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?