Darley spurns Jim Rome

If you think Zenyatta's celebrity was enough to get her past the velvet rope to see Bernardini, think again.

Not even Jim Rome's celebrity could secure a place in line for Surfer Girl, a six-year-old Wild Event mare he owns with his wife, Janet, in the name of their Jungle Racing. Surfer Girl was Group 1-placed in her native Brazil but winless in five starts in the U.S. with trainer Mike Puype, though she did finish second in a pair of allowance races.

Out of the Group 3-placed winner Australian Girl, by Lode, Surfer Girl is a half sister to Group 1 winner Refuge Cove and a full sister to the group stakes-placed winner Queen Australian, but the black type and fame of Jim Rome was not enough to secure a place in the harem of Bernardini, who stands for an advertised fee of $75,000 at Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum's Darley U.S.A. in Lexington.

Jim Rome shared his angst on Twitter, saying that "Bernardini's people turned down Surfer Girl. Horse racing is a kick in the a** and a punch in the face" before adding in a separate message, "That said, absolutely ecstatic Claiborne Farm said yes to Surfer Girl with Pulpit, a sensational stallion. Absolutely pumped about that."

Both Bernardini and Pulpit are by A.P. Indy, and at an advertised fee of $50,000 with 8% stakes winners from his first 11 crops, Pulpit is an awesome consolation prize.

Still, I couldn't help imagine likening Surfer Girl getting shut out at Darley with the cliche scene outside a club when someone tries to get past the velvet rope by saying s/he is with the DJ.

"Name?"
"Surfer Girl."
"You're not on the list."
"I'm with the DJ."
"Which DJ?"
"Jim Rome."
"Pass."

Speaking of the forthcoming Bernardini-Zenyatta foal, be sure to submit your suggested name for racing royalty at the Thoroughbred Times contest page.

Why big bettors enjoy increased takeout

Much has been made in the blogosphere about how the horse racing trade press has ignored the Horseplayers Association of North America's organized boycott of wagering on California racing, though I find much of that discussion unfounded.

In various e-mail correspondence I have made it clear that I would love to write a story about the big bettors who are withholding their capital from California races. My stipulations are that the bettor(s) must be willing to identify themselves as well as give basic information related to their wagering patterns including both where and how much they bet.

No one took me up on my offer, so I didn't feel as if I really had enough to write about.

Then it dawned on me: Big bettors aren't talking because they're not boycotting. In fact, the biggest bettors relish takeout increases because that increases the margins their wagering outlets have to increase rebates.

The California takeout increase was touted as a way to increase the money from handle that went to purses, but all of the increase only goes to purses when the money is wagered in California. As Scott Daruty said at the California Horse Racing Board meeting on January 20, some outlets (e.g. TwinSpires) accepting wagers from outside California are paying as little as 50% of the increase to California purses. If those outlets (e.g. TwinSpires) are keeping the balance of the increase, then they very easily could pass that savings on to its biggest bettors in the form of a rebate.

Put another way, the hoi polloi of the race wagering world is forced to accept a 3% increase while those receiving rebates only had their takeout increased 1% or 2%, if at all! What big bettor is going to boycott a system that actually favors him or her? The answer, of course, is none, which is why I never heard from any whales wanting to decry the increase.

Previously: Why rebates are unfair & How increasing takeout increases risk of ruin.

Churchill Downs Inc. owns TwinSpires, and a spokesman for the Louisville-based company said that Churchill does not comment on simulcast agreements.

Names for 2011

One of the small perks of my job as news editor of Thoroughbred Times is access to a database that makes it very easy to find the names of horses who have not raced or even been on a racetrack yet.

From a handicapping perspective this is beneficial because when I come across a dam that produces progeny who excel under certain types of conditions (e.g., career debut, stretching out, surface change), I can look up her family with ease and add names of horses to my Virtual Stable to monitor for conditions that could prove profitable.

From a fan perspective this is beneficial because I can follow horses from the families of my favorite horses. Real Quiet retired long ago, but his family is still very active, and it's fun to follow the exploits of the Really Blue clan.

I know I'm not alone in liking to follow the babies related to my favorites. As I poked around today looking to see if some newly minted two-year-olds had been named I got lost in a maze of pedigrees. Here are some names I think a lot of people would be interested in:

• The first foal out of Balance is named Mr. Besilu. The son of A.P. Indy cost $4.2-million at the Keeneland September yearling sale. Balance is out of Broodmare of the Year Vertigineux, dam of Horse of the Year Zenyatta.
• Speaking of that family, Zenyatta's two-year-old half sister is by Bernardini (a son of A.P. Indy) and named Eblouissante. Breeder Eric Kronfeld has kept this lass with plans to race her himself with trainer John Shirreffs, who also trained Zenyatta.
• In other female Horse of the Year news, Rachel Alexandra's dam, Lotta Kim, by Roar, only produced one other foal, a deceased Empire Maker colt named Empire Ruler, but the family is active on the racetrack as her half sister by Lasting Approval, ironically (in light of Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra's rivalry) named She's The Queen, has a two-year-old Cuvee colt named Forever Dobil.
• The other female Horse of the Year from this century, Azeri, has the four-year-old Take Control, the three-year-old Arienza, and an unnamed two-year-old filly by Ghostzapper. Her yearling filly is by Distorted Humor and was born in Japan.
• The FOBs (Friends of Barbaro) will want to begin to keep a close watch on Margano, a two-year-old full brother to the classic winner out of La Ville Rouge.
• Champion older male and Horse of the Year finalist Blame has a three-year-old full sister named Might who has not raced yet. Their half sister by A.P. Indy, Apt, has a two-year-old First Samurai filly named Apropos.
• Juddmonte Farms' production dynamo extraordinaire Hasili has an unraced three-year-old Empire Maker filly named Very Good News.
• Speaking of amazing families, Rags to Riches is out of Better Than Honour, and her first foal, a Giant's Causeway filly, has yet to be named, though there are reports that she is already in training with the Todd Pletcher operation.
• Better Than Honour's first foal, Teeming, has a two-year-old Distorted Humor filly named Distracting, and her second foal, Magnificent Honour, has a two-year-old Ghostzapper colt named Ghost Honour.
• Supercharger could be the next Set Them Free in that her son, Brethren, is attempting to emulate his brother Super Saver by winning the Kentucky Derby Presented by Yum! Brands. Supercharger has an unnamed two-year-old filly by Awesome Again and her yearling colt by Medaglia d'Oro has already been named Superfection. As for Set Them Free, the dam of Giacomo and Tiago has an unnamed two-year-old Empire Maker filly.
• One of my favorite fillies of all time, Dreaming of Anna, only has a yearling filly by Street Cry to report, but she has already been named All Her Class.

One of the best ways to follow these horses and all your favorites is through Equibase's Virtual Stable. Daily Racing Form and BRIS each offer a similar service.

Also, if you're curious about the offspring of any of your favorites, don't hesitate to leave a question in the comments.

Eclipse Award votes

Here, by quasi popular demand, are my selections for Eclipse Awards. The ceremony is Monday night, and TVG will televise the proceedings live.

No real surprises. My only comment on Horse of the Year is that to win an award open to all horses, I think you should have to win at least one race open to all horses, but that's how I vote, and I certainly have no issue with people who voted for Zenyatta or Goldikova using other criteria.

Turf male was by far the weakest group on accomplishment. My rule for Eclipse Award eligibility is that a horse must start in North America and then I will consider all races in determining their merit. Americain won the Melbourne Cup, and I thought that deserved more recognition than Paddy O'Prado's Secretariat or Dangerous Midge's Breeders' Cup Turf.

I abstained from both the apprentice jockey and steeplechase categories. I don't follow steeplechase racing, so I don't think it'd be fair for me to vote using past performances rather than my experiences as a guide. As for apprentice, I just didn't have a feel for that group this year.

With the exception of Horse of the Year, I have listed the categories in the order in which they appeared on the official ballot. If you have any other questions, use the comments.

Horse of the Year:

1. Blame
2. Zenyatta
3. Goldikva

Two-year-old male:

1. Uncle Mo
2. Boys At Tosconova
3. Comma to the Top

Two-year-old female:

1. Awesome Feather
2. More Than Real
3. Dancinginherdreams

Three-year-old male:

1. Lookin At Lucky
2. Super Saver
3. Eskendereya

Three-year-old female:

1. Blind Luck
2. Switch
3. Devil May Care

Turf male:

1. Winchester
2. Gio Ponti
3. Americain

Turf female:

1. Goldikova
2. Proviso
3. Tuscan Evening

Older male:

1. Blame
2. Quality Road
3. Richard's Kid

Older female:

1. Zenyatta
2. Unrivaled Belle
3. Life At Ten

Female sprinter:

1. Dubai Majesty
2. Rightly So
3. Monda de Momma

Male sprinter:

1. Big Drama
2. Majesticperfection
3. Smiling Tiger

Apprentice jockey: ABSTAIN

Jockey:

1. Garrett Gomez
2. John Velazquez
3. Ramon Dominguez

Steeplechase: ABSTAIN

Trainer:

1. Todd Pletcher
2. Bob Baffert
3. Jerry Hollendorfer

Breeder:

1. Claiborne Farm
2. Brereton Jones
3. Edward Evans

Owner:

1. WinStar Farm
2. Jerry & Ann Moss
3. Midwest Thoroughbreds

One day in and already chasin'

The great thing about today's $35,000-plus pick five carryover at Gulfstream Park is not that there is free money in the pot, it's that there is MY money in the pot.

My excitement for the opening of Gulfstream on Wednesday waned considerably as each passing race only meant more losing tickets. I only went 1/5 in the pick five, crashed and burned in the early pick four after just one leg, and smartly laid off the late pick four after realizing I was off my game.

Indeed, I had tabbed nearly a quarter of the card as "A" selections yet only managed two winners in that category--equal to the number of "X" picks who won, which is terrible. For a summary of picks and results, click here.

But we're back at it today with a chance to win back my own losses and then some in the pick five that begins with race five.

Yesterday I had a mix of "A" and "B" selections, but today I'm more willing to lean on a key choice singles throughout the sequence. Here is today's grid. In typical Crist fashion, I can go AAAAA, AAAAB, AAABB, or AAAAC to get the money.

Lifting the lid at Gulfstream Park

Gulfstream Park opens today, and I'm excited.

I feel as if this is the meeting that most narrows the focus on the Kentucky Derby. Sure, we're still 122 days away from the First Saturday in May, but any day can be a Triple Crown preview day at Gulfstream.

In 2008, eventual three-year-old male champion Big Brown made his seasonal debut on a Wednesday, and it was a Sunday in 2010 when eventual Grade 1 winners Drosselmeyer and Prince Will I Am finished one-two in a first-level allowance race.

If this year's opening day card is to feature superstars at that level then they're most likely to exit the featured eighth race, the Grade 3 Old Hat Stakes for three-year-old fillies going six furlongs on the dirt.

It's a compact field of only six, but four are stakes winners, including my pick, #5 Quantum Miss, a Smoke Glacken filly who is the 2-to-1 second choice on the morning line. She won the Blue Mountain Stakes for Pennsylvania breds by 16 lengths last out and has won both her starts since losing her career debut. She showed in her maiden win that she can press a fast pace, and I expect a similar trip--and outcome--here.

#6 Roxy Gap is the 9-to-5 morning line favorite and a likely underlay given the 4 1/2-month layoff and turning back to try dirt for the first time (not that Indian Charlies have any issues with dirt). Still, she won a high-dollar allowance race going longer last time, and I wonder if this isn't more a prep. As the fourth choice on the morning line, #2 It's Me Mom could offer some value racing second off a layoff with the initial dirt try out of the way.

Gulfstream offers a smorgasbord of pick N wagering opportunities this meeting with rolling $1 pick threes, a pair of $.50 pick fours, a $.50 pick five, and a dime pick six modeled after the Fortune 6 at Beulah Park, which pays the jackpot only if there is one winning ticket.

With expected scratches, I can play my "A" selections in the pick six for less than $50 so I might do it on a lark, but I'll probably mostly focus on the pick 4s (races 2-5 & 6-9) and the pick five (races 5-9).

I expect my best bet of the day to be in the second race where #2 Fundit is 4-to-1 on the morning line and would be worth every bit of half that price. Other horses of interest are #4 Austons Sure Cure in race 5 and #9 Winter's Fury in race 9.

To view a complete list of ABC rankings, click here.

My New Year's resolution for racing: a better understanding of "value"

I want to thank The Knight Sky for his timely comment because value has become a dirty word to me in that many people (who should know better) misuse it.

Basically, HIGHER ODDS DOES NOT EQUAL VALUE

Having a 20-to-1 horse finish behind an even money favorite does not automatically "add value to the exacta." If that exacta has a 5% chance of occurring but pays $35 for $2 then it's an underlay and does not offer value.

For those craps players out there, saying an underlay "adds value to the exacta" (or any bet) is akin to saying that hitting a hard way adds value to your point. The casino makes more money when you bet the hard ways than when you stick to the (don't) pass line with full odds, and similarly you lose money in the long run when wagering on underlays.

Far too many people "try to beat the favorite for value." It's become ridiculously out of vogue to pick favorites as if the arbitrary distinction of ranking first by win dollars automatically makes a horse an underlay. If you assess a horse as having a 50% chance of winning a race, but he's 2-to-1 then that is tremendous value!

So don't be afraid of favorites, and don't just add high-priced horses willy-nilly to your exotics hoping for value. Sure, it's nice to hit boxcars for 30-to-1 until you remember that the odds of that happening were one in 36.

Risk of ruin

The most insulting aspect of California raising its takeout 2% on two-horse wagers and 3% on three (or more)-horse wagers was not the increase itself but the reaction of industry stakeholders trying to justify it.

At least when New York State increased takeout on three (or more)-horse wagers from a ridiculous 25% to an unconscionable 26% the New York Racing Association fought it and even got a one-year reprieve on the increase.

The reaction of Santa Anita President George Haines was remarkably different.

"Maybe the top point-one percent of the handicapping world has that in their equation--what the takeout is--but for the most part, people are looking at handicapping winners," Haines told Daily Racing Form ahead of the track's winter-spring meeting that began December 26.

I've read comments from other racing observers along those lines with "You have to pick winners for takeout to matter" the prevailing theme when trying to argue that takeout doesn't matter.

Haines suggests that only one in 1,000 horseplayers care about takeout (i.e. .1%), and while I think a few more gamblers than that pay attention to it, I would agree that not enough do.

That said, the biggest error in Haines' assessment is not how bettors perceive takeout but how it affects tracks.

This spreadsheet illustrates how takeout can affect a bankroll and handle. The two left columns represent the exacta takeout before (far left) and after (second column) the increase. The other three columns show other percentages ranging from 15%-30%.

These models assume that the bettor loses exactly the takeout each time and does not reload his bankroll. I also assume that the bettor stops participating after having his bankroll reduced to 10% its original value.

The interesting thing to me about this model is not that handle declines 14% with the 3% takeout increase but that our mythical bettor stops wagering following 10 iterations versus 12. If you look at that as racing dates, that's two fewer days you'll have someone at the track having an economic impact beyond wagering (concessions, programs, good will, etc.).

One of racing's biggest obstacles is that many of its players do not practice proper bankroll management. Even the world's brightest handicapper risks ruin if s/he does not properly manage his/her bet sizes.

To wit, which game involving a coin would you rather play?

1. You must bet 100% of your bankroll on each flip for a minimum of ten flips. When you guess heads or tails correctly you win 2-to-1; if you are incorrect you lose.
2. You must bet at least 10% of your bankroll on each flip for a minimum of ten flips. When you guess heads or tails correctly you win 9-to-10; if you are incorrect you lose

Obviously the best situation for any gambler is to have an edge while wagering an amount that allows for statistical uncertainty. No gambler should ever put 100% of his stake on one outcome, but that happens at gambling venues across the country daily, and racing's high takeout has a bigger effect on poor bankroll management than casino gaming does.

And to me that's why the California situation is so hard to handle even in the face of higher takeout in other jurisdictions (e.g. NYRA 26%, Fair Grounds 25%, etc.). To have a racetrack leader or industry regulator put public relations spin on something that is so obviously bad for the core product of racing has me more concerned for the future of this sport than anything I have ever encountered.