JC / Railbird

Racing Archive

Zenyatta Feminista?

I’ve tried to stay away from the 2010 Horse of the Year debate. I don’t have a vote, and if I did, I might have been tempted toward the same conclusion as Alan Shuback before narrowly landing on Zenyatta as my pick for the honor. That would seem to put me on the same side of the debate as most female fans and voters. Steve Davidowitz, opening up his HOTY vote to fans for the second year in a row, reports quite a skew in the responses he’s received:

Get this: The actual tally of 147 fans that sent me E-mails and posted comments on this website was an astonishing 132 for Zenyatta and only 15 for Blame!

That imbalance of opinion similarly was skewed by the presence of so many female voters in my poll, as only 24 men voted, while 123 women participated.

The male vote was split down the middle, 12 for Blame and 12 for Zenyatta.

Looking at this another way, only three of the 123 women in my poll voted for Blame!

Turf writers’ ballots revealed so far are running along similar lines: Four of five women* have voted for Zenyatta; nine of 19 men for Blame, nine for Zenyatta.

12:00 PM Addendum: *Four of six, with Alicia Wincze casting a vote for Blame.

1/6/11 Addendum: Wow, Jennie Rees — who said she was going to vote Blame HOTY in a blog post a couple weeks ago — didn’t vote for either leading contender. “Very late in the game, I decided just to not vote in the Horse of the Year category — I made the decision not to make a decision.”

Posted in Racing on January 4, 2011 / Tagged Blame, Eclipse Awards, Eclipse Voters, Horse of the Year, Women and Racing, Zenyatta

Monday Notes

What a difference eight months can make: An email arrived over the weekend pointing to this DRF interview that appeared with then-new CHRB chairman Keith Brackpool in January 2010. Brackpool opposed the Los Alamitos takeout increase, telling Steve Andersen, “It’s a slippery slope … I don’t like it.” In September, after California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the law that included the statewide takeout increase that’s riled up horseplayers, Brackpool was quoted by the Blood-Horse as saying, “We offer in California the premier racing product on a year-round basis, but we were offering our first-class product at a discount price. We’re changing the pricing model.”

Whatever the reason for Brackpool’s shift in perspective, the board’s decision to accept higher takeout on exotic wagers so as to boost purses by $25-30 million seems to be backfiring just days into the Santa Anita meet. Ray Paulick beat me to the numbers: Wagering through the first seven days is down an average of 18% over last year’s winter meet; out-of-state handle is down 21.9%. One big bettor tells Pull the Pocket that he’s not playing California, and that others are either wagering less or looking elsewhere:

“Out of the guys who I have told you about before, two are just dabbling nickels and dimes at Santa Anita, one is betting much less, I have stopped cold turkey along with another. The last guy is looking for a new circuit to bet and tells me he has been studying for that. It’s unlikely he’ll come back, unless something changes there. The ones who are still betting obviously operate on very thin margins so if they see their day to day results dropping [e.g. with the higher takeout], I’m sure they’ll quit and just go for carryover pools and I’m pretty confident that will be the end result.”

Re: thin margins, Ed DeRosa has posted a chart clearly demonstrating how takeout affects bankrolls, and makes the point that it’s not only bettors harmed by raising takeout, but tracks. Short-term gains have long-term costs. One track that’s earning kudos for getting it right is Tampa Bay Downs, which actually out-handled Santa Anita last Wednesday and is posting double-digit gains daily. Tampa, which has had much success with its program for Churchill-pointing 3-year-olds over the past few years, may also draw the leading Kentucky Derby prospect this spring. Trainer Todd Pletcher is considering the March 12 Tampa Bay Derby for likely juvenile champion Uncle Mo, who’s about three weeks away from his first breeze of 2011.

1/4/2011 Addendum: Takeout math from Trackmaster, using a Pick 3 wager as an example. Originally posted last August, newly relevant.

Posted in Racing on January 3, 2011 / Tagged Boycott, Handle, Horseplayers, Santa Anita, Tampa Bay Downs, Uncle Mo, Wagering

In the Red

How the pool totals looked through the card at Santa Anita on Wednesday:

Edited screenshot from an anonymous player forwarded by Pull the Pocket. Player’s figures vary in amount, not trend, from the totals posted on Equibase.

There was a Super 5 carryover of $32,444 in the nightcap, to which bettors added $111,054, but that didn’t much help the day’s total. Only $4,038,178 was wagered on the eight-race card, 28.1% less than the $5,617,017 that was wagered on last year’s comparable eight-race Wednesday card. Reviewing the numbers, Bill Finley concludes:

There can be only one reason why Santa Anita has gotten off to such a wretched start — the takeout increase. It looks like horseplayers actually can be pushed too far.

I think he’s right that horseplayers are feeling pushed too far, although not to the extent that handle is off by so much due mainly to horseplayer action, which is likely magnified by several other factors influencing wagering. There were 50 betting interests at Santa Anita on Wednesday, for instance, compared to last year’s 60, a decline of 16.7%. Yesterday’s fourth race was scratched down to three starters — on which Santa Anita bizarrely allowed trifecta wagering — reducing the pool totals on that race to a third of what the fourth race took in last year. There also hasn’t been a ton of value in the pools since the opener: Favorites have won 13 of 26 races, at an average price of $4.50, and finished in the money in 20 of 26. I didn’t play Santa Anita on Wednesday, and it wasn’t because I was protesting — it was because there was nothing to play. Never mind the boycott — like the SoCal track surface argument of the past three years, the takeout debate obscures a deeper problem — for the most part, California racing just isn’t that compelling.

12/31/10 Update: Steve Davidowitz says it much better: “Given smaller fields dominated as they are by heavy wagering favorites, it even can be argued persuasively that the prescribed takeout increase will prove to be an unfair price for the product on display…. The net effect at the windows is sending a stronger message than any boycott.”

Posted in Racing on December 30, 2010 / Tagged Boycott, California, Horseplayers, Santa Anita, Takeout, Wagering