This Week's confidence pick Guesses (NFL Week 12)

Last week, in a misguided "Nate Silver moment," I tried to predict the week in the NFL.

I said that of 6 "BIG (6 pt favorite or more) spread teams", one would lose.  One did.  The Texans.  We now know that the Texans are...oh, no...(more later).

I said that of the 9 FG or less favorites, at least two would lose (three did).

I said the average confidence pick score would be 83.  It was 82.75 in my group.

I said the high score would be 113.  Someone in my group only missed one game and had a 126.  Can't predict someone being crazy good.

So, where's that put us this week?

By my research (Yahoo NFL odds), there are only 3 BIG games: NOLA-ATL, Jax-Hou, TB-Det.  As the Saints are on the road, road BIGs are pretty automatic.  Make that your 16 (you heard it here).

Houston?  Remember -- only 73% of home BIGs win.  Just sayin'.

On the FG end, this week there are only 6 of those (compared to 9 last week, a season high).  Of those, 5 of those are home (StL, CLE, Oak, AZ, NYG), and one on the road (DEN).  Home FGs only win 71% of the time.  Pick one or two of them to lose.  Denver is a 50-50 shot to win, as road FGs win only 54% of the time.

Prediction on points?  With fewer FGs (three road FGs all lost last week), AND fewer BIGs, it looks like a good week should be better than last week -- an average around 90 points.

I can't predict someone will go 14 for 15 (or this week 13 for 14), but given the trend lines, 120 isn't out of the question this week -- losing one BIG game (assuming they are 16, 15, 14), or one of the 3+ to 5+ games (SD@KC, CAR@MIA, NYJ@BAL, SF@WAS) and an FG, probably the Denver game.

That's what notNateSilver has this week.  GL.

538.com Week 11 Confidence Number

If Nate Silver can predict (and accurately) the number of electoral votes...

Dbrolaw (whose blog this isn't) and I often speculate on whether this will be a good week or a bad week based on how tough we think the games are to pick any given week.

The magic number this week is 113 (out of 135).

Why?

Get this JG: it's an algorithm.

If you combine the winning number each week for our confidence group, and do an algorithm with the number of spread favorites, and it gives you a trend line; this week's mix of BIG home & road favorites (4 and 1) and FG home & road favorites (3 and 2) & you end up with 1 high number loser (14?) and two low number losers (5 and 3?).

The average this week should be 84.  I hope my score is closer to 113 than 84.

Go Broncs.

Go Colts?

Confidence Picks Week 11 of NFL -- 538.com-ish

This blog is to help enlighten those doing confidence picks (NFL) this week (and beyond?).  If you don't understand what "confidence picks for NFL" are, read no farther.

As I pondered this week's picks, I thought I was doing some Nate Silver numerical analysis and thought I'd share.

First, notable in Week 11 of the NFL is that 9 games (Colts-Titans, Skins-Eagles, Ravens-Bears, Jets-Bills, Lions-Steelers, Falcons-Bucs, Chargers-Dolphins, 49ers-Saints, Pats-Panthers) have 3 point spreads or less (we'll call them FG games).  Likewise, 6 games have 6 point or more spreads (we'll call them BIG favorites).  

So, I wondered: are the FG games harder to pick (for confidence) than the BIG games?

You understand, right?  Those 6 games should be 16-15-14-13-12-11, right?

And the other nine 10 through 2, right?

Ah...

Here's this season's data:

In 56 BIG games, the favorites have only won 44 times, or 75%.  In 52 FG games, the favorites have won 31 times, or 60%.

I found this rather shocking.

First, I assumed that being a BIG favorite would be a much better bet to win.  (JG axiom: in confidence, the first thing is to pick the games right; in the history of my confidence pick group, NO ONE has ever picked every game in a week right.  The weighting is secondary -- pick right!)

Second, I thought there'd be a bigger differential between BIG favorites and FG favorites.

Third, EVERY week, one BIG favorite has lost.

What's that mean this week?  One of those 6 will lose.

No, I can't tell you which one.

But, the corollary is this: the other 9 will run more true to form than you would think.

And, to go a step farther, (assuming you followed this) -- home FG favorites win 64% of the time.  Home BIG favs only win 73% of the time.

Better is that BIG road favs win 84% of the time (this makes sense as they are almost a touchdown, or more, favorites over the standard 3-pt bias for home field).  As the Cardinals are the only team in this category, I'm feeling like they should be my 16 this week.

As road FG favs only win 54% of the time (a bit surprising as being the favorite over the 3-pt bias should mean more advantage), it moves the Chargers, Falcons, and Lions into the lower end of the spectrum.

That's what I've got.

I need a big week.  Good luck to you, too.

It's Not *About Time*

Opening premise:  I love Richard Curtis films.  Four Weddings & A Funeral  -- seen like ten times.  Love Hugh Grant in it (of course).  Notting Hill -- seen like twenty times. Love Hugh Grant.  Love his roommate.  Love Hugh's sister.  Love Actually -- seen it like thirty times (the family thinks it's a Christmas picture).  Not sure it's nearly as good as the other two, but there you have it.

About Time is Curtis's next effort.

It's a disappointment.

First, it's charming, like the others.  But it's not really funny.

Where to start?  The premise?  Time travel?  Okay, limited time travel.   Yes, it could be funny.  Isn't.

Curtis is famous for funny scenes and lines -- the best man speech in Four Weddings, the Horse & Hound line in Notting Hill, the Bill Nighy scenes in Love -- but there's no such thing here.  Yes, Curtis tries to resurrect the best man speech problem, but Tim (Domhnall Gleeson) can go back in time, so...well, it's never funny.  Nighy (Tim's father here) gives a sappy little speech that might embarrass Hugh Grant.

Then there's the chemistry.  It is called "acting," so I've never quite believed in chemistry.

But Gleeson and Rachel McAdams's Mary just are not believable.  She's, of course, adorable.  But you never get that "meant to be" thing you get with Grant and Andie McDowell, or Grant and Julie Roberts, or Grant and Martine McCutcheon.  Maybe it's the fact it's not Grant.

I love McAdams.  But the promos say "McAdams best work since The Notebook."  What does that even mean?  She's been in some decent movies, but she's not a prospect for Golden Globes or Academy Award, -- yet.

She's cute here.  She's charming.  But if this is McAdams's best work...well, we can hope there's a lot more upside.

So, yes, About Time is a disappointment.  Maybe it's trying to be too deep -- yes, there's an implicit message.

Maybe it's just wasn't time for Curtis's next movie.

On Top in College Picks (for Now)

After the third week of college football picking, I wrote a blog on how to be last in your group while trying (blog).

Now, I'm going to tell you I'm in first place.  By four picks, which, in a drop a week league, is a lot.  I could screw it up, but I don't think it'd be easy to do so.

I wish I knew how I've done it.  I won this week with 11 out of 18.  You say "that's not good," but when you are picking against the spread and not picking which games -- there'd be a number of them I'd duck as too tough -- anything over .500 is good.  We've agreed among ourselves that picking against  the spread is almost a coin toss.

Here's what I know about this season: Alabama and Florida State have separated themselves.  If they don't end up in the national championship game, I'd be stunned.  Alabama has Auburn in the Iron Bowl, which is the toughest test either faces.

I admit I'd love to see Baylor or Ohio State in the championship game, just to mix it up some.  But Ohio State hasn't played anyone and won't -- I heard commentators last night saying they had to hope Michigan State won out so they played someone good in the Big Ten championship game.  Frankly, I want to see the line on that game; if Sparty is getting more than a field goal, I will probably take them.  Not exactly a big time contender.

Baylor?  They score a lot.  This week's game with Ok State may be in the 100s for total points -- 52-49?  If the Bears win that, well, some claim Texas might give them a game, but I doubt it.  I'd give two touchdowns at this point.  If they win out, they have a chance, but their non-conference season isn't much & the Big 12 isn't loaded with Top 25 teams -- it's Oklahoma, Ok State & Baylor.  If Texas gets there by the Baylor game, it's a joke.

College football is great.  The Notre Dame-Pitt game epitomizes why.  Pitt hadn't played a really good game all year, including a loss to Navy just last week, and the opening game shellacking by Fl State.  Notre Dame was hanging, with one loss, to hopes of a BCS.

Then, it's a tough game, ND makes a mistake, Pitt turns it into two touchdowns and momentum, and you have an upset.

On the other hand, you have a great game like Alabama-LSU.  And Alabama grinds to a two TD lead, but gives up the 80+ yard kickoff return, and...

LSU doesn't convert.  Mo doesn't really shift, and the Tide rolls to the other end and seals the game, more.

Fun to watch.  Unexpected (didn't we all think LSU would be within a score late?).

So, we'll keep watching.  And picking.  But it's Tide v. the Seminole chop at this point for the title.

It's a Rush -- see it!

I finally saw Ron Howard's Rush.  It is my favorite movie of the year (admittedly, it may not be "the best").

Disclosure: in 1976, when the movie's central action takes place, I was big into cars, had a subscription to Road & Track (this was before every sports event was televised somewhere live), and I followed Grand Prix racing as best I could from the American Midwest.  The Hunt-Lauda rivalry that is the movie I followed like some followed Ali & Frazier.

Sports movies are often pretty good, given that sports provides that story arc with the tension needed to drive a good story.  With car racing, you add the visual element -- it doesn't take a lot of special effects to have you into the event (we all drive, but none of us THAT fast).

Then you add two complementary characters like James Hunt, the brash, playboy Brit, and Niki Lauda, the reclusive, mechanical Austrian, and you've got a great mix.

Add Lauda's tragic accident and the great talent the two possessed, and you've got quite a film.

You are caught up in their rivalry; you are caught up in Lauda's recovery; you root for Hunt's success, because he's so forthright & charming (does he really say to the press that he's pulled quite something being able to divorce without paying a thing because his wife has taken up with Richard Burton?  does he really beat in a reporter's face after a heartless question about Lauda's marriage and command, "ask your wife what she thinks of your face now"?)...and you don't know who should win.

Howard does an excellent job of portraying them both, with screenwriter Peter Morgan's script using voice-over narration from them both to understand them both and their mild animosity for each other.

The racing shots are great.

Thor (Chris Helmsforth) is good as Hunt;  Daniel Bruhl is excellent as the up-tight Lauda.

It's taut, exciting, and thrilling.  See it.  It may not win an Academy Award nomination (it's probably not high-brow enough), but it's quality film-making: an intense story, well acted, written, and beautifully shot.

Movie Reviews: Gravity says Enough Said

I know the title sucks, but when you got nothing, you force the connection.

It's been awhile, but I've recently seen two movies worth recommending.  So, here it is.

First in order of my seeing it, as well as order of release, was Enough Said.  I knew it'd be a "meet cute" RomCom, with "adult"...errr..."mature" actors, and it was.

The surprise is that it's actually pretty funny; I mean, how can you do better with low humor than a reference to James Gandolfini's penis hanging out?

Okay, get this (spoiler alert, I'm about to ruin most of the movie's setup, skip this paragraph if you don't want to know): Gandolfini & Elaine...err...Julie Louis XIVth...meet at a party.  Right.  Turns out his ex is there.  Who knew?  Well, the thing is, it's an important plot device that Louis...err...Elaine, doesn't.  They end up dating.  Amazingly (who could have seen it coming?), Elaine...errr...Julie fouls up the relationship by complicating it by trying to keep a relationship with both of them.  But this is a grown up film.  They don't have some denouement to get them back together.  But there comes a final scene where they admit to having driven by each other's houses since the break up.

Cute. Well done.  Elaine is...errr...Elaine (has she ever played anyone different?) and Gandolfini is pretty good as a modest, divorcee -- you wonder why he's divorced -- who doesn't have Brad Pitt's looks or body, but seems just a decent enough guy.  No, not a gangster.  No wonder he died -- got too far out of type.

Gravity is completely different.  If you haven't heard, it's Sandra Bullock's movie.  George Clooney is in it, but those of you who want to see a lot of him, well, he's in a space suit the whole time.  Too bad.  Sandra isn't.

I'm not sure Bullock is any better in this movie than Elaine is in Enough Said.

But the movie is A LOT better.

You do know they get stuck in space? (is that a spoiler? whoops! alert)

You are not sure they are going to make it.  You are not sure Bullock is going to make it (like the movie, Clooney may reappear in a moment).  Bullock is the outsider, the scientist who has brought her experiment into space (you can ponder whether you buy Bullock as a one-of-a-kind inventor-scientist if you dare) & who doesn't know how to fly a capsule.  This makes for some of the suspense as she tries to not only figure out how to do the mechanical thing, but, of course, nothing done in space these days is American, so she has to cope, too, with the language barrier.

Bullock has a very bad day.  If it could go wrong, it does.  She's bright, athletic &...well, that's par for the course -- would you send a klutzy idiot into space (sort of rhetorical) -- so has a chance.  But there seems to be everything against her.

Of course, it's space.  Oxygen is in short supply.  So, if you missed this, is gravity, which makes a a whole series of things weird and different -- you wonder how they did the shots.  Cuarzon is masterful with the cameras, with the story, with the CGI.

Is she going to make it?  Where's George?  Will you hear from Earth?

It's tense, taut, visually appealing, and Bullock, if not exactly exhibiting the Ms Einstein persona, is appealing.  You care if she survives.  You root for her.  When there are complications (gee, weren't there some of those in the other movie, too!?!?!?), you want her to resolve them.

It's worth seeing.

They both are.  For different things.  But they are both well done.  But my recommendation is see Gravity first.

How to Be Last in College Pick 'em (while trying)

So, it's almost the end of the third week of college football 2013.

I am about to be last in my group's college pick 'em for the third week in a row.

Here's how you do it:

• Think Texas is good.  Yeah, they've got like 77 high school blue chip players on the roster, and the largest budget in the country (see this week's SI article on them and USC) but they aren't very good.  Kansas State will be favored against them in Austin next week.  Oklahoma might beat them to death in the Red River Rivalry later this month.  Hook 'em Horns.
• Think South Carolina is a top five team.  Yeah, they lost, by double digits, last week to Georgia. They didn't cover this week.  Great.
• Be on the wrong end of the half point in the biggest game (so far) of the year -- see Alabama (giving 7.5).
• Don't believe Northwestern can cover big against teams they usually struggle with.  
• Be a Purdue graduate.  Need I say more?
• Notre Dame? They covered the first week...right?  1 for 3 is...okay, it's why I'm in last place again.
• Who can guess on a 35-point spread? Not me.

I love picking.  And I'm a big fan of college football.  But sometimes...it's just frustrating.

I'm one week of last place away from using the Diane Chambers method.  Remember her, from Cheers?  She picked games based on which mascot would win.  See, I'd have gotten the A&M-Bama game right, too, right?  An Aggie beats a Tide right?  I'm still trying to figure out if a Boilermaker -- whisky in beer, right? -- beats a Leprechaun.  I guess the leprechaun is fighting.

Wish me well next week.  Wildcats over Longhorns. Rah.

Blue About Blue Jasmine

I have to open by saying that I was disappointed with Woody Allen's Blue Jasmine.

Maybe I'm feeling the same thing critics did who saw The Lone Ranger this summer, expecting something at least somewhat different, then getting...a different vision from the director.

I was disappointed first because, unlike his last two movies (Midnight in Paris and To Rome with Love), which were devastatingly funny, Blue Jasmine almost never is.

Okay, deal with that.

Second, I always want someone to attach to, to empathize with, to care about and root for.

In Blue Jasmine, you feel like it's supposed to be the main character, Jasmine (not her real name), played well by Cate Blanchett, but I dislike her from the opening scene -- where's she's annoying an older woman she doesn't know with her life story while on a plane.  I never got over it.  Call it personal.

But it seems Woody never tries very hard to make her likable.

Her life is as blue as the title, and the song that is the signature (and in the background, I think) through out -- Blue Moon.   She has "no prospects" and is forced to live with her sister, Ginger (goes with Jasmine, right?), played with some vulnerability and zest by Sallie Hawkins, in San Francisco.

After Barcelona, Paris, and Rome, San Francisco doesn't quite lead in this movie the same way (the setup is there with the opening plane trip), with cuts back to Jasmine's former life on the East Coast with the sleazy, oily dead husband Hal (played with sufficient oil by Alec Baldwin).

The pieces are all there.

But, despite the director's best twisting to gain tension, we aren't really hoping Jasmine lands the next husband -- saving her from the "menial" (her word) work she needs to do to get some kind of life.  

In the end, we don't care.  And Woody leaves us not caring.

Maybe next time.

The Myth of the Great Nats

Today, for a moment, we're talkin' baseball.

Today Dave Cameron on ESPN Insider wrote "Can Nationals make Miracle Playoff Run?"

Well, of course.

But...

See, based on last year's success, everyone things this is a great team.  Always on the verge of breaking out.

This blog is to tell you that they've got it wrong: they are a plus .500 team that got lucky last year.

First: their everyday lineup isn't that good.  Jayson Werth is having a year werth his money -- .330 and leading the team in homers.  But he's not the scary clean-up hitter a team as scary as the Nats are supposed to be is supposed to have: he's no Puig, no Kemp, no Votto, no Cabrera.  You get the picture.

Harper hits .270.  He hits a lot of homers, but he misses a lot of games.

Desmond is a good shortstop, but he's a .270 hitter, too.

Who in this lineup is Votto? Puig? McCutcheon (Werth is trying)?

Second: their pitching after the top 3 or 4 is lame.  Zimmerman, Gonzalez, Strasburg are top rate.  Haren has been up and down. The bullpen has been bad.

The Braves beat them like they are the red-headed stepchild.

I could go on and on.  But you see my point: people talk up the Nats, but where's the substance?  Who is it that's driving this bus?  Harper?  He's no Miggy.  Nobody is.

So, maybe the Nats make a run. I root for them.  But it'll be because they grind their way out of it, not because they are this great team that is just a bit off.

Who Wants Tiger Back?

Three weeks ago, in the aftermath of Phil's historic (epic) win in The Open, I wrote here of the wonder of Phil's win and the message it sent to Tiger and Lee Westwood, who both failed to grab the claret jug.

Now, having seen Jason Dufner play a classically PGA tour round of golf -- fairways and greens -- knocking it close often enough to shoot 10 under for the four days and 2 under on Sunday.  That beat Jim Furyk by 2 and the rest of field really wasn't in it after Henrik Stenson inexplicably made 5 on the short par-4 14 that he can reach with a driver.

To repeat what you've probably heard too many times already: Dufner is the 18th non-repeat major champion since Tiger won the US Open on one leg at Torrey Pines in 2008.  Only Phil, Rory and Padraig Harrington (remember him? did he make the cut at Oak Hill?) have won two majors in that time.

The PGA Tour has become Phil and the pigmies. Or Tiger and Cubs, given Woods has won five times this season.

But is this what we want to see?  Henrik Stenson winning the Masters?  Jonas Blixt taking the US Open?

History tells us that golf goes through periods like this, not dominated by a single golfer.  But we have to go back to the period between Arnie's ascension and Hogan's retirement to a time when there was no dominant force in the majors.  Since Arnie, we have seen Jack take the mantel from him, then Tom Watson, then Nick Faldo & Seve Ballesteros, then Tiger Woods.

Now, Tiger is still playing.  But since the knee injury he is, for lack of a better, more complex analysis, "past his prime," and golf awaits his successor.  Is it Rory?  Or some unknown at this point?

Sundays in majors are more interesting if there's a Tiger in the hunt. Or Phil.  Or even Rory.  Dufner v. Furyk v. Stenson v. Bradley isn't the same.  Until one of them wins a couple majors and grabs the mantel.

We need "juice" in the majors, like Muirfield, where Tiger hung there to finish 6th and Phil played one of the great rounds of all time to come from five groups back to win.

We've seen too much in the last 5 years of the ho-hum.

Bring back Tiger, so we can have someone to root against on Sunday in the Masters...the US Open...the  Open...

If he won't win number 15, we at least want him to be there on Sunday.  And it'd be great if there was the next great golfer standing in his way -- someone who wins two majors in a year and starts us talking about "the next Tiger" with some accuracy.

Miracle at Muirfield: Phil Overcomes; History speaks to Tiger, Lee

Was that an amazing Sunday?

As Paul Azinger said as they started back nine coverage, "I foresee an eight-way playoff."  There were that many people in contention.  Lee Westwood, not hitting a fairway on the front nine, but hanging onto the lead until Adam Scott took it with a run of birdies around the turn.  Tiger hanging there, with the announcers, rightly, intoning "he's only 2 (or 3) behind".  Hunter Mahan.  Henrik Stenson, and, of course, Ian Poulter, though they exaggerated the likelihood he'd end up in a playoff at +1.

Then along came gun-slinging Phil.  Birdie on 13.  Birdie on 14.

Then he pulls the classic Phil -- blows the birdie putt on 15 too many feet by.  Rut ro.  No one with his record misses more puts like this.  Then he makes it -- a swirly -- and goes to 16, where he backs the shot off the green.  And makes the 7-footer for par.  It's his to win.

No one can express how crazy the two 3-woods he hit to the green on 17 were.  Into the wind, over the bouncy ground.  No one else had gotten there.  Phil had an eagle putt.

Then he goes ahead and makes the birdie putt on 18.  He didn't need it, but nothing like making it look good, right?

It was a bad day for Tiger.  Everyone used to talk about how he "scared" the other players (a tough thing to do in golf, btw); well, guys who scare you don't bogey the opening hole.  They just don't.  That's not called momentum.

And once he made his first birdie, he turned around and missed a makable birdie putt on the next hole (the 10th) that would have gotten him right there.  Missed it.

Tiger Woods circa 2000-2005 doesn't miss that next putt.  He makes it and charges.  As Westwood was going bogey-bogey, no birdie on 9, behind him.

He's not that Tiger Woods anymore.

The new one seems to have trouble putting four good rounds together at a major.  Today's 75 was a disaster -- he shoots par and he's there at the end.  Does Phil pull off those shots to beat Tiger?  We'll never know.

But here's what Muirfield says about Tiger: he may never get 15.  He is the world #1, but that's not winning majors.  He's a horse for courses -- he'll probably win at Firestone next month, since it's one of his horsey courses -- which can mean a lot of wins.  But only at Augusta, the one major that stays at one locale, does this play in his favor.   When's the next US Open at Pebble or Torrey? Or British at St. Andrews (okay, just two years)?

I'm not going to be surprised to see him use his experience and knowledge to pull "a Nicklaus" and win a green jacket to cap his career, but he'll have to win somewhere else to prove he has any chance to get to 18 majors.

The other telling round was Lee Westwood.  Two stroke lead, putting better than ever.  And he's got a bigger lead as no one moves on him early in the day -- failing to go hot on the first 5 holes, which was the logic of the week.

He didn't hit fairways early, didn't make putts late.

If this is about horses, you would never bet on Westwood again (to win).  Not all maidens win their first one; he might be a good place/show bet but win? He's had more top 3's in majors than anyone since they started playing the Masters and hasn't won.  It says "won't win."  He's 40.  Yeah, maybe next year, or the next, he continues the Open trend of 40-something winners, but he's no Ernie Els or Phil Mickelson.  He may be Darrin Clarke, but is that a trend to count on?

After how he finished the US Open, you can't believe Phil isn't going to be totally psyched to return to Oak Hill, where he played his first home Ryder Cup, with a claret jug in hand.  He's playing with house money, and we know how Phil loves to gamble.

It was a great day of golf, with one man making almost all the great shots.  He deserved to win.  And Muirfield proved itself again to be a course that finds Hall of Famers to win.

Alone at the Lone Ranger

Gore Verbinski's Lone Ranger is apparently a huge flop -- opening with about $50 million in sales, where it cost an estimated $225 million to make.

I can't say why it cost so much money to make, but I do not understand why it opened so poorly -- it was much hyped and, though the reviews have been bad, you would think that that wouldn't matter (will it stop people from seeing Grownups 2 this weekend?).

It's really not a horrid movie.

But that's not to say it's good.

I'm sure someone has said that it's Pirates of the Caribbean in the Old West.  Given Verbinski directed Pirates and Johnny Depp stars in heavy makeup, I can see that.

But it's not half as clever nor does the camp work half as well.

It's too long by half an hour.

I thought Armie Hammer was good as the Masked Man -- hey, he's supposed to be an uptight guy -- and I thought Depp chewed the scenery as Tonto.

It also wasn't as funny as it wanted to be.  Some of the visual humor just wasn't funny.  I laughed heartily at some of the comments.

And, I have to add (I know, again, this isn't original material) the horse (Silver) was probably the best part.  And, yes, the funniest.  Poor Depp, can't beat a horse for laughs.  All he has is a dead raven to work with.

But, still, there are good action bits, with Depp and Hammer bouncing around trains -- twice -- and doing all sorts of action/adventure things that border on slapstick & ridiculous.  And Tom Wilkerson makes a fine villain, grinding through his lines like a real Westerner who happens to know John Locke.

So, I say, act like it's an adventure and go see it.  It's not significantly different from the other pallid action hero films this summer -- Iron Man, for instance.

Man of Steel

I saw it.  To paraphrase a friend: I didn't hate it.

There's a plot.  A lot of plot.  Two hours and twenty minutes of plot.

This guy Cavill who plays Clark Kent, or the guy who will be Superman (they only come up with that late in the movie), is a hulk.  Yeah, there's beefcake for the women.  And he's beefcake.  As Superman, of course,  he doesn't have to be a Shakespearean actor.  He's not (as far as one can tell).

The highlight of the movie is, of course, Amy Adams.  She's got the right amount of spunk for the part of Lois Lane, with the right amount of light to make you think she's not so serious that she won't take Superman seriously.

He's Super.  Got it.

Laurence Fishburne is a Shakespearean actor.  He's wasted in this movie.

Russell Crowe has Oscars.  If he's not wasted, you won't remember this performance.  Guaranteed.

The whole "Krypton-is-exploding" plot seems...well, who cares?  He's from another planet; Earth's atmosphere and gravity make him Super.   Super.  Got it.

Grew up in Kansas.  Dad was Kevin Costner, obviously with a ball field in one of the cornfields, pitching Middle Western American values all over the place.  Clark...errr...Super...buys it.  Eats it up.  Makes him the hero.  Got it.

Not sure why Zod follows Ka-El to Earth -- something to do with DNA I would think he could just take from his crew, but, hey, I'm not from Krypton nor am I a geneticist.  Not sure why Zod is a cold-blooded killer -- guess it's supposed to be a "I-am-a-warrior" thing -- but that's beyond cliche.

It's beautifully shot -- you know all the CGI stuff -- but...

Yeah, it lacks a soul.  He's made of steel.  Got it.

There'll be another.  Got it.

Early Summer Art Film Review

Spent the weekend in civilization.  There was an "art film" theater.  So, saw some "quality" films.  And I saw This is the End.  Don't bother on that one, though there are LOL funny bits.  Just not enough.  More of it is just stupid.  Stunningly.

I saw Wish You Were Here  (Australian) and Shadow Dancer (Irish).  Neither had subtitles.

Go ahead and laugh. I didn't for two straight movies.

Wish is about two Australian couples who go on vacation in Cambodia for a week.  And come home.  Oh, that's right, one of them doesn't come home.  And the other three do.

Could you do that? "Yeah, buddy, sorry but I gotta get that flight?"

Of course, it is Cambodia.

It's beautiful, by the way, at least along the sea coast.  Not so much in the urban shots.  As my spouse said, "Cambodian tourist bureau must not have approved of some of those shots."

Kieran Darcy-Smith directed and co-wrote with Felicity Price, who is one of the two couples.  Joel Edgerton (Revenge of the Sith) stars.  Darcy-Smith & Price wrote it in a series of flashbacks that leave you wondering.  Not much, but a bit.  It's interesting, different (Cambodia as travel destination? disappearing boyfriend?) and the time shifts make it worth seeing.   Edgerton and Price are excellent.  The weak link is Teresa Palmer as Mrs Edgerton's sister, who is the one left from couple #2.

But it's not the thriller Shadow Dancer is.  Set in the final days of "the troubles" in Northern Ireland, the movie follows an IRA operative (played convincingly by Andrea Riseborough) who is caught in the middle of the whole thing.  Clive Owen plays the English MI-5 operative who works both her and the operation she's involved in.  Scary as hell is David Wilmot (famed for a Tony in Lieutenant of Inishmore? or  Anna Karenina --  as Nikolai the decadent), who is the IRA enforcer trying to find the mole in his organization.

It's taut.  You worry for Riseborough's Collette, then worry that you've misjudged and she doesn't need your sympathy but Owen, struggling with a secretive English establishment, does...then it swings back.  She's tough.  He's not quite as tough.  Wilmot is plain bleepin' scary and after them both.  And they are on the verge of signing the peace accord.  How long will the game of cat-mouse and shooting continue?

I thought they were both good.  Shadow Dancer is the better of the two.  But the Australian movie (no subtitles, right?) will keep you wondering and guessing.  And, maybe, like me, not believing what your senses tell you.

Go Hawks.

The Post-Belmont Blahs Blog

It was a fun day at Penn National, betting on Belmont races -- and the first ones at PennNat -- & wishing I could make money.

But the Belmont (Stakes) was a bust.  Third Triple Crown race in a row where I said "who the F!?!?"  I didn't even have to look at my fistful of tickets -- I knew had none with the 12 (Palace Malice) on top.  Like I knew in the Derby I didn't have Orb alone, or Golden Soul at all.

Here's the thing about the Belmont: a) plenty of people pumped Palace Malice (I heard it called the "wise guys pick"); b) the shape of the race was almost exactly what I said it'd be in yesterday's blog -- or one of the shapes.  It was the speed race with no one heading them.

The two you thought would go out fast (1 & 2, Frac Daddy & Freedom Child) did -- the first half mile was the 2nd fastest in history (so much for the mediocrity of this year's cohort) -- with Palace Malice right behind.

Then they died, as we thought they might, and Revolutionary bolted forward, but didn't catch Palace Malice & Oxbow.  Then came Orb.  Revolutionary burned out and Orb didn't have enough to catch the  fast-paced horses.

The rest of the day?

I was ahead by about $30 without the Belmont.

Cashed a show ticket in the 6th (the first in the Pick 6) to start the day; I also had a P6 ticket with JG that started with a W.

Sat out the 7th, but on the first anchor of the P6, won.

In 8th, made the day's "vig" by picking the exacta & cashing a nice ticket. Gave me enough to bet what I wanted in the Belmont.

If you missed it, the JG P6 was 3-for-3.  None of them were particularly long shots, and it ended up paying "only" $6,345 (it was over $2 mill pot), but still...

The 9th started the day the wrong way.  Forty Tales swept to a win in the Woody Stephens, paying $19.80 & brushing aside the 6 & 11 on both the P6 & P4 tickets.

Ouch.

But, whoa, boy!  Came back with a PS cash on 10th AND the second anchor on Pick 6 wins, meaning I've got 4 of 5 on P6 & Orb & Revolutionary, the two favorites, in the last race.  You know how that turned out.

Suddenly in the hole for the day, lost a $2 W on 3rd at Penn Nat.  Waited on waitress to bring our bill.

Decided to bet 12th.  PS on it hits.

Still waiting -- races were 3 minutes apart.  Use 2, 3 from my dead P4 on 4th @ PennNat and hits.

Finish the day with two double digit wins.

Finish nearly even.

I have no regrets, except I didn't win.  Ignored the Palace Malice "wise guys," (listened to the ones on Overanalyze, which would have made a Triple O Triple Crown, but also ignored late push on Incognito [if you missed it, 4th only pays if you have the rest of the Superfecta] & Unlimited Budget -- neither name I heard called during the race).

It was fun.  Hope your day at the races was too.

My Take on the Belmont (a short version)

Yesterday I wrote a primer for novice horse bettors in setting up this weekend's big race -- the Belmont Stakes.  Today I want to walk through "the race" with whatever "tips" you pull from that for your betting.

I will start with the obvious (not the last time I state it here): it's going to be wet.  Unless predictions are off, the track will be sloppy.  That changes a lot.

What does it change?

Let's start with Beyer numbers.  Orb ran a brilliant 104 in the slop at the Derby.  Golden Soul posted a 100, Revolutionary a 99.  Freedom Child posted a 99 in the slop the next week at Belmont in winning the Peter Pan by 13 lengths.

On a dry track, that 104 is good.  But Oxbow had a 106 in the Preakness; Revolutionary had a 102 last fall; Overanalyze posted a 99 in the Remsen last November; Unlimited Budget a 98 in the Fairgrounds Oaks in March.

The conversation changes on mud.

Yesterday in the primer blog I said that early speed often wins on muddy tracks, in part because horses don't like having mud thrown in the their face (usually). 

But there are too many horses after the early speed for that to be the probable shape of the race, i.e. "like the Preakness."

Instead, it looks more like a scrum for the lead, leaving the closers to do their thing.

*IF* early speed holds and wins, I like Freedom Child.  That 99 in the Peter Pan contains this line "1 1 1 1 1 1" -- wire to wire.  For a 13 length win in the slop. If they let Freedom Child have the lead at the right pace, they may not catch him.

However, this looks more like the Derby than the Preakness.  Wet track; evenly matched field; maybe 5 horses that want to go out to the lead (Freedom Child, Frac Daddy, Oxbow, Giant Finish, Palace Malice [who ran those lightning early splits of 22/45 in the Derby]), and closers waiting.

In that scenario, you have to like the two Derby favorites, Orb and Revolutionary.  You can't forget Golden Soul, who ended up splitting them, but you wonder about the Soul's development -- the 100 on Derby day was his best race by 15 Beyer points.  Fluke or how well he's developed?  Only the race will tell for sure.

Revolutionary is 0 for 2 against Orb, and lost the one day to both Orb and Freedom Child. 

Got that?  Is tomorrow & the number 9 (as JG says, the Beatles Revolution #9) magic?

Have fun.  Hope for a big handle and some nice winners.

Note on million $ P4 & P6:  Anyone who knows their handicapping, knows that race 8 is the lynchpin to either -- 5 horses with 7 Beyer points in last race separating them.  "Word" is that the 4, Dayatthespa, might not run off turf, making it a bit easier.  But that's the one you have to pick right -- it's the most open of the 6 races.  Cover "ALL"?  GL.

Horse Racing Betting Primer

This blog is for the novice horse racing follower (I'm taking two to the track on Saturday) and wants to know something about how "all this is done" --

This is meant to be a quick primer (blog length stretched, probably as there'll be 8-10 headers).  It's based on 30+ years experience attending and betting horse races (I went to my first one in college) & a recently reading of Richard Eng's (the horse racing writer for the Las Vegas paper) Horse Racing for Dummies.  It won't include the etiquette or language of placing a bet.  I will use Saturday's Belmont as an example where applicable as well as the other Triple Crown races this spring.

A major component of all handicapping is The Daily Racing Form (DRF).  The print version used to be ubiquitous at race tracks; you now can get it online (of course) in PDF form.  It is full of almost all the information you need to bet -- except scratches & late changes.   This is short, so I won't run through the info there, or how to read it, except as I go through the basics below.

Eng says first timers, rookies, novices should bet show bets.   This is so you get in the habit, and get the rush, of cashing winning tickets.  It's good advice.  It can make for an inexpensive day.  If you bet the favorite to show all day, you'd end up about even.

Now to the heart of the matter:

Class matters

The Belmont is the top of the rung in racing class.  It's a Grade 1 Stakes, which means it has a huge purse.  Horse races are rated stakes, allowance, or claiming (& denoted so in the DRF).

A horse that has only run in allowance races & runs in a G1 Stakes is probably out of its league.  See Midnight Taboo in the Belmont; his last race was an optional claiming race May 8 @ Belmont, which he didn't win.

This difference is reflected in the Beyer number -- the bold number before the placing at the markers in the race (Midnight Taboo posted an 85 that day, starting 1st, then 5, 4, 4, 5, 2nd by 2 lengths).

Another way to judge this from the DRF is it tells you in the small print in the second column at the top how much was paid for the horse.  Our example, Midnight Taboo, cost $10,000.  Orb $70,000, Incognito $150,000, etc. It's not exact, but it gives you a sense if the horse belongs in this class or not.

Beyer numbers

Eng doesn't explain where Beyer (a DRF writer) gets his number from, but many players use it as an indices.  It shows how horses over different tracks would compare and it's pretty widely viewed as accurate.

One way to handicap a race is to look at the Beyer.  The horse with the highest Beyer number is likely to be a favorite to win.  The DRF puts the highest Beyer number of a horse's career up next to life stats -- races, wins, places, shows, money won, and top Beyer score.

It will take a 100+ to win the Belmont Saturday.  Orb ran a 104 in the Derby; Oxbow a 106 in the Preakness.

Eng says he uses Beyer numbers not to determine the race, but to quickly eliminate horses he shouldn't bet on. In a 14-horse field, that's helpful.  Eliminating several means you can focus on the other end.  If they are going to run in the low 100s, betting a horse that's never cracked 85 is VERY wishful thinking.

Lone speed often wins

Unlike the Belmont, a big slice of horse races at tracks run at 6 furlongs (6F).  As such, speed matters a lot.  For the Belmont, probably not as much.

When looking at how a race shapes up and who to bet, seeing a horse that likes to lead early & may be alone in doing so means a horse worth betting on.  You want to look at the DRF numbers above -- look for someone who is in 1st or 2nd at the quarter & half mile pole.

The Preakness is a classic example of this.  Oxbow went out, not actually very fast (the quarter was 23+, the Derby it was 22+), and no one ever caught him.  It happens a lot -- horses run like hell till someone catches them.

Dropping down matters

This doesn't matter so much for the Belmont, or the stakes races on Saturday, but it does matter.  Note: two horses that were talking Belmont, dropped Saturday to the G3 EasyGoer, the 6th race of the day at Belmont.  Going for a $1 million purse to a $150k one changes their stature.

You can see who's moving up and down.  I've already indicated Midnight Taboo is moving up.  Horses DO move up, but their record of success is far less than the record of someone dropping in class -- from a stakes to an allowance, or allowance to claiming, or $50k claiming to $25k claiming -- or someone dropping in length.

No one on Saturday has run the 12 furlongs of the Belmont.  Everyone will be moving up.  Some more than others.  But if they had run lots of 12s and this was an 8F (a mile), then you'd like the horse, esp if the right hand notes were saying "tired."  It might be the horse is good for a shorter distance.

Good to know the shape of the race -- and envision its outcome

DRF  runs a formulator PP just for this kind of thing.  One of the things that helps you pick a race and who to bet is to envision the race: if you could have seen that no one would push Oxbow in the Preakness, you would have said "he might win."  If you could have seen that Palace Malice was going to be chased by multiple horses for the 22 quarter, the 45 half in the Derby, you would know that the closers, like Orb, Revolutionary, Golden Soul, Normandy Invasion, who do well.

So, study the speed ratings (BTW, Brisnet -- another horse racing stat service -- does scores on pace, class, speed and power; these prove helpful if you can get them).  Study how the horses run in terms of their splits (are they always way down and come on to WPS? are they 1s and 2s and end up lower?).  If you can envision the race correctly, you know how to bet.

For Saturday, a pundit this morning said 5 horses will want to press the lead.  In that scenario, you have to bet on the "closers," like Orb, Revolutionary, Golden Soul...maybe even Unlimited Budget.

Pay attention to track speed (i.e. is it fast or sloppy/muddy?)

Adage: no horse likes having muddy kicked in its face.  So, if there's an "off" track, it changes the dynamics.

Overheard on Derby day: "Vyjack loves the mud, I can't believe he's not a big favorite."  Uh huh.  Never a factor, finished 18th.  This rep was probably based on winning a 7F stakes in December by 5+ lengths at Aqueduct (2nd race in his career designated "sly" after date-venue).  Shows how tricky it is to read the DRF.

Another adage, that goes with the mud in face line, is that early speed wins more often in the mud.  This, of course, changes the last paragraph under "envisioning..." :)

The horse's team matters (sometimes)

There is a reason why people like Todd Pletcher, who has 5 horses in the Belmont (& did in the Derby) gets press.  His horses win a lot.  And he brings with him a quality jockey.  They win a lot, too.  See Joel Rosario on Orb, Gary Stevens (now ancient at 50) on Oxbow, or the fact people bet on Calvin Borel's horse in the Derby.

Rookies in this limelight don't fare well.  Lots of trainers, owners, and jockeys live to just GET to a Triple Crown race.  Actually winning once there...well, that's a whole other step.

It's about the money

This is a conversation I have frequently with JG: it's not about picking, it's about maximizing your money.   Analogy: people often think English majors have an advantage at Scrabble because they know a lot of words, but experts on the game say it's not the words, it's maximizing the points on your tiles & reducing the potential of your opponents' points.  It's more math than vocabulary.

There are two aspects to horse betting: handicapping & betting.  As Eng says, and I agree, it's better to be a good bettor than a good handicapper (assuming you are choosing one).

Here's my latest example: for fun, I looked at Monday's card at Delaware Park (I used to go there, so the fact they run Monday afternoons and few others do makes it appealing) and I wrote down my picks for the last four races.  In a P4, I had 3 of 4 right.  But the way I had it laid out, I would not have cashed a single ticket!  The one I missed -- not a longshot but a solid choice in a cluster of possibilities -- broke the Daily Doubles I had in mind, I obviously wouldn't win the P4, and since the break was in the middle (the 2nd of 4), I wouldn't have won any P3.  And I wouldn't bet any of the 3 I picked because they weren't good enough W's to play (5-2s or 2-1s, etc).  You can pick a lot of winners and never make money.  On the other hand, it only takes one race with a longshot, exacta, trifecta, etc, and you can be ahead for the day (maybe by a lot).

So, strategize the play.  That's why the blog on spending $20 on the Belmont -- you can spend $100 and cover lots of things, but it doesn't guarantee making money.

Remember:  the line (I've never seen anyone do the math) is that only a third of favorites win.  A picker/handicapper who picks a third of races right is doing well, especially if it's about betting, not picking (you obviously can get a third right just by picking the favorite).

Favorites pay better or worse.  Again, this year's Triple Crown series is a perfect example.  Orb went off as favorite in the Derby, jockeying back and forth all afternoon with Revolutionary around 4-1.  That's a good price and worth betting.  He went off as something like a 3-5 favorite in the Preakness.  Not worth betting.

Opening line has Belmont with Orb favorite, again! this time at 3-1.

Rising odds might mean a bet

One thing to watch when betting is the odds.  At Penn National, a few thousands dollars on each race can move the favorite, the odds from worth betting to stay away, etc.  The Belmont will have tens of millions bet, so won't be so volatile.

But let's say third favorite (on the morning line) Oxbow goes from 5-1 to 8-1 as the race nears.  Oxbow becomes a bigger value then, because the objective, knowledgeable handicapper knew where Oxbow belonged.  The public's money doesn't change that.  You can make money betting this trend.

Likewise, a horse goes down v. the line, it's not likely everyone knows something the handicapper, who works at the track and does this professionally, doesn't.  Don't follow the trend.  I'd bet heavily that Unlimited Budget with Rosie Napravnik will get a big "pink" vote with $ Saturday.  My first Derby with my-wife-to-be in 1980 all the women in the party bet on Genuine Risk and none of the men did!  Of course, she won, but you see the point.  It won't be about the numbers in the DRF.

I think that's enough.  This will give you a lot to think about before the Belmont.  The morning talk was about a sloppy track, again.  They admitted it dampened the crowd and enthusiasm, as well as changed handicapping and betting the race.  Everyone will be searching like the person in line who thought he knew something about Vyjack in the slop.  :)

Good luck.

Belmont Bankroll Strategy

Confession: I bet (and lost, of course) over $100 on the Kentucky Derby.  I had some combination of everything -- except Golden Soul (of course).  I was on the road for the Preakness, saving losing a considerable sum again (yeah, I had Oxbow all over the place).  Thus the following thoughts --

If you've missed it, it's Belmont week.  The week of hope and joy for horse racing fans.  Okay, bettors.

You see, this is the week where we hope we make up the money we left in Louisville and Baltimore.

And, full disclosure, yes, I've won decently on the Belmont the last two years.

But this year, it's not about making it up.

It's about controlling what you spend.

My kids want to eat next week.

So the budget for the Belmont is $20.  [Note: this is like $40 on the Derby since the NYRA allows $1 bets where Churchill Downs only goes as low as $2]

So, how to spend my $20.

This is my strategy.  Ponder as you like.  Is it brilliant?  It is if it wins money Saturday.  If not, let's hope, like the opening of a Mission:Impossible episode, this blog burns up automatically.

Here it is:

Premise 1: cover as many horses as possible (without being crazy).  Magic number: 7.
Premise 2: there's money to be made on the exotics.
Premise 3: An Orb-Revolutionary exacta isn't worth betting.  Okay, it's not as rewarding as I'd like.
Premise 4: You can't really cover them all.

So, here is how I'm going to do it.  I don't know who fits where, so we'll use letters for the horses.  Remember, I want to cover A thru G.

WPS on A & B = $6  (these should be at least midrange shots, like 8-1 or better, so the payoff here gets me back my money, almost) [Note: median return on Belmont since 2000 is $25.80]

An exacta box with three horses (C,D,E)= $6. [Note: the same median is $121]

Then a trifecta mix with X, Y/X,Y&F/X,Y, & F & G = $7.  X&Y are the two horses you think will finish on top (you might start with thinking Orb & Revolutionary, the two favorites).  [Median is $766]

This strategy means a lot of hedging, since only the "X,Y" component allows duplication (in other words, say Orb-Revolutionary-Oxbow finish in that order, I'd only win the two ways if X,Y=A or B or C, D or E).  Don't count on winning more than one ways.  Obviously, you want to fill the most likely, and likeable combo in the trifecta slot.  And the WPS is probably 6 & 7 in the odds -- on the ML that's Overanalyze and Palace Malice.  I'll get my $20 back if either wins; if one wins and the other shows...profit.

After thinking this out (more than you'd think was mentally healthy), I think this covers the 7 most likely prospects in a way that could yield cash in hand no matter who wins (this covers at least five different winners) & with some outsiders mixed in, since we know there's always an oddity in the mix in an exotic (and the favorite rarely, rarely wins the Belmont -- graveyard of favorites is its nickname).

That's my strategy.  $19.  Throw in another "win" ticket and I've only lost $20. :)

A worthy goal.

GL all.

(Pre-) June Swoon for Chisox

Yes, it's time to go back and check on the White Sox (sorry, Dbrolaw).

It's time to talk who to trade before the deadline.

They gave us Sox fans hope by winning six straight, two straight series, over the Bosox & Twins, then came home against the Cubs and...

We are on 7 losses in a row and counting.   The Cubs?!?!? Lost 3 in a row to the Cubs?@?!?!  Oh, just kill me.

Now they are on the West Coast.  And Sox fans know what that means.  Not since Ray Milland and Jane Wyman (Mrs. Ronald Reagan 1 for those of you too young to remember her) has there been a group that gets lost more than the Sox on the West Coast.  Many years' hopes are lost out there in the middle of the Eastern or Central time zone night.  Angels, A's, Mariners...loss, loss, loss, loss, okay, maybe a win.

Adam Dunn has been horrible.  He's hitting .163.  Should I say "again?"

Jeff Keppinger has been barely serviceable.  We didn't pay him the off-season free agent money for .232.

Paul Konerko is hitting .240 with 5 homers and 21 rbis.  This is over a third of the way through the season.  That's a 14 homer, 60 rbi year for your 4 or 5 hitter.  Ouch.

Simply, they are last in the AL in batting, thanking the Mariners for keeping it close, last in runs scored by half a run a game.

Hope? I got little.  Connor Gillespie looks like a keeper as a rookie at third.  Alex Rios is playing decently.  Alexei Ramirez is having what is probably hitting what he should, .268, but no power, no RBIs.

Okay, I have no hope for the everyday lineup.

The starting pitching is good.  The ERA is 6th in the league, good enough to win divisions.

So, what do we do?

I think we find someone to take Dunn's contract off us.  Even if we have to eat some.  Get a good AA prospect for him -- a hitter.  A corner guy who can give us 30 and 80 and .275 a couple years from now.

Maybe we lose Rios.  For the right price. He's on some lists as trade bait.  We're last in runs and trying to be last in the Central.  We are keeping him for what?

And we hope for an off-season where we build a lineup from that right now looks like a scene I saw the other night on Amazon Instant -- Jeeves & Wooster in "Kidnapped" -- with a whole minstrel band.  All with banjos.  Yes, really. (It must have been funnier when Woodhouse wrote it in the '30s)

I hope they win 6 in a row again.  And again.  But I don't see them giving Sale, Peavy, Danks, Axelrod, Quintana enough help to win a bunch of games.

I feel like a Cubs fan, thinking about next year in June.  Dammit.

Penn Mile (Day at the Races)

My daughter and I made a last minute venture to Grantville, PA, to Penn National, where today they ran the richest series of horse races in the track's history.

It was a good day, as I walked away almost doubling my bankroll.  

I love opening with a W & I opened lucky with an exacta win; doubtless this was helped by the morning line favorite Ann's Smart Dancer scratching.  But a W is a dubbya.

The second I missed.  Interesting, as the 1 Tightend Touchdown ripped out to the lead and was never headed, winning handily.  At 3-1, not a longshot, but neither of us had it.  

Got better on the 3rd, hitting the exacta again.  

On the Penn Mile, yes, had the exacta, again, as the favorite, Rydilluc, showed why he's the best turf miler in the country, ripping the field and winning by a couple lengths.   Smart enough to have the 7 over both the 6 & 8, who were in a photo for second.  Also had the superfecta with 6,7,8 but didn't have the longest shot in the field, the 2, to finish out.  It paid $34 for a dime.  Bummer.

I had studied the fifth race, and had put down daily double on the Penn Mile for the 7, so had a continuation.  Hit that.  Hit the exacta & had a WPS on the 6 Scarlet's Number.  Thanks, Scarlet. 

My #1 choice in the 6th scratched, a signal to call it a day, ahead.  I did.  There were a couple nice winners later (paying $20.80 & $18.60 in the 6th and 7th), but who was hitting those?

Went home happy.  And ahead for the day making $23 on a $30 bankroll.  Leaves me a nice voucher to play next Saturday's Belmont.  

Now, to figure out how to have a winning day -- maybe a big one -- next week.  Is Revolutionary the key?  Or one of the O's?  Or all of them?

Penn Mile & Other Gut Checks

Yes, that post title will be funny, maybe, in a moment.

This weekend is the Penn Mile at Penn National, the nearest race track to my home.  It's the biggest purse stakes race ($500k) in track history, and probably in Pennsylvania history (which is a bigger deal when you realize that PA actually gives a state appropriation to support the horse racing industry in the Commonwealth).  It's the 4th race on a Saturday evening card, and they are hyping the evening as starting with an all-stakes opening pick 4.

But before that I have to survive my third colonoscopy.

Yes, I'm lucky enough to have had a father with colon cancer, making me an "A" in terms of colon watch.  I am supposed to have one every three years.  I have put this one off "awhile."

My first one, BTW, was back when they only partially put you asleep for them; now, thankfully, they knock you out and you have no clue what they do to you while you are out.  Having been half awake for one, I'm okay with being knocked out.  I mean, there's an odd fascination thinking that picture on the screen of this dark tunnel is actually your insides, but there's no way to get over the fact you are being violated (even ever so gently).  In my mind, it's just best to sleep through it all.  I like sleep.  Not into my own dark tunnel.

But it's not so bad as medical procedures go.  Of course, that's a line from a doctor, too, and you know the response: it's never so bad if they aren't doing it to you.

The worst part, almost anyone will tell you, is the prep.  Right?  You have to be "cleaned out."  You know what that means?  You are told to take more laxative pills than the box claims you are supposed to take in two days; you take more laxative in Gatorade (warning: don't go with the red) than you are supposed to take for weeks.

And, of course, you don't eat.  Popsicles, hard candy, jello.  Drinks.

No one wants to find a filet mignon up your a**.

Funny thing that.

If I survive, I will have at least an intellectual (i.e. if I'm not betting, I may wish I was) in the Penn Mile.  It's on HRN -- the horse racing network, which I seem to get because I have the local cable sports package -- Saturday evening.

You may recognize a couple of the contenders:  Charming Kitten, who ran in the Derby on the first Saturday in May, and Noble Tune, the linesmaker's favorite, Noble Tune, who has four wins and a second in his career on turf, including a nice win the on Oaks day at Churchill.

Kitten is a Todd Pletcher horse and ridden by Derby winner Joel Rosario; Pletcher and Jose Velasquez team up on Jack Milton, while the second favorite is actually Rydilliuc, a Gary Contessa trained horse that has "only" gone 3-for-3 on the turf, including a 5 1/2 length win the last time out on turf over a mile, too.

Those are the prime candidates.  DRF likes 20-1 shot Triple Cross (#5).  He's never run on turf.  And the last three races hasn't run in the 80s for a Beyer rating.

It's an interesting race.  Look for it on HRN.

Belmont Ten Days Out

Opening reminder: it's not about picking the winner; it's about making money.

With that in mind, I'll admit Triple Crown season 2013 has been disastrous.  Bombed on the Derby (oh, yeah, we ALL had Golden Soul), then didn't foresee it was Oxbow who would knock off Orb in the Preakness (the fact the Stevens ridden horse was 8th out of 9 in the betting indicates how many others saw it coming too).  That leaves the Belmont, the "Test of Champions."

I've won on the Belmont the last two years.  It means nothing except a certain positive vibe.

Here's the early analysis.  Yes, I like Revolutionary.  I've seen early guesstimates of 4-1 odds, which will do fine for my win ticket.  I'll also play him in the exotics.

But don't bet with me: remember, I've gotten killed in the first two.

But there's a lot of money to be made, AGAIN, and we need to get on it.  Last year over $50 million was bet on the race.  Imagine some of that being YOURS (okay, MINE!).

The Crown Contenders

Orb:  Won the Derby in the slop.  Remember the Derby was a race almost as strategically messy as the Preakness: Palace Malice went out in a pace that burned up a lot of the field.  Orb shot through and won the day.  People thought he was a super horse.  May 18th showed differently.  But he's good and will probably be the favorite in the race, though at something like the 5-1 odds in the Derby (one early line has it 7-2), not the 3-5 of Maryland.

Oxbow:  Won the Preakness as the next-to-last betting (un)favorite.  Allowed to gallop slowly to the front for the first six furlongs, then hung on.  Probably more speed than length -- the extra 5/16ths is probably way too much for him.

I worry about both having run all these tough races in such short time.  I still believe (despite the Preakness results) most classic-bred three-year-olds aren't ready for either a mile and a half OR the grueling three races in five week (and sometimes more in eight or nine) period.  These two have won the first two legs, so I understand their desire to run at Belmont.  Why Will Take Charge is running is one of life's mysteries.

The Derby Also-Rans

Revolutionary, Overanalyze, Golden Soul, Palace Malice, Giant Finish: I like Revolutionary in the Derby (finished a solid 3rd) and I like that trainer Todd Pletcher waited for this race.  Means he's more rested than the two O's; I also think he's better than other 4.  He'll be the second favorite (early line has 4-1).  One blogger has Overanalyze as his money pick; given his one on, one off record, maybe it's a good pick.  If he's 8 or 12 to 1, I'll have money on him, too.  As for Golden Soul, didn't buy it in the Derby, don't buy it now.  Maybe trainer Dallas Stewart knows something.  And Palace Malice was the speed in the Derby; speed burns out about six furlongs in this race and you end up as the title says "also-ran."

The Filly

I don't see why Unlimited Budget, who I bet on in the Oaks, is running here.  Yes, this year's 3-year-old filly crop may be a lot better than their brothers, but this is a huge test.  Story writers love the version where Pletcher does another Rags to Riches & pulls one out with the unknown filly, but this ain't that horse.  I won't be betting it.

They've Been Waiting

Code West & Freedom Child both seem to have sat out the first two Crown races to end up here.  Is it strategy or coincidence?  Child is the more interesting of the two, with its huge win at the Peter Pan on this same track.  But that race was not at a mile and a half and none of those horses are Orb, Revolutionary, Overanalyze, Palace Malice, Oxbow...need I go on?  Code West could surprise.  But not likely.

Why?  Really?!?!

At this point, it's Always in a Tiz and Midnight Taboo on this list.  There's always some of these coming to Belmont, having found some form elsewhere while the heavy-hitters have run at Churchill and/or Pimlico.  Once in awhile one of them catches lightening in a bottle; I'm betting against either one of these doing it this year.

Strategy

The first two races have shown how strategy makes the race.  Everyone knew post position mattered in the Derby; everyone knew the Preakness was a pace race.  The Belmont is so long that post position can be overcome -- in the grind, there's plenty of time to find space and get to the front on the big track. A fast early pace like the Derby might kill, but jockeys will be holding back to have something for the end, anyway, so that may not be as big a factor.

It'll be interesting to see things like does Oxbow go out to lead, again?  How does Orb run, having gotten a bad position holding back in the Preakness?  Where do the chargers like Revolutionary and Overanalyze start their charge, and from how far back?  And can the filly really hold up against this competition with this length?

Let's see where we are after the draw next Wednesday.  But, again, it ought to be fun.

(Not Tips on Betting) The Preakness

Yes, tomorrow is the Preakness.  "Horse racing's second in the Triple Crown." Etc, Etc.

They run for $1 million.  Only a handful of races a year are bigger than that.

But I'm not giving any tips or anything like it.

Why?

I sucked up the Derby.  Oh-fer.  Wore the collar.  Every cliche you can name.

Yes, having Revolutionary and not Orb doesn't look too bad, but it meant cashing no tickets on the Derby.  And none of the other plays worked that day, either.

So, no tips.  No advice.  Humbled.

But this blog is about winning money.

Don't bet on Orb.  At 1to1, all the "wise guys" (I wonder where they talk to them that they get to say "this is the wise guys' horse in this race") will tell you there's nothing to be made on betting it.

Of course there are always ways to make money on a race.  Exotics.  Long shots.  Etc.

Fun fact (or coincidence): in a long time, in a field of 9 or less in the Preakness, the Derby winner has not won.  There are 9 tomorrow.

Fun "fact" #2: three-year-olds are still developing and are neither mature enough, bred correctly, or trained correctly to race two weeks apart (at least anymore).  So, those moving from the also-ran status in the Derby (you will have noticed that #s 2, 3, & 4 in Derby aren't there tomorrow..waiting for Belmont or later) to Pimlico tomorrow are not likely to turn it around.

Departing ran four weeks ago tomorrow.   Governor Charlie, farther back.  Both won.  They are not slouch horses -- no, they shouldn't be favored ahead of Orb, but they aren't pushovers.

Yes, I had Fiftyshadesofgray today in the Black Eyed Susan.  As the second favorite @ 2-1, it wasn't exactly genius.  $6.60 on $2 isn't bad money.  Of course, I wish I had the Susan-Preakness double half in my pocket right now, but...who knew?

Good luck tomorrow.  If I pick well tomorrow, I may have some comments on the Belmont.  Or even the Penn Mile ($500k) on June 1.

Gatsby: It's Not Great, but What Is It?

I know F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel pretty well -- there was a time I could have told you which chapter lines resided in the short work (125 pages?).

So, seeing someone like Baz Luhrmann try to put it on screen was not something I looked forward to.

And I was uncertain of the casting of Tobey Maguire, Leo DiCaprio, and Carey Mulligan.

It's a lavishly filmed movie, which isn't a surprise given Luhrmann's career.  The much-hyped music was not a big element -- all those artists puffed in various ads just don't seem to be there.  There are snippets, but you never say "oh, that's Jay-Z, let's listen"...it's more of a skimming, brief background music.

One surprise is how faithful Luhrmann remained to the book.  In fact, maybe overly so, with Maguire's Nick Carraway "writing" Fitzgerald's words in both voice over and literally on the screen.  Too much? Probably.  The floating boats at the end just don't work...where's the actual visual of the boats (yeah, I know it's a metaphor)?

DiCaprio is okay as Gatsby.  Jay Gatsby is such an enigmatic figure, it's hard to say this is what an actor should do to make him work.  DiCaprio has the awkwardness of Gatsby's speech down (who the bleep really calls people "Old Sport"? -- yes, it's like he wants to be too familiar and doesn't quite know how naturally).

Maguire is good as Carraway.  Those faces he's been making since Cider House Rules stand him well here, where the wide-eyed naif is perfect for the just-turning-thirty Nick.

Mulligan is good as Daisy, too, floating from her first scene (famed in the book as she and Jordan Baker seem to float among the curtains as they lay on sofas in the Buchanan living room), light, ephemeral, yes, callow and shallow, too.  Mulligan has that.  She never seems as deep and worthy as Gatsby makes her.

What I found troubling about the movie was the swift change in tone.  After "party city" for the first two-thirds, the whole becomes painful melodrama (another reviewer has called it Nicholas Sparks romance) that slows and loses its life.  The almost unnecessary mano-y-mano scene in the Plaza Hotel is overwrought -- it's not clear it captures Gatsby's naiveté.  He really never has a chance to keep Daisy in his castle (as it is described) & Luhrmann doesn't quite capture that.

In the end, if you don't expect too much -- god knows it's NOT the best movie of the year, and probably not best movie of the month -- and don't hope for more than a bit of fun and a bit of melodrama, you'll be okay.

But that leaves this to say: why do we keep returning to this book?  I have seen multiple news shows, most notably the insufferable Chris Matthews, pump the movie, excited about the opening of "the Great American Novel."

I love the book.  And there's not doubt that it is "great" and it is "American."  But that it's the epitome of that art form, well, maybe, but it, like it's name character, is an enigma.  Let's ponder for a moment:

Many have talked about it as "the American dream."  It's hard to not take that to mean Gatsby's dream, which is highly flawed.  Gatsby, or Gatz, has fallen for a Southern ingenue who is shallow enough to marry another man, clearly for his family name and money, a year after her breakup with her supposed beloved.  That she moves on so quickly makes her something that Gatsby, and we the reader/viewer, shouldn't put on a pedestal.  Of course, that's part of the tragedy: Gatsby's passion is misdirected in so many ways.

Are we supposed to overlook that?  Or are we to see it as Fitzgerald's satire on the whole thing? (as many times as I've read it, I've never seen how you can do this -- Fitzgerald is as in love with Gatsby and Daisy as Nick is) What are we to make of our nexus of Gatsby-Nick-Tom?  Tom is brutal and not overly intelligent, though his references to Goddard, etc, make him better read (and he went to Yale, right? though our last president may have damaged that mystique forever) than we might expect.  Surely, we are to admire Gatsby, enjoy Nick, and despise Tom.  But that leaves us admiring a gangster (you certainly have heard the name -- Gatsby -- might derive from the notion of "by gat (gangster slang for a gun)"?), who tries to steal a man's wife (i.e. Luhrmann makes them clearly adulterers), with nice clothes and corny manners.  REally?!?!  That's our choice?  That's the American Dream?

Maybe it's the enigma that makes it so fascinating:  Luhrmann and Bogdanovich (the last one to make a big-budget movie version) just can't resist trying to make that smoke-like quality into something visual and solid.

The greatness of the book is in its enigmatic nature; maybe film-makers should leave it be.

I know that doesn't leave us in a good place as we look at this film, or rethink the novel, but there you have it -- it's a quality challenge.

April "showers" bring White Sox May what?!?!

So far this season I have refrained from saying anything about my beloved White Sox.  Dbrolaw is a Cubs fan (of course), explaining (once more) why this blog is called "Not Dbrolaw."  A Cubs fan.  Talk about a sad lot in life.

But this year's Sox aren't a pretty sight, either.  Last night they were no-hit for seven innings by the NL pitcher of the month, the Mets' Matt Harvey.  It's not surprising they were no-hit by a hot pitcher: they are last in the majors in batting, walks, on base percentage, and runs scored.  Monday afternoon they only had two hits v. Kansas City going into the ninth.  By the way, last night's game was their third consecutive extra inning game. They've lost two out of three.

Let me summarize what's going on: first, John Danks, one of their core star starters, hasn't come off rehab yet.  He should be their #3 and if he returns to form of three years ago, is about as good a #3 as anyone has.

Second, Jake Peavy, their #2,  has missed a couple starts with back spasms.

Third, their #3 in Danks's place, Gavin Floyd, underwent Tommy John surgery yesterday.  Done for the season, the year, etc, and, if lucky, will be back full strength in 2015.

Fourth, the "Big Donkey," Adam Dunn is hitting around .150.  Yes, he hits home runs, but the middle of your order cant' hit .150 and you generate runs.

Fifth, their best bat outside the trio of Dunn-Konerko-Rios, Dayan Viciedo, has been out hurt, too.

Sixth, Konerko and Rios aren't hitting either.

I could go on.  There's not much point.

They are 6.5 back on May 8.  And five games under .500.  Right now .500 looks like a pipe dream.  And my annual beat on them winning more games than the Pirates looks to be in jeopardy.

But it's only May 8, right?  We can hope a bunch of those people on the list get healthy, physically or statistically, and the Sox roll.

Right?

Stark Third Part: Iron Man Review

Yes, I saw Iron Man 3 this weekend.

You know you aren't at an art film when the previews are Superman, Star Trek: Why's It Called This?, Thor 2: or Why Bother? & The Lone Ranger (you're on your own with that clever subtitle).

Robert Downey's third attempt at the Marvel character isn't bad -- in fact, there are some clever bits.  But, really, you ever think there's a chance the lame villain played pretty well by Guy Pearce (he needs a better agent) is going to win, or that pretty Pepper -- the most beautiful woman in the world, Gwenyth Paltrow -- is going to die?  Nope.  Not happening.  Never think it will.  Maybe Don Cheadle's character is expendable (isn't he?), and maybe the US President is (not to give too much plot away), but not Pepper.

The franchise is tired.  Tony Stark's got malaise (you know, it's tough being too rich, married to the most beautiful woman in the world...I'd have malaise, too. And I have even forgot his near super powers).  We don't care.

There's lots of good fight scenes.

There's some nifty technology, not much of it we understand, or seem to be supposed to.

In the end, it's another 130 minutes of action.  It's not boring, but it's not great film-making.

Downey, Paltrow and Pearce deserve better.

This is NOT heroic stuff.

Post-Derby:Ouch to My Golden Soul!

The weather was sloppy, the track was sloppy, and, frankly, my picking was sloppy today.

It wasn't quite a goose-egg, but I didn't cash a ticket of any kind on the Derby.  Damned that Golden Soul!

Yes, I had an exacta with 16 over 3 or 5, but...

Yes, I had a superfecta with 16 over a series of numbers, but none of them was 4.

What I find interesting about the post-coverage is how little is being said about Golden Soul.

So, let me tell you this little bit: my analysis put Golden Soul 16th.

GS was the last horse into the race, with 7 points (right?) after a host of pretenders with 20 points dropped out -- early in the week when all these trainers and owners were wondering, one site indicating Golden Soul's team had committed to coming if eligible.  Right on!

Before we talk about the Preakness, look at those payoffs today: Exacta $981; 50cent Trifecta $1731; $1 Superfecta $28,542!  Yeah, serious change.  If you had the 4 to place, a mere $38.60!

But who had Golden Soul?

A sign of the picks was no one hit the Super Hi 5 -- the top 5 in order.  $303k carries over to somewhere...

As to the Preakness, Orb looked great today, outrunning the field from the third turn home and winning by a good margin (2+ lengths).  A bunch of horses seemed to skip the Derby (seeing all the mud and all the horses bounce off each other at the start and in various spots, you could hardly blame them), but none looks a challenge in two weeks, if he has gas left.  Surely the next four in the Derby, if healthy, should follow him to Baltimore.

And, yes, it was my worst day at the track, EVER, in terms of monetary losses AND total tickets not cashed -- five times I had the front end of a daily double, but...and one P3 I had first two, and...

Spilt milk.

Back to the drawing board.  How to make money around Orb in two weeks.

Derby Day Bets (Revised)

[Revised with more input, Sat. morning]

Today is the big day.  The morning weather report, unlike the last few days, says only "light showers," which means the track should still be fast for the race.  I looked at "sloppy" and most of the field has never run in sloppy conditions: only five have run in sloppy conditions.  Itsmyluckyday won at 5F & Vyjack won at 7F.  On good tracks, Revolutionary, Giant Finish, Falling Sky & Charming Kitten have wins. 

As they say, all bets are off here if the track is not "fast."

So, here's what I think we should do (I'm going to keep it simple and keep it as inexpensive as I can):

Go for your W's on Revolutionary (3) & Goldencents (8)
Put PS $ on Mylute (6), Normandy Invasion (5) & Palace Malice (10)

Add any of second three to 3,8 on exacta box.

For your trifecta, do this: 3,8,X/3,8,6,5,10/3,8,6,5,10.

Superfecta:  the play is to go 6 deep, with 3,8,6,5,10 & 16.  That's $240 investment.

Lighter (less $$)?  Try 3,8,16/3,8,6,5,10/3,8,6,5,10,16/3,8,6,5,10,16.  That's $144.

Smaller still?  3,8/3,5,8,10/3,5,8,10/3,5,8,10.   That's $12.

Onto our other choices:

P6 @ Churchill:  8-1,6-3-8-8,9-3,8.  In Woodford (10th) long shot special is #5 Swift Warrior.

Derby + 2 P3: 3,8-8(+3)-1(+8).  Money play: 4 (Frontside 30:1) in the 8th.

P6 @ Belmont: 3-2,7-1,3-5,8-6,7-1,6.  Money plays: 6 (Abilio 15:1) in 7th; 10 (Ghostly Vision 12:1) in 8th.

That should spend down your nut. Good luck with the exotics -- there's serious money to be had here.

The "I-Ain't-Nate-Silver-But-Going-to-Act-Like-It-Anyway" Analysis of the Derby

First, I have to admit I have probably not taken the advice found in Zen & the Art of Finding a Kentucky Derby Winner as much to heart as I should have.  So, this is probably "overcooked."

Second, the PPs are in for the Derby.  And the post positions.  And the odds.  There's a lot of info out there.  It's time to sift through it.

Nate Silver-like (if you have to ask who he is, you should not read on), I have constructed an algorithm to tell me who is really likely to come out of the 20-horse pack Saturday and win the Derby.  This isn't about betting (sometimes one bets against the best horse to make money -- though that's unlikely on Saturday in the Derby), it's about winners.

Using a combination of Beyer scores (this will assume belief that they mean something), post position, & betting odds, I have come up with a number.

And that number makes Goldencents the number one horse on the board.

It puts Revolutionary 2, Will Take Charge 3, and Normandy Invasion 4.  Squeeze another horse into your trifecta or superfecta and we're talking (surprisingly) Mylute.

I could tweak the algorithm.

But, given the use of Beyer scores, it's not surprising these horses rise to the top.

Goldencents ran a 105 at the Santa Anita, his last race.  Verrazano has a 105 this year, too, but three races ago, and the win in the Wood was "only" a 95.  Will Take Charge's last race was "only" a 95, but he's trending the other way.

That's my early numerical analysis.  I'll have betting blogs tomorrow afternoon.

But here's my first take at Churchill's P6 Saturday: 6-6-3-8,9-3,8-8.   8-8-8 to finish?  Crazy.

More tomorrow, after I see the Belmont PPs.

Derby Week: Post Draw

They've drawn for Saturday's Kentucky Derby post positions & JG wants input.

Here it is.

I found this article, dated Monday, from John Mucciolo @ NBCSports, that went over the potential Derby field.

Why am I referencing it?

Because Mooch (c'mon, EVERYONE calls John Mucciolo "Mooch," right?) broke the field into "Top Contenders," "Borderline Contenders," and "Longshot Contenders."

In short, almost all his Top Contenders drew good post positions.

Research shows it's been 25 years since a horse in the 1 or 2 hole won the race.  Last year I'll Have Another won from 19; in '08 Big Brown won from 20 (Big Brown could have won from Brownsburg, IN).  Since Winning Colors won from the 1 post in '88, it's gone this way: 10-8-9-5-10-6-8-16-15-5-3-16-15-5-5-13-10-8-7-20-8-4-16-19.

Notice -- no 1s or 2s, one 3, one 4, and FOUR 5's! FOUR 8's! and THREE 16's!  The latter is a surprise as people might think it's too wide.

Of course, you can't account for the quality of the horse (hey, every year the Fear the Kitten may have drawn the inside posts), but I don't think we need Nate Silver to tell us 5-10 are the hot spots.

5 is Normandy Invasion, who Mooch has in his Borderline category.
6 is Mylute -- Borderline.
7 is Giant Finish -- Longshot.
8 is Goldencents -- Top.
9 is Overanalyze -- Top.
10 is Palace Malice -- Borderline.

Here are his other 4 "Tops": Verrazano (prob fav) 14; Revolutionary in 3; Orb in 16 (borderline bad news); Itsmyluckyday in 12; Java's War is 19 (bad news).  I wasn't on Java's War anyway.

Normandy Invasion, which I liked (yes, JG), gets help by this, as does Mylute (ick) and Palace Malice (who I think may deserve a flutter as a longshot -- $5 win could get your money back Saturday for the race).

More analysis later.  I'm sure all experts will be talking about how it the race will run -- the pace, the closers, etc -- over the next two days.  For JG, read this.  Or just bet "Overanalyze" (pun intended) and get it over with. :)

More tomorrow, after PPs, etc.

Derby Week! Notes

It's officially Derby week.  

I'll begin breaking down the race AFTER the draw on Wednesday.  Right now I like Revolutionary, Normandy Invasion, Itsmyluckyday (the name alone gets buzz), and Goldencents.  All of them can't draw good post positions and the field isn't set -- the blogosphere thought someone coming out of last night's Derby Trial, with its 20 points in the Derby qualifying race, i.e. Forty Tales, might run.  I doubt it.  But Winning Cause, last week's Lexington winner, might, too.  And there were two in 19th and 20th slots (the last ones) who announced this week they weren't running.  Don't know the field, don't know the posts.  Hard to know how to go until we know all that.

But this message is to remind you there's LOTS of racing next Saturday beyond the Derby.  For East Coasters, Belmont Park, aka The Big Sandy, is open and will run a full card.  JG loves his Pick 6's and Belmont will have one next Saturday, starting 3 PM EDT.   Yesterday's @ Belmont had no winner, but paid $572 for 5 of 6 -- a good payoff on $2.  

Churchill will have a P6, too, starting, of course, about an hour later.  I think the Derby is always race 5 of that P6, so be prepared, and be prepared early.

And, of course, there's your local track.  Mine is Penn National, which starts racing at 6, which is right around the time of the Derby.  I've always found Penn Nat hard to handicap, so I have little hope of winning there, though they start with a 50 cent Pick 4 (this for JG), so I won't save money to bet there after burning it on the P6's & the Derby.

There's a primer.  The Derby "handled" $133 million in bets last year -- there's money to be won.  & I'll remind you of the Superfecta: last year it paid $48,000; according to downthestretch.com the median payout the last 12 years is $71,799.  Of course, the exacta median is a sweet $241. 

So, lick your chops, there's meat on them thar bones.   

(Short) Oblivion Review

Yes, I saw Oblivion, starring Tom Cruise, and more Tom Cruise.

First, the films coming out will get better.  Assuredly.  It's been a 3-star at best spring, with the exception of Beyond the Pines, which should be a candidate for Best Oscar.

Next, sci-fi movies come will a waiver: if you go see them, there's only so much "reality" you can hope for.  If they want to change the laws of physics, well, that's what "science" "fiction" is about.

Given that, Oblivion is actually pretty good.  Three stars, for sure.  The shots, the tech, the grit of a dystopian Earth are all well done.  Visually, it's great, though the Tom Cruise uniforms could use some work: let's hope 60 years in the future uniform designers will do better.

And Cruise is good as the near-drone-like mechanic left alone (sort of) on the planet, repairing guard drones that may at any time go off and decide they need to terminate (how many times does the word appear on screen?) him.  Cruise's Jack Harper (wasn't he just Jack something-else in his last movie?  was it a "thing" he had in mind?) is clearly torn by dreams that seem more like memories.

Counter his "partner," Victoria, played chillingly by Andrea Riseborough, who seems to lack humanity.  She reminds him of their memory being wiped clean, but it's not clear that hers is either, it's just she's willing to focus on a different set of them from Jack.  Weird.

The plot is convoluted.   The bad guys need Jack's help to blow up the good guys (you can tell they must be the bad guys, they are dressed a lot like Dark Vader) & it turns out there's another love interest (Victoria's cool melts when she sees Jack with Julia, played dully by Olga Kurylenko (who wasn't scintillating in Quantum of Solace either -- maybe they should stop acting like she can act like a femme fatale)) & there's another set of repair people and...

Well, I warned you about sic-fi.

But it keeps you watching.  Morgan Freeman has the second billing but hardly the second role -- is another variation on his Batman role as Q -- and Oscar winner Melissa Leo is a mere cameo.

But director, co-screenplay writer Joseph Kosinski (his second directorial bit after Tron), makes a good adventure.

Be warned, it opens slowly.  Too much Jack voiceover narration, too little real tension.

Yes, see it.  Three solid stars.

Derby Preve #2: Short Take, The Week B4 Derby Week

So, as JG can attest, I've picked 3 straight Derby prep races right.  Yeah, I/we had Winning Cause in the Lexington Saturday.  I think JG said he won $29+ on $2 WPS ticket.  Not a bad payoff.

He wants as much or better on the Derby.

My opening comments on the Derby:  Normandy Invasion and Revolutionary.  Not in that order.

I like that Revolutionary picked up Calvin last week as rider; I like that both horses have only been out twice in 2013 -- Vyjack looked tired (to name one) in Wood (his third trip of the year)...and I needn't remind you the Derby is longer.

The future line out of Vegas has NI @ 9 to 1, Rev @ 7 to 1.  I take that every day.  And an exacta?!?!!?  Whoa, baby.

But I also like Goldencents -- remembering the California run from I'll Have Another last year -- and its top speed rating of the spring.  At 8 to 1, it's a good value, too.

The current favorite is Verrrazano, at 9 to 2.  I doubt anyone goes much lower.   It's not going to be an odds-on race, but one with money spread over about half a dozen or so contenders.

Value if you pick it right.  Right JG?

Derby Preve 3 Weeks Out

Okay, I picked the Wood right and even won some money Saturday on the Arkansas Derby with Overanalyze.  The Derby field is all but set -- the 20 point Lexington Stakes this weekend doesn't have anyone in it (see DRF) who can push into the Derby field.  It looks like "who scratches" determines the field.

My early analysis isn't terribly sophisticated: both Verrazano & Orb have won twice this spring in Derby prep.  They've beaten good fields and have made a bunch of money ($840 & $810k).  But neither has posted a decent Beyer number -- Verrazano's 101 in the March 9 Tampa Derby is the best either has posted.

Goldencent posted a 105 in winning last weekend's Santa Anita.  That's the best number on the board, and it's not impressive.

Overanalyze put an 85 up in winning the Arkansas Saturday.  Not Triple Crown race winning stuff.

With so many horses so close, and no one having looked like a Derby winner yet looking at the numbers, there'll be a lot of chatter Derby week about post positions and how the race will run.  Who's the early speed?  Several seem to be closers, but are they closers at the new, longer distance?

My early call is Revolutionary.  I liked him in the Louisiana, which he won with a solid 93 (it's not a great number historically, but a good one this year), and seems to be trending up.

I'd love Goldencents with its good Beyer number, but California horses rarely travel well to the Derby.

And I liked Normandy Invasion in the Wood.

The betting on the Derby should be crazy -- there should be some value to bet on.

Let's see where Derby week and the post positions get us (who wants to be out at 20?).  And we'll see what the models on the trip show.

Go Normandy Invasion. For now.

Review of Beyond the Pines

In today's New York Times Book Review, Clive James, critic extraordinaire, says a good review says, "Look at this!  This is good."

LOOK AT THIS!  THIS IS GOOD.

Warning: yes, it's an art film.  It's deep.  It doesn't settle for cheap moments.

Ryan Gosling is scary as the well-meaning carney who tries to settle down for the baby son he didn't know he didn't have.  It's a lot like his role in Drive,  the working class dude who keeps to himself, says little, seems to have an ethic, and then has to violate it.  Not new stuff, but he's good doing it.  Again.

Bradley Cooper is excellent as the lawyer-turned-cop whose life is changed by Gosling.  He does a good job with the role of the man whose life is in flux when he appears in the film, then becomes a Greek tragedy -- hero, then goat.

It's deep stuff.

Ray Liotta is good as the menacing older cop; Harry Yulin is good as Cooper's father; Bruce Greenwood is his usual quality as the DA; and Rose Byrne (who doesn't love Rose Byrne?) is excellent as Cooper's troubled wife (who wants to be a cops wife?).

And I have to mention the camera work.  Director Derek Cianfrance uses hand-held (isn't it?) for some of the chase scenes, making you wish you had taken your Dramamine, and his writing work (he's one of the credited ones) deserves kudos -- the pines of the title play a subtle role in the whole and the dialogue is sharp.

Great cast, good story, interesting visuals.

See it.