Mark Cramer
C & X Report

C&X RACING REPORT

CONTENTS
Editorial
Grand Prix de Saint Cloud: Lesson in Race Watching and Arc Preview
Don’t Forget the Rider, by Julian Brown
Dealing with a Low-Percentage Trainer, with thanks to Don
Low-Percentage Trainer Play: Textbook Lesson
More on Stats: Del Mar and Saratoga
Book Review: Cajun Racing
Not the Last Word: Zero Chance Lottery Tickets

EDITORIAL
Sometimes we get on the wrong track and forget that racing is fun. But it’s not simply entertainment because we, the horseplayers, participate: by handicapping, by playing or passing a race, and by hanging out at the rail and becoming characters within the spectacle.
So in this issue of C&X, we tilt away from the hard-core and express our appreciation for the great game and spectacle it is. We will visit Saint Cloud, one of the most unusual and attractive racing scenes in the world. We’ll revisit the Belmont Stakes from the driver’s seat aboard Big Brown. And as a transition, we’ll travel to the origins of Kent Desormeaux’s racing culture: Cajun country.
Along the way we’ll still learn a few lessons about playing the ponies, notably about low percentage trainers when they become a positive counter-statistic, but without removing ourselves from the spectacle. I suspect that very few disciplinarians can win at the races if they lose the passion. In fact, if you love the whole game then it is easier to pass an unplayable race and enjoy the spectacle while waiting for a true betting opportunity.

GRAND PRIX DE SAINT CLOUD:
LESSON IN RACE WATCHING AND ARC PREVIEW
The Grand Prix de Saint Cloud is like the summer version of the Arc de Triomphe, with less of a crowd, in a superb pastoral setting where the mind is free to contemplate and analyze with little or no static.
The setting
The organizers of major French racing venues, France Galop, do everything possible to encourage new visitors. Horseplayers in France are largely working class and immigrant, as seen in the PMUs, the French café-bar version of the OTBs, which resemble the conditions in the New York OTBs. At the track, a more affluent public comes at it from a different perspective, and you can see on the odds monitors the difference between the at-the-track wagering and the merged PMU odds. Often, horses bet down in the at-the-track pools are live and such action is meaningful to the player.
France Galop sponsors frequent promotions to encourage the largely absent sector of the population, the middle class, to attend the races. In the spring there are two months of free picnic Sundays with children’s activities and gracious hosts for newcomers. Even on Arc day at Longchamp, admission hardly rises, goes up from 4 Euro to 8 Euro, with first-come-first-serve seating even at prime locations: none of price gouging that we have seen in the USA for Breeders’ Cup. In the same spirit, for one of the three or four classiest races of the year, the Grand Prix de Saint Cloud, there was special free admission.
Saint Cloud, about the same circumference as Belmont Park, looks quite different from any American track, with a triangular conformation including various chutes. There’s a 9-hole golf course in the infield. Just past the finish line, the horses gallop out under majestic trees of a mini-woods: you see the shiny horses and the pastel silks in a rich green background. Adding to the green ambiance is a grassy apron, a luxury for railbirds. The woodsy walking ring is just to left of the grandstand. From the walking ring the horses gallop on to the track over a path that leads right in front of the rail, so you can hear them breathing, and maybe decide to play a smooth breather. The behind-the-grandstand area is one of the great hangouts of the Paris region, with benches under the shade of old-growth trees.
Saint-Cloud is an elegant place to watch and enjoy the races.
The Horses
In recent years, the winner of this race is often the invader from across the Channel. Two particular invaders stood out: Aidan O’Brien’s Soldier of Fortune, 6 for 10 lifetime and a bothered fifth in last year’s Arc de Triomphe, and Youmzain, a fast-closing second in last year’s Arc and second by _ to Soldier of Fortune in the most recent Epsom Coronation Cup. Also among the classier horses in the field was the French horse, Doctor Dino, practitioner of equine tourism, having competed in America, Britain, Hong Kong, Dubai, and other fashionable retreats.
Adding class to the field were two other contenders that had not been embarrassed in last year’s Arc: Getaway (Fabre) and Zambezi Sun (Bary).
Two rabbits were entered, one of them supposedly to enhance the chances of Soldier of Fortune, but surely advantageous to deeper closers Youmzain and Doctor Dino.
The Youtube Factor
The facility of Youtube allows the horseplayer to analyze visual past performances in a single click. Again and again I viewed the Epsom Coronation Cup (which the reader can now review as well) along with the Grand Prix de Chantilly, where Doctor Dino beat out Zambezi Sun, another of the starters at Saint Cloud.
Comparing the two prep races, the Epsom Coronation Cup contained the classier and more deeply contentious field. That, coupled with the recent dominance of the Anglo horses in the Grand Prix de Saint Cloud meant that the Epsom Coronation Cup looked like the “key race”.
In watching and rewatching the race, I was able to discard Getaway, a horse that raced third behind the rabbits at Epsom and had every chance to dominate his rivals. He had little left in the tank at the end, and looked outclassed.
On the other hand, if you watched Soldier of Fortune’s move and compared it to Youmzain, Soldier of Fortune looked like a Celica while Youmzain was a Jaguar. The soldier was charging home first but Youmzain the jaguar, unwinding too late, was jetting home with reserve fuel in the tank.
Even in defeat, Youmzain looked better than Soldier of Fortune. Youmzain looked like a horse that was cranking up for better races.
The Odds
Yes, Youmzain lost by 3/4, but in the Arc he had outfinished the Soldier. In playing the horses, we do not need to know which is the best horse. The result of a race is rarely deterministic. The odds differential often helps determine a betting choice. At the top level, horses can beat each other depending on who is reaching a peak and who has the better trip.
Soldier of Fortune was going off at 5/4 while Youmzain flashed between 5-1 and 6-1. The reader should check the Youtube for both the Epsom Coronation Cup 2008 and the Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe 2008 and watch these two horses face off against each other. This will be one of the pieces of the puzzle for the first Sunday in October, the Arc.
Postscript
In the early races at Saint Cloud I noticed that Tony Farina, famous for his second on Brancusi in the 2003 Blue Grass Stakes and his temporarily fateful association with Patrick Biancone (of snake venom fame), had two mounts. Farina was listed with an 0-for-23 record for the year, and a 25-race losing streak.
In the 2003 Monmouth meet, Farina only had 8 mounts but chalked up four wins. He had gained a reputation for “unusual” rides. In the 2006 Fantasy Stakes at Oaklawn, he had finished second on the 41-1 Miss Norman, which in my stats qualified him as an overachieving rider. However, with a 2-length lead in the stretch in that race, Miss Norman bolted dangerously to the outside, with Farina amazingly recapturing control to at least preserve second place. Because of his ride, Farina lost the mount.
I looked at Farina’s two mounts for the day: a first time starter for a secondary trainer and a horse in a handicap race picked on the rock bottom of sixteen horses by the consensus. This was the only type of mount Farina could get. He lost both races: 4th at 29-1 in a seven horse field and 8th at 69-1 in a 16-horse field.
Tony Farina was surprised that anyone would want to interview him, but there I was, in the jockeys’ room, talking to the ignored anti-hero. I identified with Tony Farina. If I had attempted to train for the Tour de France, I might have only qualified for the Tour de Bronx, or maybe only the Tour de 42nd Street. At least Farina was competing in the big leagues. I recalled having interviewed another battler some years ago, Joy Scott, who persisted courageously in Southern California against the McCarrons the Pincays and the Valenzuelas.
I saw Farina after his loss on the 69-1. He smiled like a winner. He spoke in reasonably good English, French accent yes, but expressive. Farina explained that he missed riding the USA and was setting his sights on Turfway in November.
“I like the polytrack,” he said. “It’s easier on the knees. Yes, not only the horse’s knees; the jockey’s knees.”
And the difference between riding in France and the USA:
“The pace here is so slow, and then you go a hundred percent at the end. Maybe when you have to go fast earlier, it’s a bigger test of class.”
Farina would like to see an American turf horse race in the Arc de Triomphe.
“Why not? I once suggested it to Biancone but in the end he was scared of the travel.”


DON’T FORGET THE RIDER
By Julian Brown

Many excuses are being offered for Big Brown’s collapse this weekend: the track surface, the hoof, the heat, the trainer, the closeness of the Triple Crown races, etc. Other than the Daily News, very few people are questioning Kent Desormeux’s ride. Below is the DRF official race chart that describes Big Brown Belmont’s trip:

Big Brown steadied and broke outward at the start, moved up inside, steadied sharply while rank in the opening quarter of a mile, steadied and was taken to the outside bumping with Anak Ankal on the first turn, swung seven wide moving into the backstretch, stalked the leaders while continuing wide for seven furlongs . . . .

Further, in post race interviews with Jeannie Edwards on ABC, Kent told her that Big Brown tried make his move a couple of times on the backstretch but that Kent had to restrain him.

Very few horses could win any race with such a trouble line and possibly no horse could win a mile and a half marathon with such an unlucky beginning while being so rank and continually restrained. A relaxed horse and a ground saving trip (assuming the rail is not deep on a particular day) are paramount in running well in such a long event. But what caused such a troubled trip? Surely a horse with the tactical speed of Big Brown and a leading rider like Kent Desormeaux could get a better journey against this rather slow bunch, right?

It seems that Desormeaux had decided before the race that he was going to track apparently the only other early speed, Da’ Tara, ask Big Brown for run on the far turn, and reach immortality by drawing away in the stretch as he did in Louisville and Baltimore. Unfortunately, the other riders knew this, particularly, Eibar Coa, aboard Tale of Ekati. Kent allowed Da’ Tara to stroll to the lead in front of him, and then nudged Big Brown so that he’d move alongside Da’ Tara into the first turn. But Coa swung Tale of Ekati next to Da’ Tara, putting Kent into what jockeys called “The Box”. Big Brown was rank, wanting to respond to Desormeaux’s instruction, but with nowhere to go. Desormeaux finally found room behind Tale of Ekati and in front of Anal Nakal, while moving wide into the first turn. From this point on, Coa had Kent at his mercy, floating Big Brown unmercifully wide the entire backstretch, far away from Da’ Tara. Coa had forced a rank Big Brown behind slowing horses, and then tossed him hopelessly wide throughout the backstretch, effectively ending his chances at a Triple Crown. (Coa will not receive a Holiday card from Dutrow this year.)

Jockey Ron Turcotte faced a similar predicament in the 1973 Belmont. He drew the rail post aboard Secretariat with the dangerous Sham and Angel Cordero to their outside. Cordero, like Coa, is not the sentimental type who yearns for a Triple Crown winner not ridden by him. Nevertheless, Turcotte would not let Cordero put him in “The Box” and, surprisingly, sent Secretariat to the lead from the inside and dueled inside of Sham throughout en route to the most famous victory in modern racing history. Turcotte risked ridicule if he lost the race on the lead – why he would he send an “affirmed” closer to the lead into what seemed to be a suicide pace at a marathon distance? Why not come off of the pace as normal? Because he wanted to avoid the fate of Kent and Big Brown in the 2008 Belmont.

Desormeaux gambled that he could reach his desired position and was somewhat unlucky that Coa was able to keep him boxed in. A far better tactic would have been to send Big Brown to the lead, and even if Da’ Tara eventually outran him to the lead, he could have eased off Da’ Tara and had plenty of room in a more spread out field to track him. Allowing Da’ Tara to stroll in front of him out of the gate gave him little room to maneuver. Most jockeys understand this, which is why jockeys generally ask their horses for gas early when they draw inside posts.

The Triple Crown requires more than just a great horse, but it requires great racing luck. Desormeaux is unquestionably a top rider, but he failed to rise to the occasion in the Belmont. It is very easy to blame Coa, Big Brown, the heat, the track condition, and the hoof, but it the end, the Triple Crown goes to both a great horse and a great rider. Desormeux failed to deliver for Big Brown.

Mark responds:
Julian Brown is one of the most acute observers of riding techniques. He’s a skilled athlete, which allows him to focus on the nuances of rider performance. He’s also a clever handicapper. He has owned horses, visiting the winners’ circle a number of them, and has engaged in the process of choosing jockeys for his mounts.
I was particularly intrigued by this article because it defies the conventional logic. After reading it, I brought Julian Brown’s ideas to Dave Litfin, who recognized Brown’s logic but told me he would be more inclined to agree with Julian’s thesis if Big Brown had not thrown in the towel so readily.
However, in many sporting events, the tone of the competition is set at the outset. For example, a quick early strike in a soccer came can take the wind out of the opponent’s sails.
Horses are more susceptible to changes in environment. Recall that Big Brown thrived from the outside, and Dutrow had even asked for an outside post. Both human beings and animals can “lose it” if suddenly they find themselves in an unexpected scenario. How else to explain why Liston caved in so quickly to the then Cassius Clay. I’ve seen human beings suddenly become irrational when some little thing goes wrong.
So JB’s theory is well-founded.
But I would like to add another hypothesis. We learned that some time back Dutrow had ceased to give Big Brown his usual steroids. What if the effect of the steroids had finally worn off?
Even though I stood to gain something from a Big Brown win (my Kent Desormeaux collectibles would have shot up in value), deep down inside I did not want to see the elusive Triple Crown going to a horse that benefited from modern steroids. It’s not that I’m a Calvinist, but I simply believe the competition is fairer when drugs are not involved.

DEALING WITH A LOW-PERCENTAGE TRAINER

This e-mail focuses on the 4 (minimum number of wins) + 18% (minimum win percentage) 2.2 ROI (minimum return on investment) criteria.
In review of my records I have been playing way too many of those types of horses that are just not winning at the rate that I would expect them to.
What I came to find is that when the average price of the winner is factored into the equation it can change the picture quite dramatically. I have figured these prices at a variety of drf factors and have begun to feel quite confident in using trainers’ records at the distance. (sprints or routes as designated by drf stats) as opposed to specific distances.)

Bel 6th #4 has a 22% trainer win rate. the horse is a claim-1 and lay-1.
He does have questionable form. sprint record is 192 .28 2.73 (drf figs) his average price per winner is: $19.41 He ran out of the money
The eventual winner #7 has a 10% trainer with figs on sprints: 41 .17 1.76 and the average price is $20.61. He is a proven loser 3 times at the class but 2 of those were last race in a cycle and lay-1. He is lay-2 today. He paid $18.60
Bel 8th has 2 horses that qualify by the 4 + .18 2.20 method.
#5 trainer 11% routes 61 .20 2.29 avg price $22.97 He is a lay-1 non-proven loser dropping from a GRII win to NG75K
#7 trainer 26% routes 413 .23 2.37. average price: $20.60 He is lay-1 and a NPL
The eventual winner was:
#8 ($10.40) routes 28 .23 1.66 average price $29.56 and also a NPL.
The same type of example can be said for race #3.
The average price using distance is appealing to me because the lower % trainers are generally not designer trainers. Therefore they can’t pick and choose which horses they will train. It is like the old time trainers such as Harry Trotsek and others like him who used to train a stable of horses for high priced owners and in doing so had to saddle
claimers as well as the stars which lowered their percentages all around.
I take this to mean that these trainers run quite a few proven losers that reflect unkindly on their record [see follow-up article on Mary Hartmenn, which validates Don’s assertion.mc.] but when they get a horse that is a non proven loser they are quite competent. In today's times that trainer would be H. Allen Jerkens. He doesn't have the high % like a Pletcher etc.,---but if i were able to pay a trainer for his services there would be no question as to who it would be.
It just seems as though average price per winner at the distance brings the trainers closer to their levels of ability. [see follow-up article which again validates Don’s assertion.mc]
I hope this is beneficial
don a.
My response:
Don, I was tempted to write back that your information is anecdotal evidence and that the long-term stat is more indicative of what will happen to the player in the long run.
However, you've been a trainer yourself and you know the ins and outs. I've known low-percentage trainers and I've found different reasons why they win less. Some win less because they do not want to risk losing their horse in the claimbox and run it above its proper level. Others win less because they love horses and don't want to overdoctor their horses; they don't want to race their horses for purely financial reasons, which would mean using painkillers, when the horses would do much better to rest and wait out their ailments. Nor do they want to give their horse a hard race first time back.
Other trainers can't get their hands on good horses because of lack of initial investment.
Others lose because they are simply less competent in any of the many areas where trainers need to excel.
So let's take your example of a low-percentage trainer with a high average mutuel at a particular distance (or specialty).
Even though my stats show that high percentage trainers win more of their fair share with longshots and low percentage trainers win less than their fair share in the longshot category, there are always subsets of trainers who excel in a specialty. These guys may be obligated to race too many inferior horses and so their win percentage drops, but as illustrated by their ability to win with multiple longshots within a particular specialty, these trainers do indeed have an identifiable skill.
So sure, your argument makes sense, as long as you zoom in on such specific skills. Otherwise, playing low-percentage trainers based only on handicapping criteria will lead to a loss of money.
Mark
LOW-PERCENTAGE TRAINER PLAY: TEXT-BOOK LESSON
Not long after Don’s letter and our dialogue on the subject of low-percentage trainers with high average mutuels, I bumped into a race that validated our discussion. The synchronicity is notable.
Let’s go to The United Nations, July 5, 2008, a Grade 1 stakes on the grass at Monmouth, a mile and three eighths. It was an 8-horse field after Frankel’s Sudan was scratched. None of the eight showed a grade 1 win in their pps. In such a case, when no horse has won at today’s level, we have a race that is ripe for a longshot.
The favorite was the even money Frankel horse, Champs Elysees. This come-from-behinder looked to have a set-up, with several horses in the field having displayed early foot. However, Champs Elysees’ only American win was the Grade 2 San Marcos back in January at Santa Anita, where he went off at 2/5 against a poor field. Otherwise, the horse had been consistently disappointing.
Only three of the eight horses had won races on the Monmouth turf. There was Buddy’s Honor, two for two on Monmouth grass, victories coming at a flat mile and at 1 1/16. Strike a Deal was one for one at the track, having won at a flat mile. Then there was the local hope, Presious Passion (sic), with a record over the Monmouth turf of 9 2-3-1 and a 26 7-3-2 lifetime on the grass. Presious Passion would have absolutely no trouble at the distance, having won races at a mile and a half.
Enter the low-percentage trainer factor. Presious Passion’s trainer, Mary Hartmann, was 45 2-6-1 for a 4% hit rate. Normally that would be an automatic elimination. However, her average winning mutuel was sky high (remember Don’s letter!). Thus, with only 8 percent wins on the grass for Hartmann, a $2 flat bet on all of her grass horses produced an r.o.i. based on $2 of $3.73. Similarly, in routes, the roi for $2 wagers was $2.42. In graded stakes, Mary Hartmann showed a stat of 9 races with 3 wins, and for each $2 you got back a whopping $22.47.
The horse-for-trainer angle, or is it “trainer for horse? That unbelievable stat was nourished by a 69-1 winner. But before you call it a fluke, that 69-1 winner was none other than Presious Passion. Furthermore, Presious Passion’s other two graded stakes wins came at 10-1 and most recently at 20-1. In other words, all three of Mary Hartmann’s graded stakes wins found in the stat were with this same horse. Imagine the complete stats of trainer Mary Hartmann if she only trained this one horse. We have here an example of the horse-for-trainer stat, and, well, I must admit that this stat trumps the 4% overall trainer stat.
Aboard Presious Passion for the United Nations was Eddie Castro, who added yet one more positive stat: 21% wins. Thus, looking at all the stats, we can say that Presious Passion is not really a counter-statistical choice, for there are significant stats in his favor.
Presious Passion also can be described by what we’ve often called, “the overachiever”. The horse produces a resounding flat-bet profit, enough to be labeled “the players’ horse of the year”. Give him an Eclipse. He wins just infrequently enough to not draw too much attention. It’s a good moment to quote Kenny Peck’s DRF comment on Presious Passion (Peck had the horse as his third choice):
“Presious Passion jumps up and runs a big race when you’d least expect it, and that’s the situation here: ordinarily he’d be in deep in this race but the United Nations came up a little soft this year, and this is an opportunistic gelding from a barn which has been known to pull off an upset or two.”
Peck’s commentary we can translated into C&X language: “came up a little soft” means that the field had no winners at the class level; “opportunistic” means overachiever; “barn known to pull of an upset or two” means specialty trainer stat, and in this case the trainer’s specialty is the horse itself!
The pace duel that was going to favor Champs Elysees never materialized. Presious Passion took the lead, and he did so “easily” according to his rider. Watching the race, the horse’s owners wanted to see him open up, but Castro relaxed the horse on the lead, so there was an optical illusion that he was being pressed. When it came time for all the others to make a move, Presious Passion had more gas in the tank, racing the final furlong of the marathon in less than 12 seconds.
Presious Passion paid $29.60 to win. The favorite was entirely off the board, triggering huge tri and super payoffs. The lesson here is magnified thanks to Don’s commentary. Any trainer who has proven to produce longshot winners should be studied closely for any particular pattern. In the case of Presious Passion and Mary Hartmann, it was the horse-for-trainer angle, coupled with the horse for course and the opportunistic riding of Eddie Castro.
A good philosopher would have more to say about this race, in particular about statistics and counter-statistics as they reflect parallel realities. It also shows that we would do better as artisans in interpreting statistics than as numbers crunchers. It’s not the numbers that are wrong. It’s our narrow vision that fails to extract the meaning of numbers. With his win, Presious Passion earned a spot in the Breeders’ Cup Turf.
Postscript. Will the real percentage please stand up!
What was Mary Hartmann’s real win percentage: 4% for all races or 33% for the stakes race specialty? The player needs to have some degree of assurance that he’s not betting into a low percentage.
Consider the following. Trainers with a 20% and up overall win percentage, if you flat bet all their longshots at 10-1 and up, yield a plus 6.6% return on investment. Most of these trainers yield an overall flat-bet loss betting all their horses. Does this mean we have an automatic bet when high-percentage trainers have longshots at 10-1 and up? Hardly, for their win percentage at this level of odds plunges to 6.6%. If we were playing a proven profit automatic bet with a 6.6% hit rate, then we could expect to have losing streaks exceeding 30 races, with the possibility of losing 40 straight. With such a losing streak, just once, we could tap out.
Similarly, I could prove to you that a very unpopular lottery number combination, say 1 2 3 4 5 6, would have a long-term positive expectation. The reason is that when the number eventually came up, you’d be the only one playing it, and you’d capture the whole pool. So if you played this number every day, you’d eventually have a flat-bet profit. But eventually might mean 60 years. You’d have to pass on your “winning” lottery play to your next generation, and then it might have to pass on to your aging grandchildren.
What this says is that an on-paper positive expectation does not necessarily lead to a real profit but could very well lead to a tap-out, when the hit rate is too low.
Calculating the worst-case scenario of an automatic bet.You can calculate your longest probably losing streak by knowing your win percentage. If you want to be 95 percent confident about the length of your maximum losing streak, according to Dick Mitchell calculations, then a 14% hit rate would have a 20-race maximum losing streak while a 24% hit rate could only lose a maximum of 11 consecutive races. Remember we’re talking about “maximum” probable losing streak, which would not happen very often.
But this means that even with a decent 14% hit rate, we would need to be ready, psychologically and financially, to hang tough through a fatiguing losing streak.
The great contradiction. Now we come to the great dilemma of not only automatic betting but any regular horse betting. Quite often the method with a greater likelihood of a long term profit has a lower win percentage than the method with little chance for a long term profitable return. You can’t make a profit on Baffert 2-1 horses but you might make a profit playing Baffert at 10-1 and up.
If Presious Passion, for example, had been a high percentage winner, he might have attracted more action and ended up as a long-term flat-bet loss. In any pari-mutuel system, methods with a lower win percentage will receive less attention from investors, and therefore have a better chance to sustain a high average payoff.
Because of these pari-mutuel complexities, it is so important to extract an “unseen” high win percentage from a “seen” low win percentage. Given the greater probability of losing streaks with the lower percentage of winners, we need to have some assurance of a high-win-percentage subset within the low-win-percentage set.

MORE ON STATS: DEL MAR AND SARATOGA
The DRF has published two booklets, Saratoga Trainer Stats and Del Mar Trainer Stats, which will be of great use for those who plan on following either of these circuits. The price is right: $19.95 each or $35 for the two of them: such stats would have cost 10 times as much a decade ago. These books also cover riders and pedigree.
However, as with all stats (as you’ve seen in this issue) the user needs to extract what is truly meaningful and drop the rest.
I’ve seen, for example, that at Del Mar, Mike Mitchell had a flat bet profit last year but had a loss for the previous four years. I’ve been a student of Mitchell stats for a quarter of a century and I am aware of his ups and downs. But one thing for sure: over the years he has been profitable with horses he’s claimed. And the DRF stats validate what I’ve known: in the past three years at Del Mar, Mitchell shows a substantial flat-bet-profit profit for horses we can label clm-1, clm-2 and clm-3: in other words, the first three times he runs a horse after a claim.
That said, I am also aware that even though Mitchell’s claimed horses win the bettor money in the long run, he’s no less cyclical than the stock market; he can go through the doldrums from time to time, and thus, the long run is not one single meet.
C&X readers are aware that I’m a fan of Graham Motion. At Saratoga you’d lose your pants betting Motion horses on the dirt but you’d make a profit betting all his turf horses. In his 71 Saratoga turf races he’s had 24% win and you’d get back a dollar and thirty-eight cents for each dollar wagered.
Taking a peek at the riders, at Saratoga Cornelio Velasquez and Kent Desormeaux are the only two guys who can sustain a high-teen win percentage coupled with a flat-bet profit. Meanwhile, Eibar Coa and Alan García have high average mutuels and are longshot possibilities.
On the other coast, only Nakatani has been able to sustain a high-teen win percentage coupled with a flat bet profit. As for other riders, based on average mutuel, longshot threats have been Omar Berrio, Tyler Baze and Alonzo Quiñonez. C&X has touted A García and A Quiñonez in other issues.
My feeling about stats books is that if I can pick out 8 or 9 good stats from the thousands, they’re worth the price. The DRF format makes it easy to extract what is essential. Other intellects greater than mine can delve into the subtleties of lesser stats but I’m not good enough to get involved in nitpicking or forcing a marginal stat. For me it’s all about avoiding information overload.
BOOK REVIEW
CAJUN RACING: From the Bush Tracks to the Triple Crown
By Ed McNamara
Price: $24.95
Hardcover - 240 pages
DRF Press: June 2008
I couldn’t resist delving into Cajun Racing: From the Bush Tracks to the Triple Crown, by veteran turf writer Ed McNamara. Near the end of my first marriage, my theme song contained the Cajun lyrics “quelle belle vie, ma femme est partie” (what a beautiful life, my wife has gone). That was my introduction to the joys of Cajun culture. Cajun Racing takes you on a wild journey deep into Louisiana. There you’ll run into a remarkably resilient people with a passion for racing and an unmatched touch with racehorses. In Cajun country, there’s a lot of character and a lot of characters, as the author learns from jockey Kent Desormeaux.
The book begins with a spicy and sometimes tragic (but never remorseful) history of the Cajuns, originally the Acadians when they were settled in eastern Canada and northern Maine. That was prior to their being caught in the switches of a political conflict that led to their expulsion and migration to a dramatically different setting. We then meet an amazing cast of characters, such as the legendary trainer Pierre LeBlanc. LeBlanc was a wheeler-dealer who ran an illegal casino and won one of his best horses, Palomino Joe, in a card game. Later we meet Pierre’s son Pete LeBlanc, who bought Robby Albarado his first horse and saddle and taught him how to ride. The fast-pace of this story is partly the result of the oral history techniques used by the accomplished author. What we get is a vast lesson rich in humor and local color where we “hear” the life stories of some of the great names in Cajun racing—Romero, Desormeaux, Borel, Bernis, Delahoussaye, Delhomme, Albarado, and many others. One of my favorites is that of Junius Delahoussaye, Eddie’s uncle (if I’ve charted the family tree correctly). With humble beginnings, Junius carved out an exciting life by fighting roosters and training quarter horses. We learn how it is possible for a man to be simultaneously crooked and honorable, and we get a picture of the patience required to become an accomplished trainer.
We travel back in time to Cajun Downs, a bush track that nourished dreams and great careers. With no regulations or stewards to keep things in order, the unbridled Cajun creativity gained an advantage. Using anything from foul-smelling alligator grease to a crazed rooster tied to a horse’s mane was considered fair game—but even after the hottest contests, winners and losers usually remained friends.
In Chapter 3 we learn about an array of dirty tricks that are so inventive that we can only accept them as part of the ambiance: country pharmacists, manufactured track bias, failed scams, and a 35-pound jockey!
Along with the rare humor, there’s nostalgia (perhaps a little too thick at certain moments) and tears for the inevitable demise of the bush tracks and the old Evangeline Downs. We also see a microcosm of a current trend when getting the inside picture of the role of casinos at Delta Downs. I am provoked to wonder if the faded but never-to-be forgotten old bush tracks are not more pure fun than the racinos of today. Along with the great oral histories and pure fun of the fast-moving stories, McNamara reminds us that Cajun country has produced more world-class riders per capita than any place on Earth.
Ed McNamara is a sports copy editor at Newsday on Long Island, where he writes about horse racing and pro football.
“From comprehensive racing coverage to his unique perspective on NFL Sundays, Ed McNamara never fails to entertain and inform. Readers will fly through Cajun Racing: From the Bush Tracks to the Triple Crown in :22 and :44 flat and have a great time doing it!
John Pricci
Executive editor, HorseRaceInsider.com
“Hang on for a wild ride through Cajun country... Eddie McNamara writes as if he grew up listening to Zydeco music. Ca c’est bon!”
Richard Rosenblatt, Associated Press
NOT THE LAST WORD
For years now I have been writing on how lotteries and similar brainless bets are frauds. I am taking the liberty of reprinting a CNN article that validates my contentions. The article also implies, for those who read it between the lines, some serious questions about our education system. I say “our” not simply regarding the American system but the education systems of all humanity, for lottery players abound throughout the world. How is it that we can produce and reproduce such cranial voids.
I once appeared on Maryland public radio, taking a stance against a then new Maryland state lottery game. I raised the issue of probabilities. I differentiated between fixed percentage deterministic wagers where winning is statistically at the border of pure impossibility and probability-based wagering with which intelligent analysis can improve the odds (naturally using horse racing as an example). I reiterated that the lottery was a can’t-win bet. The moderator of the radio panel responded that he met a person who had won the lottery. My response:
“And I met someone who was hit by lightning.”
At the time I tried communicating with the racing industry. I made a case for marketing our passion as a game where critical analysis can give a player the edge. The race track managers I spoke with felt that the masses were asses and that my argument would fail to gain new players.
They may have been right. I am amazed that people can just fork over hard-earned money to the State-Bookie with no chance of winning. I once considered manufacturing bumper stickers with the slogan, “I’ve been conned and I love it”, with a picture of a lottery ticket.
It’s all too late now. Racing managers are in bed with the slots industry. With millions of lottery players believing in the unreal, we have a choice: try to educate them or sell them the Brooklyn Bridge. The latter is more realistic.
If there’s one lesson from the lottery fraud for our readers, it is: Do not bet on horse racing as if it were a lottery.

ZERO CHANCE LOTTERY TICKETS STUN SOME PLAYERS
By Jason Carroll and Susan Chun
CNN's American Morning, 7 July
NEW YORK (CNN) -- When Scott Hoover bought a $5 scratch-off ticket in Virginia called "Beginner's Luck" last summer, he carefully studied the odds. Even though he figured his chances of winning were a long shot, he felt the odds were reasonable.
In July, USA Today estimated about half of the 42 states with lotteries sold tickets after top prizes were claimed.
Hoover, a business professor at Washington and Lee University in Virginia, wasn't surprised when his tickets didn't bring him the $75,000 grand prize, but he was shocked to learn the top prize had been awarded before he bought the ticket.
"I felt duped into buying these things," Hoover said.
He discovered the Virginia State Lottery was continuing to sell tickets for games in which the top prizes were no longer available. Public records showed that someone had already won the top prize one month before Hoover played. He is now suing the state of Virginia for breach of contract.
"It's one thing to say it's a long shot to win the $75,000, but it's another thing to say you have no shot to win it," said John Fishwick, Hoover's attorney.
Through a request filed under the Freedom of Information Act, Fishwick's firm was able to obtain records that showed the Virginia State Lottery sold $85 million in tickets for which no top prize was available. Fishwick says the state should pay $85 million in damages.
Paula Otto, executive director of the Virginia State Lottery, said the state's games are fair and the top prize money is actually a small percentage of the money given out to lottery players. Most of the players win through the second, third or fourth-place prizes, she said. Otto also said it's no longer possible in the state of Virginia to purchase tickets with no top prizes available.
"We absolutely have always been very open and honest with our players about the way our scratch tickets are distributed," Otto said. "Yes, there were times when there was a scratch game out there that might've said "zero" in terms of the number of top prizes, but our players knew that."
Otto would not comment on the lawsuit, but said she stands by the integrity of the games in Virginia and looks forward to vigorously defending them.
Virginia isn't the only state to sell tickets that have no top prizes available. USA Today estimates that about half of the 42 states that have lotteries were, as of early July, continuing to sell tickets after the top prizes are claimed. Lottery officials from some states say the practice is fair because lesser prizes are still available, and they say tickets and lottery Web sites make that clear.
In New Jersey, tickets for the "$1,000,000 Explosion" scratch-off game were still on sale last week, even though the million-dollar grand prize was already awarded.
Lottery ticket buyers outside a New Jersey convenience store were stunned to hear the news.
"Oh really? I didn't know that," one shopper told CNN. Another added, "That's just not right."
Dominick DeMarco, a spokesman with the New Jersey Lottery, said information about winning tickets and prizes is readily available on the lottery Web site and at retail outlets. However, officials are still looking for ways to improve on their procedures.
S