Derby handicapping update

I switched horses. Again. My Derby favorites this year have been plentiful, even though my top choices haven't really been getting beat. I've gone from Mucho Macho Man to Dialed In to Archarcharch to Dialed In again to Archarcharch again to Stay Thirsty to.... Soldat.

If you're looking for a winner, I'd advise either Mucho Macho Man or Dialed In. The reason is simple; I put a $2 win bet on the each of the other 3 horses I've liked, but not Mucho Macho Man and Dialed In. So one of them will probably win.

I didn't like seeing Uncle Mo scratched because I've never been impressed with that horse. I wanted him in the race at about 5 to 1, driving up the odds on whoever I liked.

I finally settled on Soldat for my traditional $2 WPS wager on my official, braggers' rights Derby bet because he's one of the few who's been consistently excellent (minus FL), because he'll be up front and likely out of traffic and probably not have a breakneck pace, and because he appears set to go off at odds in the neighborhood of 20-1. That's good odds for a horse when the best he's shown so far is at least as good as or better than all the others.

In what is becoming a Derby Eve tradition, I made Derby bets, including exacta and trifecta, and bets on the first 4 races since I have to work for a while tomorrow. Rotten timing for our busiest time of year.

In what is becoming a Derby Day tradition, I'll bring my racing form and program to work to check out races 5, 6, and 7, so I should be very productive.

Rather than wait until the last minute...

I'll let you know early. After running over 27 million race simulations on my computer program ( that was a lie), crunching all the numbers ( a few of the numbers, and not really understanding them), doing hours of painstaking research (actually, just browsing Bloodhorse.com a couple of times to see what Steve Haskins thought), and consulting countless experts (I asked a guy at work "Who do you like?"), I am prepared to reveal the 2011 Kentucky Derby winner.


and the winner is... "Stay Thirsty, my friends"

Why? Couple of reasons.
First, I do like the way he runs. I've watched all the Derby preps on youtube and Stay Thirsty seems to be able to shift gears pretty well and really turn on the speed. I like that in a crowded Derby field, and of the several horses who I think can do it he is likely to have the best odds.
Second, and most important, by selecting Stay Thirsty I could make a reference to the Dos Equis guy, otherwise known as The Most Interesting Man in the World. "Sharks have a week devoted to him." Also, "he can speak French, in Russian."

There are several other horses I like. Archarcharch, Mucho Macho Man, Midnight Interlude, and Pants On Fire, and probably about five more. In fact, I almost went with Mucho Macho Man, and if the name I keep mistakenly calling him- Super Macho Man- were in fact his correct name, I might have selected him instead so I could have used this Punchout picture.



Speaking of names, I was looking at the Oaks draw and thinking I really didn't like the name St. Johns River. A few minutes later I realized it was because St. John Rivers is the name of the dull and (to me) very unlikeable missionary cousin of Jane Eyre. Then, a few minutes after that, I realized that having favorite and least favorite characters in Jane eyre probably means I'm a nerd. Oh well.
__________________________________________
Favorite? Rochester, of course. Though that creepy Grace Pool rocks, too.

A Topic Off The Top Of My Head, Just Because I Haven't Posted Much Lately

I'm trying to remember the last time I heard someone referred to a phone as 'the' phone, as opposed to 'my' phone or 'your' phone or 'his/her' phone. Now that everybody has one in their pocket, 'the' has been replaced by a personal pronoun.
That's a small shame. I liked 'the phone.' Even though telephones, like everything else in the home, were personal property, I think it was neat that they were referred to more as community property. Even people who lived alone would say 'the' phone.
"I'm sorry I missed your call, I couldn't get to the phone in time."
The telephone was a link to the outside world and was treated with respect. I can almost imagine the 'T' capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence. "Please answer The Phone."
Now The Phone is everywhere. It goes where we go. We are the phone and the phone is us. Well, not me. I sometimes turn my phone off and then forget to turn it back on for a day or two. No biggie. I've never yet missed an important call.
See? Having one around all the time, I've lost all respect for The Phone. 10 years ago I never would have dreamed of unplugging my phone for 2 days, just because. Now I turn it off all the time.
Here's a conversation I had not too long ago.
Other Person: (incredulous)You turn your phone off?
Me: Sure.
OP: But what if someone needs to get hold of you?
Me: I have voicemail.
OP: What if it's an emergency?
Me: Like what?
OP: An accident, or somebody in the emergency room or something.
Me: In that case, 911 is a better option. I'm not trained.

She couldn't fathom how I survive with the phone off. How can I cut myself off from Important News that I might need immediately?
I explained, or tried to explain, that I do it the same way everybody did it prior to a few short years ago. If I miss the important news now, I'll hear it later. If not, then it probably wasn't that important in the first place.

And I seriously dislike text messages. They are too intrusive. Questions, comments, opinions, demands on my time can now all be sent without a filter, straight to me. I don't like it.
Calls can be filtered, which I like. I can choose not to answer. Or if I do answer I can somewhat guide the conversation. Before the demanding question can be asked I can help set the tone.

So don't text me.

Acting on Brian's tip about Blockbuster's going-out-of-business sale, I bought "Anchorman" and seasons 1 and 3 of "30 Rock." Great haul. I'd have bought season 2 as well if it was in stock. Love that show, and I feel quite sure I'll watch "Anchorman" repeatedly.


Another stop on my Sunday shopping spree netted me the newest Jasper Fforde book, "One of Our Thursdays is Missing." I've been looking forward to it for ages and ages, knew late last year it was finally due out early this year, and yet missed the release date. I was surprised and delighted to see it on the shelf.
It's the sixth in his "Thursday Next" series. The first five were wonderfully entertaining.
I was going to start reading it last night but decided I'll finish my Huck Finn re-read first. But I did read through the first few pages and it was enough to remind me of everything I like about Fforde's novels: fun plots, zany characters, snide jokes, corny jokes, great literary references, and combinations such as fun snide corny literary jokes.
I'm only 5 pages in and already there's a marvelous gag about how hard it is to remember character names in "Crime and Punishment." What more could I ask for?

Literature And the Person Who Listens To It

I recently discovered Librivox.org. It's a fantastic site with lots of public domain audio books. I've made extensive use of it over the last month or so.
Previously, the only audio book I'd ever made it all the way through was a biography of Alexander Hamilton. And, at the time I listened to it, the only reason I made it through was because we lived in Somerset and I drove frequently back and forth between there and Louisville. Other than that, I could not handle audio books.
I find I still have some trouble with them. I listen at work, and try as I might to appropriately prioritize, I find that my work crowds out my pleasure listening and I frequently can't adequately follow the story. No matter, though, as the work day is long and I can just back up and try again.
As keeping track of the story is especially difficult when there is something else I'm supposed to be doing, I've found that the audio is terrific for my long list of wished-for re-reads. Since I'm familiar with the plot, missing a minute or five doesn't bother me.
When I first found the site I listened to Treasure Island, which was somehow new to me. I knew the story, had seeen movies, plus various other stories stolen from it, but somehow I had never read it. It was terrific.
Another new one for me is Rudyard Kipling's Kim, which I have not quite finished, but I am close. Very entertaining. I've also listened to quite a few Wodehouse stories, which are especially good as most last between 20 and 45 minutes so I can select one of those late in the day and hear the whole thing.
The re-reads have been the best, though, since my attention can wander. I've listened to Hamlet, A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court, Julius Caesar, and various Sherlock Holmes stories. I also listend to Turgenev's Fathers and Sons, which is one of my favorite books. I have intended to re-read it for ages, but I hadn't touched it in almost twenty years.
_______________________________________________________________
As for reading the old fashioned way, I've had some difficulty lately in finding a really good book.
I read Graham Swift's Out of This World. Pretty good, but no Waterland. Waterland was outstanding, but I've now read three others by him and none were even remotely close to as good.
I have a very thin book of essays by Christopher Hitchens which I picked up on the Barnes and Noble bargain shelf. It's slow going, though. He's a talented writer and I really appreciate his arguments, but he's just not very likeable. I can certainly understand why he gets under conservatives' skins, since I'm an ultra-liberal and generally agree with him but even I think he's a pompous ass.
I'm also re-reading Huckleberry Finn. I'm about half-finished. Brian mentioned he bought it at Borders and I thought "hmm, I should probably give that another look." So I am doing so.

For years I read the Courier-Journal every day. I hated missing a day. The paper has gone steadily downhill for the same reason all of them have: reduced revenue caused cutbacks which reduced quality which reduced revenue which caused cutbacks which reduced quality which reduced revenue which... well you get the idea.
Suffice it to say that the quality sunk low enough that I no longer minded missing a day, and now I rarely see it.
Today, though, someone showed me an article about a local employers' summit meeting/symposium on health care costs and health in the workplace.
Featured prominently were quotes from my company's CEO. His point was that the workplace health iniatives instituted at the same time as our high deductible health care plans have made employees healthier. His 'proof' was our lowered BMI, a reduction in our number of medical claims, and a reduction in the monetary amount of our monthy health care claims.

So I was forced to send an email to the writer of the piece of ____ article, asking if he'd bothered to ask any of the likely follow-up questions, such as
1) How do you know employees' BMI have dropped? Where could you possibly have attained this information, other than pulling it straight out of your ___?
or
2) Is it possible that reduced claims are not the result of better health, but rather the result of the fact that employees have instead chosen to forego proper medical care because they CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY THE HIGH DEDUCTIBLE?
____________________________________________

Why, you may ask, did I 'bury the lead' on this post? Why start a rant about my employer with comments about the newspaper?
Because it's not a rant about the employer. It's a rant about shoddy reporting. A CEO's job is basically to get as much out of his workers for as little cost as possible, while spinning it with positive publicity. So our CEO did a stellar job, ____ though he may be.
The reporter's job is not to just print whatever self-serving load of ____ the CEO hands out. He's supposed to actually verify it.

Inspired By Leonard's Losers

The Final Four for the Anti-National Championship is now set. Only one team can be the anti-national champion. Only one team can ultimately be the first in a chain of losses all the way to the title game.
Lots of teams (32, to be exact) lose in the round of 64. At that point all 32 still have dreams of becoming the anti-national champion. But sixteen of those teams are eliminated the opening weekend, as the team that beat them wins another game. For the other sixteen, the ones whose conquerors are immediately conquered in turn, the dream stays alive.
It's a longshot for even the worst of tournament teams. To lose to a team that then loses to a team that then loses to another, which then loses in the elite eight to a team that loses in the semi-finals to a team which loses in the national championship... well, it can only be done by one team.

But now we are down to four. And WHAT A FOUR they are. Who could have predicted that not a single 11 seed (the most likely, statistically) would remain. The 11 seeds have the easy path to reach the Anti-Final Four- all they have to do is lose to a 6, who loses to a 3, who loses to a 2, who loses to a 1. No upsets required.
But one by one, the 11's slipped up and refused to go down in flames. Marquette and Gonzaga bowed out of the anti-tournament early, winning convincingly in the first round. VCU, who was perhaps the favorite to win the anti-tournament, not only didn't lose in the first round, they also didn't lose in the next round, or the sweet sixteen. Then they even didn't lose in the regional finals.
That left Missouri alone among the 11's; they alone stood up tall to be knocked down by Cincinnati in the first round. They still looked appropriately weak as Cincy fell to UConn. But their dreams were dashed as UConn refused to fall to San Diego State, leaving the anti-tournamet wide open.

So who remains?
* Indiana State would seem, at first glance, to be the favorite. They fell handily to Syracuse, who immediately lost to that stubborn refuse-to-be-a-loser Marquette, who then finally fell flat on their face against North Carolina, who promptly lost to Kentucky.
The Sycamores have a solid shot at losing it all. However, they must hope that the suddenly red-hot Kentucky Wildcats cool off enough to lose to UConn, who most in turn lose to either Butler or the seriously under-overachieving (over-underachieving?) Virginia Commonwealth.

*The unmighty Tennessee Vols still have a legitimate shot. They seemed poised for an early exit from the anti-tournament, but their program fell into disarray at just the right time, losing to Michigan, who lost to Duke, who scored a spectacular failure against Arizona, who then fell against the UConn Huskies. But for the Vols to lose it all the path runs through Kentucky and then either Butler or VCU.

*The St. John's Red Storm failed impressively in the opening round, routed by Gonzaga. They then took advantage of their position, which was in effect the taking over of Gonzaga's original 11 seed, as the Zags lost to 3 BYU who lost to 2 Florida, who then pulled off the anti-upset by losing to 8 seed Butler, securing St. John's a place in the unvaunted anti four.
From here the Red Storm's path is bright, as all they need is a Butler loss to a hot VCU squad, and then a VCU loss to either of the top remaining seeds, UConn or Kentucky.

*Finally, we have perhaps the most unlikey contender for ultimate loser, the Louisville Cardinals. Unlikely, but convincing. The Cards scored an upset flame-out against lowly Morehead State, who then fell in a route to the Richmond Spiders, who were then destroyed by Kansas. Kansas then came through with a meltdown of massive proportions against VCU.
Now all that stands in the Cards' way is the possibility of VCU knocking off Butler, or of Butler winning two more times.
It can certainly happen, but the Ville (note: that is local vernacular for a school in the city of Louisville whose players are unaware that more than one town name ends in the letters v-i-l-l-e) is now a prohibitive favorite.

Go Cards! If they lose I think we should get Rick a trophy.