In this issue: Kentucky Downs Material – Pages 1, 5, and 15 Previewing the Del Mar Futurity – Page 3 Learning from Usain Bolt– Page 6 Cangamble Improves the Game Again – Page 7 Canterbury Park Stats Packs – Page 8 & Page 29 You Figure It Out – Page 13 Halvey’s Magic Number – Page 19 Churning It Up – Page 21 The Horseplayer Monthly August/September 2016 Issue HM: Any new barns or jockeys planning on making Kentucky Downs a regular track? In our track ratings released earlier this year, Kentucky Downs maintained the #1 spot for the second consecutive year. To get you ready for this year’s meet, which kicks off on Saturday, September 3, we asked Live Racing Manager C.J. Johnsen five questions about what the track has in store for horseplayers this time around.
CJJ: Steve Asmussen, Christophe Clement, Ben Colebrook, Phil D’Amato, Mike Maker, Peter Miller, Ingrid Mason, Joe Sharp, Mike Stidham, Jack Van Berg, and Wesley Ward will all have horses on the grounds. And, of course, Mark Casse, Bill Mott, Buff Bradley, Tom Amoss, D. Wayne Lukas, Ian Wilkes, Tom Proctor and others will ship in quite a few horses.
HM: From a business/handle perspective, what are you hoping to accomplish this year? CJJ: Based off of our previous growth, we would like to see our handle grow over 15% from 2015. We have put a lot into our marketing effort in an attempt to make more horseplayers aware of the tremendous value in our product. HM: What changes or additions does Kentucky Downs have in store for us this meet? CJJ: We have made significant upgrades to our simulcast signal. Not only did we revamp our graphics, but we will also begin broadcasting in high definition. One of the only complaints about our product is our signal and how difficult it is to see your horse. As a horseplayer myself, I do not enjoy playing a track that I cannot watch, so I listened to our customers and upgraded the cameras. Kentucky Downs Live Racing Manager C.J. Johnsen expects Julien Leparoux to return from his current injury to ride at the meet – Norm Files photo
HM: How are the big stakes races shaping up? CJJ: The stakes races are shaping up better than ever. The juvenile stakes will once again produce great turf horses as in the past, and the Turf Sprint has come up strong as well. It looks as if Undrafted is set for a return, and Phil D’Amato will ship in Toowindytohaulrox after his stakes win at Del Mar in July. We just closed seven more stakes, so we will have more information on those in the upcoming days.
Our jockey colony will be second to none. Of course, Florent Geroux will be back to defend his title. Julien Leparoux is expected to make his return from injury on September 8, and Flavien Prat will make his first trip here as well. Along with the French invasion, we will have the Kentucky veterans Robby Albarado and Corey Lanerie. HM: Any idea on how many races we can expect to see on TVG or other television outlets? CJJ: As I mentioned earlier, we really stepped up our marketing effort and will be on TVG all five days. I am really working hard to coordinate our post times with the other tracks to maximize our exposure.
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA tricking the guy in the information booth into believing an 11-year-old is actually a 13-year-old is the watch. Everyone knows 13-year-olds wear digital watches, whereas 11year-olds do not. Now that I’m wearing a ridiculous watch, the next step is getting past the birth date quiz guy. The primary security tactic against the “epidemic” of underage children attending Greyhound Parks on weekday evenings is the birth date quiz. As we approach the gate, my father gives me a fictitious birth date to fool what he obviously thinks is an FBI agent working the counter. A mandatory practice session was therefore needed.
By Jerod Dinkin The community of horseplayers is small; we speak a distinct language (chalk, dime supe, scratch, heater, bridge jumper, etc.) and have shared life experiences that few others can comprehend and quite frankly, should be explored by Sociolinguistics experts. This kinship bonds us in ways in which only other horseplayers understand. On a recent Friday morning I was departing my local Starbucks and noticed a man reading the Daily Racing Form. Even in Metropolitan New York, this is a rarity. We struck up a conversation and chatted for about 45 minutes. During our dialogue, he mentioned as a kid that his family used to take him to the Meadowlands, and he would have to lie about his age to gain entry. Incredibly (and perhaps sickly), I had a similar experience that went like this: My father would take me to the Phoenix Greyhound Park on an alarmingly regular basis during the hot summer nights of the Arizona desert. The track maintained a rule for evening programs that children under the age of 13 could not attend. I started coming with him at the age of 11, and this is the way it would go down every time: 1. 2.
3.
“Jerod, you were born on August 12, 1975, so how old are you? “Um, 13.” “Jerod, you can’t hesitate!” In retrospect I should have said: “Dad, the worst thing that will happen here is the guy won’t let us in and it will save you two hundred bucks!”. “How old are you?” “13!” “When did you turn 13?” “12 days ago” “Jerod, it was only ten days ago! Let’s try this again!” This would continue until I understood my new birth date. The trick always worked, but not so much because the nervous, sweating, 11-year-old with the mouth full of braces and a wrist full of a Seiko was so convincing, but because the dude working the front entrance could give two flying “you-know-what’s” about who entered the premises. In any event, a chance meeting with another handicapper at Starbucks that got his start in this game in a similar fashion led me to think about this interesting niche endeavor we all love so much. An infinitesimal portion of the population understands and appreciates our own unique culture with its idiosyncrasies and quirks that make it special as a shared experience. That kinship among us is underrated and perhaps somewhat fading away with the proliferation of wagering from the comfort of home. Truly appreciate the friendships that evolve in pursuit of our next winning Pick 5 or that big contest score, as there are only a handful of us that really understand what it’s all about. May all your bets be winning ones.
We pull into the parking lot in his grey and silver 1985 Lincoln Town Car We see a station wagon in the lot with a large sign on the roof that says, “Robert Stack Blind Company.” We make a joke about how often Robert Stack is at the track because we would see this particular car on every trip to the track.
#3 is irony in its purest form. You see, we have to be there on a regular basis to know that he is there on a regular basis. I actually understood that particular irony as an 11-year-old. This compels me to think I was a fairly bright 11-year old. Sadly, my intellectual apex occurred on a 112-degree evening in the parking lot of the Phoenix Greyhound Park, at a very early age. Inevitably, my father would also make an Eliot Ness joke, which I didn’t understand at age 11. He’s getting a little older now so when he brings up the subject of how we would always see “Eliot Ness” at the track, I have to remind him it was actually “Robert Stack”.
About the author - Jerod Dinkin is a HANA Board Member, a former Canterbury Park Handicapper of the Year, 6’3” small forward with suspect lateral foot speed, in the Top 50 Lifetime at publichandicapper.com, and loves nothing more than a comfortable spot on the couch to listen to the soothing stylings of Richard Grunder on the weekends.
After joke time is over, we walk toward the entrance to the Grandstand. This is the portion of the evening where he reminds me to put on a wrist watch. You see, the key to
2
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA Straight Fire literally ran off the page in his second start. He was allowed to travel wide down the backside, opened up on the field entering the turn and was basically handridden to a ten length win. He earned a 98 Beyer for the dominating score (a race described by track announcer Trevor Denman as “breathtaking”). His final time of 1:14.4 was extremely fast, even though it was earned on a glib track. As a comparison, Champagne Room won the Grade 2 Sorrento earlier in the card in a final time of 1:16.1. It’s also worth noting that the last two finishers in the maiden race won by Straight Fire (and they were two zip codes away at the end) have come back to take a high-level maiden claimer and a maiden allowance. They are the only two that have run back from that race so far.
Straight Fire, Chasing Aces set to battle again By Track Phantom Two of the most exciting 2-year olds I’ve seen in recent memory (and that includes American Pharoah) will match up for a second time in the Del Mar Futurity. Chasing Aces, trained by Peter Miller, already beat the highly-rated, Straight Fire, trained by Keith Desormeaux, when they met in July. The big difference in that match-up was Straight Fire was making his first start and Chasing Aces already had a solid run under his belt. These two colts look like serious candidates for the Breeders’ Cup Juvenile and the Kentucky Derby. Chasing Aces set the Del Mar track record for five furlongs when he beat Straight Fire by 5 1/4 lengths. The time of :56.21 bested the long-standing record held by Soldier Girl, who won nine of 13 starts in her career and held the record since 1964. 1964! That is a 52-year-old record that went down this year, something you don’t see too often. Chasing Aces earned a sensational 101 Beyer speed figure for that win and is the highest figure earned by a 2-year old this year. You have to go back to 2006 to find a Kentucky Derby winner with a loftier Beyer in his 2year old year. Street Sense earned a 108 Beyer when he won the 2006 Breeders’ Cup Juvenile. American Pharoah twice recorded the same 101 Beyer in his 2-year old season. The female family for Chasing Aces includes many stakes winning turf runners. His half-brother is a Scandinavian champion, Silver Ocean. Chasing Aces was sold three times, lastly for $225,000. His sire, Flatter, won the Grade 2 Arlington-Washington Futurity at Arlington Park in 2003. Flatter’s full brother, Congrats, was a solid older runner who was second in the 2005 Santa Anita Handicap and earned just short of $1 million. His best runners have been $3 million winner, Flat Out (two-time winner of the Jockey Gold Cup) and $1.8 million winner, Upstart (a major player on the 2015 Derby Trail). His trainer, Peter Miller, has just three starts in a Derby prep. He had a runner (without success) in the last three runnings of the Santa Anita Derby. Straight Fire is the one you want if you’re looking at a Kentucky Derby future wager. His female family includes the 1981 Kentucky Oaks, Fantasy and Acorn winner, Heavenly Cause. Deeper in his female line is $500,000 winner, Shy Dawn. She is the dam of the 1991 Breeders’ Cup Mile winner, Opening Verse, who earned nearly $2 million in his career on both turf and dirt. Trainer Keith Desormeaux campaigned 2014 Breeders’ Cup Juvenile winner, Texas Red, and the Derby runner-up from this year, Exaggerator. Interestingly, both of those superstars lost their debut but were graded stakes winners in their 2-year old season. That tells you all you need to know about how Desormeaux prepares his young horses.
Straight Fire is owned by Jungle Racing LLC. of sports talk show host Jim Rome and partners. “He's just a superior horse,” Kent Desormeaux said. “They have had some great horses (Mizdirection, Shared Belief) and congratulations to them on acquiring another one.” It could be that neither colt wins the Del Mar Futurity. Bob Baffert, who seemingly could win an important Grade 1 with a Fonner Park shipper, has the awfully good, Klimt, in the race. He is two-for-three and is coming in off a five length win in the Grade 2 Best Pal. The Del Mar Futurity has been an important race the last few years. It produced the last three winners of the Derby (Nyquist, American Pharoah and California Chrome). Another significant Derby winner that won the Del Mar Futurity was Silver Charm. He won the 1996 Del Mar Futurity and staged great head to head battles with Free House in the Derby preps of 1997. It wouldn’t be all that surprising if Straight Fire and Chasing Aces reprise the roles of those two excellent colts in the upcoming months leading up to the 2017 Run for the Roses. About the author - David Valento is a handicapper for the Del Mar and Santa Anita websites, as well as his own website. He handicaps under the name of “Track Phantom” --- www.trackphantom.com.
3
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA three meets, but they are usually overbet. Chris Block and Jonathan Sheppard, on the other hand were not. Block won with 4/12 starters for a $4.37 R.O.I. and had 8/12 in the money. Sheppard won with 3/11 starters for a $4.45 R.O.I. and had 8/11 finish in the money. Over the last three meets no trainer has saddled more than one 10/1 winner. I found that to be an amazing stat. If you are looking for a trainer that can get a longshot on the board Rusty Arnold has been the best the last few years. He has won with only one but has two seconds and two thirds from eight starters that were 10/1 or higher at post time.
A Q & A with Lenny Moon HM: You seem to play the meet religiously each season. What is it about Kentucky Downs that gets you excited to gamble?
HM: Is there a rider (or riders) who might not be a big name, who you think knows the course well where you don't like to leave him or her off your serial tickets.
LM: I used to play Kentucky Downs when they ran concurrently with Turfway but it wasn't until a few years ago when they made the bold move to lower takeout across the board that I took them seriously. They now have the formula that all tracks are striving for: large wagering pools, large fields and large purses. Everyone wins and it amazes me that more tracks, especially the larger circuits, aren't experimenting with lower takeout rates.
LM: Florent Geroux dominated the meet last year just as Rosie Napravnik did the two previous years. Geroux has been tearing it up at all year and he will likely be overbet in most races this year. James Graham, however, is a mustwatch as he has overperformed with longshots with 35% in the money the last three years but only one of them was a winner. Robby Albarado, on the other hand, booted home four longshots and produced a $4.89 R.O.I. with horses going off at 10/1 or higher the last three meets. HM: Do you have a "go to" bet at Kentucky Downs? LM: The big pools and fields make the horizontal exotics like the Pick Four and Pick Five very attractive, but they are much tougher to take down. I would play those if I had a strong opinion in at least two races. On a daily basis, the Exacta and Daily Double are my go to bets. The large fields result in very generous payoffs in both, and they are much less risky than the Pick Four, Pick Five and Superfecta. The average Exacta paid over $53 for every $2 bet, and the average Daily Double paid $126 the last three meets. HM: Have you made any memorable scores at the Downs? Any good near misses you'd like to share?
HM: The field size can be daunting for newer players to the venue. Any advice in cutting down the field size via contender selection?
LM: My best day betting Kentucky Downs was September 7, 2013. There were three stakes races in the late Pick Four and Pick Five sequences. I parlayed a $45 Pick Four play into $821.20 and a $66 Pick Five play into $1,364.70. I also cashed a few other smaller winning tickets making it the single most profitable day at Kentucky Downs for me.
LM: Focus on the logical horses in each race. I looked at the last three meets and found that 52% of the winners were less than 5/1 and 87% of the winners were less than 10/1. Most people would assume with 10-12 horse fields there would be more upsets, but that hasn't been the case. If you are looking for a longshot it's best to put them in the second, third or fourth spot in the vertical exotics.
About Lenny - Lenny Moon is the founder of Wagerlogged.com, a site designed to take the pain out of record keeping and help horseplayers become more profitable at the betting windows. He is also the founder of Equinometry.com, a sited dedicated to educating horseplayers of all levels about handicapping, betting and handicapping contest strategy
HM: Are there any sneaky good barns that come to Kentucky Downs who are well meant, but maybe fly under the radar, or don't have big win percentages? LM: Mike Maker, Wayne Catalano, Wesley Ward and Mark Casse have been the top trainers overall the last
5
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA from what he does best, and the results have paid off in spades. He is the best at his trade by a large margin. As handicappers we are often tempted to tackle challenges where we do not excel. Of course there is nothing wrong with trying to improve your overall game, but, all too often, we as horse players can get sucked into playing races, tracks or wager types (e.g. Pick 6s) where we are simply are out of our element. It’s hard enough to beat this game without making wagers with a low probability of success. Consider that those $72 swings at the Pick 6 carryover can put a serious dent in your bankroll if your budget is $200 per day for betting. Why play the Pick-4 if it includes a 2-year-old maiden race where you simply don’t have a good opinion? Are you playing it because there it is a ‘guaranteed’ pool or because you have a good opinion on the sequence? How many of us have ‘gimmicked’ away a nice winner? You select a horse that wins at 7-1, paying $16, but instead you hold a handful of losing exotic tickets. You missed the basics of placing a Win bet, opting instead for the ‘big score.’ The situations where we can beat ourselves are endless. When we force ourselves to focus on our strengths, we can excel at the game. Most of the top ADW sites, including BetPTC which I recommend, have Account Activity pages where we can really analyze the tracks and wager types where we perform best. Many of us experienced players have a good idea where we excel and where we falter, but all too often we get sucked into the latter situations.
By Rich Nilsen Once again the champion sprinter from Jamaica, Usain Bolt, dazzled the world with his brilliant sprinter performances. Two Olympic Games back, he became the first sprinter in history to win gold in both the Men’s 100 meter and 200 meter races. He accomplished this again in London in 2012, and then he repeated the feat in the 2016 Rio Games. Bolt competed in nine events over the three Olympic Games, all at distances for him of 200 meters or less, and he won all nine. For those wondering, 100 meters is equivalent to 109.36 yards.
Usain Bolt does his famous “To Di World” pose” – photo by Dr. Clifford Choi on Flickr So what lesson could Bolt give to a horse racing handicapper? Well, it came out recently that Bolt, the fastest sprinter in the world, had never run one mile. Say what? It's hard to believe but true. Usain Bolt has never done the thing that most American high school kids have had to do at some point in their lives. His agent, Ricky Simms, confirmed this amazing fact in a recent statement to the New Yorker publication. So why would Bolt never run a mile? Bolt has never trained running one mile simply because it would not benefit him. His game is all about those fast-twitch muscles involved in short-distance racing – his strength. “Marathon distance runners have more slow-twitch fibers, which is one of the reasons why you are never going to turn [record-breaking distance runner] Paula Radcliffe into a great sprinter, or Usain Bolt into a good longdistance runner,” explained Professor Steve Harridge of Kings College London in an interview with the Independent in 2012. Usain Bolt has stuck to his strengths, not deviating away
It doesn’t have to be that way. Review your recent wagering actions and determine if the Usain Bolt lesson applies to you. I bet for many reading this that it does. Good luck! About the author - Rich Nilsen is Director of Player Services for BetPTC.com. He is also founder of the educational site, AGameofskill.com and a winner of five major handicapping tournaments.
6
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA Standardized Payout Prices When someone says "I hit the super, and it paid $569.60," what goes through your mind regarding the payout? Was it $569.60 for a dime? For twenty cents? For 50 cents? For a buck? Or for a deuce? Nobody reading this knows for sure, and it really shouldn't be that way. Also, there is also an issue that occurs once in a while where the payout might show $28,753.80 (for a two dollar base) but in reality only one person had the whole pool for 50 cents and collected $7,188.45. There is something deceptive about that and it isn't necessary either. To get to the goal of having industry-standardized payout prices, one must first acknowledge the problem that different tracks have different minimums. There needs to be a sit-down of track owners and minimums for each bet type should be agreed to be the same everywhere. That is going to take a while to achieve as some jurisdictions need to tinker with state laws, etc, and getting two tracks to agree on minimums is hard enough, asking for all to agree might be more difficult than peace in the Middle East. Until that time comes, prices shown should be based on the minimum wager. If tracks like to see higher payouts so they can advertise it, raise the minimum.
By Cangamble Here are a few more ideas on how to improve the game of horse racing:
Minimum Wagers Back in the 1940's and 50's, arguably when horse racing was at its peak of popularity, the minimum wager was $2, and there really weren't any known issues with that. Using an inflation calculator, a $2 bet in 1947 is equal to a wager of $21.58 today. Down is up and up is down when it comes to horse racing it seems at times. Today, one can make a $1 win bet and a 10 cent superfecta bet (superfectas weren't around back in 1947, but still....). Lotteries in many jurisdictions have been raising their minimums without a loss to their bottom line lately, not decreasing them. Besides the possibility that racing might be selling itself short by feeling it needs dime minimums, keeping minimums so low may actually be hurting the bottom line. They take away much of the incentive from the gambler when it comes to a big score, and also take away the possibility of carryovers, which attracts bigger dollars. If supers had a 50-cent or $1 minimum and let’s say that half of the pool or the full pool (after takeout) was to be carried over if nobody had the top four horses in the right order, players would be watching these situations daily like hawks. The same is true for Pick 4's and Pick 5's. Raising the minimum win place show and daily double bet to $5 would more than likely create more value, which would attract more players and would increase the ability of value players to have a chance to make money long term, something horse racing really needs in order to grow. Has any racetrack ever asked their horseplayers if they'd rather have a 20- or 50-cent minimum or a dollar minimum Pick 4? Has any research been done? Here is an idea, tracks that have two Pick 4 should have different minimums for either Pick 4 and see what happens.
Jackpot Bets It looks like Beulah Park created a Frankenstein. Jackpot bets have been put on many a racetrack's wagering menu in the past few years. If they attract lots of action, then it might make sense in some cases; if they don't, they are pretty much useless. They kill churn, and they don't attract players to that track unless the jackpot has risen to larger amounts, and even then, in many cases they don't attract enough players to justify their existence. Wouldn't you rather invest in a $1 Pick 4 or Pick 5 carryover than a dime- or 20-cent high five jackpot? Has any research been done on what players want when it comes to these bets? Probably not. If a jackpot bet can't attract at least $5,000 in new money a day, it should be banished to the cornfield (replace it with something with true carryover potential like a $1 Pick 5 or even a buck Pick 7). As for the ones that do attract $5,000 a day or more, why not cap them at $100,000 and when that is reached, pay out all new money (minus takeout) to the multiple winners each day? In the long run this might even end up increasing that racetrack's bottom line. It is probably more attractive to most horseplayers when there is a shot at $100,000 if you are the lone winner, coupled with ability to get your real share of the new money put in if you pick the right five in order. The other solution is to simply stipulate that the racing day after a jackpot pool hits $100,000, it is automatically a mandatory payout day. A mandatory payout with a $100,000 is probably just as good, if not better, than one with an $800,000 carryover, for example, when you take frequency of mandatory pool payouts into account.
7
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA
On Monday Aug 29, 2016 I created a database that contains the most recent four years (2012-2015) of Kentucky Downs only. While that might sound imposing it's not. Kentucky Downs only gets to run a handful of dates each year. I count 20 distinct racedates in the database, a grand total of 191 races, and 1927 starters. After building the database I set about compiling the stats that appear below. All of the races at Kentucky Downs are run over a unique European style turf couse. The database shows the following seven distances: 6f, 6.5f, 7f, 1 Mile, 1 Mile & 70 yds, and 10.5f. Because of the smallish sample size I grouped the turf sprint distances (6f, 6.5f, and 7f) together under a single category labeled as turf sprints. I likewise grouped the route distances (1 Mile, 1 Mile & 70 yds, and 10.5f) together under a single category that I called turf routes. You might want to give these category stats more than just a cursory look because some of them are kind of eye opening especially if they hold up going forward. For example, Keeneland and Del Mar are both generally thought of as being higher class tracks than Kentucky Downs. But over the past four years, horses shipping in from Keeneland have a combined record of 0 wins from 17 starts. Horses shipping in from Del Mar have a combined record of just 3 wins from 32 starts and a win roi of just 35 cents for each $1.00 bet. Yet many of these Keeneland and Del Mar shippers have taken good money - with 22 of those 49 ending up as one of the first three betting choices on the tote board - producing a truly abysmal roi - while creating value elsewhere. While it's true that category stats like these do have the ability to help you know who is good or overlooked at what...I contend that if you're paying attention, sometimes (often) it's the 'creating value elsewhere' part that gives category stats like these potential to be a great tool for sniffing out some 'bet againsts.' Best of luck to you, Jeff Platt President, HANA
Jockey and trainer stats are available on the Back Page, starting on Page 29
TURF SPRINTS -TURF SPRINTS - BY HDW RUN STYLE... By: Running Style Value P/L Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact RS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------0 -53.00 276.00 0.8080 16 138 .1159 1.1594 E <--(2) 15 80.60 130.00 1.6200 11 65 .1692 1.6923 EP 30 -5.40 124.00 0.9565 7 62 .1129 1.1290 P 45
-113.60
316.00
0.6405
20
158
.1266
1.2658
PS <--(1)
60 75 90
-223.20 -67.60 -202.00
428.00 142.00 304.00
0.4785 0.5239 0.3355
18 5 9
214 71 152
.0841 .0704 .0592
0.8411 0.7042 0.5921
S <--(3) SS U
--Notes: 1. PS run style (first run closers) have had the highest impact value. 2. But EP, P, and E run styles have been the most overlooked in the odds. 3. S and SS run style (closers and deep closers) have been taking the worst of it, as have U run style (horses that haven't really established a run style yet.)
8
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA
TURF ROUTES – TURF ROUTES - BY HDW RUN STYLE... By: Running Style Value P/L Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact RS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------0 27.80 248.00 1.1121 13 124 .1048 1.0553 E <--(2) 15 30
-71.80 -12.00
78.00 72.00
0.0795 0.8333
1 1
39 36
.0256 .0278
0.2581 0.2796
EP <--(3) P
45 60
-125.40 -40.20
520.00 586.00
0.7588 0.9314
33 38
260 293
.1269 .1297
1.2776 1.3055
PS <--(1) S
75 90
-202.40 -105.60
498.00 132.00
0.5936 0.2000
17 3
249 66
.0683 .0455
0.6872 0.4575
SS <--(4) U
--Notes: 1. S and PS run style (first run closers) have had the greatest impact value. 2. But E run style (early runners) have been the most overlooked in the odds. 3. EP and P run styles have been taking the worst of it. Visually they have been chasing the pace and stopping. 4. SS run style (deep closers) and U run style (horses that haven't really established a run style yet) have been coming up short.
POST DRAWS – TURF - ANY DISTANCE - BY GATE DRAW FROM THE RAIL OUT... By: Rail Position Rail Pos P/L Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact ----------------------------------------------------------------------1 -169.00 382.00 0.5576 17 191 .0890 0.8933 <--(1) 2 -221.40 382.00 0.4204 14 191 .0733 0.7357 3 -268.40 382.00 0.2974 13 191 .0681 0.6831 4 5 6 7
-109.80 -68.00 -105.80 -104.40
382.00 382.00 376.00 372.00
0.7126 0.8220 0.7186 0.7194
23 21 17 17
191 191 188 186
.1204 .1099 .0904 .0914
1.2086 <--(2) 1.1035 0.9076 0.9173
8 9 10 11 12
106.00 -102.00 -34.40 13.60 -50.20
348.00 318.00 268.00 172.00 90.00
1.3046 0.6792 0.8716 1.0791 0.4422
22 13 22 10 3
174 159 134 86 45
.1264 .0818 .1642 .1163 .0667
1.2690 <--(3) 0.8206 1.6478 1.1670 0.6691
--Notes: 1. The inner most three posts appear to be taking the worst of it. 2. Middle posts appear to be doing a little better. 3. For some reason the eight-hole has had the highest impact value and has also been overlooked in the odds.
9
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA
SHIPPERS â&#x20AC;&#x201C; WHO DOES WELL? TURF - ANY DISTANCE - BY SHIP FROM TRACK sorted by win roi... **************************************************************************************** BY SHIP FROM TRACK sorted by Win ROI Run Date: 8/29/2016 4:43:58 PM **************************************************************************************** WIN WIN WIN PLACE PLACE TRACKLAST PLAYS WINS PCT IMPACT ROI PLACES PCT ROI **************************************************************************************** AQU 2 1 0.5 5.0182 31.3 1 0.5 11.85 PIM 1 1 1 10.0365 7 1 1 3.1 MTH 19 4 0.2105 2.1127 2.5368 6 0.3158 1.1684 SAX 5 3 0.6 6.0219 2.18 4 0.8 1.68 WOX 30 7 0.2333 2.3415 2.0533 10 0.3333 1.06 TAM 4 1 0.25 2.5091 1.475 1 0.25 0.65 LRL 6 2 0.3333 3.3452 1.3 2 0.3333 0.7 APX 193 37 0.1917 1.924 1.2052 60 0.3109 0.9622 PID 43 5 0.1163 1.1672 1.2023 9 0.2093 1.0698 HOO 18 2 0.1111 1.1151 1.0611 3 0.1667 0.8611 ASC 2 1 0.5 5.0182 1 2 1 1.7 IND 208 20 0.0962 0.9655 0.8375 40 0.1923 0.801 CBY 14 2 0.1429 1.4342 0.7357 3 0.2143 0.7643 SAR 196 31 0.1582 1.5878 0.7245 65 0.3316 0.8388 PHA 11 3 0.2727 2.7369 0.6455 6 0.5455 1.7455 CDX 73 6 0.0822 0.825 0.5932 17 0.2329 1.0836 TPX 9 1 0.1111 1.1151 0.5889 5 0.5556 1.7889 ELP 560 33 0.0589 0.5911 0.5759 73 0.1304 0.5888 MNR 87 7 0.0805 0.8079 0.5598 13 0.1494 0.5448 GPX 29 3 0.1034 1.0378 0.4621 6 0.2069 0.669 DEL 14 1 0.0714 0.7166 0.4429 2 0.1429 0.4643 BEL 10 1 0.1 1.0036 0.4 2 0.2 0.44 KDX 54 4 0.0741 0.7437 0.3593 10 0.1852 0.6833 DMR 32 3 0.0938 0.9414 0.35 8 0.25 0.6625 BTP 26 1 0.0385 0.3864 0.2731 1 0.0385 0.1154 PRM 12 1 0.0833 0.836 0.2 4 0.3333 1.0583 KEE 17 0 0 0 0 2 0.1176 0.4294 RDX 15 0 0 0 0 1 0.0667 0.4067 RPX 11 0 0 0 0 1 0.0909 0.1545 FGX 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EVD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CNL 5 0 0 0 0 1 0.2 0.56 TDN 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OPX 3 0 0 0 0 1 0.3333 0.8667 SRX 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PEN 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CRC 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LAD 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HAW 2 0 0 0 0 1 0.5 2.75 HOL 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BEU 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WOL 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EMD 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MEY 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NCX 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LSX 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DEA 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1.9 MPV 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ARP 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOU 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEO 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUF 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FPX 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEW 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jockey and trainer stats are available on the Back Page, starting on Page 29
10
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA
Saratoga Adds Late Pick 5 It was announced earlier this week by the New York Racing Association that for the final four cards of the meet at Saratoga (Friday, September 2 through Monday, September 5, there will be a late pick 5 offered. The wager will carry the same 15% takeout as the early pick 5, and will have the same 50-cent base wager. It will be offered on the final five races of each program. For more information, click here.
Racing at Suffolk Downs This Weekend The final cards of the season will be raced on Saturday and Sunday at Suffolk Downs. Of Important note for horseplayers, Suffolk has lowered their takeout on all wagers to just 15%. Saturday’s card features 11 races, starting at 12:35 p.m., and Sunday’s card has nine races. To read more about this story, click here. Laurel Park’s Summer Meet Up 20% It was a successful summer meet at Laurel Park as total handle over last year was up 20.2%. “We continue to buck industry trends and see increases in our product,” said Maryland Jockey Club President and General Manager Sal Sinatra. “Horsemen continue to support our growing program with great racing and large fields. Fans are also taking note of our great racing and world-class turf course. We continue to make fan-friendly improvements to our facility while engaging bettors. We will soon begin a Sunday championship challenge handicapping contest, double reward point contests on Sunday football, and our new sports bar will soon be completed. For more, click here.
Daily Racing Form & Hong Kong Jockey Club Team Up There has been a partnership crafted between the Daily Racing Form and Hong Kong Jockey Club, which will include free past performances available on the DRF website. “Daily Racing Form is thrilled to partner with the prestigious Hong Kong Jockey Club as they expand availability of their world-class racing product,” said John Hartig, Chairman and CEO, Daily Racing Form. “This exciting new partnership will ensure that North American horseplayers gain access to some of the finest racing around the globe, and we look forward to a strong relationship for many years to come.” Additional details and quotes from representatives of the Hong Kong Jockey Club are available here. Oaklawn Joining Up With United Tote When Oaklawn kicks off its 2017 meet, United Tote will be their new wagering services provider, meaning an improved experience and the ability to conduct races with 14 horses. Oaklawn's Director of Gaming and Wagering, Bobby Geiger said, “From the fans perspective, the most noticeable changes for 2017 will be cutting-edge selfservice wagering terminals, new high-visibility odds indication in the infield tote boards coupled with high resolution will-pay and price display, upgraded odds indication throughout the grandstand and the ability to offer 14 separate wagering interests on a single race.” More information on this story is available here.
Exchange Wagering Progressing Slowly in Delaware Delaware’s racing commission had a lengthy discussion the matter of allowing New Jersey residents to use their Betfair exchange wagering accounts to wager on races at Delaware Park, but the matter still has a way to go before approved. The Delaware Racing Commission wants the Delaware Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association to review the matter as well, and even if that group gives it the green light, it would still have to clear another hurdle with Delaware’s legislature needing to enact a new law. More details are available here.
12
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA
By Jonathan Stettin, Past The Wire I have been writing about the decisions of stewards for a few years now with some regularity. It isn’t by choice. There are things I’d much prefer writing about in the “Sport of Kings” than these decisions. Unfortunately, a constant stream of bad and inconsistent calls irks not only players, owners, and trainers, but me too. Jockeys as well I imagine, although they are privy to meetings and discussions with the stewards on a somewhat regular basis that we aren’t. Perhaps they have a better grasp of the logic. Perhaps not. The jockeys I’ve discussed this with, some of them Hall of Famers don’t, and pretty much agree there is an issue. Believe it or not, there was a time not long ago that when you saw the head-on replay after an inquiry or claim of foul, you pretty much knew what the result was going to be. You were seldom wrong, and the calls were pretty consistent. If you committed a foul, and it was visible on the replay or head-on, you came down. It was plain and simple. An argument started to come up at tracks across the country, mostly by bettors and owners who raised an interesting issue that wasn’t really considered much back then. The argument was “it didn’t affect the outcome of the race or order of finish”. Valid point, especially if you had a five length, going-away winner that was disqualified for something relatively minor, although in an inherently dangerous sport, even a minor infraction can be serious.
By Melissa Nolan The horse that got me into racing, without a doubt, was Serena's Song, and more specifically it was her Breeders' Cup Juvenile Fillies against Flanders. I was just a small (albeit "horse-crazy") girl when I watched that race on TV but even I could see that what had happened was something equally special as it was sad. Flanders won that day but pulled up abruptly after the wire and loaded on the ambulance with a leg injury. She laid her body down to beat Serena's Song that day, and the effort was so taxing that she would never recover to race again. Flanders, like Serena's Song, would go on to make her mark in the breeding shed as the dam of numerous high class stakes winners and stakes performers. Meanwhile, back on the track, Serena's Song would win her next five races, including three G1s against fillies and the G2 Jim Beam Stakes against colts at Turfway. Sent off favored as an entry with Timber Country in the 1995 Derby, our girl would fade to 16th after setting the pace with fractions of 45.89, 1:10.33, 1:35.72. Serena's Song came right back in two weeks to win the G2 Black Eyed Susan by nine lengths and three weeks afterwards won the G1 Mother Goose by three lengths. Later that summer she would annex the G1 Haskell Stakes against colts and the G1 Beldame against a field of older fillies and mares that included Champions Lakeway and Heavenly Prize. As a 4-year-old, Serena's Song won five of 15 starts while adding another three G1 wins to her resume. She retired at the end of that year in 1996 after a string of runner up finishes. Overall, this outstanding racemare amassed a record of 38:18-11-3 that included 11 G1 wins, 17 Graded Stakes wins overall, and $3,283,388 in earnings. She was elected into the National Museum of Racing Hall of Fame six years after her retirement in 2002. The heart and durability Serena's Song showed over her career made her a favorite in the eyes of many, and her race in the Breeders' Cup versus Flanders changed my life forever and became the first (of many to come) racehorse I ever fell in love with.
In an effort to appease this argument and make things fair, the powers that be did exactly the opposite. They introduced new rules at racetracks across the country that gave the stewards some leeway and discretion to decide if a foul cost another runner a better placing or chance at one. Obviously this is very subjective. Often experts can’t agree on this as evidenced by the voluminous arguments over disqualifications and non-disqualifications on social media. It is further emphasized by how few stewards’ (continued on next page)
About the author - Melissa is a lifelong racing fan who attended her first two Derbies before she was 10 years old. She has dedicated much of her career to the horse industry, including working for prestigious operations such as Padua Stables, Hagyard Equine, TVG, Ken McPeek, and Kentucky Thoroughbred Association. She currently works as a Marketing professional and Social Media consultant and resides in Lexington. 13
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA decisions are unanimous. I haven’t checked statistics on this but most of the ones I’ve seen are not unanimous, and most if not all of the recent “debates” have not been unanimous. We see this happen on the biggest stages in our game. I’m a Chatterbox looked like a complete standout on paper in the G1 Delaware Handicap, was bet like it, and ran like it. She dominated the outclassed field and ran to expectations. It was no surprise; she was flat out too fast and classy for her competition. The mile and a quarter was a non-issue as she handled it as a 3-year old in the G1 Alabama at Saratoga last year. However, there was one slight problem with her victory. It probably didn’t affect the finish as she won in strong fashion, and just as likely didn’t influence any placings. We will never really know that though will we? How can anyone say for sure what effect a bump has on a horse? They can become intimated or injured. They can get the breath knocked out of them. Who knows? With that, as a long-time student of the game and professional player, I don’t believe what happened had any bearing on the outcome as far as the winner goes, but the fact remains she mugged the horses inside of her not once but twice. I’m a Chatterbox broke from the four post with three horses inside of her. Immediately out of the gate she made a left turn under Florent Geroux and bumped Milaya in the three-hole pretty hard, starting a chain reaction. All the inside horses were affected. To Geroux’s credit, he did all he could to remedy the situation and straighten his filly out. She went in again, though, maybe two or three strides out of the gate, causing the exact same thing as the first time. Geroux again reacted immediately and got his filly together, got her to the outside, and rode a perfect race on a much-the-best horse. There was nothing he could have done prior to prevent this, and I’m a Chatterbox has no known history I’m aware of as a bad gate actor.
Chatterbox was disqualified in Saratoga, where Todd Pletcher is immensely popular, but not in Delaware where her trainer Larry Jones is immensely popular. Does that factor into the steward’s discussions and decisions? I certainly hope not and don’t think so, but a lot of these decisions are hard to figure out. After the Delaware Handicap, Riccardo Santana Jr. claimed foul against the winner. He rode the #1, Paid Up Subscriber, who finished second. The two horses between him and the winner, ridden by Carol Cedeno and Brian Pedroza, didn’t claim foul. They were both involved in the mugging, and the #3 Milaya was hit first in the chain reaction. How Santana Jr. knew which horse to claim on is a good question. Regardless, no claim was made by the middle riders, and no inquiry existed until after the foul claim, and it was never even posted on the board. The head-on view was shown a few times. It clearly showed a Bayern-like mugging took place right out of the gate. We can argue all day, and perhaps never agree on the impact it had on the race and placings. Logic dictates it didn’t impact who won, but the rest is very subjective. We can agree a foul occurred, and the only fair solution is to have a set of rules that if you break you come down, and if you don’t you stay up. It’s not rocket science, and we can likely agree there are a lot of subjective calls we can’t agree on. Bayern and I’m a Chatterbox being two of them. Throw in I’m a Chatterbox in Saratoga. How about the disqualification of She’s a Tiger in The Breeders’ Cup Juvenile Fillies a few years back? Was that worse than Bayern? Worst of all, how about the poor guy who had the only Rainbow 6 ticket at Gulfstream Park a few years back, only to have Collinito disqualified for a minor bump with Strategic Mission that did not affect the outcome or winner anyway. It was the last race on Fountain of Youth day, and this bettor had over a million dollars snatched away by a discretionary subjective call, that for the record, THEY GOT WRONG. While on the record, Bayern should have been disqualified, She’s a Tiger, not so much. I’m a Chatterbox should have stood up in The Coaching Club American Oaks, but not today. I hope whoever it was that had Collinito is already a millionaire, as they should be. Now you may or may not agree, but I have been at this a long time, and that is how I see it. If many of you don’t agree, and I mean across the board, it only serves to strengthen the argument for “the old rules” when a foul was a foul and when you watched the head-on you knew if you were in trouble or not. The added subjectivity and discretion has created a negative perception of what goes on and why. I saw a foul so bad last year at a major track; I couldn’t believe the inquiry sign didn’t go up immediately. Neither could anyone else around. The rider claimed foul, but after 30-45 seconds it was announced the result stands. A gambling man by nature, I’d bet the stewards left early to beat the traffic. Set the rules, clearly define the rules, and enforce them (continued on next page )
Interestingly, she was disqualified in a G1 race, The Coaching Club American Oaks, last year. That had nothing to do with the gate, though. It was a bump with the Todd Pletcher trained Curalina right at the wire. Different track and situation, although a touch of irony exists as I’m a 14
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA equally and fairly. This didn’t affect the race or a placing does not work, and we can’t agree. We all know a foul though. Simplicity is the essence of intelligence. All we’re looking for is consistency. Fair enough?
Press release Kentucky Downs carries into its 2016 meet that begins Saturday the mantel of being the top-ranked racetrack by the Horseplayers Association of North America for two straight years. The track's goal: Improve from there. “We want to be known as the Horseplayers' Race Track,” said Corey Johnsen, Kentucky Downs' president and partowner, as well as a multiple qualifier for the National Handicapping Championship in Las Vegas. “HANA does a great service to racetrack operators by telling us the horseplayers' needs, concerns and priorities. The more we listen to our customers, the better we become. Being recognized by HANA as the top-ranked racetrack for horseplayers tells us we're going in the right direction. But we will never be finished in our mission to be, in the words of John Calipari, ‘players first.' “The players told us we needed to improve our video quality. The configuration that makes Kentucky Downs' 1 5/16-mile, kidney-shaped and slightly undulating racecourse so unique also creates challenges. But we are working hard to resolve that, including high-definition cameras and adjusting camera positions that will make a marked improvement in the viewing product. Along with broadcasting in HD, we also decided to give our graphics an overhaul. There is a lot of pertinent information that horseplayers use on the simulcast feed, so we wanted to improve the presentation as much as possible.” Kentucky Downs also has added to its stable of analysts and has beefed up ways to get their selections out to ontrack patrons and the simulcast market. The ensemble features the erudite Gary West, the award-winning turf journalist who pioneered the concept of pace figures; Joe Kristufek, analyst for Churchill Downs' family of tracks and betting platforms and a fan-education innovator; John Lies, Kentucky Downs announcer and popular Del Mar paddock analyst; Dick Downey, the Simpson County product whose The Downey Profile website is known for its unique insight; and Kentucky Downs newcomer Kevin Cox, handicapper for SaratogaBets and a regular National Handicapping Championship Tour tournament player. The handicappers' selections will appear at www.kentuckydowns.com, with their picks posted on Twitter @KyDownsRacing before each race. West, Lies, Kristufek and Cox also will be on the simulcast feed with their race analysis. The rankings by HANA, racing's pre-eminent bettors' organization, are based on an algorithm where key factors include the average number of starters per race and takeout (the amount taken off the top of each dollar bet). Kentucky Downs' 2015 meet averaged 10.6 horses per race, the only track under HANA's calculations to have (continued on next page)
How I Fell in Love with Horse Racing – Jonathan Stettin The day before I was born my mom and dad were at Belmont. They were back a week later with me in a stroller. I grew up around racing and it was a big part of my household. The Racing Form and the Telegraph were the papers of choice with morning coffee and I learned to read both as soon as I could read at all. Because my dad was a mutuel clerk we spent every summer at Saratoga, and I spent every weekend as either Belmont or Aqueduct the rest of the year, I learned how to bet and win very young. One of my biggest early bets was It's In The Air to upset Davona Dale in the Alabama. I was a kid but made a large bet by any standards and won. After hitting some big pick 6's, one for $540,000 at Saratoga, my dad called me “The Pick 6 King,” and I've hung on to the name since. At this point the resume shows enough to keep it permanently. How I Fell in Love with Horse Racing – Ray Paulick The race was the 1978 Belmont Stakes featuring the famous duel between Affirmed and Alydar. I watched the race right after a Cubs game at a bar across the street from Wrigley Field in Chicago. The rivalry between the two horses caught my interest and the gutty victory by Affirmed made me a fan for life. From there I discovered books by Tom Ainslie, Andy Beyer and Steve Davidowitz that turned me into a horseplayer. How I Fell in Love with Horse Racing – Mike Maloney I was introduced to the racetrack in a way familiar to most horseplayers. When I was 10 years old, my dad took me to Miles Park in Louisville, Kentucky. It was a bullring offering mostly claiming races, but after we cashed on a horse named June Flag, I had a new passion. The story still continues as later today I’ll be at my Red Mile office, playing the ponies next to my 87-year-old dad. It doesn’t get much better than that. 15
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA averaged at least nine horses per race last year. Oaklawn Park ranked second at 9.36. HANA's sortable database
Dana Byerly Friend and Hello Race Fans co-founder Adam Wiener took me to the track for the first time on the hunch that I would like it. Big boards full of inscrutable data, aweinspiring animals and gambling... it was a little mind blowing, especially considering that I had made it through life for 40 years with zero idea that anything like this existed. The first trip was fun (Coaching Club American Oaks day at Belmont 2006), and we vowed to come back. We returned to Belmont on Champagne Day that year, and I tripled my money. I was hooked and immediately wanted to learn all about handicapping. In fact, the lack of useful information available online was a big impetus for Hello Race Fans. As for hooking into horses, the following Derby trail featured Hard Spun, Curlin, Street Sense and eventually Rags to Riches. In hindsight, having my first full year be dominated with multiple story lines went a long way to keeping me engaged. Of course I've since learned that there's much more to racing than the 3-year-old male glamour division, but to this day I still prefer a year where there are multiple winners in the Triple Crown races.
Under Kentucky regulations, Kentucky Downs qualifies for a higher takeout on straight and multi-horse wagers. The commonwealth sets a takeout ceiling, based on average daily on-track handle, but not a minimum. Out of the takeout comes purses, money to the state and horsemen's organizations, with the rest returned to winning bettors. The lower the takeout, the higher the payouts. Kentucky Downs has opted to join Keeneland in using the lower takeout in order to provide greater betting value. Beyond that, Kentucky Downs further lowered its takeout on exacta wagering — the most popular bet in American racing, involving picking the top two finishers in a race in correct order. The 18.25-percent exacta takeout is among the lowest in North America — well below the 22 percent Kentucky Downs could charge. That and field size propelled Kentucky Downs ahead of venerable Keeneland as the top-ranked track for bettors in HANA's annual calculations the past two years, said HANA president and founder Jeff Platt. “That translates to tremendous value for horseplayers everywhere,” Platt said, adding of the difference between Kentucky Downs' exacta takeout and some other major tracks, “If you're a horseplayer, you ought to be paying attention to that. Because that means more money back every time you cash an exacta ticket.” Kentucky Downs' 14-percent takeout on Pick-5 wagering is one of the lowest in the country. The track offers 50cent minimum wagers on trifectas, Pick-3, Pick-4, Pick-5 and Super Hi-5, along with a 10-cent minimum in the superfectas. The exacta and doubles minimum bet is $1. HANA started its rankings in 2009, well before Kentucky Downs installed the historical horse racing gaming that has enabled its purses to skyrocket, leading to capacity or near-capacity fields in almost every race. But Platt said he's “not surprised at all” that Kentucky Downs came up with a way to have purses that are setting records in America and to grow in reputation from a quaint, novelty track to a major-league player. Kentucky Downs “is like a car clicking on all cylinders at the same time,” he said. “You look at racing, very few tracks click. If they're a V-8, they might click on four or five cylinders.” Platt said the combination of Kentucky Downs' utilization of historical horse racing gaming to boost purses and lowering the cost of making a bet allowed the track to “basically triple its handle in the first three years it's done that and put itself on the map. They've bucked every industry trend. There is no track that has done that in so short a time period. My only regret is that they can't get more dates.”
Jessica Chapel It all goes back to Ascot Doll, a 9-year-old Ascot Knight gelding who I saw, and bet, the first time I went to Suffolk Downs in August 2003. He was a talking horse, though I didn't know the term then — I just liked how he looked in the paddock, bright and alert. He paid $39 to win a $7,000 claiming race that day, and was my first clue that there was something interesting about this game. Sid Fernando I started following racing when I was 11, in 1971, because back then charts of races were printed in the sports section with the box scores and they exposed me to the game. Also, there were plenty of articles, too, plus the Triple Crown races on TV drew me in deeper. It wasn't until I watched Secretariat's Derby and saw a gangly 3-year-old colt named Forego slam into the rail and finish fourth that I found my first equine "hero." Sure, Secretariat was the mega star, but Forego's race intrigued me and got me hooked. I went to the track to see him at Belmont. I would end up following him the rest of the '73 season -- and all the way to his retirement in '78, by which time I was 18 and a full-fledged fan. Forego drew me to the track, drew me into betting, too, but most of all, he thrilled me with his "heroics" and made sure I'd get into racing professionally.
16
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA the gambling spectrum) can roll over their bankroll more times on scratch tickets than they can betting exactas at Del Mar. Moving to racing, there are some machines at a racino near you where customers can roll over their bankrolls 80 or 100 times before busting. These racinos are under strict rules from governments on what they can charge so churn is maximized across the state, to keep customers engaged and coming back. For horse bettors at the same venue, it’s not near as good. It’s $310 for every $100; a three times rollover. What’s particularly perplexing about the lack of churn for your average horse betting customer is that it’s more important for the racing industry than it is for other gambling businesses to keep people betting; to keep them interested. Your average horse bettor probably watches the sport when big races are on television, will play handicapping contests, will take trips the Kentucky Derby, or Breeders’ Cup. He or she is probably likely to get involved in a horse racing partnership and buy a horse or two. The possibilities for your average bettor to bring revenue to the sport for generations are almost endless. The sport needs to keep these people betting and engaged. At one time the rule of thumb for the sport – with a betting menu of win, place show and few exotics, along with lower takeout – was that your average bettor could roll their bankrolls over seven times before reloading. Now, it’s not the case, as Mr. Levin’s numbers from TVG show. In 2016, with jackpot bets (some at 60% takeout), and hard to hit serials and verticals, it’s almost impossible for your average person to ever achieve a churn factor of seven. Despite this drag on revenues, almost every new bet that’s created, or every menu change, leans heavily on these high takeout, low payout, low churn bets. In the end, whenever new bets or mediums are proposed in horse racing, the question the power brokers in the sport most often ask is, “will it pay us enough?” The question should, in my view, be “will it pay our customers enough so they keep coming back to wager?” If that happens, I think horse racing will be much better off, because keeping customers happy and wagering is a priority that’s vital for the long-term health for any gambling game, whether it involves pulling a lever, scratching a lottery ticket, or betting a brown horse running around an oval.
From the Thoroughbred Daily Newsth
The Jockey Club’s 64 annual Round Table Conference took place a few weeks ago at the Gideon Putnam Hotel in Saratoga Springs, New York. As I usually find with this conference, the speakers were interesting and informative, and I learned something. One speaker stood out to me, however, because he shared something that I found particularly compelling. Kip Levin, CEO of Betfair US and TVG, told the assembled audience that when a customer deposits $100 into a TVG account through NJBets, he or she generates $310 in handle. Meanwhile, when a customer deposits $100 into a Betfair US account (to bet horse racing), he or she generates over $1,000 in handle. Let’s examine that for a moment. When Joe from Jersey City – a good handicapper - bets superfectas, super high fives and jackpot pick six bets, he rolls his bankroll over three times before going broke. When Jane from Newark – an equally good handicapper - bets at Betfair US into the exchange, she rolls her bankroll over ten times, before going broke. Often times racing believes this doesn’t matter, and they’d – from a pure income statement perspective – be correct. The racing industry earns near the same amount from Joe as it does from Jane, despite Jane betting much more money. But, in my view, this is short-sighted and it is missing something extremely important. Joe, who places $310 in bets before having to reload, gets only a small bang for his buck in entertainment value. Jane, who places $1,000 in bets before having to reload, gets more than three times more action for her initial investment. Joe might play a half an afternoon before losing his bankroll. Jane might last three weekends. Which player do you believe is more likely to reload their $100 bankrolls and stay a customer after, say, the tenth or fifteenth or twentieth time they lose it? Would it be low churn Joe, or high churn Jane? The concept of churn is not lost in other gambling games, because churn helps determine how often a patron comes back to gamble. In July, the Massachusetts state lottery reported their fifth straight year of record setting numbers. In fiscal 2015, the lottery took in over $5.2B in ticket sales, resulting in over $980M in profit. Not coincidentally, also a record was the 73.4% payout percentage. This payout percentage is so high that it (amazingly) allows for more churn in a lottery game than it does for the average user at NJBets.com, referenced by Mr. Levin above. In fact, there are lottery games in Massachusetts that payout at over 80%, which is higher than your average exacta payout in North American horse racing. Yes, it’s true, a scratch ticket game player in Massachusetts (perhaps, as a group, the least price-sensitive gamblers in
17
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA odds of casino games. You just have to be a little more skilled than the next guy. Which brings us to the less well-known Dr. Burton P. Fabricand. Dr. Fabricand was a Ph.D. from Columbia who published widely in the fields of atomic and nuclear physics, oceanography and finance. Being an aficionado of the “Sport of Kings,” he thought there had to be a way to apply a high-level scientific approach to making money at the track, and in 1965 he published “Horse Sense: A New and Rigorous Application of Mathematical Methods to Successful Betting at the Track.” Fabricand studied 10,035 (I’m sure you’re wondering the same thing I am – why didn’t he stop at 10,000?) races and found that a flat bet on every favorite would result in a loss of nine cents on the dollar. Based on the calculations from Fabricand, Ainslie pointed out that simply by betting on the race favorite, the 17% loss gets cut in half.
By Rich Halvey, Halvey on Horse Racing Andrew Beyer once said, “Literature on handicapping can be divided into two eras. Before Tom Ainslie and after Tom Ainslie.” Without Tom Ainslie proving that there was a market for intelligent, well-written books on horse racing, many of the sport’s best known authors – Andrew Beyer, Dick Mitchell, Steve Davidowitz, Jim Quinn and Mark Cramer to name a few – may have never found publishers. Tom Ainslie was the pen name of Richard Carter. While he had success as a writer beyond horse racing – he wrote biographies of Curt Flood and Dr. Jonas Salk – he will forever be remembered for his talents as a turf writer. I met Ainslie at Saratoga many years ago. I can attest that he was personable and likeable, and if I had sooner realized my own writing ambitions, I may have pestered him to the limits of his graciousness. In 1968 he wrote the first version of what is certainly the groundbreaking book on horse racing: Ainslie’s Complete Guide to Thoroughbred Racing. Ainslie published two more editions of the book, the last in 1988. While racing has changed (In 1988 Ainslie referred to the Daily Double as a “lottery bet”) much of the basic information of racing remains consistent. For the emerging horseplayer, Ainslie’s Guide still might be the best place to start a handicapping education. It’s also not a bad idea for the veteran punter to occasionally go back to the basics. With nothing better to do on a cold and snowy day, I picked up my copy of the original edition of Ainslie’s Complete Guide to Thoroughbred Racing and started flipping through the pages. On page 38 was a section labeled, “The Magic Number.” For anyone who has forgotten, the Magic Number is 17. Anslie posited that even a person betting entirely at random should not have losses exceeding 17%. Why 17%? That was generally the track deduction (the “take”) on a win bet. The secret was to stretch your bankroll by making a large number of small dollar bets, in essence exploiting the arithmetic of the pari-mutuel system. So a hypothetical player with a $1, 000 bankroll betting $2 a race will make 500 total bets and in Ainslie’s words, “would almost certainly lose no more than $170,” regardless of his handicapping skill. To say it another way, since the crowd as a whole only loses 17% a day, a random better who bets enough races should do no worse. You can see where this is going. All you have to do to become a consistent winner is to learn enough about handicapping to reduce the worst-case 17% loss. If the complete know-nothing can limit his loses to $17 per $100 bet, the knowledgeable handicapper should be able to not only eliminate longer-term losses, but realize measurable profit. Theoretically, this makes a lot of sense. Because the game is pari-mutuel, you don’t have to overcome the fixed
So there we are. Just a short eight or nine percent from the land of milk and honey. And all we have to do to get there is…learn how to handicap favorites. Now, all of this is based on the concept of synergy, which in the case of the racetrack means that in the long run, the collective wisdom of the betting public exceeds the individual wisdom of any single player. It is a comforting thought. Most people relish the idea of being part of the majority. Ainslie and Fabricand definitely had the right idea, although they were perhaps a little too mechanical and blind to the idea that grinding out a moderate profit lacks broad appeal. By finding what ultimately came to be known as the “false favorite,” Ainslie and Fabricand showed it would be possible to turn your eight to nine percent loss into a positive if not massive profit. Unfortunately, as with everything that seems too easy, there is a catch or two. In this case, even if you are playing only one track, you are obligated to bet the same amount to win on an average 92 favorites out of every 100 races. Plus, given the relatively low rate of return, you’d have to bet substantially more than $2 a race to be the envy of your racetrack buddies. (continued on next page)
19
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA I once read an article that noted a bet on the tenth choice in a race will win, on average, two times in 100. This makes the natural odds on any respective tenth choice 491. Instead, the average return on these horses is only 38-1. The moral of the story was simple; you can’t win if you bet longshots. But suppose you were a good enough handicapper to eliminate 62 out of 100 tenth choices. You might guess that it wouldn’t be that hard since most tenth choices really don’t have a prayer of winning. You might even postulate that it would be easier to eliminate 62 tenth choices than eight favorites. The point is that in theory, Ainslie’s idea works for favorites or longshots, as you’ll see below. Perhaps Ainslie’s system of playing favorites would be a good way to be a professional horseplayer, but the average weekend player is more likely to subscribe to Halvey’s law of inverse synergy:
was yours for the taking. But the exact same is true if you can eliminate any overbet commodity. And obviously, if there are overbet horses, it stands to reason that there must be underbet horses. If you can successfully assess a horse’s chances in a race, and limit your action to the “overlay” you have everything you need to be a long-run winner. Plus, you don’t have to bet almost every race every day. You can pick your spots and vary your bets based on what you calculate as your advantage. You can wind up on favorites or longshots. When you set your odds line, in every race, the sum of probabilities of winning for all horses has to equal 100% PLUS the amount of the take. For example, at Belmont the take on a win bet is 16%, so the odds line should add up to 116%. Since the tote board odds are calculated after the track has removed its take, you must in essence replace it before setting your own odds line. Here are my seven steps to creating an odds line: 1. List the horses in rank order from best chance of winning to worst chance of winning. Don’t spend an inordinate amount of time separating those horses at the bottom of the list. 2. Put a check mark next to any horse that you believe has less than a five percent chance of winning then draw a line that separates these horses from the others. These are your non-contenders. 3. Assign the horses below the ten percent line an aggregate win percentage. For example, if there are three horses below the line, you may decide all three together only have a total 8% chance of winning. This simply provides you with the remaining percentage that you can divide among your contenders. 4. After you have taken care of your non-contenders, assign winning probability percentages, working your way up from the lowest contender to the highest contender. I like working from the bottom up because I think I am less likely to overrate the lesser animals. If you start at the top, you may “overbet” the horse, much like the crowd often does. The other issue is that errors at the low end are usually exaggerated relative to the high end. For example, the difference between a horse with a 39 percent chance (8-5) and a 42 percent chance (9-5) is relatively insignificant. On the other hand, the difference between a horse with a five percent chance (19-1) and a 2% chance (49-1) seems pretty substantial. 5. After you have assigned percentages, add them up to see if they equal 100 plus the take. If they do not, make reasonable adjustments until they do. 6. Look at the first two choices on last time and decide if the percentages you assigned are acceptable. Since these are the horses you most want to bet, their winning percentages are most critical. 7. Convert your percentages into betting odds. (continued on next page)
On any respective event, the individual wisdom of any single player can exceed the collective wisdom of the crowd.
In fact, to adapt the old racing saw, it is possible to beat a race AND beat the races. None of us may be the equal to the crowd in the long haul, but if we can get the best of them at some key moments, we can still be long-term winners. Most of us are not at the track every day. Most of us in the age of simulcasting would have a hard time limiting our action to one type of bet at one track. But most of all, not many of us have the ability to closet our passion for the game in favor of a rote investment strategy. Sure a solid favorite can be a profitable proposition, but the highlights of any handicapping career are when you hit a race the crowd totally missed. What we need is to twist Ainslie’s idea slightly to allow for something more expansive than betting favorites. The method is devilishly simple: construct an accurate odds line and apply a conservative betting strategy. What Ainslie was suggesting was that if you could find the undeserving (overbet) favorite and eliminate him, profit
20
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA Now the basic rules for using your odds line. 1. Limit investment to only those opportunities where the crowd’s assigned win odds are higher than the real probability of winning. 2. For horses on your odds line at even money or less, the tote board odds should be at least 1.5 times your odds before considering the horse for wagering. So on an even money shot, the minimum play odds are 3-2. The idea of asking for a premium simply gives you, the linemaker, a reasonable margin of error. 3. For horses between 6-5 and 7-2 on your odds line, tote board odds should be at least 1.75 times your odds. 4. For horses between 4-1 and 9-1 on your odds line, the tote board odds should be at least double your odds. 5. For horses between 9-1 and 19-1 on your odds line, the tote board odds should be at least triple your odds. 6. Horses at 20-1 or higher on your odds line should rarely be bet because the margin of error in assigning these horses a winning probability is greater than for the true contenders. 7. In races where there are two or more acceptable overlays, the highest overlay should always be played. The second overlay can be played as well, but in no circumstances is it sensible to bet more than two horses to win in one race.
From the Thoroughbred Daily NewsEvangeline Downs dropped their pick 4 takeout from 25% to 12% earlier this meet. That's a pretty significant drop. Like most drops in takeout in one pool, at a smaller track, it's usually pretty good for the regular players, and it gives the track something to crow about. In the grand scheme of things, though, let’s face it, it's not earth shattering. It’s one pool at a small track, right? Maybe so, but for the smaller - or newer player – who plies his or her trade at Evangeline, it’s something they need to pay attention to. Why? Here are a few reasons. It Levels the Playing Field - Evangeline Downs is track that offers rebates for larger players because their signal fee is pretty low and they want to attract business. Rebates are offered to encourage people to bet more, and to keep them playing racing, rather than another game. Although there are ADW's which give rebates to smaller players, they are often at a disadvantage to the big whales. At a 25% takeout, Joe Blow, playing at a large national ADW will pay 25% takeout. Meanwhile, at another ADW, Wanda Whale will bet pick 4's at about a 12% takeout 25% plus a 13% rebate. When Evangeline moved the takeout down to 12%, this rebate goes away. Wanda Whale pays 12%, and Joe Blow pays 12%. It's helps level the playing field. The Net Gain is Churn for the Small Fry - Wanda Whale's habits do not change, nor does she have more money in her pocket. The small fry gets the whole benefit of the rake decrease. Instead of Joe Blow getting a $375 pick 4 payoff like he did at 25% takeout, that same payoff is $440. He has $65 more to spend. It Helps the Game - Wanda will bet $10,000 on pick 4's at the end of the meet. She doesn't churn any more or less in horse racing because she gets near the same payoffs at either rate. Joe Blow gets more money at the end of the year. Sure he might play it at Del Mar (probably think about avoiding exactas there Joe!) or Kentucky Downs, but he's playing it somewhere. That's good for him, and in the long run it’s likely good for everyone in horse racing. With takeout decreases, even those at small tracks, the industry tends to look for this massive pool increase, or signs that money for purses and profits will be falling from the sky. This is frustrating for us as horseplayers, because insiders who have raised takeout incrementally on customers for 100 years - slowly killing off the base somehow still think dropping one pool at a Texas racetrack will result in a massive change overnight. It doesn't work like that. What happens is, each takeout decrease incrementally puts a few dollars in the small fry's pockets, and hopefully, over time, they re-bet their winnings, bet a little more, come to the track a little more often, and hopefully choose racing over the countless other entertainment and gambling options they have.
While the crowd is more efficient than any individual, as Ainslie and Fabricand proved, they are still wrong twothirds of the time. Exploiting the inefficiencies of the crowd provides the bettor with outstanding opportunities for a positive bankroll. The one great betting truth is: you will make money if you bet true overlays. How Rich Halvey Fell in Love with Horse Racing My Italian grandfather had only one sports passion, horse racing, so I caught an interest in the ponies very young. As a boy I treasured going to the newsstand near Greenpoint Hospital with him at 9:00 at night to wait for the next day's racing form (the "Telly" back then) to be delivered. I faithfully looked at his used racing forms, trying to figure out the secrets in those coded lines, followed the Triple Crown, and fell in love with champions like Kelso, Dr. Fager and Buckpasser. My grandfather was strict that I couldn't go to the track until I was considered old enough, and the day finally came at Saratoga on Whitney Day in 1971. I bought my own copy of the Racing Form, handicapped as best I could, and in the first race bet $4 to win and $2 to place a Mack Miller trainee named Royal Spouse at 12-1, who won. I showed by grandfather my tickets and he pulled out some of his own on the horse, saying, "Everybody wins their first bet. That's how they keep you coming back." He was right.
21
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA Let’s begin by noting what is not included in the Summary: no works, connections, trip information, lifetime starts, lifetime earnings, and no track preference data. It’s spare – but it does include the basics. Obviously, if time is not a factor, handicappers can supplement Summary data with all or more of the above. (A personal aside here; when using the Summary, I prefer to limit myself to the data it provides; first, because I only use it when my time is limited and second, I find that if I add all or most of the available qualitative data, I’m likely to have “all my ducks in a row” – thus my selection goes off at 4-5!) Now for a closer look at the data itself. Horseplayer readers will find most categories will need little or no further explanation, e.g., track bias data, morning line, days away, running style, the four most recent final speeds, speed last race, early pace last race, late pace last race, and pedigree data. Other categories will need some explanation: 1. “Average distance/surface pace speed”: these are the average fractional and final speeds of the horses’ most recent races at today’s distance and surface. No star indicates only one race at this distance and surface, while parentheses warn that the race occurred more than 90 days ago. 2. “Average Race Rating”: as I’ve written elsewhere, Brisnet quantifies class; the higher the number, the tougher the fields the horse has been facing. 3. “Best pace” is best pace at today‘s distance and surface within one year. 4. Rcg Spd Avg is average speed in recent races regardless of distance or surface. 5. R1, R2, R3 are Brisnet race ratings for a horse’s last three races. 6. Back Speed is simply best speed at today’s distance and surface within one year. 7. “Av Class Last 3” is the average Brisnet class (not race) rating, i.e. how well a horse performs relative to the class of its three most recent races. 8. Current Class is similar to #7, but focuses on races at today’s distance and surface. 9. ACL is a unique and intriguing feature of Brisnet’s Summary Sheet. In essence, it rates a horse’s ability to successfully compete, i.e., to finish in the money – against horses at a given competitive level at today’s distance and surface. This is a quirky rating - often at odds with the Summary’s other ratings – but it sometimes identifies horses at juicy prices. 10. Prime Power: I’ve saved the best for last. Brisnet’s Prime Power Rating is powerful! It combines dozens of handicapping features; speed, class, pace, form, weight, and more. I’ve analyzed hundreds of races over the past four or five years and find it the singlemost effective, most accurate comprehensive rating in the Brisnet arsenal – one ignores it at one’s peril! (continued on next page)
By Vin Rogers An online shock publication called “The Daily Star” recently headlined this story: “Sex-mad women flock to Royal Ascot on Ladies’ Day for “naughty quirky fun” with strangers…” Perhaps the “Ultimate Summary” is the handicapper’s equivalent of “quirky” if not “naughty” fun. Let’s assume you’re hungry for racing action. Work, family, possibly the flu – one or all may have conspired to keep you away from the track or your computer. But today looks better. A little schedule-juggling and you can play the last four or five at your beloved Saratoga; however – no time today for comprehensive handicapping. What to do? The “Ultimate Summary” to the rescue! Here’s what it looks like:
I chose this race at random; however, my experience using the Summary has taught me to avoid maiden races – simply not enough data available. I’ve been more successful focusing on dirt rather than turf, but the data is there for both. Like all handicappers, I prefer larger fields; eight or more entries.
22
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA Having said that, a few caveats: 1. A numerical difference may or may not be statistically significant. Meaningful gap advantages for Brisnet’s speed ratings are two to four points; class ratings one to two points; prime power ratings three to four points. 2. I have an aversion to averages; they often mask a single, strong performance e.g., a top single speed figure in the horse’s last four races trumps the “average distance surface” for me. Similarly, I downplay the “average class level” rating. 3. The Summary Sheet clearly emphasizes a horse’s performance in its most recent races: within ninety days of today’s race. A brilliant earlier performance may have been ignored. 4. The Summary Sheet comes down hard on the side of quantitative rather than qualitative data. (Social scientists have argued for decades about their relative merits.) I’m convinced that a consistently successful handicapper needs both; but, on special occasions, the Summary Sheet is easily accessible, convenient, and inexpensive.
Press release BetAmerica wants to make new friends while helping Old Friends. The advance-deposit wagering platform, which contributes a portion of its wagering to licensed charities, is staging a Sept. 8 online contest that will send the top two finishers to the DRF/NTRA National Handicapping Championship at Las Vegas’ Treasure Island Casino on Jan. 27-29. The BetAmerica contest is scheduled to utilize only races from Kentucky Downs, known for its capacity fields and sensible betting takeout at the unique all-grass meet near Tennessee border off Interstate 65 in Franklin, Kentucky. More information here Sept. 8 also is Old Friends Day at Kentucky Downs, whose property includes a satellite facility for the race-horse retirement venture. BetAmerica is donating proceeds from the NHC qualifier to Old Friends, which provides a safe haven for horses after their racing and breeding careers while allowing the public to get close to stars such as Kentucky Derby winners Silver Charm and War Emblem, both at its Georgetown, Kentucky, headquarters. “We pride ourselves on delivering a top-quality wagering experience, so it makes sense to partner with a track that regularly receives the top marks from horseplayers,” said Merv Huber-Calvo, BetAmerica’s director of product marketing. “Both BetAmerica and Kentucky Downs view handicapping contests as an important engagement and fan development tool, which leads to increased parimutuel handle. "We're happy to play a part in making Old Friends Day as successful as it can be. Old Friends not only cares for over 160 retired race horses but also drives awareness for Thoroughbred retirement." The contest format involves a mythical $2 win and place wager on a horse in each race. The top two finishers will receive a seat, along with airfare and hotel, to the NHC. The cost is a very-low $55 with a maximum of three entries per person and a limit on 400 overall entries. All players must be members of the NHC Tour prior to contest entry in order to win an NHC seat. Old Friends was founded by horseplayer and former Boston Globe critic Michael Blowen. “It’s really first the time one of these ADW accounts has gotten involved with us,” Blowen said. “As a lifelong handicapper, I think it’s a great idea. I was totally surprised, absolutely flabbergasted — and of course very, very grateful.” “This is the ultimate win-win-win,” said C.J. Johnsen, Kentucky Downs’ Live Racing Manager. “At Kentucky Downs, our mantra is the Horseplayers Race Track and this is a contest for a cause. BetAmerica is an ADW that gives back to the sport, as does Kentucky Downs. We love that retired turf stalwarts will benefit from this NHC qualifier. And, of course, two players will be on their way to Vegas.”
I’ve found no numerical formula or particular combination of Summary ratings that produce consistent winners. I’m still experimenting with various combinations; nevertheless, and so far in my long handicapping career, the Brisnet Summary Sheet is the most satisfying “quickie” I’ve encountered. How I Fell in Love with Horse Racing – Jim Gagliano I had worked at Monmouth Park in various administration and publicity jobs during summers while in college. I graduated in late May, 1987 and with no other professional plan I began working at Monmouth as the publicly feature writer, intending to eventually take the LSAT and apply to law school. That summer, Monmouth hosted a Haskell Invitational that was one for the ages: a rematch between Derby and Preakness winner Alysheba, and the local horse and Belmont winner Bet Twice. Lost Code, the winner of seven stakes already that year, joined the other two in a thrilling race covered nationally on TV and by the sporting press. It was a tremendous experience with a record crowd and handle, and I was right in the center, producing the supporting publicity. From that point on, I was hooked on racing as a career, shelving the LSAT prep books and never looking back.
23
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA 2-year-old vs. her elders to do a little research. Had I checked, I would have discovered that Obvious Blue Chip was scheduled to start in the She’s A Great Lady Stakes the following weekend. What was that going to mean? Well, Obvious Blue Chip was perfectly tripped out on cover to win her debut, and it was highly likely that she would be driven somewhat conservatively here with much bigger fish to fry the next week. Were they going to go out there and intentionally lose the race? No, of course not. But she was likely going to be trip dependent again, which meant that her 7/5 price was not fair value. So, had I found this info and processed it like an “expert” should, that would have led me to believe that both favorites were beatable and terrible value in this race. So, then what? One of the other viable contenders that I had overlooked was leaving from the inside, and part of the reason I hadn’t really considered her was because I didn’t dig deep enough in her past performances. Vintage Babe’s six lines that were showing on her card weren’t much to get enthused about as there were several breaks in many of the lines. But had I used my TrackIt account to take a wider look at her lifetime past performances, it was clear that a case could be made for this 13/1 shot. The sophomore daughter of Vintage Master was obviously highly-regarded leading to her July 2015 debut as she went off at 95 cents on the dollar and wired a group of maidens in 1:55 3/5. This was a line that did not show on the track program that bettors typically wouldn’t see, although her record did show that win, obviously. Her two subsequent starts were in $70,000 Ontario Sires Stakes Gold events in which she finished off the board, but she did display high early speed in one start and had broken equipment in the other. Yes, she did have some breaking issues in her first two qualifiers south of the border this year, but in her third and most recent one, she got a clean line and finished third in 1:56 1/5 which – if it could be assumed she was capable of dropping a couple of seconds – put her in the conversation with these. Also consider that there were still plenty of sires stakes left for her to potentially contest this season, but, she would need to hurry to get some placings that would qualifier her for the Ontario Sires Stakes Super Final in the fall, so it was reasonable to expect that the connections would be looking to beat this suspect field if all was well. When they left the gate, Vintage Babe’s driver Randy Waples was clearly intent on making front, which relegated This Day Forward into the pocket and Obvious Blue Chip into the three-hole. As it was reasonable to expect Obvious Blue Chip to try to trip out, she stayed in on the way to a 58 flat 1/2 and habitual loser This Day Forward was content to ride the pocket to the lane behind a strong leader and take her chances from there. Vintage Babe stole a 29 3/5 third quarter, then sprinted home in 27 flat to hold off the chalks and an opportunity was missed to make a score on a 13/1 shot. But it wasn’t so much because I should have “known better.” That was part of it, but it was also because I didn’t (continued on next page)
Brought to you by the Meadowlands/PlayMeadowlands.com
By Garnet Barnsdale We are never too old or seen too many races or think we know too much as bettors to learn from our mistakes. Such a learning opportunity presented itself to me recently at my home track of Mohawk Racetrack in a maiden race th on August 18 , and it became quite a hot topic on my Facebook wall when come comments were made by people who follow my daily Mohawk selections at DRF Harness regarding some of the tactics employed by the two heavy favorites in the race. What hit home for me – in response to me basically agreeing with one of the comments – was a comment made by one of the drivers of said favorites. He intoned that while he would expect the general betting public to make some noise when two heavy favorites get beat, one professing to be an “expert” handicapper such as myself should “know better”. Upon reflection, I realized that he was absolutely right. Consider these factors that I didn’t: The driver that made the above comments was driving the second choice, a 2year-old filly pacer named Obvious Blue Chip, who came into the race with an unblemished record and certainly looked like one of the more obvious contenders. Her 1:55 2/5 mile time when winning her debut was nothing special when compared to the rest of the field, but, she was perfect and she paced her own last quarter in 27 1/5 to get the job done. On the surface, there was only one other real contender – This Day Forward – who brought an 0 for 20 futility record into this race and was coming off another narrow loss. There was no telling how long this $95,000 yearling purchase would remain a maiden, but, I was pretty confident betting against her. As it turned out, This Day Forward – a professional maiden if there ever was one – got pounded at the windows by the public and went off at a ludicrous 70 cents to the dollar. I mean; would you take 3/5 on a 20-time loser? Apparently, many will. So, Obvious Blue Chip seemed to be appropriately-named because she seemed rather obvious in this spot. Not so fast. I realized after this race concluded, and I looked back at all of the possible angles, that I didn’t “know better,” because I didn’t completely do my homework on a couple of fronts. Firstly, it’s incumbent if you are taking the added risk of betting a
24
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA fully do my homework, which would have imparted the required knowledge for me to make that score. That can never be acceptable for a handicapper/bettor interested in showing long-term profits. But we live, learn, move on and remember that showing profits wagering on horseracing takes time and effort, just like anything else. If you are wondering how this trio of pacers fared in their next starts, This Day Forward went off at an inexplicable 1/5 and turned her 0-21 record into 0-22. The 2-year-old Obvious Blue Chip finished fifth in her She’s A Great Lady elimination and qualified for the $427,000 final, and Vintage Babe came back a week later and made two moves from the eight-hole to win again in an impressive effort. She may be a good bet at a price the first time she tries sires stakes company and her trainer, Tony Alagna, has been winning with everything recently. There is a huge card of racing this Saturday night at Mohawk Racetrack featuring the $661,000 of the Metro Pace for 2-year-old pacing colts and geldings, the $616,000 Canadian Pacing Derby for older pacers and several other important stakes races. Here are some of my picks based on what I saw last week: Race 4 – The She’s A Great Lady Final: Idyllic Beach – BEST BET Race 5 – The Metro Pace Consolation – Macs Jackpot Race 7 – The Metro Pace Final – Ocean Colony Race 10 – The Canadian Pacing Derby – Shamballa You can find my Mohawk Racetrack daily analysis right here: http://www.drf.com/news/garnet-barnsdale Good Luck and don’t forget to do your homework!
Michael Carter (110.48 points) muscled past Adam Friedland (101.1) to win weekly honors in the 2016 Hambletonian Society Grand Circuit Handicapping Challenge sponsored by DRF Harness, Green Acquisition Corporation, The Hambletonian Society, Hoosier Park Racing and Casino, Meadowlands Racing and Entertainment, Northfield Park, The Raceway at Western Fair District, Red Shores Charlottetown Driving Park, Tioga Downs, and Vernon Downs. Finishing third for the week was Sally Hinckley with 99.45 points. Unlike the first half of the season, this half is much closer with the second half leader (and first half winner) Jay Hochstetler having three handicappers on his tail, less than 50 points separating the quartet. Overall, Hochstetler is cruising along on his quest for overall champion, still 650.78 points ahead of his nearest competitor, Adam Friedland with Russ Adams sitting in third, another 0.87 points back. Despite the dominating lead, the second half of the contest is only in its second week and there is much more handicapping to go, so there is time for other handicappers to get hot. On Friday night, Michael Carter and Sally Hinckley hit the Pick-4, sweeping the contest card earning 72.28 points with winners in the Muscle Hill and the Crawford Farms Trot at Vernon Downs as well as the two divisions of the Casual Breeze at Mohawk Raceway. While no one hit the Pick-3 on Saturday evening, Carter, Adam Friedland, Dennis O’Hara, Anne Stepien, and Gordon Waterstone had two out of three but Friedland’s duo was more lucrative than the remainder of the quintet as he took down Wildflower ($31.00) in the Hudson Filly Trot earning 52.5 points to the other’s 18.23 for the evening. Sunday was Friedland’s day, the only handicapper to pick three out of four selections with his final selection finishing second, earning him 38.5 points. For the complete standings, and to continue getting the handicappers’ selections and other contest-related information from HANA Harness’ contest website, visit http://hanaharnesscontest.blogspot.com.
How I Fell in Love with Horse Racing – Greg Reinhart As the editor of Horseplayer Monthly, I normally leave this magazine to the horseplayers and their articles, but since others have shared how they fell in love with horse racing, I thought I would as well, but in particular harness racing I grew up in South Dakota, which has no horse racing tracks in the state, but I began watching the Triple Crown and races at Canterbury Park in Minnesota in 1997. A few years later, my family and I moved to Pittsburgh, and I began going somewhat regularly to the local harness track, The Meadows, trying to learn more about the game each time I went. In October of 2002 I attended the Messenger Stakes at The Meadows, and while it was won by Allamerican Ingot, Royal Mattjesty and driver Luc Ouellette won an elimination, and I decided to start following what Luc was doing when he went back to the Meadowlands, as judging by the program (and in actuality), he was a successful driver that I could root for in most races. Fast forward to June of the next year, after several more months of watching Luc continue to do well, I contacted publicity department at the Meadowlands, and asked if I could interview him. That interview turned into doing a website with Luc for the next few years, visiting him in New Jersey and Canada, and moving on to other opportunities with The Harness Edge & Daily Racing Form.
Racing at the Meadowlands in September The Meadowlands will resume live racing for two weekends beginning on Friday, September 9. The racing will follow a Friday & Saturday schedule on September 9 & 10 and 16 & 17. Overnight racing will include the popular dash for the “G” note short series for pacing mares, pacing horses and claiming pacers. The Kindergarten races for 2-year-olds trotters and pacers will have a leg here each weekend. The series will then go on hiatus until the fifth and last preliminary leg on October 28, leading into the November 5 $150,000e finals and consolations, both at the Meadowlands. (press release)
25
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA I've begun compiling a spreadsheet that I plan on presenting to the CHRB after the summer 2016 meets for both Del Mar and Saratoga have concluded. For those of you who might be curious about the 2016 numbers - here's how they shake out so far:
By Jeff Platt, HANA President In October 2014 I attended a CHRB Parimutuel and ADW Committee Meeting at Los Alamitos and presented a spreadsheet that indicated an alarming trend: In Win-Place-Show pools where both tracks have approximate level takeout rates: During the summer of 2014 Del Mar handled 82.76 percent as much as Saratoga did. But in the Exacta pool where Del Mar has a significantly higher takeout rate than Saratoga does: Del Mar handled just 54.79 percent as much as Saratoga did. I also presented the argument that if Del Mar's Exacta takeout rate had been in line with New York's Exacta takeout rate: They likely would have handled about 82.76 percent as much as Saratoga in their Exacta pools like they did in Win-Place-Show pools. I also presented a lost revenue calculation suggesting Del Mar was suffering an opportunity cost of approximately $10,000 per exacta pool because their exacta takeout at 22.68 percent was and still is out of line with New York's exacta takeout rate of 18.50 percent. After I presented my findings, a number of speakers representing track management and the TOC took the podium and told the Commissioners of the CHRB that although my numbers might appear alarming they weren't too concerned - but that they would monitor this trend going forward. I posted about this on Paceadvantage. Anyone interested in the numbers or more detail can read about this at the following link. Fast forward two years to summer 2016. Right now as I type this the premier race meets for both Del Mar and Saratoga are currently underway. I ran a similar Del Mar vs. Saratoga handle and revenue comparison.
First, all numbers presented below are on an average per race basis and reflect races run from opening day at both meets through Monday August 22, 2016. From a total revenue standpoint, the trend that I pointed out to the CHRB, TOC, and Track Management back in October of 2014 appears to have worsened. Two years ago in 2014: In Win-Place-Show pools where both tracks have approximate level takeout rates: Del Mar handled 82.76 percent as much as Saratoga did. In the Exacta pool where Del Mar has a significantly higher takeout rate: Del Mar handled just 54.79 percent as much as Saratoga did. The opportunity cost or lost revenue number was about $10,090.00 per exacta pool. So far this summer in 2016: In Win-Place-Show pools where both tracks have approximate level takeout rates: Del Mar is now handling 75.82 percent as much as Saratoga. In the Exacta pool where Del Mar has a significantly higher takeout rate: Del Mar is now handling just 47.41 percent as much as Saratoga! The opportunity cost or lost revenue number is now running about $12,400.00 per exacta pool. Earth to CHRB... On second thought, never mind. Under-performing exacta pools and millions in lost purse money are nothing to be concerned about.
27
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA he is the only juror willing to entertain the hypothesis that the defendant is innocent. We must be willing to copper (bet against) public opinion. If we separately ask a husband and wife what percentage of the housework they do, the total will add up to more than 100 percent, but if we use that sort of selfjustification betting on horses it will cost us. We need to bet on horses we find reasons for betting on; we cannot find reasons to play horses we want to play (confirmation bias). “Satisfaction with our lot is not consistent with the intention of God and with our nature,” wrote Emerson. “It is our duty to aim at change, at improvement, at perfection.” We can become successful horseplayers if we are aware of the psychology involved, are passionate about playing the races, and persevere.
By Joe Colville Isaac Newton told us how he discovered the law of gravitation, “By thinking on it continually.” Barry Bales, bass player for Union Station, says the band’s leader, Alison Krauss, winner of 27 Grammy Awards, is obsessed with music. “She lays awake at night and thinks about it 24/7.” Award-winning Arizona criminalist Lucien Haag, a firearms enthusiast/expert who has spent many a day shooting in the desert, quotes Gandhi to young scientists, “Learn as if you were to live forever.” In the Geography of Genius, Eric Wiener writes, “This persistence explains more about creative genius than those apocryphal ‘aha moments.’” No activity, however, is more conducive to reaping what we sow with passion and perseverance than betting on Thoroughbred horse races. Knowledge of horses is important, but knowledge of psychology and also important because we bet against people when we bet on horse races. We not only need to know how important handicapping factors are, but how important they are thought to be by opposing horseplayers. Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance, a bestselling first book by Angela Duckworth, is about the attitude needed to do things successfully – things such as playing the races. Duckworth writes, “more often than we think, our limits are self-imposed,” and many horseplayers feel victimized by the exorbitant tax on wagers (about 15 percent on win bets). Some of us have, however, what Duckworth calls a “hang-in-there” attitude (recall that Churchill told his fellow Brits to never give up during World War II). Horseplayers learn that if Brewery Boy beat Tango Ace in their last races he is likely to beat him again. But horseplayers need to persevere until they learn that it is usually better to prefer the beaten horse in rematches because we bet against horseplayers who know that Brewery Boy just beat Tango Ace, and they overvalue that information because it is so readily available. Playing victors in who-beat-who scenarios will improve our winning percentages, but it will lower our bottom lines – our return on invested dollars. We should decide if we are interested in picking winners or making money; attempting to do one thing is harmful to doing the other. The most important handicapping factors are form, pace, position, speed, and surface. Most horseplayers consider class a major handicapping factor, but similar to who-beatwho, class is so overvalued by horseplayers that even though it helps horses win races it decimates the odds on them to win. Classy horses are overbet to a fault. The pari-mutuel system of betting on horse races adds a dimension to the thinking process. We not only want to be right, we want other handicappers to be wrong (to increase the odds on the horses we play). In the movie 12 Angry Men only juror number eight (played by Henry Fonda is qualified to be a successful horseplayer because
How I Fell in Love with Horse Racing – Candice Curtis I got into horse racing in 1995. I was 13 years old, horsecrazy, and avoiding cleaning my room one Saturday afternoon, which happened to be the first one in May. I was watching the Derby broadcast on an old TV with a bad picture. I liked the name of one of the horses a lot Thunder Gulch. When the riders came out in their colorful silks, Gary Stevens appeared (on the off-color TV) to be wearing a purple and pink jacket, which of course were my favorite colors at the time. Thunder Gulch won the Kentucky Derby and I felt like a genius! I took a family trip to Lexington, Kentucky, later that summer and saw for the first time a community that loved horses as much as me - and I vowed to be involved fulltime one day. I only became more passionate about the sport as I got older and could actually bet on it. I sure wish I'd had a couple bucks on Thunder Gulch though, that was a huge payoff...! How I Fell in Love with Horse Racing – Jason Beem I fell in love with Captain Condo the minute I saw him. He was this huge grey horse, and he was the king of Longacres for a few years. I used to go home after his races and ride my bike around the neighborhood, whipping it with a stick and doing Gary Henson’s race call, ”And here comes the big grey, it’s Captain Condo!!” He was bigger than life when I was ten years old. Check out Jason on the BetAmerica Radio Network here. How I Fell in Love with Horse Racing – Track Phantom First time I went to the track (Canterbury Downs) was the day after prom in 1986 with a bunch of people and, of course, my date. Her grandfather was Big Jake (of Big Jake’s Green Sheet). I knew absolutely nothing about how to bet or read the racing form. When we got home that day, her dad had three or four books (Beyer, Davidowitz, etc.) and he gave them to me to read. I read them cover to cover and the next time I went to the track (about four weeks later); I had a good grasp on how to read the form. We won a few hundred that day. My dad and I spent quite a few days at Canterbury during my college years…some of my best memories. 28
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA
Kentucky Downs Stats Pack Part Two â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Jockeys & Trainers TURF SPRINTS -- BY RIDER sorted by wins... **************************************************************************************** BY RIDER sorted by wins Run Date: 8/29/2016 4:29:26 PM **************************************************************************************** WIN WIN WIN PLACE PLACE UDM PLAYS WINS PCT IMPACT ROI PLACES PCT ROI **************************************************************************************** LEPAROUX JULIEN R 31 7 0.2258 2.258 0.8806 14 0.4516 1.2726 HERNANDEZ JR BRIAN J30 7 0.2333 2.333 0.91 9 0.3 1.11 HERNANDEZ RAFAEL MAN24 6 0.25 2.5 1.6542 8 0.3333 1.0625 LANERIE COREY J 47 5 0.1064 1.064 0.6 8 0.1702 0.4404 NAPRAVNIK ROSIE 24 5 0.2083 2.083 1.0833 8 0.3333 0.7333 FLORES DAVID ROMERO 16 4 0.25 2.5 2.375 5 0.3125 1.4562 GEROUX FLORENT 16 4 0.25 2.5 2.3188 6 0.375 1.4 HILL CHANNING 12 4 0.3333 3.333 1.025 4 0.3333 0.7083 ALBARADO ROBBY 29 3 0.1034 1.034 1.6931 5 0.1724 0.9586 LEBRON VICTOR 25 3 0.12 1.2 0.764 4 0.16 0.512 GONCALVES LEANDRO R 23 3 0.1304 1.304 0.5957 5 0.2174 0.4913 BOREL CALVIN H 23 3 0.1304 1.304 1.1087 5 0.2174 0.6609 GARCIA ALAN 17 3 0.1765 1.765 0.8176 5 0.2941 1.0353 DESORMEAUX KENT J 8 3 0.375 3.75 0.9625 4 0.5 0.8875 PRAT FLAVIEN 4 3 0.75 7.5 3.6 3 0.75 2.1 ROCCO JR JOSEPH 22 2 0.0909 0.909 0.3591 7 0.3182 0.7682 DAVIS DYLAN 11 2 0.1818 1.818 0.6182 3 0.2727 0.5818 VAN DYKE DRAYDEN 10 2 0.2 2 1.09 2 0.2 0.59 BRIDGMOHAN SHAUN 22 1 0.0455 0.455 0.0909 5 0.2273 0.4682 COURT JON KENTON 18 1 0.0556 0.556 0.5889 6 0.3333 1.1833 ARROYO JR NORBERTO 14 1 0.0714 0.714 0.2214 3 0.2143 1.2786 STRAIGHT MATTHEW 11 1 0.0909 0.909 2.1727 2 0.1818 0.9091 FALLON KIEREN 8 1 0.125 1.25 1.6375 1 0.125 0.7875 VAZQUEZ RAMON A 7 1 0.1429 1.429 0.7143 3 0.4286 1.7143 BLANC BRICE 7 1 0.1429 1.429 1 2 0.2857 0.8429 MARQUEZ JR CARLOS H 6 1 0.1667 1.667 0.75 2 0.3333 0.8667 LEZCANO JOSE 5 1 0.2 2 0.32 2 0.4 1.82 ROSSI ORIANA 5 1 0.2 2 5.28 1 0.2 1.76 SAEZ GABRIEL 5 1 0.2 2 1.4 1 0.2 0.76 BEJARANO RAFAEL 3 1 0.3333 3.333 1.3333 1 0.3333 0.7667 LOPEZ CHARLES C 1 1 1 10 9.8 1 1 4.3 CINTRON ALEX 1 1 1 10 3.3 1 1 1.9 GARCIA JULIO A 1 1 1 10 2.9 1 1 1.7 LEZCANO ABEL 1 1 1 10 35.7 1 1 11.3 SANCHEZ JEFFREY 1 1 1 10 3.1 1 1 1.8 PEDROZA MARCELINO 25 GRAHAM JAMES 22 KUNTZWEILER GRETA 20 CASTANON JESUS LOPEZ20 SAEZ JUAN C 20 MENA MIGUEL 19 MCKEE JOHN 16 OSORIO DIDIEL A 15 TORRES FRANCISCO C 14 FRANKLIN MALCOLM 12 MORALES ROBERTO 11 LANDEROS CHRIS 11 CASTANON ANTONIO LOP10 SANTANA JR RICARDO 9 DOYLE SOPHIE 8 MARTIN JR EDDIE 8 MOJICA JR RAFAEL 8 COHEN DAVID 7 POMPELL THOMAS L 5 THERIOT JAMIE 5 GILLIGAN JACK 5 CANCHANO ALDO 4 VALDIVIA JR JOSE 4 BRAVO JOE 4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
29
1 4 1 1 5 2 2 0 0 2 2 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 1
0.04 0.1818 0.05 0.05 0.25 0.1053 0.125 0 0 0.1667 0.1818 0.0909 0.2 0.3333 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0.75 0.25
0.192 1.1091 0.205 0.095 0.97 0.3421 0.4563 0 0 0.5333 0.7545 0.3909 0.58 1.1222 0 0 0 0 2.56 0 0 0 2.4 1.925
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA
CRUZ IVAN 3 VASYUTOV SERGEY 3 STEPHEN ANTHONY 3 MIZE WILLIAM E 3 JOHNSON JOE M 3 TAMBURELLO AMANDA T 3 SANJUR SANTO 3 LERMYTE JEROME 3 HISBY RONALD 3 ROSARIO JOEL 3 WALKER ERIN M 3 NAUPAC WILLIAMS 3 DJURIC STEVICA 2 ZUNIGA EDDIE 2 MCMAHON C J 2 BERRIOS JOSEPH 2 DIEGO INOSENCIO 2 BAIRD E T 2 PEREZ EDGAR 2 GONZALEZ JR SAL 2 MURGIA ANTIOCO 2 ORM CORY 2 DREGITS KATHLEEN MAR2 GONZALEZ SANTIAGO 1 GOLIBRZUCH SIGGY 1 BERMUDEZ SAMUEL E 1 JIMENEZ ALBIN 1 RUSSELL SHELDON 1 DE LA CRUZ FERNANDO 1 EMIGH CHRISTOPHER A 1 LAGUNES GABRIEL 1 OCAMPO ISRAEL 1 FRANCO GEOVANNI 1 WOODLEY TYLER 1 BURKE JULIE 1 MELLO DAVID 1 COURT AARON J 1 GUZMAN MANFREDI 1 ENRIQUEZ JUAN C 1 MARTIN SUE 1 ADAM MATHIEU G 1 PRENTICE JR EUCLYN E1 JOHNSON PATRICK A 1 CASTRO EDDIE 1 CREED BEN 1 PRADO EDGAR S 1 CARMAN CRYSTAL 1 SANCHEZ III ANDRE 1 FAYOS BORJA 1 WILKINSON ERIN 1 GUIDRY MARK 1 BRYAN KERRY 1 WYDICK LORI A 1 CARSTENS DAVID 1 KEWIN STEVE 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0.3333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1.0667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA TURF SPRINTS -- BY TRAINER sorted by wins... **************************************************************************************** BY TRAINER sorted by wins Run Date: 8/29/2016 4:33:57 PM **************************************************************************************** WIN WIN WIN PLACE PLACE UDM PLAYS WINS PCT IMPACT ROI PLACES PCT ROI **************************************************************************************** WARD WESLEY A 40 12 0.3 3 1.095 16 0.4 0.905 CATALANO WAYNE M 16 8 0.5 5 2.0437 8 0.5 1.1063 MAKER MICHAEL J 29 7 0.2414 2.414 0.8483 8 0.2759 0.7862 CASSE MARK E 14 4 0.2857 2.857 0.9929 5 0.3571 0.7286 AMOSS THOMAS M 13 2 0.1538 1.538 0.3308 4 0.3077 0.8808 MCPEEK KENNETH G 11 2 0.1818 1.818 0.7636 3 0.2727 0.9091 ARNOLD II GEORGE R 10 2 0.2 2 0.84 3 0.3 0.7 PROCTOR THOMAS F 5 2 0.4 4 2.26 2 0.4 1.06 MILLER DARRIN 13 1 0.0769 0.769 0.3692 4 0.3077 1.5692 SCHERER MERRILL R 12 1 0.0833 0.833 1.9167 2 0.1667 1.4 CALHOUN W BRET 12 1 0.0833 0.833 0.4333 3 0.25 0.6167 COLEBROOK BEN 11 1 0.0909 0.909 1.8727 4 0.3636 2.2364 STIDHAM MICHAEL 7 1 0.1429 1.429 0.6143 2 0.2857 0.7857 SHORT RICKY J 7 1 0.1429 1.429 1.5143 1 0.1429 0.7 MORSE RANDY L 7 1 0.1429 1.429 0.6286 1 0.1429 0.3429 CORRIGAN JIMMY 6 1 0.1667 1.667 3.9833 2 0.3333 1.6667 GRANITZ ANTHONY J 6 1 0.1667 1.667 0.75 1 0.1667 0.3833 KENNEALLY EDDIE 6 1 0.1667 1.667 0.5333 3 0.5 1.1667 MARGOLIS STEVE 6 1 0.1667 1.667 0.6333 1 0.1667 0.35 CARAMORI EDUARDO 5 1 0.2 2 1.08 1 0.2 0.54 WHITING LYNN S 5 1 0.2 2 0.44 2 0.4 0.72 STEWART DALLAS 5 1 0.2 2 0.76 1 0.2 0.48 DRURY JR THOMAS 4 1 0.25 2.5 1.075 1 0.25 0.575 SCOTT JOAN 4 1 0.25 2.5 1.95 1 0.25 0.675 SIMMS GARRY W 4 1 0.25 2.5 1.3 1 0.25 0.575 RICHARD CHRIS 3 1 0.3333 3.333 0.8 2 0.6667 1.5333 MCCAULEY TEVIS Q 3 1 0.3333 3.333 3.0667 2 0.6667 2.4 CASSIDY JAMES M 3 1 0.3333 3.333 1.8333 2 0.6667 2 COWAN JON M 3 1 0.3333 3.333 7.2333 2 0.6667 4.1667 LOVELL MICHELLE 3 1 0.3333 3.333 1.0667 1 0.3333 0.6 WARD DEAN 3 1 0.3333 3.333 1.6667 1 0.3333 1.0333 HOBBY STEVE 3 1 0.3333 3.333 10.0333 1 0.3333 3.4333 MORRISON MIKE J 3 1 0.3333 3.333 2.3333 1 0.3333 1.0333 BLOCK CHRIS M 3 1 0.3333 3.333 4.8667 1 0.3333 2.3333 SHARP JOE 3 1 0.3333 3.333 1.6 2 0.6667 1.7 SCHU SALLY SUE 2 1 0.5 5 6.4 1 0.5 2.3 PFISTER WILLIAM G 2 1 0.5 5 13.2 1 0.5 4.4 DUNN STEPHEN D 2 1 0.5 5 6.95 1 0.5 3.15 LUCAS TED W 2 1 0.5 5 2 1 0.5 1.35 HARTY EOIN G 2 1 0.5 5 6.55 1 0.5 3.15 SHEPPARD JONATHAN E 2 1 0.5 5 0.9 2 1 1.55 KAELIN FORREST 2 1 0.5 5 3.5 1 0.5 1.9 MATTHEWS DOUG 2 1 0.5 5 2.6 2 1 3.95 CAPILUPI SAVINO A 2 1 0.5 5 4.9 1 0.5 2.15 PESSIN NEIL L 2 1 0.5 5 1.7 1 0.5 1.35 PEERY CHUCK 2 1 0.5 5 2.5 1 0.5 1.5 DUNBAR LARRY 1 1 1 10 6 1 1 2.7 TOMLINSON MICHAEL A 1 1 1 10 3.3 1 1 1.9 BURCHELL GREG 1 1 1 10 7.1 1 1 3 SMITHWICK JR D MICHA1 1 1 10 6.2 1 1 3.3 SIMS PHILIP A 1 1 1 10 2 1 1 1.3 MURPHY CONOR 1 1 1 10 6.2 1 1 2.6 BELL MICHAEL H 1 1 1 10 5.6 1 1 2.5 FUGATE JAMES F 1 1 1 10 35.7 1 1 11.3 KAPLAN WILLIAM A 1 1 1 10 5.5 1 1 3.1 ROMANS DALE L 23 0 0 0 0 4 0.1739 0.3826 ASMUSSEN STEVEN M 17 0 0 0 0 3 0.1765 0.5941 GORDER KELLYN 15 0 0 0 0 4 0.2667 0.4867 MILLS DON 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WILKES IAN R 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JURADO LUIS A 10 0 0 0 0 3 0.3 0.77 OLIVER VICTORIA H 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOLEY GREGORY D 10 0 0 0 0 2 0.2 0.58 FIRES WILLIAM H 9 0 0 0 0 3 0.3333 0.6333 CARROLL DAVID M 8 0 0 0 0 1 0.125 0.2625 STALL JR ALBERT M 8 0 0 0 0 3 0.375 0.8625 BAKER JAMES E 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THORNBURY JEFFREY D 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA MOTT WILLIAM I 7 DOROCHENKO GENNADI 6 LUKAS D WAYNE 6 REED ERIC R 6 WALSH BRENDAN P 5 LOPRESTI CHARLES 5 FLINT BERNARD S 5 WERNER RONNY W 5 LAUER MICHAEL E 5 MCKEEVER ANDREW 5 ANDERSON ROGER J 5 BEALMEAR LAURA 5 MCGEE PAUL J 4 MOQUETT RON 4 JONES J LARRY 4 MCENTEE PAUL 4 RICHARDSON TIM 4 PITTS HELEN 4 BRADLEY WILLIAM 4 HUBLEY MARK 4 DODGEN JAMES A 4 VANCE DAVID R 3 VASHCHENKO PAVEL 3 VON HEMEL DONNIE K 3 CASTANEDA MARCO A 3 PARKER DONALD R 3 HANCOCK JOHN A 3 BOGLE FERGUS 3 NETHERY LAUREN 3 DRAPER OTTO 3 WOODARD JOE 3 SHORTER AARON 3 FREDERICK EDWARD HAR3 MOTION H GRAHAM 3 FRENCH WAYNE R 3 OCONNOR II ROBERT R 3 COBB CAROL 3 HOPF JERRY L 3 SCHERER RICHARD R 3 COX BRAD H 3 GUERRERO SAL 3 FREEMAN TODD 2 GREENWELL JERRY JOE 2 BROWN DARRELL 2 JACOBSON MATTHEW 2 HOLTHUS PAUL E 2 MILLS TOMMY RAY 2 STATLER VALERIE 2 HICKS WILLIAM R 2 HOUSE GARY F 2 DOBBS JR ROBERT E 2 ROBERSON DENIS W 2 WIGGINS LON 2 ASCHINGER GERALD RUS2 STOTLER GARY L 2 MARTINEZ RALPH 2 DYER JOHN R 2 DICKEY CHARLES L 2 KLOPP RANDY L 2 ENNIS JOHN 2 BRADLEY WILLIAM B 2 BAKER READE 2 WERRE DANNY 2 GIRDLEY JAMES R 2 HARTMAN CHRIS A 2 VECCHIO CARYN 2 BAUER PHILIP A 2 DINI MICHAEL 2 BERGIN TOM 2 ANDERSON DOUG L 2 CASTANON JOSE G 2 MORAN SCOTT 2 LOPEZ JOSE L 2 DEEGAN JOSEPH 2 MORRIS BRENDAN D 2 FOLEY VICKIE L 2 BOOKER JR JOHN A 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
32
0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0.1667 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0.25 0 0.25 0 0.3333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3333 0 0 0 0.3333 0 0 0.6667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0.6 0 0 4.84 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0.775 0 0 0 0.975 0 0.45 0 1.0667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4333 0 0 0 1.2667 0 0 1.9667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.2 0 0 0 2.4 0 0 7.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA SHORT WILLAM R 2 OLIVER PHILIP J 2 HARTLAGE GARY G 2 CAMPBELL DONALD H 2 BROOKFIELD GLENN L 2 FORSTER GRANT T 2 ANDERSON SUSAN L 2 WARPOOL MICHAEL SHAN2 REYNOLDS LINDSEY C 2 BOMPAS WENDY LEA 2 TRACY JR RAY E 2 GARCIA AMALIO P 2 RITTER SHANNON 2 MASON INGRID 2 ENGLER JEFF 2 MARTIN WAYNE 2 JONES PHILLIP L 1 HOWARD NEIL J 1 PARKE JUDITH I 1 BEGLEY GREG 1 STEELE JR HAL W 1 GOTHARD AKIKO M 1 PHELPS MARY ANN 1 PRESTON PATRICK K 1 SEITZ FREDERICK J 1 BROWN CHERYL 1 DORRIS THOMAS P 1 CLARK PHILLIP 1 RADCLIFFE ROBERT W 1 BINDNER JR WALTER M 1 BREDIN JAMES 1 SEAMAN CECIL 1 HARDIN BILLY 1 SKINNER ALBERT T 1 SHORT TOMMY C 1 BAIRD J MICHAEL 1 RETAMOZA SR ERNEST P1 PUCEK JOHN PAUL 1 MEDRANO MARCOS G 1 RENNEKAMP NICK J 1 MOORE PERRY 1 PINCINS ROBERT J 1 WOLFSON MILTON W 1 RIVELLI LARRY 1 SMITH ANNE P 1 IADISERNIA GIUSEPPE 1 COX GAIL 1 CERVANTES SERGIO 1 RICHARDS CORALE A 1 DE LA CERDA ARMANDO 1 GOOD JOHN 1 VAN BERG JACK C 1 GODSEY JUSTIN 1 HORN H RAY 1 REAVIS MICHAEL L 1 STINSON JR WILLIAM 1 HUFFMAN PATRICK 1 HUGHES BYRON G 1 PAUL RONDA S 1 HEBERT ACKEL 1 LYNCH BRIAN A 1 VAN METER WILLIAM 1 RIBAUDO ROBERT 1 NICOL JAMES 1 POTURICA JR ROBERT 1 LANDRY JOSEPH C 1 MCFARLANE DAN L 1 WOODBURY JUDY 1 MULVEY EMMA 1 KORDENBROCK MATT 1 CLEMENT CHRISTOPHE 1 SANCHEZ NOEL 1 DENZIK JR WILLIAM J 1 MATZ MICHAEL R 1 GAVER III JOHN M 1 RODRIGUEZ LEO 1 WILLIAMSON BRIAN 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
33
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.9 2.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.9 0 0 0 0 7.1 0 0 0 0 3.7 0 0 1.3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA HENNESSY JOSEPH 1 VAN METER WILLIAM B 1 BURNETT ARMSTRONG HE1 CRISTEL MARK J 1 BECKER SCOTT 1 MOSS RONALD 1 RANKIN JOHN 1 PEITZ DANIEL C 1 WALKER PAUL R 1 KINMON RONALD KEITH 1 DUVALL WILLIAM E 1 TAYLOR ALVIN BRENT 1 COOK DAVID K 1 MONTANO SR ANGEL O 1 RAINWATER BRADLEE 1 SHORTER TIMOTHY V 1 ACKERMAN D KELLY 1 HELMBRECHT WILLIAM R1 MILLER KENNETH G 1 CLINE ROBERT C 1 ANTONUIK JERRY 1 DENNIS RUSSELL 1 INMAN BARR H 1 BOYCE MICHELE 1 WILLIAMS ELLEN 1 CAMERON MONIQUE 1 RODRIGUEZ ARMANDO 1 MATEJKA PAVEL 1 YOUNG TRACEY 1 EGBERT JAMES 1 BYRNE PATRICK B 1 JORDAN JR HAROLD Z 1 BECK ROWENA 1 REECE CLAIRE 1 LOVELAND DEL 1 TOOLEY JENNIFER 1 BUDGE RICHARD 1 SAVILLE NIALL 1 SUAREZ JESUS I 1 LANGEMEIER JOHN L 1 MARSHALL KENNETH W 1 MCCARTY GEORGE S 1 PEREZ MANNY 1 BURTON ADAM T 1 THOMAS GARY A 1 ARMENTA RODOLFO 1 COHN ALICE G 1 RICE HOWARD 1 HENDRICKSON LORI 1 GREGO DONALD R 1 LAY LARRY 1 YARBERRY LAURA JAN 1 BOAK INGRID I 1 DODGE ALBERT 1 KNIGHT GERALD L 1 MCSORLEY JOE 1 DREWES ROBERT E 1 BARKLEY JEFF 1 HILES RICK 1 HALL WILLIAM E 1 JARVIS KATHY 1 DARJEAN PAUL 1 KAHLES RONALD 1 PINZON MARIA E 1 ROGGENKAMP III EDWAR1 SHELLEY BILL 1 BUSH GEORGE S 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
34
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.8 0 0 0 0 6.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA TURF ROUTES - BY RIDER sorted by wins... **************************************************************************************** BY RIDER sorted by wins Run Date: 8/29/2016 4:42:07 PM **************************************************************************************** WIN WIN WIN PLACE PLACE UDM PLAYS WINS PCT IMPACT ROI PLACES PCT ROI **************************************************************************************** NAPRAVNIK ROSIE 33 10 0.303 3.05 1.0364 17 0.5152 1.1121 GEROUX FLORENT 20 10 0.5 5.033 2.145 11 0.55 1.39 ROCCO JR JOSEPH 37 8 0.2162 2.1763 1.3297 12 0.3243 0.9351 LANERIE COREY J 67 7 0.1045 1.0519 0.6537 19 0.2836 0.8179 GRAHAM JAMES 41 6 0.1463 1.4727 1.1268 11 0.2683 0.9268 BRIDGMOHAN SHAUN 37 5 0.1351 1.3599 0.9054 6 0.1622 0.5459 LEPAROUX JULIEN R 36 5 0.1389 1.3982 0.5111 11 0.3056 0.7278 HILL CHANNING 18 5 0.2778 2.7963 0.9 5 0.2778 0.5 HERNANDEZ JR BRIAN J33 4 0.1212 1.22 1.2909 12 0.3636 1.8606 ALBARADO ROBBY 39 3 0.0769 0.7741 0.9846 6 0.1538 0.8692 LEBRON VICTOR 37 3 0.0811 0.8164 0.4892 7 0.1892 0.6297 COURT JON KENTON 28 3 0.1071 1.0781 0.4821 4 0.1429 0.3429 GONCALVES LEANDRO R 27 3 0.1111 1.1183 1.1444 6 0.2222 0.9333 CASTANON ANTONIO LOP8 3 0.375 3.7748 6.4125 3 0.375 2.2875 HERNANDEZ RAFAEL MAN25 2 0.08 0.8053 1.304 4 0.16 0.716 SAEZ JUAN C 23 2 0.087 0.8757 0.3739 5 0.2174 1.0826 MENA MIGUEL 19 2 0.1053 1.06 0.6842 5 0.2632 0.8053 MORALES ROBERTO 15 2 0.1333 1.3418 0.98 2 0.1333 0.48 VAN DYKE DRAYDEN 14 2 0.1429 1.4384 0.9214 5 0.3571 1.0643 STRAIGHT MATTHEW 12 2 0.1667 1.678 2.0917 4 0.3333 2.8167 BLANC BRICE 10 2 0.2 2.0132 1.23 2 0.2 0.66 PEDROZA MARCELINO 40 1 0.025 0.2517 0.13 3 0.075 0.2 BOREL CALVIN H 23 1 0.0435 0.4379 0.2696 3 0.1304 0.4391 LANDEROS CHRIS 20 1 0.05 0.5033 0.345 6 0.3 1.37 MCKEE JOHN 17 1 0.0588 0.5919 0.3588 3 0.1765 0.7588 TORRES FRANCISCO C 13 1 0.0769 0.7741 0.2231 1 0.0769 0.1308 COHEN DAVID 11 1 0.0909 0.915 0.6182 1 0.0909 0.3 ARROYO JR NORBERTO 11 1 0.0909 0.915 0.3455 5 0.4545 2.1091 JOHNSON JOE M 10 1 0.1 1.0066 1.01 1 0.1 0.38 GILLIGAN JACK 6 1 0.1667 1.678 10.4333 1 0.1667 3.95 CINTRON ALEX 6 1 0.1667 1.678 3.0833 2 0.3333 1.5833 LEZCANO JOSE 4 1 0.25 2.5165 0.475 1 0.25 0.35 FRANCO GEOVANNI 3 1 0.3333 3.355 1.4333 1 0.3333 0.8333 ENRIQUEZ JUAN C 1 1 1 10.066 7.1 1 1 3.2 SANCHEZ JEFFREY 1 1 1 10.066 3.2 1 1 1.6 BERMUDEZ SAMUEL E 1 1 1 10.066 51 1 1 20.2 LANTZ JESSE A 1 1 1 10.066 4 1 1 1.9 STEVENS GARY L 1 1 1 10.066 3.2 1 1 1.9 GARCIA ALAN 24 0 0 0 0 2 0.0833 0.2375 KUNTZWEILER GRETA 17 0 0 0 0 2 0.1176 0.5353 CASTANON JESUS LOPEZ15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FALLON KIEREN 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OSORIO DIDIEL A 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MOJICA JR RAFAEL 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VAZQUEZ RAMON A 11 0 0 0 0 3 0.2727 0.8455 MARTIN JR EDDIE 11 0 0 0 0 1 0.0909 0.2091 FLORES DAVID ROMERO 11 0 0 0 0 2 0.1818 1.2455 FRANKLIN MALCOLM 10 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 0.25 VALDIVIA JR JOSE 9 0 0 0 0 1 0.1111 0.4444 DOYLE SOPHIE 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAEZ GABRIEL 8 0 0 0 0 1 0.125 0.3125 DESORMEAUX KENT J 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MARQUEZ JR CARLOS H 7 0 0 0 0 1 0.1429 0.5286 POMPELL THOMAS L 6 0 0 0 0 1 0.1667 0.3833 BEJARANO RAFAEL 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DAVIS DYLAN 5 0 0 0 0 1 0.2 1.64 PRAT FLAVIEN 5 0 0 0 0 3 0.6 1.72 BRAVO JOE 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CANCHANO ALDO 5 0 0 0 0 1 0.2 0.42 JIMENEZ ALBIN 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CRUZ IVAN 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CASTRO EDDIE 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NAUPAC WILLIAMS 4 0 0 0 0 1 0.25 1.675 ORM CORY 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SANTANA JR RICARDO 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THERIOT JAMIE 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BOYCE FOREST 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ROSARIO JOEL 3 0 0 0 0 2 0.6667 1.5333 OCAMPO ISRAEL 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA REZNIKOV ALEXANDER 3 VARGAS JUAN P 3 ADAM MATHIEU G 3 SANJUR SANTO 3 ROSSI ORIANA 2 DIEGO INOSENCIO 2 BYRNE JOHN 2 DJURIC STEVICA 2 PRADO EDGAR S 2 HERNANDEZ COLBY J 2 FAYOS BORJA 2 ARGUELLO JR FABIO A 2 CARSTENS DAVID 2 TAMBURELLO AMANDA T 2 JAEN ABDIEL 2 HOMEISTER JR ROSEMAR2 ZAYAS EDGARD J 2 GUIDRY MARK 2 LOPEZ PACO 1 CARMAN CRYSTAL 1 HERNANDEZ BRIAN JOSE1 ESQUIVEL EMMANUEL 1 PRENTICE JR EUCLYN E1 DA SILVA EURICO ROSA1 MONTERREY RICHARD 1 VERGARA RODRIGO 1 LERMYTE JEROME 1 EMIGH CHRISTOPHER A 1 SARVIS DEAN A 1 MIZE WILLIAM E 1 ZUNIGA EDDIE 1 STEPHEN ANTHONY 1 VIDAL FRANCISCO A 1 MCMAHON C J 1 SATTERLY PAUL L 1 GONZALEZ JR SAL 1 SANCHEZ ANDRE 1 GOLIBRZUCH SIGGY 1 ORE OSWALDO 1 WHITACRE BRANDON 1 JOHNSON PATRICK A 1 BAIRD E T 1 BERRIOS JOSEPH 1 PEREZ EDGAR 1 MELLO DAVID 1 SLINGER STEPHANIE 1 COLLINS SHANE 1 GARCIA JULIO A 1 WILKINSON ERIN 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
36
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA TURF ROUTES - BY TRAINER sorted by wins... **************************************************************************************** BY TRAINER sorted by wins Run Date: 8/29/2016 4:39:58 PM **************************************************************************************** WIN WIN WIN PLACE PLACE UDM PLAYS WINS PCT IMPACT ROI PLACES PCT ROI **************************************************************************************** MAKER MICHAEL J 62 12 0.1935 1.9478 1.1048 18 0.2903 0.7452 CATALANO WAYNE M 22 7 0.3182 3.203 1.1273 10 0.4545 0.9591 ARNOLD II GEORGE R 32 4 0.125 1.2583 1.0656 9 0.2813 1.6375 BLOCK CHRIS M 10 4 0.4 4.0264 1.88 6 0.6 1.64 MOTT WILLIAM I 21 3 0.1429 1.4384 0.519 4 0.1905 0.5333 OLIVER VICTORIA H 20 3 0.15 1.5099 1.035 7 0.35 1.06 WILKES IAN R 16 3 0.1875 1.8874 0.9687 5 0.3125 1.0187 CASSE MARK E 15 3 0.2 2.0132 1.3467 5 0.3333 0.9533 MOTION H GRAHAM 15 3 0.2 2.0132 1.3467 3 0.2 0.6467 VANCE DAVID R 6 3 0.5 5.033 2.35 3 0.5 1 MCPEEK KENNETH G 21 2 0.0952 0.9583 0.5905 6 0.2857 1.0048 COLEBROOK BEN 16 2 0.125 1.2583 0.8625 4 0.25 0.8875 PROCTOR THOMAS F 16 2 0.125 1.2583 0.5875 4 0.25 0.7812 SHARP JOE 12 2 0.1667 1.678 0.4083 5 0.4167 1.05 JURADO LUIS A 11 2 0.1818 1.83 3.3909 3 0.2727 2.1273 WALSH BRENDAN P 11 2 0.1818 1.83 0.8182 3 0.2727 0.7091 SHEPPARD JONATHAN E 10 2 0.2 2.0132 2.57 3 0.3 1.38 CORRIGAN JIMMY 9 2 0.2222 2.2367 2.1444 3 0.3333 1.2333 DRYSDALE NEIL D 8 2 0.25 2.5165 0.725 3 0.375 0.8875 KENNEALLY EDDIE 6 2 0.3333 3.355 1.6667 3 0.5 1.35 GODSEY CLAUDIE MARSH5 2 0.4 4.0264 3.46 2 0.4 1.66 ROMANS DALE L 29 1 0.0345 0.3473 0.1172 7 0.2414 0.6862 WARD WESLEY A 19 1 0.0526 0.5295 0.1053 3 0.1579 0.3158 ASMUSSEN STEVEN M 17 1 0.0588 0.5919 0.1176 3 0.1765 0.4235 MARGOLIS STEVE 10 1 0.1 1.0066 0.43 1 0.1 0.24 GORDER KELLYN 9 1 0.1111 1.1183 1.0333 1 0.1111 0.4333 LUKAS D WAYNE 8 1 0.125 1.2583 0.5625 1 0.125 0.2875 MATZ MICHAEL R 7 1 0.1429 1.4384 0.9 2 0.2857 0.9429 STEWART DALLAS 7 1 0.1429 1.4384 1.5286 2 0.2857 1.1286 MILLS DON 6 1 0.1667 1.678 2.7833 2 0.3333 1.65 STALL JR ALBERT M 6 1 0.1667 1.678 0.55 2 0.3333 0.8333 FIRES WILLIAM H 6 1 0.1667 1.678 0.85 1 0.1667 0.45 FOLEY VICKIE L 6 1 0.1667 1.678 1 1 0.1667 0.5833 MCCAULEY TEVIS Q 5 1 0.2 2.0132 1 2 0.4 1.22 AMOSS THOMAS M 5 1 0.2 2.0132 0.86 3 0.6 2.06 CLARKSON ALEX 4 1 0.25 2.5165 2.2 1 0.25 1.05 BARKLEY JEFF 4 1 0.25 2.5165 1.525 2 0.5 2.875 PEERY CHUCK 4 1 0.25 2.5165 1.525 1 0.25 0.8 RADCLIFFE ROBERT W 4 1 0.25 2.5165 2.525 1 0.25 0.95 EWING MICHAEL ANN 4 1 0.25 2.5165 15.65 1 0.25 5.925 MACIAS ADOLFO 4 1 0.25 2.5165 2.175 1 0.25 0.925 BRADLEY WILLIAM 4 1 0.25 2.5165 5 1 0.25 1.65 SCHERER RICHARD R 3 1 0.3333 3.355 1.3333 1 0.3333 0.6333 COX BRAD H 3 1 0.3333 3.355 3.8333 1 0.3333 1.8333 MCFARLANE DAN L 3 1 0.3333 3.355 1.4333 1 0.3333 0.8333 OCONNOR II ROBERT R 3 1 0.3333 3.355 0.9667 1 0.3333 0.5667 CLEMENT CHRISTOPHE 3 1 0.3333 3.355 1.6 2 0.6667 1.8667 RUBLEY KELLY 2 1 0.5 5.033 15.3 1 0.5 5.65 CASTANON JOSE G 2 1 0.5 5.033 7 1 0.5 2.35 RYAN DEREK S 2 1 0.5 5.033 1.5 2 1 3.5 WEAVER GEORGE 2 1 0.5 5.033 3.75 1 0.5 2.05 BLAIR JORDAN 2 1 0.5 5.033 6.45 1 0.5 2.5 LOPEZ JOSE L 1 1 1 10.066 7.1 1 1 3.2 MOGGE WAYNE D 1 1 1 10.066 5.5 1 1 2.3 SMITHWICK JR D MICHA1 1 1 10.066 1.6 1 1 1.1 BOYCE MICHELE 1 1 1 10.066 5.8 1 1 3.4 DRURY JR THOMAS 1 1 1 10.066 4.4 1 1 2.5 LAWRENCE II JAMES L 1 1 1 10.066 9.5 1 1 3.5 BOERJAN EDWARD 1 1 1 10.066 51 1 1 20.2 HICKEY WILLIAM J 1 1 1 10.066 3.8 1 1 2.1 CARAMORI EDUARDO 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HUGHES BYRON G 8 0 0 0 0 1 0.125 0.175 SIMMS GARRY W 7 0 0 0 0 1 0.1429 0.3 HARTY EOIN G 7 0 0 0 0 3 0.4286 1.2143 LOPRESTI CHARLES 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VASHCHENKO PAVEL 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MURPHY CONOR 6 0 0 0 0 1 0.1667 0.5 MCKEEVER ANDREW 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STIDHAM MICHAEL 6 0 0 0 0 1 0.1667 0.45
37
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA MILLER DARRIN 6 DYER JOHN R 6 OLIVER PHILIP J 6 REED ERIC R 6 LAUER MICHAEL E 5 WHITING LYNN S 5 BRADLEY WILLIAM B 5 GLYSHAW TIM 5 MICHAEL BRIAN 5 HOWARD NEIL J 5 SIMS PHILIP A 5 BEALMEAR LAURA 5 JONES J LARRY 4 SANCAL MURAT 4 THORNBURY JEFFREY D 4 SCOTT JOAN 4 BYRNE PATRICK B 4 GLOSSON RANDLE L 4 HARTMAN CHRIS A 4 FOLEY GREGORY D 4 FREDERICK EDWARD HAR4 BROWN JR PAUL H 4 WERNER RONNY W 3 HOUSE GARY F 3 HENDRICKSON LORI 3 CHAPPELL MATTHEW G 3 GRANITZ ANTHONY J 3 MONTANO SR ANGEL O 3 MITCHELL SHERMAN S 3 SHORT RICKY J 3 ASCHINGER GERALD RUS3 BAEZ SERGIO 3 DEMERITTE LARRY W 3 MORSE RANDY L 3 KAELIN FORREST 3 CARROLL DAVID M 3 ACKERMAN D KELLY 3 VAN BERG JACK C 3 PEITZ DANIEL C 3 HUBLEY MARK 3 OBERT DANIELLE 3 WILLIAMSON BRIAN 3 HICKS WILLIAM R 3 ANDERSON DOUG L 3 ROGGENKAMP III EDWAR3 HERNANDEZ FAUSTINO 3 DOROCHENKO GENNADI 3 MODICA OSCAR 3 TOMLINSON MICHAEL A 2 VON HEMEL DONNIE K 2 WIGGINS LON 2 GUIDA LUKE 2 ORM MIKE 2 MCSORLEY JOE 2 DRAPER OTTO 2 CAMERON MICHAEL C 2 ISBELL JR RON 2 CHUDZIK KEITH 2 FAWKES DAVID 2 MATTINGLY JAMES E 2 DELACOUR ARNAUD 2 WOLFSON MARTIN D 2 SMITH CURVIN D 2 BENNETT WILLIAM DON 2 BOULMETIS TANYA 2 JACOBSON MATTHEW 2 ELLIOT JANET E 2 RITTER SHANNON 2 HILES RICK 2 WHITE BRIAN M 2 SHORTER AARON 2 DODGEN JAMES A 2 BAKER JAMES E 2 KOBISKIE DANE 2 REED ELISE 2 CONNELLY WILLIAM R 2 RENNEKAMP NICK J 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
38
1 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
0.1667 0.3333 0.1667 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0.25 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.3333 0.3333 0 0 0 0 0.6667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 0
0.3167 0.7 0.65 0 0.42 1.6 0 0 2.76 0.78 0 0 0 0 0.75 0 1.025 0 0 1.05 3.175 1 0.7667 1 0 0 0 0 7.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.75 0 0 1.25 0 1.25 0 2.15 0 0 0 0 1.75 0
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA ONEILL DOUG F 2 HAMMOND KIM 2 WOFFORD WILLIAM G 2 JACKSON HELMUT S 2 TROMBETTA MICHAEL J 2 ENGLER JEFF 2 HUNT DONALD F 2 ICE TIM A 2 DINI MICHAEL 2 DANNER MARK 2 MOQUETT RON 2 RANKIN TROY 2 LOVELAND DEL 2 FERNANDEZ JOSE 2 MCGEE PAUL J 2 HAMILTON JR ANTHONY 2 CAMPBELL DONALD H 2 CRUPPER ALLEN 2 ANTONUIK JERRY 2 SLOVIS STACEY 2 MCKINNEY F LEE 2 SPECKERT CHRISTOPHER2 DAY JAMES M 2 DODGEN JOE B 2 COOK DAVID K 2 SCHERER MERRILL R 2 LYSTER STEPHEN S 1 THORPE APRIL 1 BELL MICHAEL H 1 SEARS REBECCA 1 MURPHY BRIAN E 1 JONES CASSANDRA 1 BURTON ADAM T 1 SHERIDAN GERARD 1 BINGHAM WILLIAM B 1 GOTHARD AKIKO M 1 ROSSI LEE J 1 BUSH GEORGE S 1 ZOOK JEFF W 1 MARTINEZ RALPH 1 VAZQUEZ IVAN 1 STITES FLINT W 1 JARVIS KATHY 1 MILLS TOMMY RAY 1 ARMENTA RODOLFO 1 DENNIS RUSSELL 1 RUVALCABA JUAN 1 WARD DEAN 1 HOLT LARRY W 1 HILL BRENDA M 1 KASSEN DAVID C 1 CORONADO J GUADALUPE1 MASON INGRID 1 THOMAS JR PHILIP J 1 RALSTIN KENT 1 DEVEREUX JR PATRICK 1 SKINNER ALBERT T 1 HANCOCK JOHN A 1 BUDGE RICHARD 1 WHITTON MARK 1 BECK ROWENA 1 OMEARA JOHN 1 MINNOCK WAYNE G 1 HANNA CLARK 1 HESS JR ROBERT B 1 SHORT TOMMY C 1 TAYLOR ALVIN BRENT 1 HOFMANS GRANT 1 FIGGINS III OLLIE L 1 PESSIN NEIL L 1 HENNESSY JOSEPH 1 WEST AARON M 1 NORRIS BILLY J 1 BRUMLEY WILLIAM S 1 ROUCK MARTIN L 1 WISNER TRACEY J 1 DUVALL WILLIAM E 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
39
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1.05 0 0 0 0 0 0.85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 0 2.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA MORRISON MIKE J 1 STEVENS TORY C 1 MCCARTHY THOMAS R 1 CASSIDY JAMES M 1 COBB CAROL 1 DELONG BEN 1 METTEE RICHARD C 1 HAGER JIMMY 1 CAULIER-EIMBCKE BEAT1 LARUE BENJIE 1 DAVIS JOSEPH D 1 RICHARDS CORALE A 1 FLINT BERNARD S 1 PAULUS DAVID E 1 DUPUY PATRICK J 1 CROUCH KAREN 1 LAY LARRY 1 HINSLEY DAVID H 1 DUNN STEPHEN D 1 PFISTER WILLIAM G 1 MITCHELL GERALD K 1 CASTANEDA MARCO A 1 BAKER READE 1 DOMENOSKY TAMMY 1 RICHARD CHRIS 1 KORDENBROCK MATT 1 DENZIK JR WILLIAM J 1 GRAY GARY L 1 GREENWELL JERRY JOE 1 ABBOTT III FRANCIS 1 YOUNG LESLIE F 1 PUHICH MICHAEL 1 HELMBRECHT WILLIAM R1 DANNER DOUGLAS W 1 COHN ALICE G 1 COX KENNETH M 1 BATES LARRY 1 FERNANDEZ RAFAEL A 1 BROWN CHAD C 1 FOJAN EMILIE 1 DELHOMME JEFF 1 ELY JANICE L 1 RODRIGUEZ LEO 1 SHIFFLETT CHERYL 1 CALLAGHAN SIMON 1 BROOKFIELD GLENN L 1 KELLY BLAKE 1 WINEBAUGH CHERYL 1 ASHCRAFT DAVID 1 BINDNER JR WALTER M 1 ANDERSON ROGER J 1 BROWN CHERYL 1 DICKEY CHARLES L 1 ESTES MICHAEL R 1 JEANOTTE BOB 1 NOLAZCO MAGDALENO 1 SCHUH TIM 1 TURBERVILLE GAYLE 1 WOODARD JOE 1 MORRIS BRENDAN D 1 LANGEMEIER JOHN L 1 KLOPP RANDY L 1 THURMAN RHONDA 1 KANHAI JOSEPH 1 GARCIA AMALIO P 1 MCLAUGHLIN KIARAN P 1 RICHARDSON TIM 1 FORSTER GRANT T 1 MARCH WILLIAM E 1 MEDRANO MARCOS G 1 NETHERY LAUREN 1 MACKEY WAYNE L 1 RIVELLI LARRY 1 CALLOWAY R PAUL 1 PARKER F HILL 1 BURCHELL GREG 1 MATTHEWS DOUG 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.4 0 0 0 0 3
THE HORSEPLAYER M ONTHLY, B ROUGHT TO YOU B Y THE HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA MCBRIDE BURL D 1 NEMANN KRIS 1 TONER JAMES J 1 ROYAL MADELYN 1 GONZALEZ ALEJANDRO 1 PLETCHER TODD A 1 MCGAUGHEY III CLAUDE1 DIVITO JAMES P 1 GAVER III JOHN M 1 HAMMOND SCOTT P 1 YOUNG TRACEY 1 GOOD JOHN 1 NEWTON TROY 1 LOVELL MICHELLE 1 THOMAS GARY A 1 GUERRERO SAL 1 WOODBURY JUDY 1 TAPP JOHN WAYNE 1 BISCHOFF CLAY 1 DARJEAN PAUL 1 EGBERT JAMES 1 HOPF JERRY L 1 PARKER DONALD R 1 WIRTH KENNETH B 1 RUNAU BECKY 1 PINO MICHAEL V 1 HARRINGTON GLEN 1 GIRDLEY SR RICHARD K1 SPRINGER FRANK R 1 LAFOLLETTE AUTUMN D 1 COX JOHN E 1 VAUGHN TERRY 1 GIRDLEY BERNARD L 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 3.9 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.8 0 6.7
TURF - ANY DISTANCE - FIRST TIME STARTERS BY TRAINERS with at least 1 win sorted by wins... **************************************************************************************** BY TRAINER sorted by wins Run Date: 8/29/2016 4:49:32 PM **************************************************************************************** WIN WIN WIN PLACE PLACE UDM PLAYS WINS PCT IMPACT ROI PLACES PCT ROI **************************************************************************************** CATALANO WAYNE M 9 6 0.6667 10.3642 2.2778 6 0.6667 1.3778 CASSE MARK E 5 2 0.4 6.2182 2.34 2 0.4 1.22 MAKER MICHAEL J 12 1 0.0833 1.2949 0.1917 1 0.0833 0.1417 SHARP JOE 3 1 0.3333 5.1813 1.6 2 0.6667 1.7 DRURY JR THOMAS 1 1 1 15.5455 4.3 1 1 2.3
41