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.