STRATEGY CONCEPTS
The Saratoga Showdown is 100 times more difficult...and stressful.... than the downstate track versions. This is the first time we play this version-- or Saratoga itself for that matter; exception being 2yo races. We love baby races, and play them at all tracks possible.
But even though we live nearby, we tend to skip Saratoga-- because there are easier pickings elsewhere.
We think that for the most part, only extreme masochists enjoy Saratoga(maybe it's that we don't drink and gamble...LOL):
overnight fields overflowing with 16 entries, each / all razor fit & competitive(in spite of clouded recent form for some), uncertain / extreme / sudden weather swings, etc.
Followed by a next morning paring down of fields some by 1/3-1/2, change of surface, uncertain bias, etc.-- then a mad rush handicap of the card in 1½ hours.
Now contrast downstate: dry weather for the most part-- along with fairly stabilized bias-- accompany a handful of small fields that can be handicapped the day before. The few scratches the next day do not significantly alter the previous night's handiccapping for the most part. And most races have some overwhelmed, tired, etc. automatic crossouts,
At Saratoga, even small 5-6 horse fields tend to be very difficult to decipher -- usually they are so competitive, that anyone picked is close to a 50-50 shot to make or hit the board. Add to this uncertain weather, bias, etc. and you get the picture.
Next time we play Saratoga we will need quite a few entries more. Utilizing the binary system(2/4/8/16/and so on) we will decide between 32/64/128. That first number is a bare minimum, the last one will require that the contest return to its glory days of prize pools 2-3 times the present one.
Saratoga Showdown selecting often requires a lot balancing / hedging / covering different angles re prospective bias when the weather is unsettled(running styles / post positions); as well as balancing out play on non-favorites & the most popular selections that day. On one hand, one aims to NOT be on the most selected daily horses-- this is the way to survive when
large numbers are getting eliminated...BUT on the other hand, horses tend to win in larger percentages proportionate to their favoritism, so while playing non heavily favored horses makes a lot of sense:
a. one can quickly get eliminated-- to boot while most are getting a free pass-- by avoiding favorites and they don't cooperate by finishing up the track.
b. one can get away with such a strategy for a while-- but not for a prolonged period, much less the duration.
And so @ Saratoga one needs enough entries to be able to ride more on the main /strong picks & less on the ones that hedge / cover. When one is down to a few entries, one ends up dividing into equal(or very close to equal) size bets the entries-- which actually accelerates entry burn / loss rate: too high a % of entries ride on 'individually' dicier and/or riskier picks; even though 'collectively' those lower win percentage picks afford protection to the entire day's package of picks.
NOW, @ the downstate tracks the situation is not as difficult-- one can go quite a few days in a row, easily finding in each multiple strong picks-- safe & strong enough to carry all or half the total entries each. In fact, often one is conflicted over which 'lock of the day' to utilize. Therefore, one does need as many entries as @ Saratoga.
We are revising a bit our strategic advice "for when at Saratoga":
when starting with a low amount of entries-- let's utilize our present example of 8-- do not separate them, use them as if only one entry for the entire first week at least.
Here's why, using our present case as an example:
We performed just about as well as one can expect the first 4 days-- going 14-2... with the two losses attributed to trouble at the break. Still, our 8 entries had gradually become 5. Yesterday comes & we use two horses-- what happens? Another loss at the break for one of them. Down to three entries(despite a 15-3 record) & a forecast of rain 'after the start of racing' today.
Today we come up with two choices-- the stronger one in a large turf field though. Not wanting to ride two entries in a large field or on the weaker of the two, we force a third pick in a 5 horse field... which just fades out of the money. The turfer falls ½ length short, our lesser choice makes it. Had we skipped that short field, the end result would be identical:
1 single entry alive out of 8...overall record: 16-5
A strategy makeover is in order:
A-- With low number of entries, bet all on one single horse every day for at least the entire first week. In our case, so what if we'd lost along the way? What's the big difference between 0 & 1 entry left? Maybe today we could've made a one time exception, had we still had all 8 entries: 4 each on our main two picks.
B-- Henceforth @ Saratoga we will purchase minimum 32, but more likely 64 or more entries depending on prize pool size, esp. if subsequent Saratoga prize pool sizes return to their former glory days.
At those entry amount levels, today for example, we would have significantly higher percentage surviving ones than our current one eighth(same for most each of the preceding days).
FIRST WEEK SUMMARY
8/9 of all original entries have been eliminated-- that includes both those eliminated during contest play AND bounced bank transactions. Speaking of, there've been over 6 dozen returned transactions-- even worse, maybe 2/3 have been on 'already-eliminated entries'. 3,684 entries began the contest, we are now down to 3,611 official paid entries. BTW we may still see yet more returns when the contest resumes later in the week.
And still more rain is called for-- almost throughout the entire week commencing this coming Wednesday. But then again, it could always fizzle out, as occurred the past two days.
At the present elimination rate, the contest will / would end in 2 more weeks, give or take a day or two. So, this time next week our wrap up could state that the contest is down to the last surviving 50... another week later-- a remaining handful.
As a practical matter re the time we've personally put in-- while not being ungrateful-- we'd be very disappointed in not cashing in the top two. Yes, we could always find some kind of use for say, the next handful of placing prize monies... "as long as the contest didn't drag on for the whole meet". But the bottom third would make us question why even participate in the first place.
In other words, while wanting to advance our solitary remaining entry during the next 2-3 weeks: if the Great Carsoni appeared right now before us to inform that yes, we'll eventually cash in--but not above 8th place-- we would discontinue immediately. Previous Showdown pools have been double-triple this edition's size-- making even 10th place somewhat palatable. CORRECTION-- pool was distributed differently...here's a % comparison:
Rk#- Old -- New
1st-- 60% - 402nd- 15% - 20
3rd- 8% - 10
4th- 5% -- 8
5th- 4% -- 6½
6th- 3% -- 5
7th- 2% -- 4
8th- 1% -- 3
9th- 1% -- 2
10th- 1% -- 1½
Below first place, lower payoff %'s-- of the previous system-- were often made up for by the larger $$ pool sizes.
Although the bottom 4 placings were also disdainful-- esp. when a pool was not particularly well-subscribed -- still though, they compared in relatively favorable fashion with 1st place money of similar competing contests: 2½K for the various CDSN Eliminators, as well as the 5K of Hawthorne / Sportsman's Chi-Town Challenges...and NYRA's original version.
We used to enjoy those other contests as well-- often they'd be over fairly quickly; and even CDSN versions-- in spite of the lower prize-- were ok: several CDSN tracks ran simultaneously(and when one meet ended, another one would take its place), affording one multiple chances at seemingly all times of the year.
NYRA Showdown $$ declines can not be solely blamed on themselves-- our disgusting politicos contributed greatly. Blame Spitzer's prolonged attack while DA, which resulted in not only budget difficulties but a new phase of Albany draconian micromanagement.
But blame not only Spitzer-- his predecessor Pataki was the most incompetently arrogant political hack we've seen in a long time-- one example: he had appointed Bernadette Castro(of Castro Convertibles empire fame-- but don't go thinking she had been an able founder or president-- she just inherited) New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Commissioner(payback for campaign favor$$$) then later attempted to pad the State Racing & Wagering Board w/ lackeys. He proceeded to fire the Chairman, then tried to fill his empty seat with Castro. She went before the state Senate for confirmation, and submitted her supposed qualifications-- among them: that she had built a horse path in Central Park!
You can't make stuff up like this folks-- ok, maybe this could happen in some resource-challenged out of the way boondocks...but in the capital of the world?!!?!
And the depressing sundry list goes on-- the state Congress is just so crooked, partisan, and worst of all-- inept & gridlocked beyond imagination.
We feel very, very strongly that NY City should secede from NY State.
No, Virginia-- we wouldn't even stick around to say, just automatically / quickly select the DRF or NYPost consensus choice-- for if that strategy didn't get us eliminated, it would also mean that it wouldn't eliminate most others :: the contest would outlast the meet & go to tiebreakers-- which likely wouldn't get us anywhere near the top 10. Very rarely does a contest outlast a meet though-- such a strategy would probably not allow us to survive the week-- it's why almost 90% are eliminated already.
Updated Prize Pool--$36,110:
1st- $14,444
2nd- 7,222
3rd- 3,611
4th- 2,888
5th- 2,347.15
6th- 1,805.50
7th- 1,444
8th- 1,083.30
9th- 722.20
10th- 541.65
CONTEST ENTRIES
Contest: 434 remain...of original 3,684...3,250 have bit the dust.
Personal: 1 of original 8 survives.
PLAN OF ACTION FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE CONTEST
Contest should get down to the last 10 entries by middle to end of next week.
So, we will take this one week at a time. We will first concentrate on trying to make it thru this entire week. Once we accomplish this first step, we will like our chances very, very much.
It may seem like we don't have much of a chance, but we have supreme confidence in being able to cash in-- we've won this type of contest before--the more difficult one entry allowed only kind, to boot. One steady step at a time makes it up the mountain-- just staring at the top while at or near the bottom does not help anything.
However, being realistic, we also need to hope that during the week's six races our choice ALWAYS break alertly from the gate, in a straight line, AND no one else bumps it. Of course, we do want good racing luck during the subsequent running of each race-- but that can sometimes be avoided and/or compensated for. The toughest thing to overcome is a bad start on an oval that is not kind to deep closers-- as well for a speedster, such a start is often an automatic kiss of death. We will pay extra attention / try to avoid as much as feasible such a possible misfortune(or at least have some semblance of a chance of recovering from such a misfortune) by looking at two things:
1. ensuring others on either side of our selection habitually break well(at least seemingly so).
2. some of the lesser intricacies re post position:
a. has a horse drawn on the rail previously demonstrated no issues with such a draw?
b. maybe avoiding the most inside drawn frontrunner if several project to contest early pace... or at least ensuring such a beast does not show slow starts and is usually one of the first couple of breakers(in the pp's)-- a slow start may get it shut off & blocked from getting to the front. At least when drawn outside, such a misfortune has "some" chance for recovery.
In some ways, being down to only one entry might make things easier-- with multiple entries one is not always predisposed to ride them all on the one best daily choice, no matter how strong.
We will add one extra tool to our arsenal-- neural handicapping. We habitually handicap in a classic all-encompassing nature, incorporating all disciplines possible: adjusted figures, advanced pace, class, form(particularly so), individual paceline selection(particularly so as well), statistics, connections, bias, etc.
What we do stay away from is all manner of black box & neural software:
we make our choices-- live and die with them, eat from their profits, take full responsibility for them-- ergo we disdain 'liberal handicapping" LOL.
That being said, we are not above adding tools to maybe help eliminate or fixate on one or two entries in a large field, help break ties in contested affairs, etc....and Saratoga does have plenty of large fields and contested affairs.
One of our programs has a decision module-- which does ok as far as those types of things go-- but which we've just noticed is particularly effective when we manually select individual pacelines. Of course, it's a lot more work / defeats the automation purpose... but it works.
We will proceed as usual initially, endeavoring to find a very solid choice with our comprehensive analysis. If we don't find something too tempting, or conversely-- when/if we find multiple strong choices, then our selection module will aid us in a final decision.
Let's hope that Belmont's version is more subscribed. And actually even--that a Fall Belmont edition is held, instead of a break / wait until Aqueduct.
No comments:
Post a Comment