It wasn’t by a huge amount, but handle of $631,000, including $137,000 in exactas, was the highest in the wager’s 14-year history. The other record set was for lowest payout established on #24 “All Other Three-Year-Olds,” at 3-2.
The previous Pool 1 low was set by 9-5 Smarty Jones eight years ago. That only goes to show that a really good horse still might be obscured from view even as we reach mid-February.
Not surprisingly, Union Rags was the lowest individual price at 7-1, although unbeaten Holy Bull winner Algorithms briefly flirted with the distinction—or curse, depending on one’s point of view.
A little surprising was that El Padrino, given extraordinary wet track form, was a short- priced 16-1 third favorite. Not too surprising was the fact that juvenile champion Hansen ranked 12th at 26-1.
Hansen, presumably based on a perception of distance limitations, as well as Liaison and Rousing Sermon, at 56-1 and 71-1 respectively, were punished by bettors for their recent defeats. At least in Hansen’s case, he gave a good account of himself.
Pool 2 will be conducted from March 2-4 after six more graded preps have been run, including the usually significant Risen Star and Fountain of Youth.
El Padrino is expected to race next in the Risen Star. The Fountain of Youth, where Union Rags is expected to debut, is also next up for undefeated Algorithms and Discreet Dancer. Expect the scores to really change next month.
Bushwacked
In case anyone failed to notice, there was another masterful training performance turned in at Gulfstream Park as part of the Donn Handicap undercard.
Going into the Grade 1 Gulfstream Park Turf Handicap, six-year-old Get Stormy was the most accomplished member of the cast. And he emerged the same way, his victory extending his lifetime slate to (27) 11-4-3 and pushing his earnings to nearly $1.5 million.
The victory was the third Grade 1 of his career and trainer Tom Bush, the man who conditioned the veteran to the minute, will point the turf specialist for his fourth by trying to repeat in Keeneland’s Maker’s Mark Mile in April.
“He settled into a great stride and handled the [soft] ground beautifully,” said jockey Ramon Dominguez. When I called on him he just kept going.”
No doubt the extremely soft pace helped.
“He’s a special horse and got a special ride today, it was not a surprise” said Bush. As for his two Breeders’ Cup disappointments, they “are still a mystery. But maybe we’ll get him on that firm turf at Santa Anita later this year and he’ll like the firm ground out there.”
When and if he gets there, expect Bush to have him ready.
The Politics of Race Riding
It may turn out that Algorithms can run rings around Union Rags, or Discreet Dancer, or Gemologist, and El Padrino, too. But wherever Javier Castellano landed, he was odds-on to sit aboard a Todd Pletcher-trained animal.
Racing is a numbers game. If Union Rags didn’t make the Derby and it turned out to be late in the game, the choice of prime contenders would be gone. Since one man trains four serious contenders, Castellano would have several quality just-in-case options.
Of greater consequence, however, is that Pletcher is one of Castellano’s best clients and rides many good horses for him. If you’re a jockey who enjoys winning stakes, you don’t burn a bridge on the road that leads to the Pletcher barn.
Super-agent Matt Muzikar said all the appropriate things vis a vis Union Rags, his trainer, Michael Matz, and the Wyeth’s before giving his reasons for choosing Algorithms for the Fountain of Youth. As difficult as the decision appeared given the talent involved, in the end it was more of a no-brainer than anything else.
Big Doings at the Big A
Here’s something that passes for news in New York these days. Starting today, trifecta wagering will be accepted on all races with as few as five betting interests. Cutting edge stuff, I know.
Forgetting for a moment that with this, the NYRA, with the blessing of the State Racing and Wagering Board, is opening an additional avenue to a high takeout wager.
Guess those VLT purse increases haven’t led to significantly larger fields this winter as promised; never mind the notion of an improved product.
No one is blaming racetracks for looking to increase revenues; far from it. But wouldn’t that be better served by, say, allowing superfecta wagering in fields with coupled entries?
I know I’ve written this in the past but trust me: If players are smart enough to count to four in the case of coupled entries finishing in money positions in trifecta races, I’m confident they can make it all the way to five in the superfecta pool.
So many big-field superfecta wagering opportunities are lost due to this sophomoric rule, especially in highly competitive turf races.
I suppose we all will wait a little longer before the installation of the popular 50-Cent Pick 5. And I won’t hold my breath it will include a 15% takeout and consolation 4-of-5 payout, no matter how popular it seems to be everywhere else.
Don’t you just hate it when some policies are fan friendly and make sense?
15 Feb 2012 at 06:16 am | #
“Guess those VLT purse increases haven’t led to significantly larger fields this winter as promised; never mind the notion of an improved product.”
A cursury daily view of the increase in purses (have not done the math, Nick Kling where are you) in New York, leads me to believe that my worst fears have been realized, as the increase is laughable, and thus one of the reasons it has not had a great effect on the number of contestants. Keep in mind that the purses had sunk lower than a degenerates bankroll. In addition, as we all know, winter racing in New York has never been that great to begin with, and hopefully (yeah right), the purses will continue to increase (yeah right). If I seem cynical and jaded, it is because I am cynical and jaded.
TTT
15 Feb 2012 at 07:41 am | #
T, you’re only as cynical as experience teaches you to be.
Of course, you’re going to see that money explode at Belmont and especially Saratoga, one of the few truly successful race meets anywhere in the world.
Ironically, Saratoga doesn’t NEED the help; they could do what South Florida did back in the day: pay you with sunshine. But I’m really interested in the player first.
To my point, in the early days of superfecta, critics said it would only cannibalize the trifecta pool. That was true.
But thanks in part to the Dime Super, its popularity and handle has grown. The degree of difficulty is there, to be sure, but so are higher payouts that more than compensate, especially if you’e betting fractionally.
My personal betting pattern has changed--from trifecta to super + exacta--where the liquidity is and degree of difficulty diminished, increasing my leverage. But that’s just me.
Now let’s get Super betting on fields with coupled entries.
Have a good day you old cynic.
JP
15 Feb 2012 at 08:20 am | #
JP, my favorite part is when you say-"If players are smart enough to count to four” LOL.
15 Feb 2012 at 08:41 am | #
Not sure if you lost a line in this paragraph
“The previous Pool 1 low was set by 9-5 Smarty Jones eight years ago. That only goes to show that a really good horse still might be obscured from view even as we reach mid-February.”
It may well have been the previous low price and in the year Smarty Jones won the Derby, but it was only the price on Smarty because at that stage he was part of the all others selection. Much to my dismay that year, Smarty Jones was not an individual interest until pool 3.
As to the new trifecta rule, I find it kind of silly. Betting a tri on a 5 horse field seems pretty much a loser bet to me. I don’t feel it’s even worth betting an exacta in a five horse field unless maybe you are discounting at least the top two lowest odds runners in the field. You just aren’t getting a payoff worth the risk 99% of the time in fields so small. But to each his own.
I do think the fields are better this year, especially in the maiden ranks as there have been some pretty strong races there. Don’t think you are seeing the same field of horses running every two weeks at the low levels either like it seemed the last few years. Maybe it’s every three now, but it still seems an improvement. Further, there is now a legitimate Derby prep series going on. When’s the last time the 2 year old champ shipped to run there before possibly the Wood?
Some things take time to sort out and so far it looks positive to me. Maybe not hugely so yet, but it is certainly not backsliding.
15 Feb 2012 at 10:39 am | #
I went to OTB on Sunday to primarily put in a future wager on I’ll Have Another. Not once did they post the odds on any monitor. Since I had no internet access either, I bet based on early odds and some info from a fellow bettor, thinking the horse would be north of 40-1. To my surprise and disappointment after getting home, I find out he’s 29-1. Oh well, guess it’s my own fault. But, is that any way to run a business, or a sport?
15 Feb 2012 at 01:52 pm | #
Denny, that’s the kind of service one should expect when businesses are on automatic pilot.
Al, as Harvey used to say, in inverted order. You nmake a good point re NY maiden fields; I agree that they are stronger.
On balance, a 5-horse Tri is a sucker play becuse the track is now giving you the privilege of betting into a much higher takeout in play in the straight and exacta pools.
But some guys think--myself included on occasion--that if I can turn a 1-2 shot into a virtually cold $20 Tri, say a 1x2x3 ($8), your getting 3-2 instead. By definition, like it or not, that’s value.
Not sure you took my meaning. By “obscure” in a Futures context, I meant not in the listed 23. Too cute, perhaps? Guilty as written.
Heater, happy I could make your day. Wishing I could do that for all.
JP
15 Feb 2012 at 03:09 pm | #
Castellano choosing Algorithms may just be a matter of comfort and feeling for the horse. Both horses seem to be “for real”.
derbydeals.com
15 Feb 2012 at 03:19 pm | #
Inverting your invert, I figured you probably meant that so the only guilt would be an unintentional “second reading” occured, something we would say when reading certain passages of Homer, so if he can get away with it....
I don’t disagree with what you say about the tri when you say “on occaision”. I would be guilty of that as well, but the last time I think I did it was on Funny Cide’s first race back as a 4yo. He was finishing first and two others were finishing second or third. If it’s $20 for that tri, then you are geting an easy 9-1. But that just doesn’t come along as near often as a 5 horse field, so 99% of the time it’s just a bad play, whether you win or not. Far as I’m usually concerned even an exacta in a 6 horse field is a bad play unless you play it strong and straight. 95% I’ll just pass.
Got to say I’m totally against adding a P-5 to the menu as well. Drop the take on what is already a full wagering menu is far better than adding another too hard to hit gimmick bet. Could care less about low take on those as the take you face on a loss is still 100% and P-5s (and P-4s for that matter) are, most of the time, just too hard to hit. If I wanted to give away my money, I’d play the lotto more often.
15 Feb 2012 at 05:48 pm | #
BANG! Went my six hot $2 win bets in Pool One. That’s droppin’ The Bomb.
I probably should have been serious about it, but past experience with this siren of success has been fraught with YUCK!
Especially having a $10 win ticket on I Want Revenge (@ 50-1) and he went an pulled an Uncle Mo on me on the morning of the race.
There was one hit, but the contortions necessary to collect were comparible to being a passenger on a jet making an emergency landing.
The names are forgotten, but the facts are recalled.
One year, hearing that a horse was going to be tossed into a Pool Two, we zipped to the Meadowlands and put in a Horse/All, All/H front and back wheel $1 exacta.
The horse was then scratched - before I even got home! Egg on face.
But the “All” covered the eventual winner, and the cash collected offset the other Derby bets that sank.
I don’t recommend this course of action to anyone.
So that’s my tale of woe, and given that there must millions of them, AND THAT the odds offered are, generally, ridiculously low, in proportion to the risk -
That the record was set this year is quite remarkable.
16 Feb 2012 at 06:02 am | #
Ted,
Saying the purse increases this winter at Aqueduct are “laughable” is akin to saying a beautiful woman is ugly because she didn’t use perfume.
1) $6,250 open claimers at Gulfstream = $17,500
2) Basement ($7,500) open claimers at Aqueduct = $30,000
At this time last year those purses were $21,000 at Aqueduct.
Laughable? Better talk to the horsemen who have made 300(!!!) claims worth almost $5 million since the rise in purses.
Pay attention Ted.
16 Feb 2012 at 06:56 am | #
Don,
Yep, Future Pools can be tricky, but fun. I always recommend taking a minimum of 30-1, not always attainable. And, at first I was not a fan of adding exactas. Have since changed my mind. Have a feeling that portion of the Futures will grow significantly.
Al,
Then you’re going to hate today’s missive. Stay tuned.
WF,
You may be quite correct and Algorithms could be the Derby winner, too. However, never underestimate politics and good business sense.
16 Feb 2012 at 09:08 am | #
Nick, comparing New York to some hole-in-the-wall racetrack down in a swamp where people are still looking for the fountain of youth is not fair. We are talking about the greatest city in the world, and I’m not talking about Troy or Albany, a couple of cow towns. New York, the Big Apple, Gotham City, baby. THE GREATEST CITY IN THE WORLD, and you want to compare it to Gulfstream. There should not be $7,500 claimers here! The paddock should be paved with gold! Lowest purse should be $40,000. The lowest claimer should be $25,000, and that is on a Wednesday! Wake up Nick baby! (but I love you).
TTT