To those who say they won\'t be more interested in the Travers this year than most if both triple crown race winners go because Sovereignty didn\'t run in the Preakness (or the same for the BC) I say liar liar pants on fire.

Non-political facts:

smuck means cute or pretty.

The Dixie Handicap or Dixie Stakes (it has been both) was first run in 1870 as (wait for it) . . .

The Dinner Party Stakes  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinner_Party_Stakes)

And if the Maryland Jockey Club (the name changers, I believe) so offends you, no one forcing you to wager on their races.

This not a fact; only my opinion: No one quite as offended as they claim regarding much involving woke schmucks!  (And that\'s why, my guess, you won\'t abstain from betting on Pimlico races today!)  In all seriousness:  I hope you cash today, most especially on  this race (and have a laugh about the original name coming back and not affecting the outcome at all.)

\"I imagine several distinct groups barring too much traffic or trouble in the first turn.\"

Good luck barring those two! In fact, I\'ll take Traffic and Trouble in an exacta box on the first turn heavier with Traffic on top!

Agree with you 100%, though you forgot to mention that those betting on this race will bet on the mule races if that\'s all there is.

Like many, I have turned away from this game more and more.  But I wonder if anyone with deep pockets and a computer has compared win payoffs, say 40 years ago, to today.  What was the average price back then vs today in like size fields?  Has anyone  compared todays and yesteryears final odds (say all the 6 to 5 horses) to their actual return over an entire year at all tracks or each track (for maybe a 2-3 year stretch?)

My instinct tells me that if there\'s more chicanery now than back then, it MUST show up as lower payoffs.  If prices are not lower overall from years ago, either at one track, several or all, I wonder how that\'s possible?  Years ago, you could actually make money betting horses at 2/5 or lower.  Anyone who read Burt Fabricand\'s great book Horse Sense might remember that.  Curious if that\'s still the case.  So much to be curious about; so little time!

Yes the social component is important but when it feels tougher and tougher to get a fair shot, it just isn\'t as enjoyable.  Living in NY, I went to every Belmont Stakes from \'74 (missed Secretariat by a year) through 2002 and out to Belmont at least a dozen Saturday\'s a year.  The cost of a great seat at Belmont for all (or just about all) those years, including the Belmont stakes, was $1.50 and though I might not come out ahead, I had some nice winners and was competitive on many of my solid picks.  Even if I went out alone, it wasn\'t long before there were a few of us enjoying the day together, all sitting right above the finish line on the 3rd floor.  Many of those people are likely gone now, as I was one of the younger players, and the \"game\" doesn\'t seem to care that they only get younger people now on big days, or sitting in the clubhouse eating steak or lobster on a once a year outing, Along with less camaraderie (far smaller crowds will do that!), it feels as if the game is stacked against the little guy while in the past it was stacked against the unknowledgeable.
 

I still bet the Derby and Breeders Cup, but the number of days I get interested has gone down little by little year by year to now just 2-4.  Being young was a lot more fun than being old, but I thought racing was something I\'d be enjoying just as much if not more later in life.  Sad to say, I\'m not.

Florent Geroux, having a great weekend so far, must have boxed horses other than his own in the Iroquois taking the 10, the 4/5 favorite, to the rail for a majority of the trip.  Did I say he was having a great weekend?

Over much more than Covid!  Sorry about getting a bit political, but defunding the po and then claiming the po doesn\'t have enough money to handle mail in ballots properly . . . now that\'s a longer term threat than Covid!

If there had been one other $2 ticket on the winning combo, instead of winning one half of $173,000, he would have won 80% of it.  If there had been $8 in winning tickets in addition to his, a single $2 ticket would have basically been a breakeven proposition (20% of $173,000)  With his $8, he would have won half.

If you\'re playing $30,000, that\'s an investment and a huge risk and that person or group was looking for more than just the winning combination.  Suspect there must have been some combos played for well more than $8!

A lidocaine patch works like an icy hot patch and looks/feels identical.  I use them for back pain all the time and you peel off a thin plastic sheet on the back of the patch so it then sticks on your back.  I don\'t get any of the medication on my hands.  The medication might be slightly different than lidocaine, but the patches work exactly the same way.  Hard to imagine getting any of the medication anywhere but on the back (of the person wearing it) unless completely misused.  I guess the contamination might have been from a pain patch!!!   LOL

Sunday Silence.  And why couldn\'t they have had the virtual race call by a virtual (30 year younger voice of) Tom Durkin.  At least then the call would have been better than the race itself!

Apprentice doing the GP analysis?

And don\'t forget the third half . . . racing luck!

Not trying to offend and I wasn\'t comparing a single 40 - 1 shot to a single 5 - 1.

I was comparing a single 40 - 1 vs. SIX 5-1\'s.

We\'re assuming that the one guy gave you a single selection and the other gave you six selections, and all seven horses hit.

Just looking at the odds against both: one is 40-1 while the other is 15625 to 1.
That\'s not even close.

If you\'re making different assumptions, different odds.

Not sure if this was overlooked or someone else commented. If so, my apologies.

So many reasons to prefer hitting six 5-1\'s than one 40-1.

a) More plays.
b) More money (yes, more money!) Just letting your winnings ride on a 3 horse parlay would get you 125-1.  Six in a row: 15625 - 1!!!  Better than 40-1.
c) If you bet big on a 40-1 shot, you would cut down the odds far more than on a 5-1 shot
d) If you can winning 5-1\'s consistently, you would be the better handicapper because . . .
e) There are fewer opportunities for winning 40-1 shots.

Sure there are more, but if I had a choice between going to the track with the guy who made only 6 bets last year, all winners at 5-1, or the guy who made only one bet and won at 40-1, I\'d want to go with Mr. 5-1 and would seek his advice.  Then, after the races, would ask Mr. 40-1 to get a beer and explain his luck (sorry, his thinking!)