Indulto

"Players Up" blogger Indulto is a retired computer programming residing in SoCal and has been betting Thoroughbreds since the days of Kelso, cashing his first ticket at Saratoga while in college.

Indulto is well known in racing's cyber world as a participant on the Ragozin Sheets message board, the PaceAdvantage Forum, Paulick Report, and has made important contributions to the industry's audience as an HRI Readers Blog contributor.

Indulto was active in the formation of the Horseplayers Association of North America and with former HANA colleagues worked on the Players' Boycott of California racing when takeout rates were increased by the legislature there.

Taking his nickname from the King Ranch color-bearer of the 1960s, Indulto now devotes his time to advocate for the recreational player and hobbyist, but prefers lower takeout rates for all rather than subsidized rebates for the few.

Indulto supports the creation of a centralized racing authority to establish uniform rules for racing and wagering and for those standards to be enforced consistently.

Most recent entries

Monthly Archives

Syndicate


Friday, July 03, 2015


I Can No Longer Look the Other Way


LOS ANGELES, July 2, 2015—As children, we are trained to look both ways before crossing the street. Likewise, some of us are taught to look at both sides of an issue before making a decision regarding it.

Racing survives because most of its customers have been conditioned to look the other way whenever its flaws come into view.

In my sixth decade of betting on thoroughbreds, I find it progressively harder to overlook the game's shortcomings and those of its leadership.

The evils of simulcasting has perverted parimutuel wagering and tilted playing fields for both horseplayers and horsemen.

The process is no less damaging than the malfeasance displayed by racing's operators and regulators whose independent fiefdoms effectively prevent reform and protect the powerful.

The Rick Dutrow case has finally brought me to my senses. Any fairness, justice and transparency that may have once been evident in racing appears to have vanished.

The game as it now exists is not one I care to pass on to future generations. I can no longer accept the status quo as either a customer or a citizen.

Like society, the game has changed dramatically in the past half century with the emergence of alternative forms of legalized gambling.

Not only have racing's participants been pared down to a fraction of their former ranks but state and local governments have become increasingly dependent upon the revenue alternate forms of gambling generates.

While the tax burdens of corporations and the wealthy were lowered, the middle class has shrunk. Disposable income became a victim of the inflation caused by wasteful overspending on the military, social services abuses, fraud, etc., etc.

I've often wondered whether racing's decline in New York since the Rockefeller Administration was as much the result of undeclared wars around the world as the disastrous decision by NYRA not to create and control off-track betting in the first place.

So many potential players – particularly among young males from the populous Empire State – must have been permanently dissuaded from participating because the opportunity to play the game was never encouraged properly.

The threat of terrorism, as well as pleas from the well-heeled to demand comfort and exclusivity at any cost, now limits live attendance at premier racing events; compelling the masses wishing to attend such spectacles to settle for participation via TV sets and computer screens.

The technological advances that eliminated binoculars and betting windows also has fueled revenue flow to a subset of trainers and professional bettors whose enhanced edge-taking exploits advantages not available to the competition.

The greed at work here fundamentally is no different than the kind that causes a collapse of the stock market, mortgage and insurance industries.

The conduct on the part of state appointees and elected representatives in California, where political influence and neglect have presided over the industry's contraction there, is particularly offensive.

This behavior is exceeded only in New York’s where an iron-fisted Governor has enabled the sacrifice of natural beauty and equal treatment for all that ignited my life-long passion for racing during my initial exposure to Saratoga Race Course.

No one explored the current situation as elegantly as Tom Noonan.

It's often been said that voters in a democracy get the government they deserve. Similarly, by continuing to consume racing products sold and sanctioned by politically-connected operators and regulators we get the regulation and oversight we deserve.

So far, no organized advocacy for racing reform has been able to attract support large enough to compel change. Until someone with sufficient stature steps forward to become a respected, highly-visible leader, a voice of reason, no meaningful reform will take place.

Until that happens, I'll simply play even less than I do now and won’t bother to re-fill my ADW account--even if the funding runs out before the Breeders' Cup.

If you want to see an individual who can make a difference and help change the status quo, take a good look in the mirror.

That person can challenge and change the manner in which racing is conducted nationwide provided he or she is willing to combine with others to create credible, accountable and transparent representation.

Or are we willing to continue looking the other way, getting the kind of sport we deserve?

Written by Indulto

Comments (18)

 
 

Thursday, June 18, 2015


Addressing the Weakness in the Preakness


Los Angeles, June 17, 2017—When American Pharoah became the first Triple Crown winner in 37 years, he effectively ended the discussion on expanding the spacing between Triple Crown races. He is indeed the long-awaited superior specimen capable of winning not only 3 Grade I races in 5 weeks, but also 4 in 8 weeks.

Science and technology confirmed that assessment even before the horse ever raced. This inside information was revealed by Joe Drape who reported, "When Mr. Seder and Ms. Miller [bloodstock agents for the horse's owner] scanned the colt’s heart and spleen, when they checked his airways, Mr. Seder saw what he described as a memorable cardiovascular system."

It will be said of the new champion's own progeny that their "fodder was a mudder" after his Preakness victory in a downpour that seemingly targeted the event, including terrifying thunder propitiously tuned out by the winner's earplugs, those in the know, anyway.

American Pharoah was the only horse this year to compete in all three legs; facing only four of the 18 rivals in the second leg. Because the close-up 2nd and 3rd-place Derby finishers were among them, it didn't figure to be a "gimme" for the Derby winner. But between the weather and 14 "skippers," it turned out otherwise. Five tried to challenge the champion again in the longer Belmont but all passed on the opportunity to succeed at a more familiar distance at which they were proven competitors.

When serious threats from returning rivals Frosted and Materiality failed to materialize in the final leg, heavily favored American Pharoah fulfilled the dream of most American racing fans starved for equine royalty.

But how likely is history to repeat itself next year? Or the year after that?

Will New York Racing Association management get another opportunity to manipulate attendance in the name of customer service? When will the streak of consecutive Triple Crown attempts be broken? Would a Belmont without an eligible crown contender render the event mediocre, even meaningless?

The question then becomes does the Preakness remain a rubber stamp opportunity for the favored Derby winner, or can it be revitalized to test him further? Another query concerns whether a Preakness defeat of the Derby winner deflate interest in Thoroughbred racing itself?

Scaled bonuses to Derby starters who finish 2nd, 3rd, or 4th in the Preakness might prove a sufficient incentive to increase participation in Baltimore. Extending a monetary incentive to any previous Grade 1 winners could also improve the quality of competition. Re-setting Triple Crown interest when the Derby winner fails in Maryland is potentially the most effective option.

This plan would involve using the Preakness as the first leg of a bonus-incentivized alternative three-race series. The two outcomes here is that it will either sustain and grow interest in racing’s glamour division, or in some way will diminish the Triple Crown itself.

In the 67-year period since Citation was crowned in 1948, there have been 24 TC attempts and on 41 occasions a horse won at least two TC legs:

1. Twenty Derby and Preakness Winners
2. Ten Preakness and Belmont Winners
3. Seven Derby and Belmont Winners
4. Four Triple Crown Winners

Who would bet against a member of group #2, including Capot, Native Dancer, Nashua, Damascus, Little Current, Risen Star, Hansel, Tobasco Cat, Point Given or Afleet Alex winning the next, or fourth leg as it were?

A new final leg could be conducted four weeks after the Belmont. It could promoted as the fourth leg of a "Grand Slam" series for three year olds. The Stronach Group has employed multi-race bonuses in the past, so its Santa Anita property seems a potential candidate to host a 10-furlong Grade I event. Monmouth, Saratoga, or Del Mar could fill that bill as well.

This approach could benefit the NYRA as well, especially in years where the same horse didn't win both previous legs. Perhaps the above example is too small a sample but the odds against a TC attempt are about 2-1. With the re-set option, a more meaningful Belmont Stakes seems assured.

Bonuses are part of the incentives currently being offered to attract American Pharoah for his next start, so a future "Grand Slam" has some merit. According to the Paulick Report, Monmouth hosts the Haskell Invitational Aug. 2.

Saratoga wasn't mentioned even though the Travers is scheduled a week later than the Pacific Classic at the same distance. At nine furlongs, the Haskell would seem the best opportunity for those daring to challenge the champ whose superiority is more likely to prevail at 10 furlongs.

Despite the presence of older horses, the Pacific Classic scheduled 20 days after the Haskell would probably attract a less than stellar group of elders given the absence of such luminaries as Shared Belief and California Chrome.

The Breeders' Cup Classic, however, is the ultimate goal and for two years in succession the most effective route for three-year-olds has been the Travers followed by the Pennsylvania Derby. This year the calendar dictates that the Travers will come later in the month, reducing the spacing between those two races.

Given American Pharoah's mastery of Belmont, I’m betting his path to the Classic will be the Haskell followed by the Jockey Club Gold Cup. What say you?

Written by Indulto

Comments (11)

 
 

Thursday, May 28, 2015


On Balance, Derby Points System an Improvment


LOS ANGELES, CA., May 27, 2015—This year, the new points system rule determining a starting stall in the Kentucky Derby celebrated its third birthday this year. The new rule dictates that points be awarded weighed on the merits of each qualifying Derby prep.

The more prestigious the prep, the more points money finishers earn. Grade counts as does the calendar. Previously, total earnings in graded stakes were the barometer.

So, if the pot were big enough, two-year-old stakes races not named Juvenile would have more of an impact on the Derby field than an event that almost always determines a divisional championship.

We thought we’d take a closer, detailed look at eligibility factors might help all Kentucky Derby fans distinguish between the intended and unintended consequences of participation in various races.

Current qualifying races are conducted at a mile and longer over natural and synthetic dirt surfaces during the period from September through April. Previously, turf races, sprints and early-season juvenile races had been included.

The new system rewards starters who perform competitively within the 10-week period immediately leading up to the Derby, places a premium on good results from the six historically most significant preps on the continent, a seventh from the Middle East, from a two-week span commencing five weeks before the big dance.

For the past three years, there were 36, 34 and 35 races covering the period 2013-15, respectively. The top four finishers from each event were awarded points for the top four finishers in a distribution ratio of 10-4-2-1.

That 17-point figure included all two year old races and early sophomore contests. For each of the next eight races on the scheduled, a total of 85 points were up for grabs in each of eight races during the first five-week prep segment.

Finally, a total of 170 points were available for the first four finishers in the final seven races concluding the prep season, prestigious contests such as the Florida Derby, Santa Anita Derby Blue Grass Stakes and Wood Memorial.

The first eight preps contested at eight and a half furlongs or longer receive 50 points, a total virtually assuring the top two finishers a berth in the Louisville starting gate.

The subsequent “big seven” at a mile and an eighth or longer, making the exacta finishers a cinch to compete with the second finisher earning 40 points to the winner’s 100.

The top point earning Kentucky Derby starter was the eventual show finisher, Santa Anita Derby-winning Dortmund with 170 total points. Longshot also-ran Frammento was the last one to qualify with 20 prep points via an in-the-money finish early in the South Florida prep season.

The question: Was the increased emphasis on traditional late season Derby achieve its goals of promoting recency and rematches among top tier Derby starters?

The inevitable defections among the most likely qualifiers from the top 15 races gives an opportunity accumulating less than the 40-point winner of a single race.

It has happened where multiple finishes in lower-qualifying events accumulate sufficient points to achieve eligibility at the expense of lower-ranked single-race qualifiers.

What didn't change despite the different criteria was the domination of favorites and the tracks hosting the big seven preps. It is no coincidence, then, that the top-ranked qualifiers were also were among the top money earning Derby entrants.

Perhaps the most noticeable impact of the new eligibility rules is that all three recent Derbies were won by the betting favorite; that streak following four consecutive failures by the public’s choice.

Interestingly, the three most recent renewals were captured by horses that won two of the 15 major preps over the final 10 weeks of the prep season. Perhaps of greater significance, two of the three have gone on to win the Preakness.

In all three years, the Derby show finisher won a top-tier prep and twice the fourth place finisher did as well. Rank outsiders finished second the first two years; this time it was a last-out winner of 50-point Sunland Derby.

The point is that it’s not unreasonable to credit the points system with having added stronger performers among the lower-ranked qualifiers. Further, under the new system, the “big seven” winners collectively are finishing progressively better as well:

Here’s how the qualifiers of the “Big Seven” preps fared in the Derby, star ( * ) denotes betting favorite:

2015 – [Top 6 of 7] finished 1*,3,4,6,8,10
2014 – 5 of 7 finished 1*,3,4,6,19
2013 – 7 of 7 finished 1*,3,7,11,13,14,17
2012 – 6 of 7 finished 1,2*,3,16,19,20
2011 – 5 of 7 finished 7,8*,9,15,16
2010 – 5 of 7 finished 2,8,9,17,18
2009 – 5 of 7 finished 2,4,8,10,18*
2008 – 5 of 7 finished 1*,4,6,17,20

The new system appears to be winnowing out less competitive horses, a desirable effect, or trainers are adjusting well to the new system.

The handful of Derby defections via injury or otherwise hasn’t affected the number of Derby starters that have gone on to the Preakness. However, Preakness field size has fallen by an average of three starters per year.

The first number is the amount of Derby starters to run back in Baltimore, the second number total of Preakness starters:

2015 – 5 of 8
2014 – 3 of 10
2013 – 7 of 9
2012 – 6 of 11
2011 – 5 of 14
2010 – 3 of 12
2009 – 7 of 13
2008 – 2 of 12

The trend clearly is that more Derby runners are skipping the Triple Crown’s second leg and are going directly into the Belmont.

The final digit is the total number of Belmont starters. The first digit is the amount of horses that were Triple Crown contestants. The second number represents the number of Preakness runners; the third is the amount of horses competing in all three races:

2015 – 9 - 3 - 1 [10]*
2014 – 7 - 3 - 3 [11]
2013 – 11 - 3 - 3 [14]
2012 – 3 - 1 - 1 [11]
2011 – 8 - 4 - 3 [12]
2010 – 3 - 1 - 0 [12]
2009 – 5 - 3 - 1 [10]
2008 – 4 - 3 - 1 [9]

( * ) Number of Belmont probable starters at posting


Is the increase in “Preakness skipping” simply a function of trainer unwillingness to compete on only two weeks rest, unless they've got a shot at the Triple Crown, or is the forced activity in the preceding 10 weeks taking a greater toll on Derby starters?

Without meaningful competition from other Derby participants, the Preakness is gradually becoming a “paid workout” for the Derby winner before its stamina is tested at 12 furlongs.

The Stronach Group is considering moving the Preakness to Laurel, or the race to Sunday, or both, the Laurel move needing state house approval.

Perhaps, under those circumstances, officials might be willing to consider moving the race back one week in an attempt to reverse the current skip-Preakness trend for Derby runners.

It remains to be seen whether Derby contestants molded by the current point-totals, “Big Seven” strategy will be better prepare possible Triple Crown champions. Is American Pharoah the prototype for generational superiority as a product of the current process? That, too, is a matter for further study.

Written by Indulto

Comments (2)

 
 

Page 1 of 24 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »