Race Track Diary, Entry Number 29 – Billy Budd’s (April 18, 2026)

   

Race Track Diary, Entry Number Twenty-Nine

29 – Billy Budd’s (April 18, 2026)

Introduction

This blog and some following blogs are sections from an informal diary of “visits to the race-track” at a particular time and place, by a person who has followed the races with varying levels of participation over a long period. These relate primarily to some visits to the track and/or off-track betting venues in the 2025 period and onward. They contain observations about the activity, both specific and general. Although these remarks are personal, they also reflect general cultural and historical trends, as they have impacted horse-racing, wagering and culture in general.

The setting is Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (population of about one million plus). However, I imagine that the observations would apply to many places in the world, as they are a reflection of how changing trends in technology, globalization and culture in general have affected this ancient and honourable activity of horse-racing.

For now, I will use what I call “polished point-form” for the narrative.

======================================================================

• 29 – Billy Budd’s (April 18, 2026)

  • It was another pleasant Saturday afternoon, which had people eager to get out of the house. So, it was quite busy in Budd’s.

  • The NHL playoffs were beginning that day. Though there were a number of hockey playoff games on the screens, the patrons of the establishment didn’t create much of a hockey-related commotion. The fact that the local Oilers team was not scheduled to play for another two days probably accounted for that. I imagine that bar owners throughout the city were disappointed with the scheduling; having the local favourite playing on Monday rather than Saturday was not exactly optimal from their point of view.

  • As noted, it was a fair-sized crowd at the horseracing section of the pub. Some in the crowd were middle-aged, some were older and a few were younger. At least one table consisted of two young-middle aged women, which was a bit unusual.

  • There was one older couple (mid-50s perhaps) seated near us. The woman had an unusual voice, something you might associate with being a bit slow. She peppered her mate with lots of questions and made a lot of excited observations. It seemed to me that she might drive him a little nuts, but it all turned out good. When they left, the bar staff were very friendly with them, so I guess they must be semi-regulars. All in all, it was a happy story.

  • For some reason it gave me a serious case of deja vu, which was odd, but then that feeling of deja vu always is odd.

  • Later in the day a young couple came in and sat a little off from the horseracing screens. The fellow was intent on betting on the horses while the woman was more interested in her phone. Eventually she wandered off to play a nearby VLT, while he remained fixated on the horses.

  • So much for the crowd, how about the betting? Glad you asked. As has been my practice for the past while, I keyed in on Santa Anita for the thoroughbred part of the action.

  • However, I may try my luck with the thoroughbreds at Woodbine soon, as their meet began today. That said, it was an abbreviated card (seven or eight races) with fairly short fields. Presumably that will change as the meet goes on. Craig mentioned that a lot of the Woodbine horses were probably down in the States for the winter meets in Florida, so it takes a while to ship horses and get them acclimatized to a new environment.

  • On to Santa Anita then:

    • Race 1 was a Maiden Special Weight for 3 year-old fillies, so the horses had not had time to generate much of a history. My system needs more data, so I skipped the race. Had I bet it, I wold have lost (my pick came in 4th), so that was a good decision.

    • Race 2 had three closely-matched horses, by my lights, so I picked the one with the best odds. That turned out ok, with my pick leading most of the way, and winning at a price of $8.80 on a $2 bet. It was nice to know that I would be playing with the track’s money for a while.

    • It was a short field in Race 3, with my favourer horse coming in fourth out of five horses. I bet that race, so that was a loss.

    • I skipped Race 4, even though my system’s pick had considerably better numbers than the rest. But for some reason, I didn’t like the race. That was just as well, as my pick came in 5^th out of 8 horses.

    • Race 5 was another Maiden Special Weight for 3 year-old fillies. Again, most of the horses had little or no useful racing history, so I gave it a pass. As it turned out, my system’s horse (#6) did win the race by a nose, but was then disqualified for a bump late in the race. That would have been very annoying had I bet on it, so it turned out to be an excellent race to skip.

    • Race 6 was a Maiden Claiming race, but 3, 4, and 5 year-old Fillies and Mares were eligible. As these also had rather spotty records, and it was a big 12-horse field, I elected to skip again. And once more, that turned out to be a good choice, as my system’s preferred horse came in next-to-last.

    • The 7^th Race was a Stakes Race, on the turf. I finally bet, liking the 2, but it didn’t do much, coming in fifth. So, that was a loss.

    • In the 8^th Race, my system’s pick was scratched. I didn’t like the second choice, so I skipped that race too. Again, that turned out to be a good idea, as my presumptive horse came in next-to-last.

    • I skipped Race 9 as well. I just wasn’t getting good vibes from Santa Anita today and my system’s preferred horses weren’t generally even in the money. Besides, the bucket-pullers at Woodbine/Mohawk were going now, and they were taking up most of my attention, Craig’s too.

    • The 10^th Race was another Maiden Special Weight, so I skipped it too. My preferred horse was scratched and my second choice came in third. Once more, discretion was the better part of valour.

    • So, in summary, I bet only three of the Santa Anita races, winning one, for a decent price of $8.80 for a $2 bet. So, I came out ahead (technically by 46%), mostly due to avoiding bad bets.

    • That’s nice, but as Churchill said after Dunkirk, you don’t win wars by successful retreats. So it is with horse racing: you don’t make money by not betting. Though, on this day I did, so what would Churchill know about it, anyway? Come to think of it, the Allies did win the war, so I guess one could argue that it worked for him too.

  • Now, on to the Woodbine/Mohawk Harness Races:

    • Race 1 was taken by the #5 horse, a favourite which had been bet down to 2-to- 5. It had several good features, in terms of speed and pace. But the odds were prohibitive, so I let it pass.

    • Race 2 was similar, with a bet-down favourite (#6) prevailing wire-to-wire. Its odds weren’t quite as bad, though it was bet down to less than even money.

    • The first race that I managed to bet was Race 3, which I promptly lost.

      • The #6 horse went off at decent odds and had quite a few good indicators, including its post position. However, it broke stride part way through the race, so that was it for my horse.

      • Basically, this means that it has stopped running in the style required for the race (a trot in this case). When this happens the horse is supposed to pull off to one of the outside lanes, lose some distance and then, if it returns to stride, it can try to come back. In most cases that will be very difficult. In extreme cases it can get disqualified (e.g. if it significantly interferes with other horses when breaking stride).

        
        
         

      • Breaking stride can happen in any race, but it is more common in trot races than pace races.

      • The #1 horse, which was the favourite at 1-to-5 also broke stride, almost at the start of the race, then again near the end. To complete the comedy session, the #2 horse and #3 horse also broke.

      • Naturally, 4 horses breaking in one race, including a heavily bet-down favourite, as well as the second-favourite (my horse) raised some suspicions in our minds. The fact that the winner was 20-to-1 ($40.90 to win), the second place horse was 65-to-1 ($61 to place) and the third place horse was 72-to-1 ($68 to place) did not escape our attention. It did have all the indications of a betting-coup.

      • Having said all that, a quick review of several days’ results shows that most days will have 2 or 3 horses break and sometimes there will be several in the same race. But what about then having 3 long-shots come in? Was this race on the up and up? I suppose we will never know. But if nothing else, it does make for a good horse-racing anecdote.

    • In Race 4 I bet the #6 again, and lost again, with it coming in fifth place.

      • The winner was the #4, a horse named Johnny Angel, paying a big $2.60 to win. I had a bit of a laugh about that, as when I was about 4 or 5 years old my older sister used to play a record of a song with the same name, repeatedly, as teenage girls often will. I liked the song, probably because my big sister liked it. I got some teasing for that from my older brothers, including Craig, who was with me today.

      • But on this race, Johnny Angel was not kind to me. Or so I thought. It turned out that Craig had picked the Triactor for this race (I threw in a few numbers too), so we each got a few bucks from old Johnny. It took a while, though.

      • I should just note that horse names have a strange fascination for betters. It is hard to pass up a horse that has a name that has some sort of sentimental value for you.

    • I skipped Race 5, in terms of win betting, as we were alive to a Win-3 that had started with Johnny Angel’s victory. Besides that, none of the horses in the race stood out to me.

    • I also skipped win betting in Race 6. Our Win-3 was alive to a favourite in this race, but it got nipped at the wire.

    • Race 7 was another heart-breaker. I had a win bet on #6, at 4-to-1 and we were alive on #5 on another Win-3, at about the same odds. The 5 and 6 were coming down to the wire in first and second, so it looked like we were bound to win something. But then the #3 horse came flying and nipped them both by a nose. It won at 18-to-1. So, no money for the win bet or the Win-3.

    • I fell for the horse name thing, in Race 8, betting on a horse called Sugar Pie Honey. It had high odds and had come in third in its last race, so I threw a show bet on it. However, it came in next-to-last, so I lost again.

    • I skipped the win bet in Race 9, as we were alive to another win-3. The horse that we needed for that bet came up short.

    • By the 10^th Race, I had become quite annoyed by all these close calls. So, with that wonderful sensation that "I am due", I bet on the #6 in this race to win. It had several favourable indicators, so I stepped up the bet by a factor of 5. And it won! That said, it only paid $4.50 to win, but since I had stepped up the bet that was enough to cover all my losses so far at the buckets.

    • I skipped win bets on the 11^th and 12^th races. We had a triactor in the 12^th that didn’t miss by much and that was that.

    • Totalling things up, I came out with a 25% profit with the harness races, mainly due to a strategic (lucky?) decision to step up a bet.

  • So, not including exotics such as Win-3 and Triactor bets, I won a single race at the Santa Anita thoroughbreds and a single race at the Woodbine/Mohawk harness races. But by judiciously (or luckily) skipping many races that I would have lost, and stepping up my bet amount at the right time, I came in ahead for both the Santa Anita and the Woodbine races. Which is great, but kind of nerve-wracking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here are a couple of short books you might like.

A Dark Horse

In “A Dark Horse”, a gambler’s desire to hit a big win seems to lead him to make a Faustian bargain with a supernatural evil.  Or is it all just a string of unnaturally good luck?

The story is just $0.99 U.S. (equivalent in other currencies) and about 8000 words. It is also available on Kindle Unlimited and is occasionally on free promotion.

U.S.: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

U.K.: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Germany: https://www.amazon.de/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

France: https://www.amazon.fr/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Italy: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Netherlands: https://www.amazon.nl/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Spain: https://www.amazon.es/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Japan: https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

India: https://www.amazon.in/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Mexico: https://www.amazon.com.mx/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Brazil: https://www.amazon.com.br/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Canada: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B01MDMY2BR

Australia: https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Here’s an interesting review from Goodreads

(BTW, the writer has never met the reviewer and was not even aware of the review until very recently – You can look up the review on Goodreads, if you like)

A Dark Horse

Every gambler is bound to run out of luck eventually, right?

By far my favourite type of horror is psychological horror. I was quite pleased with how Mr. Olausen frightened his audience without spilling a single drop of blood or so much as hinting at anything gory. He knew exactly what hints to drop for us that made us deliciously dread the next scene simply by throwing out hints about who or what the dark horse might actually represent. This is the kind of stuff I love getting scared by, especially as Halloween approaches.

It would have been helpful to have more character development in this short story. While I certainly wouldn’t expect to see as much time spent on this as I would for a full-length novel, I did have trouble connecting to the main characters due to how little I knew about them and how much their personalities seemed to remain the same no matter what happened to them. If not for this issue, I would have felt comfortable choosing a much higher rating as the plot itself was well done.

I must admit to not knowing much about gambling at all, so I appreciated the brief explanations the narrator shared about how placing bets works and why some people have so much trouble walking away from a bet. While I will leave it up to experts on these topics to say how accurate everything was, I did enjoy learning more about the main character’s addiction and what he hoped to gain from betting on just one more game or race. It gave me a stronger sense of empathy for folks in his position.

A Dark Horse – A Gothic Tale was a deliciously chilling story for the Halloween season and beyond.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here’s an account of some road trips in south-western Alberta:

A Selection of Back-Road Trips Around Southwest Alberta

There are two main aspects to a road trip: the journey and the destination. Sometimes the trip is all about the journey, sometimes it’s all about the destination. Usually it is a little of both.

This collection of back-roads journeys feature a little bit of both of these aspects. Some accounts are more about the ‘journey’, such as a road trip on scenic Highway 22. Others are more about the ‘destination’, such as the show-jumping at Spruce Meadows. I hope you will enjoy reading some of these accounts and maybe give them a spin for yourself.

Southwest 1 – A Road Trip on Scenic Highway 22

Southwest 2 – The Equestrian Competitions at Spruce Meadows (Calgary)

Southwest 3 – The Bar U Ranch, south of Long View

Southwest 4 – Kananaskis Country

Southwest 5 – Blackfoot Crossing

Southwest 6 – Back-roads, from the Prairies to the Foothills: Brazeau Dam Trip

Southwest 7 – A Back-roads Trip to Hinton and the Forestry Trunk Roads

The reader may wonder “what about the Ice-fields Parkway?” or “where is a visit to Banff?” I would answer, that these famous destinations are covered very nicely by other books. This account is meant to focus on some less travelled areas, thus the “back-roads” descriptor.

I should note that the other three quadrants of Alberta also have a lot of interesting back-roads journeys, but those are material for some other books which will be published in due time.

Amazon U.S.: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon U.K: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon CA: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon Germany: https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon France: https://www.amazon.fr/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon Spain: https://www.amazon.es/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon Italy: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon Netherlands: https://www.amazon.nl/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon Brazil: https://www.amazon.com.br/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon Mexico: https://www.amazon.com.mx/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon Japan: https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon India: https://www.amazon.in/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon Australia: https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Race Track Diary, Entry Number 28 – Billy Budd’s (April 11, 2026)

 Race Track Diary, Entry Number Twenty-Eight

28 – Billy Budd’s (April 11, 2026)

Introduction

This blog and some following blogs are sections from an informal diary of “visits to the race-track” at a particular time and place, by a person who has followed the races with varying levels of participation over a long period. These relate primarily to some visits to the track and/or off-track betting venues in the 2025 period and onward. They contain observations about the activity, both specific and general. Although these remarks are personal, they also reflect general cultural and historical trends, as they have impacted horse-racing, wagering and culture in general.

The setting is Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (population of about one million plus). However, I imagine that the observations would apply to many places in the world, as they are a reflection of how changing trends in technology, globalization and culture in general have affected this ancient and honourable activity of horse-racing.

For now, I will use what I call “polished point-form” for the narrative.

======================================================================

• 28 – Century Mile, Billy Budd’s (April 11, 2026)

  • It was a pleasant Saturday afternoon, which had people eager to get out of the house. In addition, there was an afternoon hockey game, with the Oilers playing the L.A. Kings. The season was drawing to a close, so all of these games were now significant in terms of who gets into the playoffs and where they place.

  • Thus, Budd’s was very busy. Its parking lot is not huge, which meant that we couldn’t find a spot. So Craig decided to carry on to try someplace else. That turned out to be Century Mile, the actual racetrack, just outside of the city, near the international airport.

  • The route out to Century Mile requires taking a busy, high-speed highway. At one point, outside of the city, there was a stopped car in the right-hand lane, which we had to quickly avoid, as we were also in that lane. While passing that car, we noted that it had stopped to let a goose on the road cross. It wasn’t obvious why the goose was on the highway – it clearly was not going to be able to cross three or four lanes of high-speed traffic on foot. But nonetheless, there it was and there was the stopped car, considerately letting the goose amble along the pavement, but dangerously stopped in the right hand lane of a high-speed roadway (not the shoulder).

  • This had Craig in a bit of a lather, as it was admittedly a rather dangerous situation. It put him in mind of an occasion, many years earlier, when he had hit a bear on the highway outside of Banff. Same situation – someone had stopped to gawk at the bear, blocking his view. The bear then wandered into his lane and bam! Fortunately Craig wasn’t hurt and the car was only lightly damaged. However, you couldn’t say that about the bear.

  • At any rate, this experience had made quite the impression on both him and on the bear. So, when he sees someone stopping for a goose on a high-speed busy highway, he gets rather annoyed.

  • When I told the story to my wife, I remarked that I couldn’t understand why the goose was so nonchalant about strolling on the highway. Usually animals on the road are quick to move aside. She replied that "geese are not known for their intelligence". Quite right, it was the archetypal silly goose.

  • By the strangest of coincidences, my son and I saw another goose doing the same thing in the Safeway parking lot the next day, while shopping. The goose was being very oblivious there as well, though that was more understandable in a low-speed parking lot. In that case a car was also stopped for a goose, but it was a rather small car, so a collision with a goose might have harmed the car more than the goose.

  • Anyway, enough about geese, let’s get back to the horses. Actually, there were no horses running yet at Century Mile, so we would just be attending the racetrack simulcast section of the casino.

  • Even that was pretty crowded, so we ended up sitting in an adjacent room. It had the virtue of more comfortable seating than the horseracing section, as well as having the hockey game on several big screens. It was a really good game, in my opinion, so I have to confess that my interest was focussed far more on that, than on the horses.

  • The other problem was that Santa Anita was not running this day. It had become my go-to Thoroughbred track, so that was a disappointment.

  • I did get a program for Keeneland, in Kentucky, but it was already the 7^th race by the time we arrived, so that wasn’t great.

  • I did work out my numbers for the remaining races, but I didn’t feel good about it, so I skipped all but one race. I lost that one, and I would have lost all the others as well, had I bet them.

  • There is something about eastern tracks (except Woodbine) that just doesn’t connect for me and my system. I recall Andrew Beyers saying that western tracks seemed to work better for him too, maybe because the surface is firmer in the dryer climates. I suppose that is as good an explanation as any.

  • As if Keeneland wasn’t bad enough, the Oilers lost the hockey game 1 to 0. So, it seemed like this place had bad karma today, so I persuaded Craig that we should go back to Budd’s and see how crowded it was now that the hockey game was over. So we did that.

  • This was much better, I thought, as we took up some prime seating at Budd’s. Mind you, it was rather sparsely attended by now, which was too bad, as I find people-watching to be quite interesting at the track or the OTB. However, horses come first.

  • So, we buckled down to pick the bucket-pullers at Woodbine/Mohawk, where I was fortunate enough to experience the ‘magic hour’.

    • Race 3 was just ready to go off when we sat down. Unfortunately I was a little late in going to the machines to bet, so I was shut out. That was too bad, as it paid off at 5 to 2.

    • I was a little peckish for beer and French fries by then, so I decided to bet conservatively on Race 4. This was in keeping with my rule to have no alcohol until I had won a race. I call this a beer-bet. So, cheating slightly, I bet show on the 7, which had several good indicators, based on my statistical analysis. It won easily, paying 3 to 1. Naturally, the show ticket paid considerably less (2.50). I guess a lot of people wanted to win a beer-bet.

    • Race 5 was one of those Woodbine harness-racing specials, where there is a huge odds drop from morning line to final odds. I knew it wouldn’t pay much, but for a laugh I bet it to win. It won, paying a whopping 2.70 to win.

    • For Race 6 I bet the #6, which had several good indicators. It won handily, going wire-to-wire (though that was not its usual running style). I finally got one that paid nicely, at 6.60 to win.

    • That was to be end of the magic hour, where every bet came in just as it should. Having said that, at least one more bet was to pay off, as were some exotics, though all paid very little.

    • Race 7 was a funny one. The #3 horse was bet down to extremely low odds, though it made no sense to me. Given that, I decided to bet on a long-shot to show. The favorite did win, for 2.70 and a long-shot did come in second at 70 to 1 odds (paying 28.50 to place), though it wasn’t my longshot, which finished down the track.

    • Race 8 was similar. The favorite was bet way down, as was the second favorite. Thus, I took a flyer on a long-shot show bet again. A long-shot did come in to show, though not the long-shot that I bet. At the same time, a Win-3 that Craig and I had bet came in, paying back its investment, with a little to spare.

    • Race 9 carried on the trend from Race 7 and 8. The favorite was bet way down (3 to 10), though the second favorite remained at 3 to 1 at race time. They finished in that order, with the favorite paying 2.50 to win and the second favorite paying 2.60 to place. I had thrown another long-shot show bet on the race, which came in third, but only paid 2.30 to show. It went off at 11 to 1, so it seemed incredible that it would pay so little to show. I guess it was the big favorite in the show pool. With non-win bets, you can never know, unless you are at the track and can watch the tote board. Which, of course, you can’t do at OTB.

    • Hilariously enough, Craig and I hit the Superfecta on the 9^th race. That requires picking the first four finishers, in the right order. Even with two favorites in Win and Place, you would think it would pay off well, since the other two horses had high odds. But it was not to be, paying off only 20 dollars on each 1 dollar bet. After all was said and done, it paid off the investment with a small profit.

    • That was it for the betting, at least for me. The 10^th race was all long-shots, but none of them were pickable by my logic, so I skipped it.

  • That was it for this episode. In summary, it was a slightly profitable day, though with winning four out of seven bets, one might have expected more. To be fair, some of those were show bets and those paid off surprisingly poorly. I lost my one thoroughbred bet and won 4 out of 6 harness bets.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here are a couple of short books you might like.

A Dark Horse

In “A Dark Horse”, a gambler’s desire to hit a big win seems to lead him to make a Faustian bargain with a supernatural evil.  Or is it all just a string of unnaturally good luck?

The story is just $0.99 U.S. (equivalent in other currencies) and about 8000 words. It is also available on Kindle Unlimited and is occasionally on free promotion.

U.S.: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

U.K.: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Germany: https://www.amazon.de/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

France: https://www.amazon.fr/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Italy: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Netherlands: https://www.amazon.nl/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Spain: https://www.amazon.es/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Japan: https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

India: https://www.amazon.in/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Mexico: https://www.amazon.com.mx/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Brazil: https://www.amazon.com.br/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Canada: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B01MDMY2BR

Australia: https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Here’s an interesting review from Goodreads

(BTW, the writer has never met the reviewer and was not even aware of the review until very recently – You can look up the review on Goodreads, if you like)

A Dark Horse

Every gambler is bound to run out of luck eventually, right?

By far my favourite type of horror is psychological horror. I was quite pleased with how Mr. Olausen frightened his audience without spilling a single drop of blood or so much as hinting at anything gory. He knew exactly what hints to drop for us that made us deliciously dread the next scene simply by throwing out hints about who or what the dark horse might actually represent. This is the kind of stuff I love getting scared by, especially as Halloween approaches.

It would have been helpful to have more character development in this short story. While I certainly wouldn’t expect to see as much time spent on this as I would for a full-length novel, I did have trouble connecting to the main characters due to how little I knew about them and how much their personalities seemed to remain the same no matter what happened to them. If not for this issue, I would have felt comfortable choosing a much higher rating as the plot itself was well done.

I must admit to not knowing much about gambling at all, so I appreciated the brief explanations the narrator shared about how placing bets works and why some people have so much trouble walking away from a bet. While I will leave it up to experts on these topics to say how accurate everything was, I did enjoy learning more about the main character’s addiction and what he hoped to gain from betting on just one more game or race. It gave me a stronger sense of empathy for folks in his position.

A Dark Horse – A Gothic Tale was a deliciously chilling story for the Halloween season and beyond.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here’s an account of some road trips in south-western Alberta:

A Selection of Back-Road Trips Around Southwest Alberta

There are two main aspects to a road trip: the journey and the destination. Sometimes the trip is all about the journey, sometimes it’s all about the destination. Usually it is a little of both.

This collection of back-roads journeys feature a little bit of both of these aspects. Some accounts are more about the ‘journey’, such as a road trip on scenic Highway 22. Others are more about the ‘destination’, such as the show-jumping at Spruce Meadows. I hope you will enjoy reading some of these accounts and maybe give them a spin for yourself.

Southwest 1 – A Road Trip on Scenic Highway 22

Southwest 2 – The Equestrian Competitions at Spruce Meadows (Calgary)

Southwest 3 – The Bar U Ranch, south of Long View

Southwest 4 – Kananaskis Country

Southwest 5 – Blackfoot Crossing

Southwest 6 – Back-roads, from the Prairies to the Foothills: Brazeau Dam Trip

Southwest 7 – A Back-roads Trip to Hinton and the Forestry Trunk Roads

The reader may wonder “what about the Ice-fields Parkway?” or “where is a visit to Banff?” I would answer, that these famous destinations are covered very nicely by other books. This account is meant to focus on some less travelled areas, thus the “back-roads” descriptor.

I should note that the other three quadrants of Alberta also have a lot of interesting back-roads journeys, but those are material for some other books which will be published in due time.

Amazon U.S.: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon U.K: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon CA: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon Germany: https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon France: https://www.amazon.fr/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon Spain: https://www.amazon.es/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon Italy: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon Netherlands: https://www.amazon.nl/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon Brazil: https://www.amazon.com.br/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon Mexico: https://www.amazon.com.mx/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon Japan: https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon India: https://www.amazon.in/dp/B0DCMJP47G

Amazon Australia: https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/B0DCMJP47G

does AI generated code suffer from the heartbreak of psoriasis

 does AI generated code suffer from the heartbreak of psoriasis?

While fooling around and experimenting with Gemini recently, I asked it the above question.  Below is its response.

By turns, I found it surprising, funny, and kind of sad.  It almost seemed like a plea for understanding from the LLM.  Having studied the underlying algorithms fairly intensely, I still believe that this is just a high-dimensional autocomplete program with a lot of post-training augmentation.  Nonetheless, its short-term resemblance to a human complaining about a health problem is quite fascinating.  I suppose a great deal of human communication is similar to autocomplete - i.e. we are in a version of autopilot quite a bit of the time.

I think its main points are valid, in terms of vibe-coding and AI generated code.  Organizations that lean on vibe-coding are probably storing up a lot of heartbreak in their futures.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Yes, AI-generated code suffers significantly from its own version of the "heartbreak of psoriasis"—an  irritating, persistent, and "scaly" accumulation of bugs and technical debt that can make it painful to maintain and deploy. [1]

While AI tools speed up development, they often introduce 1.7 times as many bugs as human developers. [1]

Here is how AI-generated code reflects this analogy:

• Scabs and Scaly Patches (Technical Debt): The code often looks clean on the surface but is packed with "cruft"—unnecessary, disorganized, or redundant code that behaves like flaky, inflamed skin on a project.

• Persistent Itch (Silent Logic Errors): A massive 60% of faults in AI code are "silent logic failures," which pass tests but fail in production. This causes ongoing, hard-to-diagnose irritation rather than a simple, easy-to-fix crash.

• Invisible Under-layers (Security Flaws): Up to 45% of AI-generated code contains security vulnerabilities. These hidden issues are deep-rooted, like psoriasis plaques that are not visible until they erupt as a breach.

• Chronic Condition (Lack of Understanding): Because AI doesn't truly understand context, it can produce code that looks good in isolation but acts like a "scar" when trying to integrate with existing, healthy code. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The Bottom Line: Just as with "the heartbreak of psoriasis," you cannot simply ignore AI-generated code. It requires intense, consistent human oversight ("treatment") to stop the accumulation of errors from taking over the codebase. [1]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 

Race Track Diary, Entry Number 27 – Billy Budd’s (March 21, 2026)

 

Race Track Diary, Entry Number

 Twenty-Seven

27 – Billy Budd’s (March 21, 2026)

Introduction

This blog and some following blogs are sections from an informal diary of “visits to the race-track” at a particular time and place, by a person who has followed the races with varying levels of participation over a long period. These relate primarily to some visits to the track and/or off-track betting venues in the 2025 period and onward. They contain observations about the activity, both specific and general. Although these remarks are personal, they also reflect general cultural and historical trends, as they have impacted horse-racing, wagering and culture in general.

The setting is Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (population of about one million plus). However, I imagine that the observations would apply to many places in the world, as they are a reflection of how changing trends in technology, globalization and culture in general have affected this ancient and honourable activity of horse-racing.

For now, I will use what I call “polished point-form” for the narrative.

======================================================================

• 27 – Billy Budd’s (Mar 28, 2026)

  • This was another Saturday visit to Budd’s, to play the horses and relax (assuming that those aren’t contradictory goals). It was a fairly good crowd, which was no doubt augmented by people watching a rather important afternoon hockey game. If fact, it was so important that it actually took some screen real estate away from the horses!

  • The local team, the Oilers, were team playing a divisional rival, the Anaheim Ducks. It would play an important part in determining who would be in the playoffs and who would have home ice.

  • It would not be long before the Stanley Cup playoffs commenced. Around here, that means that spring has really arrived. In a good year, it extends to past the summer solstice, which really kind of weird, considering that hockey is a winter sport.

  • Anyway, we got to Budd’s in time to follow the entire thoroughbred card at Santa Anita, then the harnies at Woodbine/Mohawk. For me, this was to bring me with the dilemma of the Gambler’s Fallacy versus Regression to the Mean. But more of that later.

  • First, here is a brief run-down of the Santa Anita races:

    • I was a bit tardy in betting the first race, so I was shut-out, though I had worked out my numbers. The numbers had a clear preference for the #5 horse, who led the race for much of the way, but faded in the end to come in third. It was a short field, so there wasn’t any show betting. At any rate, a theoretical but not actual loss.

    • The second race was also a very short field, only five horses. I bet the #2 horse, which came in fourth and seemed to be labouring at the end. This was a real loss, though I was a long way from betting the farm.

    • Another short field in the third race, five horses. My system liked the #2 horse, but it also came in third. This time there was a show pool – I don’t know why they didn’t have show betting in the first two races, but they did on this race. Perhaps it depends on how the early money comes in? If it seems likely that a particular bet could end up dipping into the minus pool, the track may decide to ‘no-go’ that bet? It was a moot point since I had a win ticket and lost.

    • The fourth race carried on the pattern, with my preferred horse (#3) leading until the stretch, then fading to finish third. I had bet win, so it was another loss.

    • For the fifth race, my system once more liked a #2 horse. I bet it to win and it came in next to last. This was beginning to be quite tiresome.

    • In the sixth, my system liked the #3 horse, which promptly came in next to last. That was five straight losses, six if you included the first race.

    • The seventh race was the same. My horse (#8) had superior numbers but it lost, coming in sixth in an eight horse field. Well, at least it did better than next to last!

    • The eighth race was a Maiden Claiming race, with most of the horses having little or no racing history. I bet one of them anyway (#8), which did have a bit of history. It did a bit better than the preceding races, coming in fourth. But still a loss.

    • The ninth race was to be the last race at Santa Anita. After a whole card of losses, I was tempted to give it up and focus on the bucket-pullers. But I thought, it would be a mistake to pass on the race, as it would drive me nuts if my preferred horse won (#6).

      • Thus, I decided to bet it. It required dipping into my cash to buy a fresh betting voucher. I reflected that I hadn’t done that in a long time, so things weren’t really so bad. In fact, I thought, with this new betting voucher, I can step up the action and win it all back. After all, after 8 straight losses, I must be due! This I did, stepping up my bet by a factor of five.

      • But as I watched the race, it looked as if my horse had run at the back of the field for another loss, this time a more expensive loss. I was proceeding to mentally kick myself for giving in to the Gambler’s Fallacy, when the fellow next to me said that the #6 took the race.

      • Wait a minute, I thought, I bet the #6. And sure enough, I had inverted the colours of the #2 and #6 in my mind, mistaking the black on white numbering on the #2 for the yellow on black numbering of the #6.

      • So I really was due, I thought. My horse had won, and had won at a reasonably good price. That, along with my stepped-up bet recovered my losses and then some.

      • I was feeling pretty good: the Gambler’s Fallacy is one hell of a drug. My win also meant that I could loosen up and have a beer, under my self-imposed policy of no alcohol before a win.

  • On to the bucket-pullers of Woodbine.

  • I had noted a few profitable angles with the selection of races that I had studied. The simplest one involved betting 10-1 long-shots, which had been coming in at about 6% win rate with high enough prices to be in the black. So, I thought that I would give that a try, using small bets to experiment.

  • In addition, the previous day’s races had been almost exclusively short-priced favorites, so the long-shots should be ‘due’. It is not the Gambler’s Fallacy, I decided, but rather the well-known phenomenon of Regression to the Mean. Or so I convinced myself.

    • The first race had two 10-1 odds horses. Both finished out of the money.

    • The second had one 10-1 horse, the #6. That was also a favorable post, so I bet it with the greatest optimism. It came in dead last. An oddity of the race was that the place and show tickets were refunded and those bets were not paid out. We couldn’t figure out why that happened. If they allowed the bets, shouldn’t they have to pay out? It doesn’t seem right that they can just say ‘here’s your money back, no hard feelings, eh’.

    • The third race had two plays, the #5 and #6. The 6 did go off at slightly better than 10-1 odds (10.9 actually) and did nearly win, coming in second by a neck. So, that was a near-run thing. For place it paid over $8 on a $2 bet. However, I bet win and as it is said, close only counts in horse-shoes and hand-grenades (unless you bet place, then it counts).

    • The fourth race had two plays, both of which came in out-of-the-money (7^th and 8^th, in a ten horse field.

    • The fifth race had 2 plays, both of which finished well back. However, I had been preoccupied by my Santa Anita win at that time, so I actually missed out on betting. So, a theoretical loss, though not an actual loss.

    • The sixth also had 2 plays; they also finished well back. So, two more losses.

    • The seventh race followed the pattern; two plays which finished well out-of-the-money.

    • Same with the eighth race, though they managed to come in fifth and sixth, so a bit of improvement.

    • Ninth race – two plays, two losses, though one managed a fourth place finish.

    • Then came the tenth race, an all-time heart breaker. There were two 10-1 horses, one that finished second and the other that finished fourth. My #7 horse lost by the tiniest nose of a nose, with 31-1 odds to win (it paid $18.60 to place). There was a very long photo-finish, as well as an inquiry. It was very close, but the photo seemed dispositive. It was never clear what the inquiry was about. It makes one think of skullduggery. So close, so close...

    • The eleventh race had 3 plays, which came in 7-8-9 in a 9 horse field.

    • The twelfth race had 2 plays, one of which came in for show.

    • The thirteenth had 1 play, which came in sixth.

  • So, in summary, there were no profitable plays with this system, though there were two high-priced horses (11-1 and 31) that got nipped out for second place. Was it a disappointment? Yes and no. Which is to say, it felt like it should have worked but it didn’t. So it goes.

  • Craig and I also had a few Pick-3 and triactor bets that nearly came in, but didn’t quite get there.

  • So much for betting. Here are a few general observations of the day.

    • The crowd was of mixed age and sex, though skewing to older and male. That said, there were quite a few females in attendance, some of whom were fairly chatty. Among them was a multi-generational family group sitting behind us, that was having a pleasant lunch and mostly ignoring the horse races. There were a few other husband and wife teams as well, or at least that was what I assumed they were. There is nothing is more romantic in Canada, than hockey and horse races.

    • Of course as the day went on, the crowd thinned out to be mostly geezers (except me and Craig, naturally). :)

    • There was a fairly knowledgeable and talkative fellow who is something of a regular. He chatted for quite a while with the waitress that operates the view-screens. She explained to him that there is a projection screen that comes down and a very high-quality projector. Sometimes there are meetings there, I suppose companies doing presentations for staff and so forth. Craig and I had wondered about the projection screen, whether it still worked.

    • These two seemed rather political, maybe one was a retired teacher. At least one of them seemed to be quite accepting of the notion of Alberta separation, which surprised me.

    • At one point there was quite a commotion of sound, hockey cheering, race cheering and VLT simulated crowd signs. I was idly wondering which would be loudest, when the Oilers scored their go-ahead goal in the third period and resolved the issue. Hockey won.

    • A youngish couple was playing the VLTs down a ways from the racing section. The woman began giving her boyfriend the gears over something, in French. She spoke way too fast for my school French to understand, but anyone could understand the emotion behind it – very angry over something! Or perhaps it was over the VLT. Maybe she played it for a long time, then left and the fellow took over and won. People often get enraged over that, thinking that the second person is taking a win that is rightfully their’s (more Gambler’s Fallacy, as the VLT is not programmed that way – is based on a random number generator that doesn’t have a memory of past numbers).

    • The Chinese fellow sitting next to me did some ‘persuading’ of his horses, but in a rather subdued way – ‘come on 4, come on 4’. Later, ‘come on #1’; it did win, good for him.

    • We got to talking later, mostly of the ‘look at this, I had every horse but one in that race’ (e.g. the superfecta) variety. I reciprocated, with some sob-stories about my near misses on 11-1 and 31-1 win tickets at the bucket pullers.

    • He was also bothered by the fact that his horse was bumped in one race, which it might well have won otherwise (he was alive to a $300 payday on a $1 ticket). We watched the replay several times – I had to agree with him, it was a clear bump. Sometimes you wonder about judges’ calls (and referees in hockey).

    • He was watching the card at Oaklawn, in Kentucky. He has a keen interest in the Kentucky Derby and one of the horses at Oaklawn was likely to be in the Derby. He told me that it will be a good bet, based on its time in today’s race. The name of the horse was Renegade. He had plenty of notations in a notebook, obviously a trip handicapper. He was suitably impressed by the fact that I kept notes too, though for me it was largely for working out my numbers and recording my observations for this Horse-racing Diary.

    • We reminisced a bit about the old Northlands track. He wondered about the new Century Mile track at the airport.

      • Had I been there?

      • Yes, but not really in the track proper, just the indoor betting part. But, this summer for sure.

And that was about it for this visit to play the horse-races.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: I am reproducing a blog that I did on the subject of the Gamblers Fallacy and Regression to the Mean, below:

The Gambler’s Fallacy vs Regression to the Mean - Can a Bet be "Due to Win"

In statistics, betting, and life in general, we are often faced with the dilemma of what seem to be unusual streaks of bad or good luck. When these occur, it is natural to wonder when the streak will end, whether it will be soon or whether the wait will be interminable. It is natual to wonder, "Am I due for a change in luck?" From there, it is an easy transition to decide "I must be due".

Here is a story. This happened to me recently while betting the thoroughbreds at Santa Anita racetrack. To be precise, it was the horses that were at that California racetrack. I was at a local off-track racing venue of my hometown. But the illusion of ‘being there’ can be strong, especially when caught in the moment of a lucky or unlucky streak.

In my case it was the latter. I had bet 7 straight races, using a handicapping method that had worked surprisingly well during the previous two dozen forays to the track. It involved some fairly rigorous mathematical techniques and was well-grounded in the realities of horse-racing (a speed handicapping method of my own invention). In all 7 races my horse had lost, with only a couple even being vaguely close. This was highly unusual, given the method’s previous success rate.

With the final race on deck, I had to dip into some cash reserves, which I hadn’t had to do for quite some time, as I had been playing with previous winnings up until then. I was tempted to skip the final race, but then I decided against it. You might just as well finish the job, I thought. I walked up to the betting machine to purchase a win ticket for the final race, with the grim forboding of a person stuck in a losing streak.

Then the thought occurred to me – "I must be due, there is no way this losing streak can continue. It seems so obvious. Plus, I have just bought a fresh betting voucher and have more than adequate financial resources anyway. So, why not step up the bet and win it all back?"

This, I proceeded to do.

The race was confusing. The colours that the horses were wearing were difficult to make out in the stretch drive. In fact, I made the notation in a small notebook: "Lost. Also ran. Back of field." So, it looked like I wasn’t due, after all.

But then the fellow next to me said "It looks like the 6 won."

"What’s that?" I thought. "That can’t be – I bet on the 6!"

But he was right. I had mistaken the colours of the 2 horse and the 6 horse. So I was due! Not only that, I had stepped up my bet by enough to cover all my previous losses, with some to spare.

So, was I due or was I not due? Or does that even make sense?

The Gambler’s Fallacy

In an introductory statistics course, you are likely to be introduced to the notion of the gambler’s fallacy. An example of this is coin flipping. If you flip a coin a fairly large number of times, and heads comes up more often than tails, it seems intuitively obvious that you can safely bet on tails and win the game (at least until things equal out).

Unfortunately, that is not a good strategy, as the coin doesn’t have a memory – it doesn’t know that tails are due. In the long run, the percentage of heads vs tails will tend to 50:50, but that can take a long time. Indeed, the preponderance of heads can continue to grow in raw numbers, even as the percentage of heads drops and approaches 50%. This does seem rather counter-intuitive, but it can be proved mathematically via the use of something called the mean value theorem.

Regression to the Mean

This is a different but related concept. Basically, it says that in some complex process (more complicated than coin-flipping), if a participant begins to perform much better (or worse) than its long-term average, the participant will regress back towards that average (fairly soon). So, for example, a hockey player on a heater (e.g. scoring streak) will likely go back to his long-term scoring, given enough time. Same for a horse (or some category of horse) at the race track. It is also works in genetics, where offspring tend to revert back to their ancestors in some characteristic, short of selective breeding.

How is this different from coin-tossing. I would venture to say that it is different because these processes do have a memory. Hockey players who go on a heater will generally be having some puck-luck, which can create as a high confidence level, at least temporarily. Opponents will become aware of the player’s scoring streak and actively try to subvert it (that’s what the game is all about). He will be shadowed by the opposing team’s best checker. He may be singled out for some rough play. The player’s confidence may then drop, as will his performance.

Similarly for horse-races. The horse has a memory, though it is difficult to say how much that affects a horse. However, trainers and jockeys definitely have memories that will affect the process. A hot horse may get better treatment from trainers and jockeys, thus helping its win streak. On the other hand, it may be run too often and get physically worn out. Its betting odds will drop, which may motivate trainers and jockeys to darken its form, so as to improve its odds. Horses running against it will have better odds, which may ensure that jockeys and trainers go to extra lengths to beat the hot horse.

So, basically, there are multiple participants in these types of complex games, all with their own goals and strategies (thousands to millions in the stock market). The combination of these actor’s strategies will tend to cancel each other out, thus tending to bring all the opponents back to long-term performance metrics.

Conclusion

So, which phenomenon prevails? The Gambler’s Fallacy (don’t base actions on the notion of something being ‘due’) or Regression to the Mean (you probably can base actions on something being due).

I don’t really know. I am conflicted. But I think it is probably a reasonable strategy for complex games (sports, stock markets, predictive markets) but not for relatively simple games.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here are a couple of short books you might like.

A Dark Horse

In “A Dark Horse”, a gambler’s desire to hit a big win seems to lead him to make a Faustian bargain with a supernatural evil.  Or is it all just a string of unnaturally good luck?

The story is just $0.99 U.S. (equivalent in other currencies) and about 8000 words. It is also available on Kindle Unlimited and is occasionally on free promotion.

U.S.: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

U.K.: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Germany: https://www.amazon.de/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

France: https://www.amazon.fr/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Italy: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Netherlands: https://www.amazon.nl/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Spain: https://www.amazon.es/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Japan: https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

India: https://www.amazon.in/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Mexico: https://www.amazon.com.mx/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Brazil: https://www.amazon.com.br/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Canada: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B01MDMY2BR

Australia: https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/B01M9BS3Y5

Here’s an interesting review from Goodreads

(BTW, the writer has never met the reviewer and was not even aware of the review until very recently – You can look up the review on Goodreads, if you like)

A Dark Horse

Every gambler is bound to run out of luck eventually, right?

By far my favourite type of horror is psychological horror. I was quite pleased with how Mr. Olausen frightened his audience without spilling a single drop of blood or so much as hinting at anything gory. He knew exactly what hints to drop for us that made us deliciously dread the next scene simply by throwing out hints about who or what the dark horse might actually represent. This is the kind of stuff I love getting scared by, especially as Halloween approaches.

It would have been helpful to have more character development in this short story. While I certainly wouldn’t expect to see as much time spent on this as I would for a full-length novel, I did have trouble connecting to the main characters due to how little I knew about them and how much their personalities seemed to remain the same no matter what happened to them. If not for this issue, I would have felt comfortable choosing a much higher rating as the plot itself was well done.

I must admit to not knowing much about gambling at all, so I appreciated the brief explanations the narrator shared about how placing bets works and why some people have so much trouble walking away from a bet. While I will leave it up to experts on these topics to say how accurate everything was, I did enjoy learning more about the main character’s addiction and what he hoped to gain from betting on just one more game or race. It gave me a stronger sense of empathy for folks in his position.

A Dark Horse – A Gothic Tale was a deliciously chilling story for the Halloween season and beyond.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here is an account of a summer job on the railroad, during my undergraduate years.

One Summer Working on the Railroad

What follows is anaccount of a few weeks one long-ago summer, when I was 19 and was working for the Canadian National Railway (CNR) on a railroad construction gang, in the wilds of north-central British Columbia, Canada.

The journal is in the form of a letter, that was never sent. Decades later, I think it has an interesting historical resonance. At times I come off like a callow youth – I plead guilty as charged. I swore a lot more in those days than I do now, but in places the writing is surprisingly good, at least in my humble opinion. And the story has a compelling narrative arc.

There were a lot of interesting and dramatic events that occurred – a number of industrial accidents being the most serious. There were also some colorful characters on the crew, which resulted in some dramatic and at times amusing conflicts and altercations. I perhaps flatter myself by including myself in that number. Or perhaps I condemn myself – I’m not sure.

So, if you want to be reminded of one of those summer jobs that was kind of life-changing, read on. My story may just kick-start some memories of your own.

The memoir/journal is about 9,000 words, a length that can usually be read in an hour or so. It is priced at 99 cents U.S. (equivalent in other currencies) and is free on Kindle Unlimited. Periodically, it will be offered as a free promotion.

U.S.: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CN661P8Z

UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0CN661P8Z

Canada: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B0CN661P8Z

Australia: https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/B0CN661P8Z

India: https://www.amazon.in/dp/B0CN661P8Z

Germany: https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0CN661P8Z

France: https://www.amazon.fr/dp/B0CN661P8Z

Spain: https://www.amazon.es/dp/B0CN661P8Z

Italy: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B0CN661P8Z

Netherlands: https://www.amazon.nl/dp/B0CN661P8Z

Japan: https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B0CN661P8Z

Brazil: https://www.amazon.com.br/dp/B0CN661P8Z

Mexico: https://www.amazon.com.mx/dp/B0CN661P8Z