Whenever I am looking for new material, I know I can always count on my old pal Jerry Connors to give me some good material to work with. This week is no exception. Once again, as my friend Mike would say, he fails to see the forest through the trees in his analysis of the 9th race at Northfield on October 10. For those of you who have not read Jerry's latest classic, here's the handicapping "puzzle" that he tackles in his column:  Those of you who follow this website and who realize that shape is the thing that matters most, will look at this race like I did. After glancing at the program for less than a minute, it is obvious that 4 of the 7 horses are miserably out of shape, one other is kind of so-so, and there are 2 who are obviously sharp. The only play we could figure with only 2 live horses is a box of these 2 horses, especially when one of them is 5th choice on the board. It's cold as ice. Even if you miss it, it sure seems like the right thing to do, and you don't need a degree in nuclear physics to figure it out. Of course, this is too simple for Jerry "The Brain" Connors, who feels a need to complicate this process ad nauseum. As such, he delves into a complex, multi-facited analysis, and points out the following factors as being part of the equation in support of Vegas Cadet: First, he points out that the horse was beaten chalk last week. This apparently is the theme of his article, since he states that this is a "tried-and-true" handicapping play. Second, he points out that the horse raced very well last week, was used very hard and held on better than expected. Third, he re-emphasizes the fact that he was a beaten favorite, pointing out that he was a "double" beaten favorite, having failed as the favorite the week before. (He does not say, however, that if you followed his same logic last week, and had bet this horse, you are broke and don't have any money left to bet this week, but that's beside the point - okay, I hocked my wristwatch and got money). Fourth, he points out that he is dropping in class (well, he's careful not to mention the word 'class' because that's a "no-no". Actually, he notes that last week's race was "almost a notch higher" - not a full notch, but almost a notch. He is an expert in notches). Fifth, he points out that these horses are called "sidewheelers", as if that makes some sort of class difference (actually, it's "side-wheelers", but let's not get caught up in such insignificant factors as spelling while we are in the midst of discussing all these other ultra-important variables). Sixth, he points out that Vegas Cadet's last race was on a track labeled "good". Of course, since most tracks are rock hard even when sloppy, this somehow makes the horse seem more attractive. Seventh, he points out that a veteran is driving him. Now....let me get this straight. Instead of looking at a race where the 2 live horses can be determined by the most cursory glance at the program in under 60 seconds, I'm supposed to get involved in a complex analysis and look at 7 factors - his odds last week, his shape, his odds the week before, the classification, the nickname for these horses, the track condition and the experience level of the driver. Okay. I'm in. I'll bite! And after massaging all of these factors together, in a 7-horse race mind you (not a field of 8 or 10), what does Jerry the Genius come up with for all of his work? A $30 horse? A $150 exacta? A 4-digit trifecta? OH -- COME NOW JERRY -- SPARE US ALL THIS NONSENSE! I don't know what point he was trying to make, but all I can say is this: the second thing he mentioned was correct, and was all he needed to mention - that based on the horse's last effort, he was clearly sharp. Period. Who cares what his odds were? I don't care if he was 2 million to one! Based on that effort, he was in shape. That's all. What's all this beaten favorite bullshit? Now, I often write my column on the fly, in real-time, which puts me at a big disadvantage since, I do not know the result ahead of time. But, one word of advice Jerry, if you're reading: PICK A BETTER EXAMPLE FOR GOD'S SAKE - WHO NEEDS YOU TO RAMBLE ON FOR 2 PAGES TO ARRIVE AT THE COLD NUMBERS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE PROGRAM? If I had 2 weeks to find an example, I'd be showing how my method comes up with a $200 exacta or something - not a Trackman Special. All kidding aside … I did a quick survey of approximately 200 horses currently racing at Garden State Park over the past 6 weeks. Not the largest sample, I'll admit, but I guess somehow representative. Again, this was done by just grabbing programs out of the trash heap, so it's not the most statistically valid sample, but let's just see what it suggests. I took a look at every place these 206 horses were beaten favorites since mid-September. I came up with 54 occurrences - fine. How many of these horses won their next start? 9, or about 1 out of 6. What were the prices?
As we can see, not only does this factor not account for a high percentage of winners, but also those winners that it does project are going off at miniscule odds. These results were bolstered by the "21.80" which, by the way, was SWINGING GLORY, who we also had on top in our exacta because of that insignificant factor that we use - shape. The total pari-mutuel win return on these horses is $68.30. This means that in a series of 54 such bets, if you wagered $2 each time and invested $108, you would have collected $68.30, thereby losing $47.70, or 44%! Now again, this is not the largest sample, but it sure is a STAGERING result. Even if there were a few more winners to be arrived at through this method, it suggests that you would do substantially better - in fact over twice as well - putting the names of horses on a dart board and firing away! I don't know about you folks - but this seems like a manifestly inferior way to come up with horses. You may as well just close your eyes and pick at random - at least that's what my quickie study of over 200 horses for the past 6 weeks seems to suggest. This seems like a great way to lose your money at a very rapid rate - twice as fast as the rest of the crowd! Jerry Conners should be ashamed of himself for recommending that any
of you take your hard-earned money and bet it in this fashion. So much for
his "tried-and-true" method. Case closed. Okay --- I'm done for now. |