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 (7th and 8th, 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
