Ready to turn the page to 2011

It was wonderful to read the 2010 retrospectives offered by both the Michigan-bred Claimer and Brooklyn Backstretch on their respective websites. Both are Thoroughbred Times colleagues and friends, and it was a pleasure sharing many of my own 2010 memories with them.

Unfortunately, the biggest story of my 2010 was an abysmal performance at the betting windows where I lost 25% of the money I wagered to mark my worst year of horseplaying of my life and first down year since 2007. Losing more than the average rake doesn't help churn, and my handle was down from its record level in 2009.

The positive spin is that I did very well in the fourth quarter, although I realize saying that indicates just how abominable the first nine months must have been! I'm hoping the positive momentum carries into the New Year where I'm very excited to play Gulfstream even though that meet stymied me in 2010.

I hate to dwell on the wagering numbers because A) they stink, and B) the horses are the stars and I'd rather remember 2010 for what they accomplished, but I like being straightforward about the bad of my gambling exploits because God knows I'll shout it from the rooftops the next time I hit a big one.

From a racing standpoint, I find it very difficult to look past the Breeders' Cup World Championships as the top event this year with this renewal of the Breeders' Cup Classic certainly adding its name to the list of my grandchildren races.

The two-day event also featured Goldikova winning her third consecutive Breeders' Cup Mile, Uncle Mo crushing a field of two-year-olds, and Shared Account winning the Breeders' Cup Filly & Mare Turf to give my good friend Sean Feld as an exciting a moment you can have in racing as well as a little national exposure.

Two small tracks helped make big memories, as I returned to Ellis Park for the first time since 2007 and partook in the excellent burger with the aforementioned Michigan-bred Claimer. A couple months later I saw champion Lookin At Lucky win the Indiana Derby at Hoosier Park, which came to life despite poor weather conditions and loved having Racing Hall of Fame trainer Bob Baffert in attendance.

The weather on Kentucky Derby day was as miserable as you can imagine, but the weather for the race was clear, prompting Churchill Downs Vice President of Communications John Asher to remark, "This is bigger than all of us."

The Derby also provided the impetus for possibly my best interview of the year, as I was among the first to talk with Glen Fullerton about the $100,000 wager he earned the right to make on the Derby. He ended up putting it on Super Saver for a $900,000 score.

So Fullerton's year was more prosperous than mine wagering wise, but memories last far longer than money. Thanks to all the horses and humans who made 2010 one to remember.

California trifecta rules need rewrite

It is impossible for me to imagine that the interests of the public were at heart when Santa Anita Park offered trifecta wagering on the fourth race Wednesday, a contest in which only three betting interests went to post.

The trifecta returned slightly better than even money but less than the exacta when 7-to-10 favorite Awesome Patriot defeated 11-to-10 second choice Riveting Reason with 5.6-to-1 longshot Miles Long Gone a distant third.

$2 to win on Awesome Patriot returned $3.40. The chalky exacta returned $4.60 for that same $2 while the trifecta using the only other available horse in third returned $4.20.

Santa Anita said that it was allowed to offer trifecta wagering because six horses entered the race and at least three started. So if five horses enter a race there can be no trifecta wagering even if they all start, but you can offer the bet on a three-horse race even though it makes no sense for a punter to enter that pool given that you're essentially betting an exacta at higher takeout.

Rather than sticking it to bettors by increasing takeout, the California Horse Racing Board should focus its efforts on regulations that could stimulate handle. Getting the extra juice on the $14,039 bet into the trifecta pool that otherwise may have gone in either the win and/or exacta pools is negligent at best and unethical at worse.

Winchester should win champion turf male

I was waiting until after the Hong Kong international races to write this because I figured if Winchester performed well in the Hong Kong Vase then I would have a stronger leg to stand on in supporting him as champion turf male over stablemate (and last year's Eclipse Award winner in that division) Gio Ponti.

Admittedly, Winchester's 11th-place finish is unlikely to inspire legions of voters to reconsider their allegiance to Gio Ponti, but they should.

There is a common lament among fans that the top horses don't face each other enough. For the most part I agree, but I'm also beginning to wonder what the point of such contests are if the results aren't going to count toward determining who the better horse is.

The Breeders' Cup Classic and how it affects the Horse of the Year discussion is certainly a part of that, but that's a topic for another time. The race I'm focused on for the purpose of making my case for Winchester is the Woodford Reserve Manhattan Handicap.

Gio Ponti had excuses for losing to his stablemate that day–a six-pound weight shift and it being the first race following the Dubai World Cup chief among them–but Winchester was just better that day in a win he later validated by defeating Grade 1 winner Paddy O'Prado in the Joe Hirsch Turf Classic Invitational Stakes.

Gio Ponti also notched two Grade 1 wins this year in capturing the Man O'War and Shadwell Turf Mile Stakes, but the horses behind him in those races (e.g. Mission Approved and Society's Chairman, respectively) are far inferior than Winchester defeating champion Gio Ponti and Grade 1 winner Paddy O'Prado.

To be sure, Gio Ponti has earned credit in the minds of some voters for his second-place finishes to champion Goldikova, Debussy, and Karelian. I'd go so far as to say that Gio Ponti has earned more in defeat than any horse in history since his second-place finishes to females Zenyatta last year and Goldikova this year earned him a sort of "best male" consolation prize.

I don't really jibe that way, though. The goal is (or should be) to win, so in my mind the races a horse wins count exponentially more toward year-end honors than the ones s/he doesn't, and there is just no doubt in my mind that in terms of the turf male division Manhattan + Hirsch > Man O'War + Shadwell Mile especially since the Manhattan win came at the expense of Gio Ponti. Yes, Gio Ponti gave his stablemate weight that day, but Gio Ponti received weight from Karelian when he lost at 1-to-5 so the weight argument washes in my mind.

If fans want the top horses to race against each other more often, then the results have to count for something. Winchester beat better competition in tallying his two Grade 1 wins this year, including the horse many will vote for as champion turf male.

Lexington bars need Bam in box

This is my seventh Symposium on Racing and Gaming, and through the first six it was rare (if not nonexistent) that I would be intrigued by any of the products being showcased in the trade area of the Symposium floor.

Well, if Zenyatta can lose then I can be won over by a highly polished marketing pitch, and that’s what Bam in a box did to me when I visited its booth Tuesday.

The concept is simple: Provide a lower cost of entry for businesses interested in allowing its patrons to bet on horse racing by using account wagering rules rather than off-track betting rules to allow them to bet.

Self-service kiosks using either an iPad or desktop computer allow users to log into (or sign up for) an advanced-deposit wagering account. They then can bet on races with the bar getting a small cut of the account wagering provider’s revenue from the wagers.

Opening up an OTB at a sports bar in Lexington simply would not happen even though Central Kentucky is the type of market where people would feel comfortable having a flutter on a horse race as much as they would a football game. It is not uncommon to go out and see people actively engaged in racing, and I suspect the Bam model would be especially useful on big race days.

I’m (very obviously) not a lawyer, but on the surface it seems that if it’s legal for me to bet at a bar by accessing TwinSpires using my own iPad or iPhone or laptop then why wouldn’t it be legal to access some other account wagering service using hardware owned by the bar?

Lexington bills itself as the horse capital of the world—a title I cannot endorse until its residents are able to go out and bet nighttime Thoroughbred signals. Bam in a box could get that done.

Trivia contest: Name the top 25 races by handle in 2009

In discussing the future of Thoroughbred racing, Churchill Downs Inc. President Bob Evans said that one of the reasons he is optimistic is because there has remained an interest in quality races.

To illustrate that point, he said that handle on the top 25 races (by handle) in 2009 increased 18% versus the top 25 races in 2003. Total handle during that period had declined 19%.

Name the top 25 races by handle. The first to do so correctly in the comments section below will win a Zenyatta publications package Thoroughbred Times (special edition plus other back issues featuring The Queen).

Marketing the wagering product

In preparing to cover this year's Symposium on Racing and Gaming I was pleased to see that—in setting the agenda—the University of Arizona's Race Track Industry Program emphasized not only the racing aspect of that couplet but also as part of that a favorite topic of mine: marketing the wagering product.

The best lessons I ever got in racetrack marketing came in summer 1999 when I interned at the Milstein family's Northfield Park between Cleveland and Akron. The marquee out front says Cleveland's Casino, but the only gaming going on was wagering on horse racing, and in order to make the most of that opportunity, President Tom Aldrich and simulcast director Dave Bianconi (who I'm sure has a loftier title by now) went out of their way to stimulate betting. Tell patrons where the action was and make sure they could bet it and watch what they were betting on. More than 11 years and dozens of tracks later, I've never seen a facility focus on generating handle as well as Northfield did, but I've encountered plenty of whiffs.

In summer 2000 Yonkers Raceway tried Friday matinee cards (presumably to fill the void left in Friday afternoon harness when Freehold closed). First post was noon, which meant it was the first track of any breed going, and Yonkers was able to fit in two races before Philadelphia Park began at 12:20 and a third race before a few others came on between 12:30-12:40.

You wouldn't know it at Thistledown, though.

To be sure, the Cleveland-area Thoroughbred track had a clientele that largely preferred flat racing, but there's a good chance that at least some of the people at the track at noon on a Friday were action junkies and may have taken a look at a race going off 20 minutes earlier than anything, 50 minutes before Churchill, 55 minutes before the live product, and 60 minutes before Belmont. Trouble was, Yonkers was only seen on one small screen on every other bank of TVs. Every television was pre-programmed in a mission control room, which meant tracks going off at 1:30 or later had a more prime position than the track running (pacing/trotting) RIGHT NOW. It boggled my mind.

I mentioned this situation to management and was told that the people in the TV room don't like to change channels throughout the day. I'm not sure if LOL was around back in summer 2000, but I LOLed.

A more recent faux pas occurred at Hoosier Park on Indiana Derby day. Despite not great weather and lots of electronic gaming options in the building next door, the racing product was doing a brisk business. People were paying attention, and of course having champion Lookin At Lucky and his Racing Hall of Fame trainer, Bob Baffert, on hand didn't hurt.

There were two more live races following the Indiana Derby, meaning that the live card concluded about an hour after the feature and that undefeated (at the time) two-time champion Zenyatta was going for her 19th straight victory within minutes of the last race ending.

Following that last live race announcer Steve Cross came over the public address to thank people for their patronage and encourage them to visit the casino next door. Zenyatta was prancing her way to the gate as she said this, though you may not have known that depending on what bank of TVs you were looking at since Hoosier must employ the same channel administrator unio n as Thistledown.

Besides the obvious of putting the most popular horse in a generation on every TV available, why couldn't the announcer let everyone know that undefeated champion Zenyatta would be racing in mere minutes and that you could watch and wager on the race?

Horse racing is a very expensive endeavor, and it's easy to see how a bloated marketing budget could cut into the bottom line, but having the announcer or TV people or simulcast analyst emphasizing interesting wagering opportunities a few times throughout the day can only help.

An absence of Derby fever is the affliction

Teresa Genaro has an interesting blog post about Derby fever, and how she can't get into it at this point on the calendar.

Which is too bad because the Kentucky Derby is the best thing going in American Thoroughbred racing, and I think it should be celebrated at every turn.

Some racing observers often lament the lack of a cohesive racing season, but the Derby provides that. Much like schools want one of the 68 spots in the NCAA tournament, so, too, do owners want one of the 20 spots in the Derby starting gate.

Earnings in graded stakes decide the 20 entrants, which creates a dash for the cash that begins in May the previous year but really gets going in the six months between the Breeders' Cup World Championships and the Derby itself.

Regions throughout the country conduct a pattern of races that culminate in final preps that produce a sort of Final Four for the Derby. It's exciting and provides fan favorites on a regular basis more than any other division.

Again, the Derby is the ultimate goal, which is why I don't get too upset about horses who don't go on to great things after the Derby. The great thing is the Derby. Teams that win the World Series or Super Bowl don't play again. Sure, that city plays again, but the team is different. Anything on top of a Derby win for a horse and his (or her) connections is clear gravy.

Teresa looks at the lifetime records of Derby winners, and that suits her purpose, but since my point is that the Derby is the ultimate goal, it's only what happens before the Derby that matters and in that sense Super Saver is a little light on credentials, but in the four years before him you have a Canadian champion, a Grade 1 winner, a champion, and a Grade 1 winner.

Now granted, as a championship event, the Preakness form has held up across the entire three-year-old season better than any of the other classics, but as the ultimate prize in racing, the Derby as an event always holds up its end of the bargain.

One point I do agree with Teresa on is the top whatever lists. At this point in the year it's fun to talk about potential winners and who the leaders are and who can stay a route of ground and all that good stuff, but I don't invest too much time until nominations come out and I have to prepare for my Triple Crown Fantasy League. Ranking a top 20 now is just showing off.

As for the first comment, the esteemed O_Crunk seems to think the presence of underlays makes it a bad betting race, when in fact the presence of underlays is what makes it such a great betting race.

Viva le Derby, and especially Derby fever. The race can never get here quick enough, but I don't want to wish these five months away because this is the Derby trail is the "league" so many of racing's critics so desperately want.

Vote now in TTimes Best of 2010 poll!

The annual Best of poll that my employer has done in each of the past three years has become a really fun exercise.

There are the standard questions every year, of course—best horse, best race—but we've also asked some fun questions about simulcast analysts, racinos, and this year we've added a social media component.

We try to choose our words carefully when asking the questions. We ask "best horse" rather Horse of the Year or champion of a particular division because A) we want the question to be more internationally inclusive, and B) we see "best" as allowing someone to choose a horse based on talent more than accomplishment.

Eskenderya, for instance, will not be champion three-year-old male, but it wouldn't be a stretch to pick him as best three-year-old to race this year based on what he showed when he did race. That said, I picked Lookin At Lucky.

Some of the questions are interesting not for who will "win" but who finishes second or how close the vote will be. I'd be shocked if anyone but Zenyatta won "best horse" but the vote for second I think will be interesting.

I voted for Goldikova. She won the race her connections had pointed toward all year while Zenyatta did not.

For "best two-year-old" I think our readership skewing North American will tip the scales in Uncle Mo's favor, but it will be interesting to see how close the vote is. I picked Uncle Mo.

It's impossible to think any horse except Goldikova will be "best turf horse", and Gio Ponti is most likely the pick for America's best turf horse, but I went with Winchester since the latter won the head to head match up in two races I consider more prestigious than the ones Gio Ponti won and against better fields.

We went with a free form response system for the questions related to the social networks Facebook, Twitter, and the blogosphere. I picked Old Friends for Facebook, Chris Rossi for Twitter, and Steve Crist for blog.

The Poll is open through Friday. Vote now!