Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Declining Handle + Late Odds Drops = Bad Business
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY, December 8, 2009--You can read all the industry press releases and study all the numbers that say handle nationwide is down double-digits. Just like anything or anywhere else in this new economic order. But until you see it in action, you can’t know how bad things are getting.
I spent the last Saturday of the main-track racing season at Aqueduct Racetrack because I love its Holiday Fest program of four graded stakes, topped by the Cigar Mile, and I love watching the Remsen and Demoiselle babies, too.
Must say, also, I was disappointed not to see Quality Road in the Cigar. But their people probably made the right decision, calling it a season and bringing him back at Gulfstream Park.
Parenthetically, is there anyone willing to lay me future book odds on the winner of the Donn Handicap? If so, you know how to find me. And allow me a second digression, although it’s germane to this topic.
Cary Fotias, friend and handicapping partner, developed a high-end product called the Master Odds Line. Suffice it to say that the product, published on Saturdays and only distributed through Cary’s Equiform Company, is doing nicely.
What the Master Odds Line does is take our Equiform performance-figure projections, filtered through a programmed betting template that includes a standard deviation component since some races are more chaotic than others, and spits out a value-odds line.
If we do our jobs correctly, value horses jump off the tote board but, before wagering, the betting methodology demands that players get two odds levels above projected odds before wagering. There are sub-sets to this, but I don’t want to make your hair hurt.
So if, say, our projections make a horse even money, you would need 7-5 before placing a win wager. On a 6-1 shot, you must get 8-1, etc., etc. Consequently, watching the odds has become more important than ever.
Using this betting methodology will sometimes catch you in the switches. Aqueduct’s stakes-laden Cigar Mile card was the featured Master Odds Line track. But I was also playing Churchill Downs’ always interesting Stars of Tomorrow program: All two-year-olds, all day long. So I also made a few projections for Churchill, too.
In the Grand Canyon Handicap there, an overnight stakes on turf, a horse called Lost Aptitude held a very significant performance-figure edge. My projection identified him as a worthy 9-5 favorite, meaning he qualified as a bet at 5-2, using MOL methodology.
At two minutes to post, Lost Aptitude was sitting up there at 7-2. I went to the window, made my bet, and went to lunch. By the time I returned to my seat, I jumped right into making projections for the next Churchill race when the cell phone rang.
“Did you see that?” Cary Fotias asked.
“See what?”
“That grass horse at Churchill. When I bet he was 7-2, take a look at the payoff.”
Lost Aptitude paid $6.40 to win. Guess Cary and I were lucky because if he were 2-1 at post time we would have passed, needing, as stated, 5-2.
“Wow,” I said. “Even on a closing Saturday at Churchill, you don’t know what price you’re going to get until after race starts,” I said, then hung up.
Later in the day, with post time approaching for the Gazelle Stakes, I looked out at the Aqueduct tote board and noted that Flashing was 5-1.
I thought this talented filly hated the Keeneland Polytrack, made my projections, and now, with two minutes remaining, I’m getting at least two levels above my 3.30-1 projected odds.
After I made the bet, I happened to look up at the tote board. The clock ticked down to one minute-plus to post time, and Flashing had $19,000 on her to win and was still 5-1.
On a holiday Saturday at a New York track, only $19,000 to win? That’s when it hit me: I know there weren’t many live bodies in the building but where was the simulcast money, the money that accounts for about 88 percent of today’s handle?
The three-year-old fillies loaded without incident and Flashing improved her Aqueduct main track record to 3-for-3, given perfect rating by Richard Migliore.
I looked up at the tote board. Flashing was 3-1. This time, I placed the call.
“What the hell was that!?” I asked.
“I’m happy she was 5-1 when I bet,” Fotias said. “She went from 5-1 to 7-2 in one flash, then ticked down to three.”
I looked back up to the tote board. If I remember correctly, Flashing had about six figures bet on her to win, virtually all of it coming in to win with less than two minutes to post.
I, too, felt fortunate that I bet Flashing at 5-1. Had she been 3-1 with two minutes remaining, I would have passed, not getting the two odds levels-plus required.
I was lucky but I wasn’t happy. You think you’re making a smart play by taking the best of the odds; it’s the only way to survive racing’s punitive takeout in the long term.
Even when you think you’re doing the smart thing, it turns out that you’re not. And I said out loud to no one in particular, as horseplayers sometimes do, no wonder players are leaving the game in droves.
Written by John Pricci
