Only a 100% effort is needed, please don’t give me more!

Often times you’ll hear an athlete, coach or inspirational speaker talk about giving 110% or if they are really excited 200%.  We know they aren’t math majors and you can’t give more than 100%, but if you are a handicapper never, ever in a million years give an opinion that is greater than 100%.  Unless you want to go broke at the windows.

If you’ve seen the movie “The Producers” you know you shouldn’t sell more than 100% of a Broadway show (it is illegal). Yet, industry handicapping experts hand out betting information that is just as fraudulent and ill-conceived as the promoting of  “Springtime for Hitler and Germany”.  Here is what the NTRA’s version of Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom had to say about the Kentucky Derby Future Book.

In the first Kentucky Derby Future Pool a national handicapper gave out “fair odds” for his “Lucky 7” horses in the pool.  Mind you, that is 7 of 24 betting interests in the pool, with the #24 entry including some 400+ horses.  Now we know from past experience that probably 10 or less of these first 23 future horses will even make it in the starting gate at the Derby.  

Here is a quote from the expert about getting good “value” for your money betting in the Future Pool.

” As with any wager, "value" is the key, the concept of "value" otherwise known as "risk to reward ratio," and as such we should not be looking as much for the winner of the Kentucky Derby as we should be looking for a return we cannot possibly get on Kentucky Derby day.”

Let’s take a look at his odds and corresponding percent chance of winning.

Cowboy Cal – morning line 20-1 (5% chance of winning) --- his fair odds 9/2 = 18% chance of winning.

Colonel John – ml 30-1 (3% chance of winning) --- his fair odds 5-1 = 16% chance of winning.

Court Vision – ml 12-1 (7% chance of winning) --- his fair odds 5-1 = 16% chance of winning.

Yankee Bravo – ml 20-1 (5% chance of winning) --- his fair odds 5-1 = 16% chance of winning.

Get the idea we have only four horses so far that have 66% chance of winning, that means the other 19 horses identified as contenders by Churchill Downs handicapping committee and 400+ horses as part of the field must divide up the other 34% chances of winning…lets find out the chances of the other 3 of the  “Lucky 7”.

Crown of Thorns – ml 20-1 (5% chance of winning) --- his fair odds 7-1 = 12% chance of winning.

Monba – ml 30-1 (3% chance of winning) --- his fair odds 10- 1 = 9% chance of winning.

Anak Nakai – ml 20-1 (5% chance of winning) --- his fair odds 12-1 = 7% chance of winning.

Total for the “Lucky 7” = 94% chance of winning the Derby.   Unless this guy is Nostradamus, I’m guessing he’ll be lucky if 4 of the 7 will make it to the Derby…let alone win it.  Even if all “7” make it to the Derby they won’t have a 94% of winning the thing. By the way what chances do Pyro and War pass have? Less that 3% each I guess.

This is why the general public thinks betting on the horses is for degenerates.  They go to expert after expert.  “I like this horse”  “Well I like this horse.” “There is a lot of speed in this field.” Insight full stuff for sure. “This horse when the jockey asks him, he runs faster.” And by the time they are done they’ve talked about every horse with no real $$ sense as to why you should bet one horse or another, other than I like him.  Well you might as well pick colors, numbers, jockeys or throw darts, because after the race they come back and say.  “We mentioned that horse had a chance in our pre-race analysis”.

Here is a national handicapper portrayed as an expert by the industry giving out absurd information on a bet you have little chance of winning.  If you look at his comments on the horses they are dead on.  He is a good handicapper, but doubt he makes money betting his picks based on their “fair value”.  You see this everywhere on the internet where “handicappers/computer systems” make “betting lines” and only give odds for 3 or 4 horses with the odds adding up to nearly 100%, leaving 60% of the field to make up the 10% to 15% chance of winning.  Maybe they are just lazy, but it is bad for the sport. Of course you have mainstay of the industry, tip sheets that just give you three names and send you on your way.

This is the kind of Franz Liebkind thinking that is “Just give me the winner I don’t care what the odds are.” 

Send one of these people out to buy a horse and this might be the result.

“I gave you X-amount of dollars to buy a race horse and you bought Ricks Natural Star (or $16,000,000 if it is The Green Monkey), because he had the lead early in the Breeders’ Cup Turf?  I know I said buy a race horse and he is a race horse that ran in the Breeders’ Cup, but still not a good value at any $$$ amount.  I’m sure the horse gave at least 110% effort in the race, as, did you in buying the horse.”  Also, I’m sure the agent and seller both made money on the deal.

The public goes for this kind of stuff.  The lotto pays back at 1/3 the odds it is supposed to.  In California the Indian Tribes ran a campaign based on paying at least 3 times as much as they have paid the in the past.  They were required to pay $0 dollars from 1998 to 2008…I’m thinking 3 times that amount isn’t much and probably not equal to what other tribes are paying in other states.  Obviously in California it is cheaper to make campaign donations and buy ads than pay taxes.  Either horse racing needs to get sneakier in their advertising, because we can’t out spend the Indians, or, we have to start giving out more accurate information because the public is tired of the talking heads.  They know their opinion is as good as our experts, which is sad.  In other countries bookmakers are considered sharp individuals and the betting is considered a market….like the stock market. 

We need to change our image; we have a better product than the Lotto or Slots.  Lets, and this is the motto of the year, “CHANGE” our image.  Let’s “CHANGE” our stars.  It is desperate times in horse racing….Magna stock is around 80 cents a share…Churchill won’t publish daily results. We need to do a better job of giving our customers information and selling the sport.

**Rick Natural Star was actually an interesting story and in a way one of the great things about horse racing.  The horse didn’t belong in the race, but the owner had $40,000 dollars and a dream. Because there weren’t enough qualified horses entered in the field he was allowed to run in the richest turf race in No. America.  Only in horse racing can an average Joe race against the Queen, Sheiks and racing’s elite and beat them, because nobody knows where the next John Henry, Seattle Slew or Real Quiet is going to come from. Ricks Natural Star actually ended up racing for in a $5,000 claiming race at Los Alamitos, a Quarter Horse track in So. California, shortly after racing in the Breeders’ Cup.