Each year in the autumn, I like to make a recruiting pitch on behalf of horse racing.
The future of horse racing rests with some diverse elements of the population: the little girl in pony tails who saw "Seabiscuit" four times; the offspring of people in the business and horse players as well; those into the natural grace of animals; those who like puzzles; seniors with lots of time and money; those who like thrills; and psycho gamblers.
Who could come up with a way to gear a national advertising campaign to glassy-eyed gambler who can afford to lose.
Ad campaigns feature well-dressed clean-cut young couples and feisty seniors grinning and winning hand over fistful of dollars.
But the truth is, a good portion of the future of horse racing belongs to the wild gambler who is going to have a drink and bet them up.
Many psycho gamblers are currently deeply involved in sports handicapping, the euphemistic phrase for betting on football, both college and pro, where you have to bet a lot to win a lot, but where you can also somehow bet a little and still lose a lot.
People pass on horses and bet football for the illusionary reason that picking one team from two is easier than picking one horse from a dozen. The truth is, when you bet football, you're not picking between one of two. You're betting on many dozens of players, including referees, any one of whom could screw you out of a bundle on any given Sunday.
How about that pass interference rule in the National Fizzle League, in pro football. That's where a football can be moved 60 yards for no reason whatsoever. The pass interference regulation in pro football is the worst rule in the history of sports because it assumes the pass would have been caught. The refs should march off 15 yards and go home and lift their weights and be quiet.
Betting on teams is a bad risk because after a point spread has been set, most games are 50-50 propositions.
You want to pay 10 percent when you lose calling heads or tails?
Your best way to win a team bet is by finding a bad line, a point spread that's out of whack.
Bad lines happen so seldom, you're too far in debt to notice -- maybe one line of 50 is a little off.
Most people who bet on games are victims of the obvious.
The obvious is the majority opinion based for the most part on what just happened.
There is the popular misconception that the typical situation for a bookmaker is to have a line that causes half the people to bet each side. That might be the case with a huge sports book most times. But do you think that half the gamblers recently took the Cincinnati Bengals plus six measly points with the mighty Kansas City Chiefs? No. Most bookies large and small were probably heavy on the undefeated Chiefs. Who lost outright.
I know a local bookmaker who had a heart attack cheering because he was so heavy on one side of a game.
It's amazing the way some so-called experts justify bets on football teams. It's called technical handicapping. So-and-so covered nine of the last 11 years the first time on the road after losing by five to nine points while playing in a wheat field. Please. Whereas some dome-to-grass angles are worth a look, here's one thing to remember when playing nonsensical technicall junk: THOSE TEAMS HAD DIFFERENT PLAYERS BACK IN THE DAY.
Some alleged expert football handicappers promote technical plays based on things that had happened in different stadiums!
There are only two ways a person can consistently make money betting team sports. One is by putting yourself in the bookmaker's position, which is to be on the other side of what's obvious, which takes courage. The other is to bet against really bad expert pickers.
This is the time of the year when many team sports handicappers give up on college and pro football and move to the slots for relief. Come home to horse racing.
Just look who sets the numbers: your friends, neighbors and loved ones at the horse races; tough guys on the gridiron and hardwood.
http://espn.go.com/horse/columns/misc/1666408.html
The future of horse racing rests with some diverse elements of the population: the little girl in pony tails who saw "Seabiscuit" four times; the offspring of people in the business and horse players as well; those into the natural grace of animals; those who like puzzles; seniors with lots of time and money; those who like thrills; and psycho gamblers.
Who could come up with a way to gear a national advertising campaign to glassy-eyed gambler who can afford to lose.
Ad campaigns feature well-dressed clean-cut young couples and feisty seniors grinning and winning hand over fistful of dollars.
But the truth is, a good portion of the future of horse racing belongs to the wild gambler who is going to have a drink and bet them up.
Many psycho gamblers are currently deeply involved in sports handicapping, the euphemistic phrase for betting on football, both college and pro, where you have to bet a lot to win a lot, but where you can also somehow bet a little and still lose a lot.
People pass on horses and bet football for the illusionary reason that picking one team from two is easier than picking one horse from a dozen. The truth is, when you bet football, you're not picking between one of two. You're betting on many dozens of players, including referees, any one of whom could screw you out of a bundle on any given Sunday.
How about that pass interference rule in the National Fizzle League, in pro football. That's where a football can be moved 60 yards for no reason whatsoever. The pass interference regulation in pro football is the worst rule in the history of sports because it assumes the pass would have been caught. The refs should march off 15 yards and go home and lift their weights and be quiet.
Betting on teams is a bad risk because after a point spread has been set, most games are 50-50 propositions.
You want to pay 10 percent when you lose calling heads or tails?
Your best way to win a team bet is by finding a bad line, a point spread that's out of whack.
Bad lines happen so seldom, you're too far in debt to notice -- maybe one line of 50 is a little off.
Most people who bet on games are victims of the obvious.
The obvious is the majority opinion based for the most part on what just happened.
There is the popular misconception that the typical situation for a bookmaker is to have a line that causes half the people to bet each side. That might be the case with a huge sports book most times. But do you think that half the gamblers recently took the Cincinnati Bengals plus six measly points with the mighty Kansas City Chiefs? No. Most bookies large and small were probably heavy on the undefeated Chiefs. Who lost outright.
I know a local bookmaker who had a heart attack cheering because he was so heavy on one side of a game.
It's amazing the way some so-called experts justify bets on football teams. It's called technical handicapping. So-and-so covered nine of the last 11 years the first time on the road after losing by five to nine points while playing in a wheat field. Please. Whereas some dome-to-grass angles are worth a look, here's one thing to remember when playing nonsensical technicall junk: THOSE TEAMS HAD DIFFERENT PLAYERS BACK IN THE DAY.
Some alleged expert football handicappers promote technical plays based on things that had happened in different stadiums!
There are only two ways a person can consistently make money betting team sports. One is by putting yourself in the bookmaker's position, which is to be on the other side of what's obvious, which takes courage. The other is to bet against really bad expert pickers.
This is the time of the year when many team sports handicappers give up on college and pro football and move to the slots for relief. Come home to horse racing.
Just look who sets the numbers: your friends, neighbors and loved ones at the horse races; tough guys on the gridiron and hardwood.
http://espn.go.com/horse/columns/misc/1666408.html
