Been having trouble writing posts.
Seems like even when I have ideas I want to write about I have trouble putting it down into words. So to help facilitate my writing bit by bit, I'll probably start posting some basketball and football picks beginning tomorrow.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Boston Market comes through in the clutch
With the CFA exam coming up in less than 10 days and me not having even gone through all my lecture DVDs, I decided it was best for me to stay home and try to study for Thanksgiving. So after I refused my generous friends' offer to join them for two Thanksgiving dinners up in Boston, I was left with no plans for today.
So at about noontime I went over to the Boston Market just 4 blocks away from me and ordered a family Thanksgiving meal to get me through the day. I usually don't go to Boston Market because the rotisserie chickens at the nearby Peruvian place are both cheaper and better. But I figured Boston Market was my best shot for turkey on Thanksgiving. For $28 plus tax, I got a pound and a half of turkey breast, 3 large sides, and cornbread. I think the turkey breast was poached as it was so juicy and tender. I wouldn't imagine that possible with roasted or rotisserie turkey no matter what brine was used. For my 3 sides I got mashed potatoes, stuffing, and corn. The stuffing was very nice and simple, with aromatics and the celery left crunchy for texture.
The only things that I minded were the wait in line (there were 30 people in front of me and by the time I was halfway up the line there was another 20 people behind me), the fact that I had to pay extra for gravy (gravy didn't come with the meal), and that no utensils were provided. But besides those minor inconveniences, I ended up with a great turkey day after all food-wise, though there will be no leftovers for the day after. Happy Thanksgiving to all!!
So at about noontime I went over to the Boston Market just 4 blocks away from me and ordered a family Thanksgiving meal to get me through the day. I usually don't go to Boston Market because the rotisserie chickens at the nearby Peruvian place are both cheaper and better. But I figured Boston Market was my best shot for turkey on Thanksgiving. For $28 plus tax, I got a pound and a half of turkey breast, 3 large sides, and cornbread. I think the turkey breast was poached as it was so juicy and tender. I wouldn't imagine that possible with roasted or rotisserie turkey no matter what brine was used. For my 3 sides I got mashed potatoes, stuffing, and corn. The stuffing was very nice and simple, with aromatics and the celery left crunchy for texture.
The only things that I minded were the wait in line (there were 30 people in front of me and by the time I was halfway up the line there was another 20 people behind me), the fact that I had to pay extra for gravy (gravy didn't come with the meal), and that no utensils were provided. But besides those minor inconveniences, I ended up with a great turkey day after all food-wise, though there will be no leftovers for the day after. Happy Thanksgiving to all!!
New England Patriots and the Elite
I absolutely HATE the fact that there are still so many people hating on the New England Patriots for "running up the score" and having "poor sportsmanship". I have many non-PC views on things like this and I don't feel the need to rant about those here. But there are three quick points I want to make.
1. The New England Patriots really is the elite team in the NFL right now and by definition, being the best means that there is separation between the team and the average person. I think that is why there are many people who don't understand and appreciate what the Patriots are doing. I've read too many stories and forum posts about how the Patriots' blowouts are not enjoyable to watch. If you are a real fan of the game, then the Patriots' near perfect execution should be fun to watch. I love a good underdog story as much as anyone, but what I really hate is mediocrity. If a game is a blowout because one team is awful, I agree that's horrible to watch. But two mediocre teams playing a close game isn't entertaining to watch either. That means people just watch for the results and have no understanding or appreciation of the game.
2. Why do people think that the Patriots are showing poor sportsmanship? They are playing hard all the way through and that to me is real sportsmanship. Poor sportsmanship is when a team stops playing hard because they are out of the game. I watch Iron Chef every now and then and I see challengers who are just completely outclassed. The judges aren't particularly fond of their food while raving about the Iron Chef's food. Does that mean the Iron Chef should hold back so as not to run up the score? Of course not. They are searching for perfection every meal they make.
3. Which brings me to my last point. It seems to me that the number of people who are jealous of real talent and perfection way outnumber the people who admire that talent. In a world where too many people struggle to achieve mediocrity, a person who's trying to achieve perfection becomes the odd man out. One of the TV shows that I watch, Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares, illustrates this point exactly. I have been lucky enough to play with and against world class bridge players, poker players, and traders. Instead of whining about how badly they beat me, I watch in awe at the level of execution that they have reached in their respective disciplines.
"I respect hard work. I admire talent." -me
1. The New England Patriots really is the elite team in the NFL right now and by definition, being the best means that there is separation between the team and the average person. I think that is why there are many people who don't understand and appreciate what the Patriots are doing. I've read too many stories and forum posts about how the Patriots' blowouts are not enjoyable to watch. If you are a real fan of the game, then the Patriots' near perfect execution should be fun to watch. I love a good underdog story as much as anyone, but what I really hate is mediocrity. If a game is a blowout because one team is awful, I agree that's horrible to watch. But two mediocre teams playing a close game isn't entertaining to watch either. That means people just watch for the results and have no understanding or appreciation of the game.
2. Why do people think that the Patriots are showing poor sportsmanship? They are playing hard all the way through and that to me is real sportsmanship. Poor sportsmanship is when a team stops playing hard because they are out of the game. I watch Iron Chef every now and then and I see challengers who are just completely outclassed. The judges aren't particularly fond of their food while raving about the Iron Chef's food. Does that mean the Iron Chef should hold back so as not to run up the score? Of course not. They are searching for perfection every meal they make.
3. Which brings me to my last point. It seems to me that the number of people who are jealous of real talent and perfection way outnumber the people who admire that talent. In a world where too many people struggle to achieve mediocrity, a person who's trying to achieve perfection becomes the odd man out. One of the TV shows that I watch, Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares, illustrates this point exactly. I have been lucky enough to play with and against world class bridge players, poker players, and traders. Instead of whining about how badly they beat me, I watch in awe at the level of execution that they have reached in their respective disciplines.
"I respect hard work. I admire talent." -me
Sunday, November 11, 2007
RDT (Random Daily Thought)
Why does it seem to me that "ditzy" only applies to cute girls?
People will say things like "Jessica Simpson is ditzy" or "that ditzy blonde" (implies a cute blonde?) while I never hear anyone say "ditzy fat chick". It's usually "that dumb fat chick".
Ditzy actually has a dictionary meaning of being flighty or absentminded, not just plain stupid. Yet it seems to me people only use it when they want to talk about how dumb a girl is (I certainly never hear it used to describe a guy) without being "insulting" or "offensive".
Is there something I'm missing? Are there other adjectives that we now use in the same way?
People will say things like "Jessica Simpson is ditzy" or "that ditzy blonde" (implies a cute blonde?) while I never hear anyone say "ditzy fat chick". It's usually "that dumb fat chick".
Ditzy actually has a dictionary meaning of being flighty or absentminded, not just plain stupid. Yet it seems to me people only use it when they want to talk about how dumb a girl is (I certainly never hear it used to describe a guy) without being "insulting" or "offensive".
Is there something I'm missing? Are there other adjectives that we now use in the same way?
I'm back
Haven't posted in a while because I've been really busy.
For some reason I decided to apply for the CFA level 1 and after having slacked off for a couple months, I have less than 3 weeks to try to pass this thing. Wish me luck.
In addition to studying for this, I also began trading again, this time with my own capital contribution. The market is still very volatile and I don't think I'd seen Nasdaq down 100 intraday before. I'd barely gotten back into it a few days when I started feeling the rush again. The last 3 days (not including Friday) I traded all day from 940am to 7pm, which I haven't done in a long time. Usually I don't leave my seat at all when I'm this addicted to trading, so I don't eat and don't go to the gym. I pretty much just sit there.
Now that I'm back trading again, I might write some posts regarding trading or the market.
For some reason I decided to apply for the CFA level 1 and after having slacked off for a couple months, I have less than 3 weeks to try to pass this thing. Wish me luck.
In addition to studying for this, I also began trading again, this time with my own capital contribution. The market is still very volatile and I don't think I'd seen Nasdaq down 100 intraday before. I'd barely gotten back into it a few days when I started feeling the rush again. The last 3 days (not including Friday) I traded all day from 940am to 7pm, which I haven't done in a long time. Usually I don't leave my seat at all when I'm this addicted to trading, so I don't eat and don't go to the gym. I pretty much just sit there.
Now that I'm back trading again, I might write some posts regarding trading or the market.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Week of Indulgence
This has been a hard week for me and so I've kinda fallen off the diet and allowed myself to indulge a little to keep my spirits up. Here are a few of my favorite indulgences.
Donovan's Pub in Woodside
Traditional Irish pub in the largely Irish neighborhood of Woodside where they know how to pour Guiness and serve up the most consistently great burger I've had in NYC. Located three blocks from the Woodside stop on the 7 train, it also happens to be across the street from my doctor's, so I always indulge in a burger right after I get any bloodwork done. A meaty, juicy half-pound burger with sauteed onions (ask for fried onions on your burger) done perfectly medium rare with nice crisp fries and a pint of Guiness cost $15 including tax and tip. In the bar area, they offer Monday Night Football specials of half-priced burgers, 20 cent buffalo wings, and $3-4 bud and stella draughts.
Becco (http://www.becconyc.com/)
What I consider to be the best bargain in Manhattan in terms of food and value. Their specialty is a $21 pasta trio where they serve to you at your table unlimited refills of 3 pastas that change daily. It also comes with your choice of a caesar salad or an antipasto which has a great assortment of vegetables and fish. Usually of the 3 pastas, one of them will be in a traditional tomato and basil sauce and another will be made using wheat pasta. When I went last week, they had mushroom ravioli in a truffle butter and sage sauce, penne in a tomato and basil sauce, and wheat fettucine bolognese, where you can find actual shredded pieces of veal, not just random ground veal. Besides the pasta trio, other great values on the menu include the dessert sampler for $6 per person and their back page wine list where every bottle of wine (there's about 40+ on there) is $25 each.
The atmosphere is nice and quiet upstairs, while the downstairs eating and bar areas tend to be hustling and bustling most of the time. For larger parties you'll likely need a reservation, but it's easier after 8pm when the pre-theater crowd is off to their shows.
Houston's (http://www.hillstone.com/)
This one doesn't come off as much for good value when you have a $16 sandwich for lunch. However, the sandwich is huge and pretty much perfect. Houston's, which is a national chain, provides a really nice classy business lunch atmosphere with perfect lighting, comfortable booths and sofas, and great food. On the menu there's a specific note about no cell phones in the dining room.
If I'm there alone, I will either get the fish sandwich (perfectly seasoned fillet with fresh lettuce, onion, tomato, and pickles on a very robust sesame seed bun) or the prime rib french dip sandwich (prime rib with jus on the side). The sandwiches come with nice, really thin shoestring fries and I think their ketchup is homemade. When I'm with company I always make sure to get the spinach dip as well.
Donovan's Pub in Woodside
Traditional Irish pub in the largely Irish neighborhood of Woodside where they know how to pour Guiness and serve up the most consistently great burger I've had in NYC. Located three blocks from the Woodside stop on the 7 train, it also happens to be across the street from my doctor's, so I always indulge in a burger right after I get any bloodwork done. A meaty, juicy half-pound burger with sauteed onions (ask for fried onions on your burger) done perfectly medium rare with nice crisp fries and a pint of Guiness cost $15 including tax and tip. In the bar area, they offer Monday Night Football specials of half-priced burgers, 20 cent buffalo wings, and $3-4 bud and stella draughts.
Becco (http://www.becconyc.com/)
What I consider to be the best bargain in Manhattan in terms of food and value. Their specialty is a $21 pasta trio where they serve to you at your table unlimited refills of 3 pastas that change daily. It also comes with your choice of a caesar salad or an antipasto which has a great assortment of vegetables and fish. Usually of the 3 pastas, one of them will be in a traditional tomato and basil sauce and another will be made using wheat pasta. When I went last week, they had mushroom ravioli in a truffle butter and sage sauce, penne in a tomato and basil sauce, and wheat fettucine bolognese, where you can find actual shredded pieces of veal, not just random ground veal. Besides the pasta trio, other great values on the menu include the dessert sampler for $6 per person and their back page wine list where every bottle of wine (there's about 40+ on there) is $25 each.
The atmosphere is nice and quiet upstairs, while the downstairs eating and bar areas tend to be hustling and bustling most of the time. For larger parties you'll likely need a reservation, but it's easier after 8pm when the pre-theater crowd is off to their shows.
Houston's (http://www.hillstone.com/)
This one doesn't come off as much for good value when you have a $16 sandwich for lunch. However, the sandwich is huge and pretty much perfect. Houston's, which is a national chain, provides a really nice classy business lunch atmosphere with perfect lighting, comfortable booths and sofas, and great food. On the menu there's a specific note about no cell phones in the dining room.
If I'm there alone, I will either get the fish sandwich (perfectly seasoned fillet with fresh lettuce, onion, tomato, and pickles on a very robust sesame seed bun) or the prime rib french dip sandwich (prime rib with jus on the side). The sandwiches come with nice, really thin shoestring fries and I think their ketchup is homemade. When I'm with company I always make sure to get the spinach dip as well.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Mediocrity by association (American Football)
I get it that the AFC is much stronger than the NFC. And by this I understand it to mean that the best teams in the AFC are stronger than the best teams in the NFC. But why is it that people tend to feel that mediocre teams in the AFC won't be mediocre in the NFC? Denver was favored by a field goal at home against Green Bay on Monday night, which essentially means that the two teams were viewed as being equal on a neutral site. Is a mediocre AFC team really equivalent to a good NFC team? I don't think so and the results certainly seemed like they played pretty even in Denver (which should mean Green Bay's better, since Denver most definitely has a home field advantage).
Another situation where people assume mediocrity by association is when a team just barely beats or even loses to a clearly inferior team. For that one game, the head coach may have gone with a conservative game plan to guarantee his victory, and end up winning by only a field goal instead of covering the spread. This, however, should not be an indicator of how good the team is. I remember at the beginning of last season when Denver lost their first game at St. Louis and then barely squeaked past a poor Kansas City team in OT at home. People wrote off Denver but they ended up beating both the Patriots and the Ravens in the next few weeks. The reason for the loss in St. Louis was 5 turnovers while in the Kansas City game, Shanahan just went very conservative, thinking his team was the better team and trying not to do anything stupid.
Along this line of reasoning, one must be able to look past certain games where a favored team ended up losing because of turnovers or special teams touchdowns. We can never predict when or how many turnovers will occur in a game, and sometimes it's just bad breaks. Even though a good special teams unit will typically net good starting field position and provide a predictable advantage, we're never sure when someone might break a return for a touchdown. An example of where we can take advantage of this kind of association of mediocrity was in the Pittsburgh at Cincinnati line this past weekend. Pittsburgh was favored by 3.5 the same as the line for their game in Denver from a week before. But with a bad game plan and some costly turnovers, Pittsburgh lost that game in Denver while the Bengals finally managed to score some points against a bad Jets defense. Did people really feel the Bengals were equivalent to the Broncos or did the line also reflect people's incorrect downgrade of Pittsburgh because of that loss?
The point here is that the next time you say "I don't like team X because they barely beat that awful team Y last week", you might want to rethink it. And just because a team beats 3 bad teams and loses to 3 super teams doesn't mean it's better than any other 3-3 team because of how super the teams were that they faced.
Another situation where people assume mediocrity by association is when a team just barely beats or even loses to a clearly inferior team. For that one game, the head coach may have gone with a conservative game plan to guarantee his victory, and end up winning by only a field goal instead of covering the spread. This, however, should not be an indicator of how good the team is. I remember at the beginning of last season when Denver lost their first game at St. Louis and then barely squeaked past a poor Kansas City team in OT at home. People wrote off Denver but they ended up beating both the Patriots and the Ravens in the next few weeks. The reason for the loss in St. Louis was 5 turnovers while in the Kansas City game, Shanahan just went very conservative, thinking his team was the better team and trying not to do anything stupid.
Along this line of reasoning, one must be able to look past certain games where a favored team ended up losing because of turnovers or special teams touchdowns. We can never predict when or how many turnovers will occur in a game, and sometimes it's just bad breaks. Even though a good special teams unit will typically net good starting field position and provide a predictable advantage, we're never sure when someone might break a return for a touchdown. An example of where we can take advantage of this kind of association of mediocrity was in the Pittsburgh at Cincinnati line this past weekend. Pittsburgh was favored by 3.5 the same as the line for their game in Denver from a week before. But with a bad game plan and some costly turnovers, Pittsburgh lost that game in Denver while the Bengals finally managed to score some points against a bad Jets defense. Did people really feel the Bengals were equivalent to the Broncos or did the line also reflect people's incorrect downgrade of Pittsburgh because of that loss?
The point here is that the next time you say "I don't like team X because they barely beat that awful team Y last week", you might want to rethink it. And just because a team beats 3 bad teams and loses to 3 super teams doesn't mean it's better than any other 3-3 team because of how super the teams were that they faced.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Dominance and craziness
After starting the weekend so miserably, came back with 5 straight picks coming in to break even for the week. It was a hard day not to make money in the NFL, with most of the favorites coming in and almost all the teases coming in as well. I guess the only way you could mess it up is if you took the Giants against the spread. The Giants are too undisciplined to take with a big spread. This is a team where the head coach gave up being a strict disciplinarian so that the team could win. Crazy.
Also crazy was the line for the New Mexico State at Hawaii college football game late Saturday night. The over/under was 80.
80!!! Never seen that before. Even the 70's tend to be rare.
In addition to being a weekend of craziness, it's also been a weekend of dominance. With the Pats completely manhandling the first really physical defense they've played against this season and the Colts recovering from their slow start, next week's matchup of Goliath vs. Goliath should live up to its billing.
And let's not forget the dominance the Red Sox showed by sweeping the Rockies. The Rockies just couldn't string together hits while the Red Sox scored a lot of 2-out runs. It's a good time to be a sports fan in Boston right now.
Also crazy was the line for the New Mexico State at Hawaii college football game late Saturday night. The over/under was 80.
80!!! Never seen that before. Even the 70's tend to be rare.
In addition to being a weekend of craziness, it's also been a weekend of dominance. With the Pats completely manhandling the first really physical defense they've played against this season and the Colts recovering from their slow start, next week's matchup of Goliath vs. Goliath should live up to its billing.
And let's not forget the dominance the Red Sox showed by sweeping the Rockies. The Rockies just couldn't string together hits while the Red Sox scored a lot of 2-out runs. It's a good time to be a sports fan in Boston right now.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Losing the battle, winning the war
Why does this concept seem to be so hard to grasp in the world of sports?
I think it has to do with a combination of ego and the fact that most experts in sports are too engrossed in the sport itself and have no idea about general game theory and strategies. It seems to me this shortsightedness is most prevalent in baseball (taking one game at a time, not really thinking about the series as a whole). It is the only major US sport decided by a series of contests where major matchup differences come up in every game (the starting pitcher changes every game).
Why must aces go against aces? For example, take this year's world series. Jeff Francis is clearly the ace of the Rockies's staff, but the top three pitchers (Francis, Jimenez, and Fogg) for Colorado are not that far apart. On the other hand, Josh Beckett is by far the man on that Red Sox staff. So why not semi-concede game one at Fenway by pitching Fogg against Beckett, pitch Jimenez against Schilling (the best chance to steal an early game at Fenway), then make sure your ace is there in Game 3 in front of the home crowd to change the momentum of the series? This way, you'll still have your ace pitching again in game 6 at Fenway where you'll need him, but not going up against the unhittable Beckett.
The reason noone does this is because it is against conventional beliefs to "concede" a game and there are also ego issues at stake. Another example where baseball managers do not concede a game that drives me nuts is when they use perfectly good relievers in games where they're down 8+ runs. Sure you don't want to give up the chance of coming back by putting in someone who's more likely to give up more runs, but why waste a possible shut-down reliever to salvage an 8 run deficit? To me, when you have Tim Wakefield, you throw him into those games because he can give you many innings, come back on short rest and do it again, and you don't have to waste your other relievers where you need them to come in and shut down one or two batters later in the series.
The lack of proper game strategy and game management also shows up a lot in american football. I remember a few years back when Belicheck's NE Patriots took an intentional safety deep in their own territory down by 1 with little time left. Of course that was clearly the only thing to do, and even though the commentators kept saying how ingenious that move was on Belicheck's part, it wasn't that hard to come up with. But you know what? My guess is more than half the head coaches in the NFL wouldn't know to make that call. Look at Herm Edwards' clock management. Look at Wade Philips a few weeks ago going for a field goal with 8 minutes left down by 14 and his defense not coming close to stopping the Patriots.
I'm not saying all these head coaches/managers are dumb, but clearly their expertise is very specific to the sport and not with game theory. So why can't teams hire a game theorist/strategist consultant to help? One of my favorite writers (Bill Simmons aka The Sports Guy on ESPN) constantly talks about how teams need to hire a VP of common sense because most of the higher-up people in sports don't have common sense. And after all, game theory, like most economic subjects, is just about logic and common sense.
Now, I'm glad that the only real team I root for any more is the Patriots, so I don't have to worry about this happening with Belicheck at the helm. But considering how many of these horrible game managers I have monetary interests with, it's enough to drive a guy to rant on his blog.
I think it has to do with a combination of ego and the fact that most experts in sports are too engrossed in the sport itself and have no idea about general game theory and strategies. It seems to me this shortsightedness is most prevalent in baseball (taking one game at a time, not really thinking about the series as a whole). It is the only major US sport decided by a series of contests where major matchup differences come up in every game (the starting pitcher changes every game).
Why must aces go against aces? For example, take this year's world series. Jeff Francis is clearly the ace of the Rockies's staff, but the top three pitchers (Francis, Jimenez, and Fogg) for Colorado are not that far apart. On the other hand, Josh Beckett is by far the man on that Red Sox staff. So why not semi-concede game one at Fenway by pitching Fogg against Beckett, pitch Jimenez against Schilling (the best chance to steal an early game at Fenway), then make sure your ace is there in Game 3 in front of the home crowd to change the momentum of the series? This way, you'll still have your ace pitching again in game 6 at Fenway where you'll need him, but not going up against the unhittable Beckett.
The reason noone does this is because it is against conventional beliefs to "concede" a game and there are also ego issues at stake. Another example where baseball managers do not concede a game that drives me nuts is when they use perfectly good relievers in games where they're down 8+ runs. Sure you don't want to give up the chance of coming back by putting in someone who's more likely to give up more runs, but why waste a possible shut-down reliever to salvage an 8 run deficit? To me, when you have Tim Wakefield, you throw him into those games because he can give you many innings, come back on short rest and do it again, and you don't have to waste your other relievers where you need them to come in and shut down one or two batters later in the series.
The lack of proper game strategy and game management also shows up a lot in american football. I remember a few years back when Belicheck's NE Patriots took an intentional safety deep in their own territory down by 1 with little time left. Of course that was clearly the only thing to do, and even though the commentators kept saying how ingenious that move was on Belicheck's part, it wasn't that hard to come up with. But you know what? My guess is more than half the head coaches in the NFL wouldn't know to make that call. Look at Herm Edwards' clock management. Look at Wade Philips a few weeks ago going for a field goal with 8 minutes left down by 14 and his defense not coming close to stopping the Patriots.
I'm not saying all these head coaches/managers are dumb, but clearly their expertise is very specific to the sport and not with game theory. So why can't teams hire a game theorist/strategist consultant to help? One of my favorite writers (Bill Simmons aka The Sports Guy on ESPN) constantly talks about how teams need to hire a VP of common sense because most of the higher-up people in sports don't have common sense. And after all, game theory, like most economic subjects, is just about logic and common sense.
Now, I'm glad that the only real team I root for any more is the Patriots, so I don't have to worry about this happening with Belicheck at the helm. But considering how many of these horrible game managers I have monetary interests with, it's enough to drive a guy to rant on his blog.
Betting slump
Lost my first 6 picks of the week, giving back everything that I had won the previous two weeks, before finally hitting one. Tough stretch and hopefully tomorrow will be better.
Although I only watched two of the Breeders' Cup races live, here are a few of my comments:
1. About an hour before post time, I decided not to place a wager on Dylan Thomas. With the odds down to 4-5, the soggy ground which he doesn't like, and all the other normal negatives for an Arc winner, I decided it was just not a value bet. Good thing.
2. English Channel got the best seat in the race, seemed to like the give in the ground, and had a good record on that track. Is he really that many lengths better than those horses? Of course not.
3. Another horse with a great trip was Curlin in the BC Classic. If you had told me beforehand that they would go at that clip early AND Diamond Stripes would press onto the lead as well and box Lawyer Ron, I would have been all over Curlin. I seriously predicted Curlin to win as soon as the first quarter mile was run. Which brings me to this question. Why can't we have real time interactive betting in the middle of a horserace (or any race for that matter)? That would be so awesome to be able to make bets as you see how the horses are racing.
4. Poor George Washington. A four time G1 winner who had originally retired to stud, came back to racing because of fertility issues. Then he gets thrown into a mildly unsuitable BC Classic race because his trainer clearly favored two other horses in the other two perhaps more suitable races (Excellent Art in the Mile and Dylan Thomas in the Turf). To top it all off, he gets hurt and has to be euthanized. What would be the human equivalent for everything he went through?
Although I only watched two of the Breeders' Cup races live, here are a few of my comments:
1. About an hour before post time, I decided not to place a wager on Dylan Thomas. With the odds down to 4-5, the soggy ground which he doesn't like, and all the other normal negatives for an Arc winner, I decided it was just not a value bet. Good thing.
2. English Channel got the best seat in the race, seemed to like the give in the ground, and had a good record on that track. Is he really that many lengths better than those horses? Of course not.
3. Another horse with a great trip was Curlin in the BC Classic. If you had told me beforehand that they would go at that clip early AND Diamond Stripes would press onto the lead as well and box Lawyer Ron, I would have been all over Curlin. I seriously predicted Curlin to win as soon as the first quarter mile was run. Which brings me to this question. Why can't we have real time interactive betting in the middle of a horserace (or any race for that matter)? That would be so awesome to be able to make bets as you see how the horses are racing.
4. Poor George Washington. A four time G1 winner who had originally retired to stud, came back to racing because of fertility issues. Then he gets thrown into a mildly unsuitable BC Classic race because his trainer clearly favored two other horses in the other two perhaps more suitable races (Excellent Art in the Mile and Dylan Thomas in the Turf). To top it all off, he gets hurt and has to be euthanized. What would be the human equivalent for everything he went through?
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)