In yesterday’s discussion ( blog) of betting – I was trying to point out that selection plus value makes for a viable wager, simply having a probable winner at underlay prices doesn’t do the trick.   My comment in yesterday’s blog was that people who are betting on ODDS-ON are always setting themselves up to be trapped on a bad wager, with no chance to recover when they win.   Yesterday, as if I was tuned into the G-ds of racing, we had two great examples of how ridiculous these bets  are on ODDS-ON horses that are apparently going to win – no matter what.   At Aqueduct we had San Pablo, winning in a life and death manner.  He just held on as Gallant Fields re-rallied after getting off the rail late in the stretch.   The visual suggested that Gallant Field was much better, than San Pablo, but that is still subjective.  What’s not subjective is that the $2.90 win mutual for $2.00 wagered is nearly worthless, because when you bet a loser at odds-on, there is no recovery and the likelihood is if you bet on one of these traps, your almost certain to bet on another!   Executiveprivelege must have looked even more invinceable as she went off at 2/5, promising a payoff at $2.60.   You could hear the “gulp” when Executiveprivelege backed out of the race at the top of the stretch.    There she was, the best filly of the season, probable eclipse award winner, trained by the incomparable Bob Baffert losing at 2/5.

Earlier in the week, on Race Day Las Vegas, I differed with another handicapper’s comment on the horses coming out of the Breeders’ Cup;  my point was I wanted to bet against the horses that ran hard in the BC, the ones that tossed in a terrible race were more dangerous to me than the ones that ran great.    Executiveprivlege was a perfect example of that on Saturday.    For those of you who have been betting the horses who race well in the BC, you have several winners, but you have to look very hard to see your profit.  IN fact, just as I predicted yesterday, betting these types gets you caught in a terrible betting trap.   For me, I will continue to bet against , take my lumps here and there but score decently when I do case — so I will continue to  rate down the horses that ran in the BC, especially if they ran big — just as I have been doing over the past 15 years…Because it works…

A look behind the curtain:

Just for the record, in the BC Filly Juvy I rated Exectiveprivelege at 74.5 and she actually ran a ( 76.3 with the Bias) and in today’s race my forecast for Ep was only a 73.8 which was a maximum deduction for her 0f -2.0 points for hitting a TOP Effort and -.5 for running with the Bias  (76.3  – 2.0 – 0.5 =  73.8) …   Here is something else to consider, EP was rated at 73.8 and only 2/5 in odds, while Blonde Fog was rated at 73.3 and had odd of 5/1.   Ep might have been considered to have TO MUCH racing, while Blonde Fog might have been considered to have too little racing.  In this case they are both trained by the same trainer.  Remember, we are always saying, “all things being equal – isn’t this one the right play over that one”.  Well in this case, isn’t that exactly what we have.  Aren’t the right odds more like 2/1 on Ep, a fast but flawed filly, and 3/1 on BF, talented but a little light on seasoning.  EP was an obvious underlay, while Blonde Fog was a horse with a fair chance to win and proper value to support the wager.  Unfortunately, she only managed to finish second, but having made that wager, I can’t help but feel that I made the correct play.