DRF Feature about Pittsburgh Phil

[Calzone Lord]

Very good piece up on the DRF website.

http://www.drf.com/news/pittsburg-ph...r-handicapping

One of the interesting things about Pittsburgh Phil - is that he often gets portrayed as having this ability to be unfazed by all that goes on and a habit of never showing emotion.

That, almost certainly, was not true. In fact, Vosburgh described colorful temper tantrums he would have both after a betting loss or about a weight assignment in the racing office. He described him as a very sore loser - when he did lose.

Told one story about how the army was testing some kind of crazy explosive device a few miles from the track - and after one tremendous explosion - everyone was stunned and is asking what that blast was. One big guy in the crowd yells out 'it's just Phil kicking about another bad ride' and the whole crowd started laughing.

[randallscott35]

Fun article, the only part worth highlighting

He would find the parimutuel system a serious curb on his fortunes. Bookmakers generally kept a cut of 5 percent; the slice today is on the order of 15-25 percent. He was selective, but he plunged when the odds were in his favor; in a parimutuel system his money would come back against him, his odds cut to the bone.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Fun article, the only part worth highlighting

He would find the parimutuel system a serious curb on his fortunes. Bookmakers generally kept a cut of 5 percent; the slice today is on the order of 15-25 percent. He was selective, but he plunged when the odds were in his favor; in a parimutuel system his money would come back against him, his odds cut to the bone.

There's a little more to his edge than just that.

If PG 1985 was born into that time - and didn't even know what he knows now - he probably still would have managed an upper middle class income from his betting profits alone.

It was a climate that favored the bettor more than any other point in American racing history.

Not going with a 5% takeout when the game switched solely to parimutuel is basically what killed horse racing.

Though, some could probably argue that horse racing wasn't truly killed until the 1945 takeout increase in New York, nicknamed the "O'Dwyer bite," Basically, takeout was raised from 10% to 15% in New York.

Handle dropped nearly 33 percent over the next four years, attendance dropped sharply, and horse racing lost its legitimacy. A game that could be beaten was reduced to a sucker's game. Also, in less than a year, hundreds of people were ejected and barred from the racetracks for bookmaking on the grounds just at NYRA tracks alone.

A hundred years ago - bettors like Plunger Walton were treated like Paris Hilton is today. The New York Times ran a very lengthy story when Plunger Walton's ADULT aged daughter decided to marry a man from Philiadelphia without his approval.

ESPN has tried to make the modern poker pro's of today what the press was able to do with horseplayers of a hundred years ago. I can name more than 20 Poker Pro's off the top of my head - and I think Poker is a boring and slow game for worthless chain-smokers.

But basically - guys like Mike Wilbon can justifiably get away with sh!tting all over horse racing on a network that tries to push it - mainly because the cries for a 5% parimutual takeout were ignored and because of the O'Dwyer bite of 1945.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

One of the interesting things about Pittsburgh Phil - is that he often gets portrayed as having this ability to be unfazed by all that goes on and a habit of never showing emotion.

That, almost certainly, was not true. In fact, Vosburgh described colorful temper tantrums he would have both after a betting loss or about a weight assignment in the racing office. He described him as a very sore loser - when he did lose.

Told one story about how the army was testing some kind of crazy explosive device a few miles from the track - and after one tremendous explosion - everyone was stunned and is asking what that blast was. One big guy in the crowd yells out 'it's just Phil kicking about another bad ride' and the whole crowd started laughing.

Not exactly a fine showing of story-teller memory on my part - I went back and looked at the article again:




And the opener from the same piece ....



I wonder what the douchebag gentleman who made that comment about the way people behave at the races a hundred years ago - would think about the way they behave on racing message boards today.

[fpsoxfan]

Here's a piece I found, including some of his Saratoga experiences.

“Sphinx-like he would watch his favorites come down the stretch. If he won there would be as little trace of animation on his stoic face as there would be signs of disappointment if he lost. No one could read his mind, his hopes or his fears.

“Just before his death there was reaction in Asheville. As he lay upon his bed of fever he wildly called upon his horses in imaginary races, pleaded with them, cried to them and then fell back upon his pillow weakened by his frenzy shouting words of victory.

“Men who have marveled at this once self-possessed man recall how he lost $285,000 up to the last three days of the Saratoga meeting in August, 1902. Two days before the meeting closed he won heavily on his own horse, Brunswick, at 6 to 1 to show. The next day he went through the betting ring and played Belle of Lexington and won enough to almost put him even. That same afternoon he plunged heavily on Charley Ellison’s Skillful at the good odds of 20 to 1 and cleaned up money enough in the three days’ play to net him $290,000. Even that winning affected his stone-like face no more than if it had been so many cents.”

NOTE: To put that amount of money in perspective, $290,000 would be the equivalent of winning 7 million dollars in 2008!

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by fpsoxfan

Here's a piece I found, including some of his Saratoga experiences.

“Sphinx-like he would watch his favorites come down the stretch. If he won there would be as little trace of animation on his stoic face as there would be signs of disappointment if he lost. No one could read his mind, his hopes or his fears.

That is the mystique - the reality (at least from the most respected sources of the day) was that he behaved like Phil Hellmuth when he lost and was a complainer when he didn't like a weight assignment on a horse he owned.

The disadvantages of the times for bettors: Very few horses, few races that would pass as good betting races today - though the handicaps were severe to make them better betting races. And no exotic wagering - which meant you had to bet A LOT of money to make a name for yourself.

Other than that - things favored the bettor so much it's comical.

In those days, some of the most famous bettors made incredible sums of money, were treated like Paris Hilton by the press, the public was fascinated with them, and some dated well known actresses and singers.

Imagine today, some guy coming out of the city of Pittsburgh with his prior background in the intellectually heavy cock-fight game ... and he's worth $80 million by the time he's 43 years-old.

The way the books were described in the Mid-West and Far-West for a short stretch in a few old columns - it would be almost impossible to not make money so long as you had basic math skills. The newbies getting into bookmaking would sometimes open horses at fat odds that would go off favorites or as short priced contenders come post time.