Knowing what you don't know
The bad thing about being a Breeders' Cup genius was that I didn't know I was one at the time.
Nothing in the field of journalism is harder than predicting something in black and white. And just what is the field of journalism? The field of journalism is where you write it down and punctuate it and get paid by somebody outside the family.
Verbal picks, you can laugh off like a bad weather forecast. Hey, come on, what are a few hundred thousand hail pellets among friends.
Bungled written picks can be haunting.
Most of you couldn't believe the condition in which incorrect predictions are sometimes returned to the author; some the rest of you have sent bad predictions back dressed with pearls of hindsight and outlined in skulls and crossbones. I once had a man write of a prediction that I had cost him a thousand dollars that he didn't have. I wrote him back saying the highest court had ruled that artists were not responsible for the inappropriate behavior of an audience, the specific case in question having to do with somebody who saw a movie about a homicidal maniac and thought that looked like a lot of fun. Even though all sports predictions are offered in the spirit of good fun and are for entertainment purposes mostly good picks are surprising, bad picks are funny nobody wants to play the dummy on a regular basis. After all, opinion without a degree of accuracy is nonsense.
Well, it turns out that getting lucky is as interesting as pushing up ATM receipts.
Over the Breeders' Cup weekend just concluded, I printed for all to inspect five winners of the 14 races, including one delightfully cold Super for a return of $600, as well as a couple of Exactas that were more surprising to me than they were to numerous readers. And in the meanwhile I have heard from horse players and analysts spanning several countries, most wishing to hear of my expertise and take it with them to the track so they could clean up as well.
When you pick a winner by an inch, it's about nine parts great luck to one part handicapping skill. But nobody wants to hear that. Horse players want to know that there's a way around chance. One man writing in from Chicago saw the 1-2-3-4 Super pick, in confident black and white, and said that it was important for him to find out where I got the winners.
That request is simple enough to fulfill.
Here is all I know.
All winners have value. The announced search for "value" is a cry for help. Pick the winner. If it's not going to pay enough, bet more. If you can't bet more, play an exotic. If the urge to play a high-priced loser is repeatedly irresistible, have your head examined. You usually get what you pay for. Play a dog while looking for value, and what you almost always get is beaten. High-priced horses that can win are another matter. That's not value. That's a reward.
Pay attention to pickers, TV handicappers and friends alike. Some people don't know what they're doing and provide a multitude of invaluable throw-outs. Pay attention to lousy handicapping styles as much as individual picks. There was a TV football handicapper on the other day who said that one team had covered 11 of the last 17 or so times it had been an underdog at home. Guess what: those players aren't playing anymore. Some might not even be still with us.
Track bias is a key handicapping element. Frequently, the smaller the track, the more pronounced the bias.
I can't play layoffs in races involving quality horses. Good races over a track mean something. There's nothing too wrong with a horse lugging in.
That, and living right, is about it.
Write to Jay at jaycronley@yahoo.com.
