections for making the call. It's nice to see someone concerned for the horse.

Best racing call ever

Mark shared this with me a week or so ago and I didn't get around to watching it until today. Absolutely hysterical.



Not one to just scratch the surface. Here's the owner's blog. No entries in months.

Apparently, Arrrrr, pictured below (photo by Pedigree Online) is now a show horse. The race in the video was from 2008.

So much for that

I'm not as smart as I think I am. My tournament results from Saturday are in the right hand side of the curve, maybe even out in the tail. That is quite disappointing. Thought that maybe, since I did so well out of the gate, that those sort of returns might be a result I could expect frequently. Turns out I was wrong. Alas. Stupid statistics.

Triumphant return to horse racing

Excuse me while I pat myself on the back. I'm as pleased as punch with myself. I've been working on the horsies for the last few months, testing some ideas, formulating theories. On Saturday I pulled myself from horsie hibernation and entered an online tournament that Equibase ran. Pick a horse for each of eight races. Mythological $2 bets are placed on each horse to win and place. Highest return at the end of the tournament wins.

Out of 2,101 entries I finished 54th. Seven of the eight horses I picked finished first or second. That tied me with seven others for most picks finishing in the top 2. The race I missed, the horse finished third.

Not like I was picking favorites either. I hit a 14-1 horse to place, the longest odds of a horse finishing 1st or second. I also hit a 7-1 to win, the second longest odds of the winning horses.

My ROI on the bets were 88%. Not too shabby.

Sorry to be all full of myself but I cannot tell you how much this boosts my confidence. I am very, very, VERY jazzed.

As I've been working on this, my oldest son, who is 16, has become interested in it as well. I've given him the Dick Mitchell books I have (classics in the field) and he has been learning well.

It is not easy to make money on the horsies. It's why people call it gambling. Take this tournament, for instance. Of the 2,101 people who entered, if all of us had actually made the wagers we had for the tournament where we bet our horse to win and place, how many of those people do you think would have made money by the end of the tournament? Think about it a sec. Your horse had to come in first OR second to win your bet. How hard could that be? So how many do you think? Half? A third? A quarter?

512.
Less than a quarter of the contestants made money. Some considerations with that figure. First, this is a tournament. This isn't a bunch of buddies going to the track and throwing down some bets while having a day out. You have to be into the horsies to know about and enter tournaments. So these should be knowledgeable people.

HOWEVER, there are a percentage of tournament players who will tank the tournament in desperate attempts to win. You can do this by playing longshots. Unless the tournament caps the payouts (which serious tournaments do to prevent this kind of "gambling" nonsense. This one did not.), if you hit a 50-1 longshot, you win the tournament. So you have some folks doing that.

You also have some folks who will play the favorites, thinking that if they hit the majority of the races, they'll win. That's why these tournaments do win and place bets. Take, for example, the third race at Gulfstream on Saturday. The awesomely named Nacho Business (get it, Not yo' business?) placed paying $3.60 on a $2 place bet. If you're betting $2 to win and place, you shelled out $4 on Nacho Business and even though you "won" that pick, you lost forty cents for a -10% ROI.

So, as any successful horseplayer will tell you, it comes down to finding out where the greatest positive expectancy is. In the sixth at Gulfstream (this is where the tournament races were held), I had San Pablo as the biggest sure thing of the day. It pained me to take him as I knew he would be bet down (he was, he went off at 3-5 odds and wired the field to win). But to me it was a crapshoot for second and even though the payoff might be greater for a longshot to place, the expectancy wasn't there. Between the win and place bets, I made $5.60 on my $4 tourney bet. I wasn't going to get better than that on any of the other horses in that race. Sure enough, the horse that came in second paid $5 to place. If you have an 80% chance to make $5.60 and a 5% chance to make $5, which do you take?

Likewise, when I was going over the races with my son, I said to him, "If we were actually betting these races today, we would be loading up on Deal Making in the 7th. He has the best expectation of any horse running today assuming the odds stay close". The morning line on him was 12-1, he went off at 14-1, finished second by a head and paid $14.40 on a $2 place bet. With a quick look at the standings, that head made the difference from me being top 10 and maybe even winning. Had he won, it would have been around a $44 payout between the $4 win and place bets.

And that's why I've been trying to put the time in on this. It's hard to want to bet a 12-1 horse, a horse that hadn't raced since 2009, unless you have the confidence in your methodology to do so. So again, pardon my exuberance, but I hope you enjoyed the primer on wagering.

Secretariat

The horse racing kick continues. Bought this book after someone donated it at work. Part of the Thoroughbred Legends series that Eclipse Press put out, I have always wanted to get these books. They are really handsome books and I actually feel that the dustjacket detracts from the overall quality of the book. While the dustjacket is understated, the book itself contains the sepia-toned photo shown on the dustjacket on the cover which is a lovely red with a gold-embossed title and spine. Add a built-in ribbon bookmarker and it's a nice book. Sadly, they reissued the series of 24 books in softcover. I miss the days when books could be works of art. While I wouldn't go that far with this, it is mighty nice.

But books are for reading, and this was an OK read. The book has small dimensions and large margins which makes for a small amount of text for a 220+ page book. And it is about a horse so the content isn't dazzling. Secretariat was an amazing horse, one of a handful that transcended the sport. Mention the name and even non-racing fans know something (exposure has recently been increased by the film about Secretariat which I will be reviewing soon, too). But still, what can you write about a horse?

Well, the author begins by talking about the farm on which Secretariat was eventually born and raised. He then goes into a chapter which reads like the beginning of the Book of Matthew ("Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren") only with horses. Then we get into Secretariat's career. This portion is the mot interesting and Capps reports the races very nicely and discusses some of the rival horses that Secretariat faced.

Rival might be a bit strong of a word. The only time Secretariat finished outside of the top three in a race was his first race, where he finished fourth. The only time he was not the favorite in a race, he went off at 3-2 odds.

Of course, nothing demonstrated the lack of a rivalry better than Secretariat's romp at the Belmont Stakes:



Secretariat was retired after his three-year old season. The book talks about his career at stud and the relative lackluster nature of that career and then ends in a really goofy way with a fantasy race call between Secretariat and Man O'War. Lame way to end.

Not a bad book but not good either. It referenced Bill Nack's biography of Secretariat a couple of times, a book I own but have not read. Maybe sometime in the near future.

Yankee Doodle Dandy

As I said in my last review, I'm on a bit of a horse racing kick right now. After picking that novel, I decided I wanted to read about a jockey. The pickings are slim in our system and I opted for this book, Yankee Doodle Dandy, about Tod Sloan. I felt good about this pick because within an hour after putting in the request for it, I checked Baseball-Reference's This Day In History section and there, on that very day, was something about jockey Tod Sloan buying a billiards parlor with New York Giants manager John McGraw. I figured if he was a business partner of McGraw's, he has to be an interesting fellow.

After reading the book, it's hard to say. Despite being touted as a biography on Tod Sloan, the majority of it is a history of horse racing through the end of the 19th Century. I think the author did this to flesh out the book since there wasn't a whole lot of source material on Sloan.

Sloan was most noted for supposedly being the fellow who popularized the current style of riding a racehorse; leaning forward and being up around the neck and head. Before Sloan, riders sat upright back in the saddle and rode like you see in Westerns.

Most of Sloan's success came abroad, even serving as the jockey for Edward, Prince of Wales's entry in the Epsom Derby. His success was rather short, though, as the British Jockey Club accused him of taking money from owners as gifts and wagering on races. He was banned from racing in England and the ban was enforced in America as well ending Sloan's career.

Sloan was such a popular figure that George Cohan wrote a musical, Little Johnny Jones, that was based on Sloan. This is the musical that gave the world the songs "Yankee Doodle Boy" and "Give My Regards to Broadway".

I found the book somewhat interesting but wish it had been honest in it's title. It's really only the last couple of chapters that deal significantly with Sloan. There's one chapter in which Sloan merits only a single chapter. What bugged me the most about the book was the lack of citations and how it tied in to Dizikes' writing and research. I thought Dizikes' writing was pretty bland and a large amount of his writing is cobbling together fragments of sentences from newspapers. He then sometimes cites them (citations were really haphzard) in clusters in the endnotes. So you'll read a paragraph which contains four or five quotes of a few words apiece, turn to see from where they came, and just find a list of newspapers with no indication of what came from where. I thought it was really lackadaisical and unprofessional, especially from a college professor who also has won the National Book Critics Circle Award. While not an awful book, it annoyed me enough not to recommend it.

As an aside, the link above is not the version I read, it is the softcover edition. The hardcover dustjacket has a famous caricature of Sloan on the cover. It gives the book, which is small in size, the feel of a book geared towards kids. Nice to see that they changed the cover for the paperback, even though the image has nothing to do with Sloan.

Art of Losing

I'm on a bit of a horse racing reading kick right now and it started with this book. i was fooling around with the "card catalog" at work and decided to look for novels with the subject of gambling. In addition to 3,423 books by Dick Francis, this one came up. I requested it from one of the other branches and plowed through it.

The Art of Losing is a very dark book. One of the darker ones I've read. The main character, Michael Jacobs, is a documentary filmmaker who makes decent films but they do not generate enough interest to be profitable. This shouldn't really matter since Jacobs comes from a wealthy family who are encouraging of his occupational choice and who like his movies. Nonetheless, Jacobs cannot bring himself to rely on assistance from his folks.

Jacobs' friend and producer, Sebby Laslo, has a problem with gambling. He has indebted himself too much with the wrong kinds of people and comes to Mike with a broken thumb and a pitch for how to get them both on track.

Sebby has a friend who is a jockey. The plan is to get another jockey involved and have the two jockeys conspire to fix a race on which Sebby and Jacobs have wagered heavily. In order to do this, though, and get the kind of odds they want, they have to place the wager with an illegal bookmaker. In order to get a bookmaker (or more bookmakers) to give them odds on a big bet like that, they have to establish that they are chumps and have to lose money in advance; money neither of them has.

If this doesn't bode well to you in my review, well, that foreboding feeling isn't go away if you read the book either. Dixon does not create an inspiring atmosphere. You have a sense that those best laid plans are certainly going to go awry.

Even with the bad vibe, the book moves you along. There is a glimmer of hope....maybe...or maybe it's the sense that you're about to view a train wreck. Something keeps you moving ahead with the book. And it's good. Surprisingly good given that I picked it solely based on a card catalog subject heading. Just don't go reading it on a day where you could use some optimism.

Music, horses and baseball - updates on some favorites

If you're going to listen to one band that you probably haven't heard of today, make it Roosevelt Radio. In true almost six degrees of separation fashion, here's how I found them. I love DeVotchKa. I saw them in concert in Los Angeles where Rupa and the April Fishes was the opening act. The cellist for Rupa was Pawel Walerowski. When looking for Pawel music, I found him playing with Ben Ross. Ben Ross is the lead singer for Roosevelt Radio. Roosevelt Radio will be releasing their album in October but have made some pre-releases available. The song they are plugging is Midnight:



but I like Order in the Chaos better.



Roosevelt Radio is based on California, just like my favorite horse, Sidney's Candy (like that transition?)!

Sid had not run since the slop of the Kentucky Derby. John Sadler made the unusual decision (at least to me) of making Sid's return on turf. The reason I questioned this was twofold. One, why fix what ain't broken? Outside of the mud in Kentucky, Sidney's Candy has run extremely well, especially on California dirt. Secondly, Sid runs best by breaking early and putting distance on the field. This is a much more challenging feat on turf. You don't see many horses wire the field in turf racing, especially among higher caliber horses. It's a slower surface and requires more stamina. And you really don't want to get into a speed duel on turf with another horse. That will just kill you as you expend all your energy in the head-to-head battle. Nonetheless, Sadler entered Sidney's Candy into the La Jolla stakes, a Grade II race. Nothing like a high-end stakes for your grass debut. Sid (#2) takes off as usual and gets into a duel with Macias (#3). Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. If you want to see what typically happens to early speed, watch Macias.



Sid, however, is an incredibly remarkable horse. Debut on turf and he sets a track record. I don't know how any creature, horse or otherwise, can run that hard for that long and then find that extra gear to pull further ahead. Wow.

Speaking of running, how is my favorite basestealer, Milwaukee Brewers minor leaguer Josh Prince doing? He has had a tough season. He has not shown an ability to hit or draw a walk which makes his hopes of becoming a major leaguer slim. His baserunning and stealing are still unreal. Baseball America named him the best baserunner in the Florida State League. He is second in the league in steals despite only hitting .237 with an OBP of .291 (which is better than his SLG of .283). Yes, those are some ugly, UGLY offensive numbers. Granted, the FSL is a pitcher's league but there has not been much to suggest that Prince's bat is going to develop. The Manatees, Prince's team, has been sitting him lately to give another guy a chance to play short which has hampered Prince's chances for a second straight stolen base crown. I still have hopes but things are not looking good for Josh.

Seabiscuit

Last winter I took a research collection development course and did a project assessing collections of non-gambling related horse racing books. This book is the most widely held by libraries around the country. I always found it surprising, too, that this a New York Times bestseller. It's about horse racing for crying out loud. More to the point, it's about a horse. What can you say about a horse other than he ran?

There's a reason for so many people buying and reading this book. It is superbly written. It's really amazing. Hillenbrand ties the horse Seabiscuit together with trainer Tom Smith, jockey Red Pollard and owner Charles Howard to weave a fascinating and exciting story. The foursome are a bunch of outcasts (made exaggeratedly so in the movie which I enjoyed very much long before I read the book). Howard, the former bicycle mechanic turned automobile dealer is so set on being different that when he is looking for horses, rather than spend tons of money on a stable of high-end horses, he sends Smith scouring the country for sleepers.

Smith gets along with horses far better than he does with people and has an amazing way of turning horses around. The movie makes Pollard the central figure but I got the sense that he was almost along for the ride. Pollard suffered through numerous injuries and Seabiscuit was ridden by other jockeys, most notably George Woolf, with success. Also, it didn't seem as if Pollard fared well riding other horses. He's an interesting fellow. I just don't think his impact on Seabiscuit's success was as large as Smith, Howard or Seabiscuit himself.

Hillenbrand writes well and ties together articles with interviews to make a very entertaining story. One of the things that makes a great non-fiction book for me is my desire to learn more about the topic or related topics. Hillenbrand does that. There were two side characters that really fascinated me about whom I wanted to learn more: Woolf and Cowboy Charlie Irwin. Both seemed like complex individuals who would make excellent subjects of books.

Finding out more about Hillenbrand, I found that she struggled through health issues as she researched and wrote this. I find it all the more impressive and amazing that the book reads so well given her health struggles.

This is just a great non-fiction book. You don't need to have an interest in horse racing to enjoy it and if you do, all the better.

Updates and Derby aftermath

Well, my fear and loathing of Calvin Borel was appropriate as he took yet another Kentucky Derby in the wet. Darn him. I started the morning well by taking of four of six races in Beulah Park's final Pick 6. Well in the sense of picking four winners. Not well in the sense of not winning any money.

On the baseball front, after a delay in starting his season because of an injury, Josh Prince has been struggling at Class A Brevard County hitting .204/.259/.296 with three steals. He has been a little rough in the field as well.

Yu Darvish is having another fantastic start for the Fighters. He is 4-2 and third in the league in ERA at 1.96. His 67 strikeouts leads the league (in 55 innings) and he has surrendered just one home run.

I've returned to wine after a long hiatus. In the early 1990's I was really into Australian wine, got out of wine altogether, but based on Gary Vaynerchuk's influence have gotten back into it. I'm probably going to start talking about some of the wines I've had this year (I haven't had an awful lot).

A couple book reviews are backlogged and will be published this week. I almost have packages ready to be sent out. Think that about covers it.

Derby models

Right now it looks like rain for the Derby which will likely make a mess out of my models. This Derby is really interesting. Had Eskendereya been running it, he would have been the clear favorite. As it is, it looks wide open. So despite my love for Sidney's Candy, I think I may have to consider some other betting options.

I'm not going play by play like I did last year. Here's what I have as the probable odds (bold are horses where the models like better than the morning line):

99-1: Homeboykris, Make Music For Me
64-1: Paddy O'Prado
62-1: Backtalk
41-1: Dean's Kitten
35-1: Line of David
34-1: Ice Box
30-1: Stately Victor
29-1: Devil May Care
24-1: Awesome Act
18-1: Noble's Promise
17-1: Lookin at Lucky
16-1: Mission Impazible, Dublin
13-1: Discreetly Mine
12-1: American Lion
11-1: Jackson Bend
9-1: Super Saver, Conveyance
8-1: Sidney's Candy

I'm liking that the morning favorite, Lookin at Lucky, ranks ninth according to the models. Bodes well for me. I'm not one to question Bob Baffert (one of two bobbleheads I own is of him. The other is Torii Hunter) normally but you're really going to take the blinkers off your horse in a 20 horse field?

Super Saver looks like he could win because of lunatic Calvin Borel and the potential for rain. Definite upset potential there.

Dean's Kitten is a bit bizarre. Since when do the Ramsey's have a Derby contender not trained by Bob Baffert? And who thinks that a career turf horse is really going to take the Derby?

Update: I discovered a data error for Mission Impazible. The models have been rerun since this was first posted an hour and a half ago.

Kentucky Oaks odds

Here's what I have for the Kentucky Oaks. Bold means I like the horse more than the morning odds are giving her credit for:

99-1: Beautician
51-1: Crisp
50-1: Age of Humor
45-1: Jody Slew
38-1: Bella Diamante, Champagne d'Oro
28-1: Joanie's Catch
22-1: Ailalea
18-1: It's Tea Time
15-1: Quiet Temper
12-1: Evening Jewel
6-1: Tidal Pool
9-2: Amen Hallelujah
5-2: Blind Luck

Blind Luck is the favorite for me, too, but not at the near even odds she should go off at. Tidal Pool and Amen Hallelujah look like good value bets.

Early Derby stuff

I mentioned how I'm in love with a horse again. Well, it's time to let the horse out of the stall. He's not as under the radar as I thought he might be, especially with Eskendereya being scratched and I don't think all my readers combined are going to move the odds that much if I am able to sway them. Besides, he's already the second favorite in the morning line so it's not like a win bet is going to be a huge payoff. The horse? Sidney's Candy.


photo courtesy kentuckyderby.com

I'm completely jazzed about Sid. He'll be running from the far outside from the 20th position, the last spot on the track. Want to see what I think is going to happen?







Those are Sid's last three races. See how they're all alike? Sidney's Candy jumps to the lead, puts pressure on everybody and then kicks into some other gear to put distance between him and everyone else. You know the difference between the races? The distances. The videos are in order from most recent to least and longest to short. John Sadler has done a fantastic job preparing Sid for the Derby, getting him to maintain his style despite the races getting longer and Joe Talamo is getting better at rating Sid until it's time to kick into that next gear in the stretch.

But with 20 horses and Sid coming from the outside, isn't there a chance he won't get on the lead? Good question. That's just what happened when Sid broke his maiden:



Always an awful thing when you set track records in your first victory. But Sid showed he can stalk. And it looks like Sadler was thinking there might be a possibility as well. Check out Sid's workout from last week in the slop. SIX furlongs in second position. Love it.

My ONLY concern is the dirt. Sidney's Candy could be a California horse and be completely useless away from the synthetic turf of California. I'm not seeing it. It has been a looooonnnng time since I was dazzled by a horse this much. I am really, really excited about Saturday and seeing Sidney's Candy take the Kentucky Derby. If you don't have a rooting interest yet, here's the horse for you.

Successful failed return to horse racing

So yeah, with all the things I'm trying to sort out in my life, now seemed like a good time to get back into horse racing. Of course. First, I am in love with a horse again. It's been a while and the list is short. Hunca Munca, Ghostzapper, Imperialism, Speightstown. And a one race fling with Manning's Hit. That's about it. Now there's a fifth. I've watched film of his last three races numerous times including his most recent race about twenty times. Just an amazing horse. I'm not mentioning his name yet because he's a Derby contender and I think he's going to be under the radar and I don't want all thirteen people reading this to lower the odds. So there's that.

Then Beulah Park in Ohio had a carryover on their Pick 6 and it seemed like a good shot at trying to make a chunk of change. To have any chance on a wager of this size, where you have to pick the winners of six races, you really need to take at least a couple of horses in each race. My budget is pretty limited still so I took 13 horses across the six races. 10 of the 13 horses ran in the money. Two winners, four places and four shows. Not bad for being rusty. My old friend Transfixed Ingress, assuming he is still alive, would be unimpressed since I won no money. I'm pretty happy, though. I picked ten of the horses with my models and three based on my general knowledge of horse racing. My three took a first and two seconds.

Man, I love horse racing. I need to decide if I want to take some of my income tax refund and give it a shot again. You know, with all my free time :)

Belmont Picks

Same drill as before.

10. Miner's Escape PP9, 99-1, 15-1
I don't know how you make this horse 15-1. Never has run in a graded stakes. I can only assume that the morning handicapper was getting confused with Mine That Bird or something. I think it's interesting that this horse made its debut at Saratoga Springs last August with Charitable Man (more on him in a moment). Miner's Escape finished 28 lengths behind Charitable Man and took until this past March to win his first race. Yeah, 15-1. Please.

9. Mr. Hot Stuff PP3, 27-1, 15-1
I commented before the Derby how I wish Corey Nakatani was taking the mount on Mr. Hot Stuff. Edgar Prado rode him instead. Prado is riding him again. Had a couple nice workouts recently but I think he's overmatched.

8. Summer Bird PP4, 18-1, 12-1
Kent Desormeaux will get the ride for the first time. Summer Bird is a nice horse. This is a field full of horses who like to come from behind and I don't think Summer Bird is up to par.

7. Luv Gov PP5, 16-1, 20-1
I mocked Luv Gov's appearance in the Preakness but he ran a good race. Finished 8th and a good way back but with Miguel Mena, the only jockey to win a race (out of 11 tries) on this horse, I'd be putting Luv Gov in the bottom of trifectas.

6. Dunkirk PP2, 12-1, 4-1
My favorite in the Derby and now I have him all the way back here? Prado and Gomez, both of whom have won on him, are riding other horses. Never a good sign. Ugly workout on Sunday. Too few performances to outright get rid of the awful Derby performance, even with the weather conditions. Not going to get paid for the unknowns so why risk it?

5. Chocolate Candy PP1, 11-1, 10-1
I have him 5th but I'll be betting him. I like the whole setup. I think this distance and pace will be comfortable for him and you can't say that for many horses. I like Garrett Gomez being his jockey. I like the post position. I like the time off and the workout structure during that time. Only thing I don't like is the lack of a breakout performance indicating Triple Crown ability. I think this could be that race.

4. Flying Private PP8, 10-1, 12-1
Everything I said above, reverse for Flying Private. You know from the previous races how little I think of this horse. He had a strong run in the Preakness but still fell way short. He and Mine That Bird are the only ones running all three Triple Crown Races. That's tough. Being a poor field, I think you have to have him in the exotics but there's no way I'm betting him to win.

3. Brave Victory, PP10, 10-1, 15-1
Nick Zito has trained 20 horses that have run in the Belmont Stakes. 11 of them have finished in the money. Consistent performer but hasn't raced in higher stakes (not that many of these horses qualify). If you're a believer in Nick Zito (I am), you should take a flyer on Brave Victory. Probably the best return/risk ratio you'll get.

2. Mine That Bird, PP7, 7-2, 2-1
This race is really interesting. My math models do not agree with my personal analysis. It has to do with the fact the Belmont is so freaking long. It takes a special horse to be able to run a mile and a half. It takes an even more special horse to do it after having run the Derby and Preakness not too long before. Then to ask the same horse to try and win the Belmont? Is Mine That Bird a special horse? I don't think so. My models do. He's not 2-1 in my mind. He's due for a regressive performance.

1. Charitable Man, PP6, 5-2, 3-1
This is the race his connections have had on their minds since April. He'll set the pace and I don't think any horse other than Chocolate Candy will be happy with it over this distance.

If I play the exotics it will be Chocolate Candy to win, Charitable Man and Dunkirk to place, those two, Luv Gov, Mine That Bird, Brave Victory and Flying Private to show. That's a $20 trifecta bet if you want to bet them all equally. I could put Brave Victory in the second slot as well, maybe.

Charitable Man is the horse to beat, though. So if you want the high probability bet, take him.

Preakness picks

Same format as before (Horse, Post position, My odds, morning odds):

13: Flying Private, PP10, 99-1, 50-1
I developed a theory today to cover Mine That Bird's victory. Mine That Bird won because he's a cheap horse and hasn't been spoiled like most of the other Derby horses. Godolphin spent 2 million dollars on Desert Storm. Think Desert Storm is pampered? All the best food, temperature controlled facilities, flown in from overseas, the works? Mine That Bird cost less than $10,000 and drove to the Derby in a trailer from Arizona. Who might perform better in less than ideal conditions, the horse who has led the pampered life or the one that has been treated like a horse?

I make this point here because Flying Private is the most expensive horse in the Preakness, being sold for $700,000 at auction. I commented before the Derby that he had no heart. So how did the pampered horse with no heart fare in the wet mess of Churchill Downs? Dead last, 44 lengths back.

12: Luv Gov, PP4, 99-1, 50-1
The owners of Luv Gov are confused. Luv Gov won at Churchill Downs on Derby Day. The only thing is, he won a maiden special weight race that took place hours before the Kentucky Derby. So your horse wins his first race in ten attempts and now you think he's good enough for the Preakness? This will be Transfixed Ingress' horse here, methinks.

11: Friesan Fire, PP5, 99-1, 6-1
I didn't like Friesan in the Derby and the pros did and the public did. He finished a length ahead of Flying Private. So now the morning line has him as the third favorite? Huh?!?!?! He has to run better but there was no evidence that he was ready to run after the layoff at the Derby and a crap race and a good workout isn't going to make me think otherwise.

10: Tone It Down, PP12, 59-1, 50-1
I love Kent Desormeaux but I think it is a very questionable decision to have him replace local legend Mario Pino, the only jockey to ride Tone It Down in a race. Tone it Down is the only horse in this race to have raced on this track before. Tone It Down likes to be out front but starting right next to Rachel Alexandra, he won't be there long. I'm predicting 15 lengths behind Rachel at the end at a minimum.

9: General Quarters, PP8, 21-1, 20-1
I can see a third or fourth place finish out of General Quarters. I could see it better with a little more time off but the potential for a big run is there. There's just a lot of better horses in the race, though.

8: Terrain, PP6, 20-1, 30-1
Another one I can see in the money. With Leparoux taking General Quarters, Jeremy Rose gets to ride Terrain. Sort of the reverse of what Tone It Down's connections are doing. This could be a good longshot bet.

7: Take the Points, PP11, 16-1, 30-1
Twice Edgar Prado has ridden this horse, twice he has won. He's got the mount at Pimlico. Pletcher is putting blinkers on him for the first time which makes him VERRRRYY interesting. I think Take the Points is the fastest horse in this race. I don't think he can be the fastest horse for 1 3/16 miles. If this were a mile race, this would be my horse. But my odds say he can wire the field 1 out of 16 times. If you're going to get paid in the high 20's or 30-1+, you have to make this bet.

6: Mine That Bird, PP2, 14-1, 6-1
You have to respect the Derby he ran. But miracle worker Calvin Borel is riding Rachel Alexandra and this is going to be a much faster race than the Derby. You're not going to close from 20 lengths again and if you go back to the front running style, you're going to get creamed. I'm staying away.

5: Big Drama, PP1, 12-1, 10-1
Take the Points is going to be leading the race and Big Drama and Rachel Alexandra are going to be there if he falters. Edgar Coa is riding Musket Man instead of him and that means a lot to me. I also don't like the long layoff since the Swale Stakes and I'm leery about the blinkers coming off.

4: Musket Man, PP3, 8-1, 8-1
Ran a nice Derby in the muck but I think the pace ends up being too much for him as he'll be sitting behind Big Drama and Rachel Alexandra by a few lengths. My odds are in line with the morning odds which makes it unlikely that this will be a good value bet. Have to like him in the exotics, though.

3: Papa Clem, PP7, 8-1, 12-1
Also ran a nice Derby, finishing a shade behind Musket Man. Had a horrible workout yesterday and is in the middle of the pack. Needs a good run to win and Rafael Bejarano might get it for him.

2: Pioneerof the Nile, PP9, 8-1, 5-1
You can see that I have Musket Man, Papa Clem and Pioneer of the Nile all with the same odds. Needless to say, Papa Clem is the best value bet. Little story, here. Pioneerof the Nile's Dad is Empire Maker. The first Kentucky Derby wager I ever made was in 2003. I played an exacta box of Funny Cide and Empire Maker. That's the kind of bet that gets you hooked. Pioneerof the Nile is going to get bet down as people look for an alternative to Rachel Alexandra. He's one of the four best horses, no doubt. But I won't like the payoff.

1: Rachel Alexandra, PP13, 2-1, 8-5
People will be betting on her because she's female. People will be betting on her because she's good. People will be betting on her because she's the total package of speed and endurance. A third of the time she will win. Two-thirds of the time, one of the guys will. If you want to make some money, you'll take one of the guys.

Why might she not win? The big thing is the trainer change on short notice. That concerns me more than any gender issues which is what will concern other people. Not crazy about her Sunday workout time either.

So what's the bet? One of the top four horses is going to win this race 2/3 of the time. Papa Clem will likely give you the best payoff. I'm talking myself into Take the Points the more I think about it. If you're going to pay me 25-1, 30-1, or even more, yeah, I'll take the shot.

Kentucky Derby revisited again

Looking at the list of contenders for the Preakness (I know the actual runners have been announced but I'm waiting for post positions) and just marveling at how unusual the Derby was for so many horses. Witness:

Andrew Beyer, a noted horse racing handicapper and journalist came up with a number that somewhat normalizes how a horse runs a given race. If a horse runs an 80 and another runs a 75, the 80 is the better performance, even if the 80 was a slower time. This is due to track differences, distances, etc. It's a pretty good measure. I'll be talking about Beyer scores.

Advice - His Derby score was a 74, his second lowest score in seven races
Atomic Rain - His Derby was a 59, his second lowest score in eight races
Dunkirk - 77 is his lowest in four races
Flying Private - 41 is his second lowest in 11 races
Friesan Fire - lowest in eight races
Hold Me Back - second lowest in six races
Nowhere to Hide - lowest in nine races
West Side Bernie - second lowest in eight races

Again, this is the Kentucky Derby. Trainers are paid big bucks to have their horses prepared for and ready to peak in this race. And 8 of the 19 horses either ran their worst or second worst race of their careers.

As a matter of fact, only one of the horses in the Derby ran his best race ever. Care to venture a guess? Mine That Bird received a 105 score. His previous best was 81.

Early, pre-analysis pick. I think Rachel Alexandra is the best horse in the Preakness. Just slightly better than Dunkirk. Analysis tonight after I get home from work.

Kentucky Derby revisited

I'll be posting my Preakness picks later today but I wanted to take a look back at the Derby and get all defensive about the accusations of my long-time friend, Transfixed Ingress.

TI and I have been friends since we were eight years old. Three decades later, we're still conversing even if we haven't seen one another for awhile. I give him a little leeway in his almost always critical comments because I know that deep down he is resentful of my all-around awesomeness.

So even though he claims he won't be taking my advice on the Preakness, I know he's smarter than that and you should be, too. (I know you're smart because you choose to read this). Any horse race of nineteen horses has a lot of potential outcomes, especially in the slop that the Derby was run in and especially when the horse that won ran the race completely different from any race he ever ran before. Let's take a look at what I'm talking about, shall we?

The horse I had as the best horse in the race...Dunkirk? Here's his start:


Narrowly avoiding a face plant will do you in any day. He worked too hard to get back in with the leaders and just didn't have it.

How about some of the other horses? Did I know what I was talking about? Oh, I don't know:



Join in the Dance PP9
"Another front runner....." Lo and behold, there's #9 leading the race.

Desert Party PP19
Regal Ransom PP10
"Even though I think Regal is the better horse, I think he'll set the pace for Desert Party to stalk and finish strong." Oh, look at that. #10, Regal Ransom, up there leading the race and who is right there just a little off his shoulder but #19, Desert Party.

West Side Bernie PP1 "Closer who will be able to save ground from the pole." Sure enough, there's West Side Bernie on the pole near the back.

Hold Me Back PP5 "Hard closer who has looked good in 2009" And look who is right back there with Bernie, another closer.

Five of the six horses whose running style I mentioned in my post, I was right on the money. The sixth?

Mine That Bird, PP8 "Slow front runner who will get eaten up in this race."
What the hell was he doing all the way back there? Mine That Bird, notorious front runner, was 19th out of 19th horses. He fell back as much as 20 lengths behind the leaders before Calvin Borel's miracle run.

Do you know what the largest margin Mine That Bird had ever made up at any time in any race before the Kentucky Derby was? Four lengths. I can only use the best information I have available and there was nothing to suggest that this horse was going to show up for horse racing's biggest event, run a race in a manner he never had tried before, make up a deficit five times larger than any he had previously made up and defeat eighteen better horses. I even looked at wet track data and breeding. Nothing. This was about as unlikely a result as there could be. Which is why, of course, he paid 51-1.

So before you so cavalierly dismiss my picks, Mr. Transfixed Ingress, take a look and see if I was as wrong as you think. Put that in your Dr. Pepper and smoke some bacon.

Photos courtesy of The Blood-Horse.