"Rats scatter at the sound of human foot steps but not raptors. T.H.E.Y tap their toenail in anticipation of a good meal.", he said thinking of last Sunday's George Stephanopoulos TV show where the details escaped him for the moment but not the observable point: the liberal Sam Donaldson almost, but not quite, but almost devoured the conservative George Will.

Again ... am I just noticing this for the first time or are T.H.E.Y more like Steven Spielberg's Raptors in the "Jurassic Park" movie and not like cornered rats as depicted by Ayn Rand somewhere in her writings. (That is, am I underestimating my political adversaries?)

Probably a little of both--I'm just noticing and T.H.E.Y - having been out of power for sometime - are on the prowl like a pack of starving animals.

But halt. (Since my mother always told me not be so thinned skin I have built up a tough hide over the years and no longer fear being eaten by Democrats.)

Since I had introduced a "devour" theme in my Breeders Cup release last week I just couldn't resist starting this MMQ the way I did but now on with the analysis.

That is I could just as easily have started this way: BC results, DISASTER!

Or: The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Or: Thank god for small favors.

Or: halt.

If I were a spinner of tales and other fictions which seems to be the thing to be these days I would look back and cherry pick the best results and then put these up front as my successes.

Just for the fun of it lets try this approach while noticing very quickly that I said I was going to bet my top pick over and under for $1 exacta and had I done that I would have bet 266 dollars over the two days of the 14 Breeder Cup races and only cashed in three tickets worth a total of $87 for a loss of 179 bucks.

But that's the boring outcome.

Let's try the funner approach (again, while recognizing it is not the intellectually honest approach just the what the-potential-purchasers-of-my- computer-program want to hear approach - and I don't necessarily mean this derisively, just factually.).

So here it is.

MMQ Breeders Cup - Deering opts to heed the advice of other more seasoned handicappers who suggest that for BC races you maybe should go deeper and so he bets his $2 six deep trifecta boxes (rather than his usual $1 three deep and an occassional 5 deep but never ever six deep until now) and walks away with a cool $2,246 profit. That is, a cool 66.8% return on investment in a copula days!

Now isn't that a funner headline?

Rather than the real one:

MMQ Breeders Cup - thank god for small favors. That is, the most money I could scare up to bet was sixty bucks and I lost that so fast it made me feel dizzy. (See Fridays races 6, 7 and 8 which are the ones after home from work that I could bet hence chose to bet.)

So back to the drawing board.

Or that is, it looks like my first impulse was right again - don't do the top pick over/under AT SANTA ANITA race track as it wins less than 40% of the time, rather, box the top 5 in an exacta or the top 6 in a trifecta.

My Sax Greeks said don't do over and under as it wins less than 40% of the time (alpha 1 plus beta 1 = .36 for all 644 races in the Sax database which is a not very good number compared to say, Retama which does almost 50% for its 368 races in the database) and also don't bet any turf races because the performance on these is pathetic at Santa Anita whereas on dirt races there it is ok if you box at least 5 deep for exactas and six deep for the trifectas. (Actually since this turf race info was "insider" knowledge that I didn't share in my earlier comments simply because I didn't have time to cover absolutely everything I can't use it here.)

On day-to-day betting the 5 deep exacta is a looser bet but with the Breeders Cup maybe the payouts will be high enough to justify the risk.

Same too for the six deep trifecta boxes.

Lets test this on paper taking the races 3 thru 8 from Friday and 2 thru 9 from Saturday and write the w (in) p(lace) s(how) position on each one.

[ click here for pdf file showing this ]

and when we look at the results and discover the six deep tri box won Fridays 6th and 8th race - paying $95 and $523 respectively for the $1 bet and double for the $2 - and Saturday's 4th and 8th - paying $2,145 and $40 respectively for the $1 and double that for the $2 - we generate a new headline:

ans: by spin doctoring it ...

But.

Fact is I personally lost so all the foregoing didn't do me any good and since I don't really have time to pursue this further I am ending it - Breeders Cup races suck.

If I save a hundred dollars a month for the next 12 months then next year I can bet the six deep trifecta's at the Breeders Cup and see what happens.

But.

Since it looks like interest rates and taxation rates in this country are heading for outer space the chances of me saving a hundred bucks a month towards my next year betting pool is a big fat zilch.

But.

What if they (next years BC races) are - as they almost surely will be - run at a different track? Should it be track or horses that matter most in my deciding/betting process???

Dunno.

Have to figure it out later.

.......................................................................

Ary Ering,
aka gAry deEring
the worlds most consistent handicapper and erratic bettor ...
11/12/2009

PS
Just recently I heard my other computer betting program approach (what I call, M⁴) referred to as "dutching" and I didn't know what this was. I had heard of this kind of betting referred to as "due" betting but not "dutching" your bets. So for those of you who like dutch or due betting you should check out my M⁴ computer program. Why? Because it is a computer program that has done two things: 1) turned "dutching" your win bets into an exact science and 2) testing your personal ability to handle bi-polar or near bi-polar behavioral ranges into a ... a ... what? ... a psychhological test of your psychhology that is both enlightening and fun. That is, you can learn first hand and in a fairly non- threatening way the absolute importance of "testing" in your own psychhological growth and development.

[ Here for more M⁴ information ... click on the Go to the Horse Races ... bubble when you get there ... ]

The end.

oops!  

PPS

Remember very first comments on BC where we highly suspected that the "sure thing" probably would not work out as in the gambling aspects of betting or any gambling the only thing you can count on - in a fair game - is that "sure things" never work.

We were right as Friday's race x and Saturday's race n sure thing bet was to have the winner in the top 3 picks and in the former it was x deep and the latter, y deep.

So that if random means you can't predict anything about it, how is horse race outcome random - you can predict that sure things almost always loose, the favorite tends to win a third of the races, the Greeks will out (or so it seems), and winning streaks are extremely common.

And oh also, the most likely outcome in betting on horses is, to loose. (That is, if you use my LC1p53.exe Logical Choice predictions/White Sheet as your source and bet fewer than three horses to win in any given race AND are trying to bet so that you end up with a +roi.)

With all these "predictable" things how can we conclude that horse race outcomes are "random"?

Fact is we can't, they aren't and this is one reason why betting on the horses is or can be a heck of a lot more fun than going to the casino.

At least sometimes.

Not that that is your only choice of course, said he di-polar man to his significant ar.

The end.  

oops oops or that is a double oops or that is, oh shit!

I didn't bet the "sure thing" races because they were turf races and I thought it was the surface type not the age that mattered and just now when I look at the two 2 year old only races (Friday's 4th and Saturday's 2nd ) I won both of them for a net profit of 16 bucks (over 250% return!!!).

So now I ask me (after a quick check of my Sax database) is the expensive ($$$) 2 year old only races that win "over/under all" exactas 61% of the time a worthwhile thing to check out this winter? Well I think since Santa Anita season usually runs from the day after Christmas and into the spring that some cold wintry night here in Minnesota when the f'g wind is howling around my house I'll build a fire and cozy in with my big screen TV and online computer betting and check this out ...

If, that is, those interest rates don't hit double digit before then and "they" foreclose on my cozy spot here as my interest only mortgage resets in the new year and/or IF the government taxes don't soar to what they were back in the middle'ish part of the last century ( 90% on upper end rich people I seem to recall which of course I don't have to worry about ... but ...)

to be continued,

maybe,

this

winter.

Bye.

Copyright © 2009 RaIse Books, LLC. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited. RaIse Books, LLC is a for profit organization. Contributions to RaIse Books, LLC are not tax-exempt. gdeering.com, egoAerodynamics.com, theREALinconvenientTRUTH.com and certain other dot coms are owned by Gary Deering. All material on Gary's dot com websites and websides, including RaIseBooks.com is copyrighted. Reproduction in whole or part is prohibited without express permission. If you are interested in publishing any of Gary's material, please contact him at gary@raisebooks.com with the details to request permission. Thank you.