Bill Simmons Being a Little Irregular

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com, @AndyDisco on Twitter


The top tweet was posted in early December, I think. The contradictory chat post was from last night (6/15/10) from Bill Simmon's NBA Finals chat cast thingy.




I hope no one asks for his daughter's life, but that does seem like an about-face from his previous policy. Or was that his grand coming out? It be like if Jake Gyllenhaal just went out on a date with a dude and when the paparazzi catch him he just shrugs and is like, "Well.....yeah. Did you really think I was straight? Do you really CARE that I'm gay? Ok then." Then went back to eating his dinner on his date?









That's how I roll.

Bad Day for Jesusophiles

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com, @AndyDisco on Twitter


A Hallmark-level, yet successful painter and crazed Christian, Thomas Kinkade did some stinko drivin. If Jesus is so good why does your art suck and why did you just get popped for endangering lives if you love him so much? Weird. It's almost like he's unintelligent.

$700,000 damage was done to Jesus in Monroe, Ohio. Jesus was struck down by lightning. Maybe a dyslexic somewhere said, "May I strike God down with lightning! Wait, I meant may God strike ME down!", but it was too late.


Better luck next week, Jesus.



P.S. Have you ever been so drunk that you have heckled Siegfried and Roy? Thomas Kinkade has.





That's how I roll.

Looking for a way to Humiliate Your Horse? Have it Race Goldikova

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com, @AndyDisco on Twitter


Goldikova, the European version of Zenyatta or Rachel Alexandra kicked more male horse hiney today in England in the Group 1 Queen Anne Stakes.




With her being a miler and Zenyatta and Rachel preferring more of a Classic Distance, I wish they could compromise and race in a 1 1/16th or 1 1/8th race, kinda like how Donovan Bailey and Michael Johnson raced in that 150 meter race.

I digressed, though. The point is Goldikova is awesome.







That's how I roll.

One Metric to Determine Best World Cup Betting Value

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com, @AndyDisco on Twitter

I combined easyodds.com's aggregator for the (betting) odds of each team to win the 2010 World Cup with Nate Silver's world cup (winning) odds to arrive at, given these two sets of data, the dollar amount that a person can "expect" to win with each bet.

What the numbers really tell us is that, for Spain, if it wins you would win $450 on a $100 bet (100 X 3.5 odds + the 100 back that you bet = 450). In combination with Silver's win percentage, that means that you have a 14.85% chance of winning $450. When you do the math, you get an expected return of $66.83 on a $100 bet.

In a sense it's like in Fletch when Chevy Chase says something like, "there's a 50/50 chance of survival. But there's only a 10% chance of that happening.".

So here's the breakdown. I went with only the top 9 teams in descending order of betting odds favoritism. I show their odds, their win payout, then the win %age as predicted by Nate Silver

Country- Gambling odds= (Payout if they win)- Silver's Win %age = Payout * %age


Spain- 3.5/1= ($450) 14.85%= $66.83
Brazil- 4.5/1= ($550) 22.39% = $123.15
Argentina- 6/1 ($700) 10.35%= $72.45
Holland- 8/1 ($900) 10.03%= $90.27
England- 8/1 ($900) 8.18% = $73.62
Germany- 9/1 ($1,000) 4.11% = $41.10
Italy- 16/1 ($1,700) 1.86%= $31.62
France- 25/1 ($2,600) 1.51%= $39.26
Portugal- 25/1 ($2,600) 3.54% $92.04


The single biggest explanation for this is that Nate Silver gives Brazil a huge relative chance (22.39%) of winning the World Cup, over the next likely candidate, Spain at 14.85%- or about 33% more likely. So by Silver's metric, Brazil is a clear favorite, but the betting odds have them listed as a slight second favorite.

We all know that a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link and, some of Silver's win percentages seem questionable (is Brazil really 5 times more likely to win than Germany? or .33 more likely than Spain?), but again, I wasn't claiming to personally swear by all of this data, I'm just saying, "Hey, I did this and thought you might be interested.".


A Few Clarifications for Gambling Rookies

You may be asking what the difference is between betting odds and win odds, since after all, the betting odds are the odds to win it all. The difference is that Silver's win odds, are (his interpretation of) the objective odds to actually win it. The betting odds at various betting sites, are generally an accurate reflection of the probability of winning, but are ultimately designed to entice betting. They are running a business after all.

To help illustrate the difference between the two, consider a hypothetical: If me, you and 9 of our friends fielded a team in the world cup, we would have a 0% of winning (true odds), but the odds-makers would offer a bet on us anyway, just to entice betting, thereby making them money. They would give us odds of 750,000/1 (gambling odds), and gladly pocket the money that our friends bet on us, or people accidentally/drunkenly wager on us, knowing full well the odds of us winning is zero.

Now take that theoretical into a real life example. Instead of you, men and 9 friends, imagine you are in England selling bets to the English betting public. They know damn well English fans WANT to bet on England, regardless of the odds, thereby making it a seller's market. So if England really has a 10/1 chance to win, the oddsmakers want to sell odds at 8/1, since it's a seller's market. And if England does win, that will save them 20% of all payouts. However, the betting public can also shop around a little and take whoever gives the highest odds. This may give our sportsbook incentive to drop their odds to 9/1 in order to offer more value.

Most of the oddsmakers represented at easyodds.com are from England, so in this exercise, I'm not sure how close to true odds these sports books are because so much of their betting is hinged upon taking money on England.


Note: All of the odds used were current at the time of writing.




That's how I roll.

Lookalikes v 35.0- Mesut Ozil and Peter Lorre

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com, @AndyDisco on Twitter

Exciting German World Cup team member Mesut Ozil and Hollywood Legend from Casablanca and The Maltese Falcon, Peter Lorre, look a lot alike.























































































That's how I roll.

Up Yours, England

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com, @AndyDisco on Twitter


Look familiar, Englerlund? USA! USA!






That's how I roll.

You'll Think Less of Me

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com, @AndyDisco on Twitter

I accidentally thought of this one and I wasn't about to suffer through it alone.

Below is Li'l Wayne's song, Lolipop where he chronicles the receiving of oral services. The song opens with some clever lolipop-as-fellatio wordplay with him saying, "she said 'he's so sweet, I wanna lick the (w)rapper.' So I let her lick the (w)rapper".

I accidentally found myself singing along but changing the lyrics to "'he's so sweet, I wanna like the crapper.' So I let her lick the crapper."









That's how I roll.

Live Fast, Die Young, Leave an Obese Corpse: The Photographic Ballad of TR Slyder Dogging the McGangBang

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com, @AndyDisco on Twitter

This is the McGangBang. I learned about it today. It's two items of the dollar menu at McDonald's: the McDouble and the McChicken. Two bucks and 23 cents takes it home- unless you donate to the Ronald McDonald House. You separate the two patties of the double and shamefully, yet, lustfully, insert the entire McChicken betwixt the patties. After that the only thing left to do is temporarily disable to your dignity in order to enable yourself to do something like this.*

I thought this sounded like something I could do so I did it. My friends said, "pics or it didn't happen", so I documentation my culinary descent into culinary hell. The Inferno described by our friend Dante had nine circles, I got right to the 9th circle in only 8 bites.

Theme song, bite #s, and corresponding circle of Dante's hell.

* denotes- N/A to people who drive monster trucks.

Bite 0.










Bite 1. Limbo. Inhabited by The Unbaptized and Virtuous Pagans







Bite 2. The Gluttonous.






Bite 3. The Hoarders and the Spendthrifts

(I couldn't NOT keep it real aqui, senor robles)






Bite 4. The Wrathful and the Sullen






Bite 5. The Heretics.





I thought this pic was blurry and then I realized I didn't have any proof of the date. I didn't have a newspaper in front of me today but I did take a pic of the screen from ChicagoTribune.com covering today's Blackhawks Parade, with my 5-bite bitten McGangBang.





Bite 6. The Violent.







The Penultimate Bite: Bite 7. The Fraudulent.






The Final Bite. Bite 8. The Traitors.















That's how I roll.

The Most American Meal Possible: The McGangBang

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com, @AndyDisco on Twitter

UPDATE: I ate one.


The Yin and Yang of food manifest. Along with hard drugs, unprotected sex, sky diving, literally playing with fire, and all other good things, the McGangBang is awesome, yet could kill you.


If you put the KFC Double Down in there too you should call it the McCaligula. If that doesn't roll off the tongue for you, I would also suggest the McI'veLostTheWillToLive.


click here to support the fighting of childhood obesity.




That's how I roll.

LoveChildInvestigation v 14.0: Howdy Doody + Bill Paxton = Chris Pronger

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com, @AndyDisco on Twitter




































That's how I roll.

Intervention

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com, @AndyDisco on Twitter


Dear Nearly All Black Sports Talking Heads,

Thank you for your unfailing success at mentioning a Kardashian sister every time you talk about Reggie Bush or Lamar Odom. It makes you look hip, virile, non-creepy, intelligent and even more sports expert. Like several other sports fans, I don't watch sports for the games but to gain a perspective for who sports talking heads are attracted to.


-TR










That's how I roll.

ESPN's Horse Racing Coverage Still Subpar

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com, @AndyDisco on Twitter

First thing is first- I am glad ESPN is broadcasting horse racing and I think Randy Moss and Jerry Bailey are great, as are the little essay readings by Bill Nack. My problem with their coverage is about the direction /scope/focus of the coverage, which I will get to a bit later.

Most of my concerns about horse racing are about the sports as a whole. Specifically, that zero people care about horse racing and the industry has little reason to believe that will change anytime time soon. So what I look for from horse racing events or broadcasts is that it is done in a manner that fosters the participation of new fans. That means less horse racing jargon, a bit more explaining how things work, and so on.

In my opinion the biggest barrier people face in entering horse racing is that they don't know what all the jargon means- place, show, furlong, route, exacta, trifecta, maiden race, etc. Equally obstructive to their participation is the deciphering of the essential bible of horse racing jargon and cryptic symbology- The Daily Racing Form. It's too intimdating for people to want to try to figure out, and, as someone who has explained to scores of people over my life how to read a Form, it would be damn near impossible to figure out what all that stuff means on your own.

It's for that reason that I think ESPN should do a better job of educating the public about how to read the Form and participate in the sport. ESPN should give people the information, which will then lead to the requisite confidence to take their family, friends or girlfriend to a day at their local track.

I'd like to see ESPN's coverage include more racing handicappers (people who try to pick the winners) telling us their selections and why. They could show us the Racing Form on the screen with a telestrator while the handicapper points at the numbers and explains why they factored in his decision. This is the only way to learn how to handicap a race- you have to watch someone do it in front of you while they explain it.

Unfortunately, ESPN's coverage has way too little of this, despite having Randy Moss, who is an excellent and innovative handicapper in his own right. Instead, their modus operandi is to deluge the viewers with human interest stories, biographies of Belmont connections, and Kenny Mayne's questionable hilarity all while trying to shoehorn in the undercard. What they should do is focus on each of the successive races before the Belmont and handicap them, leaving out the human interest stories. When I go to the track with my Racing Form under my arm, I don't know any of the human interest stories. Sure, some are fascinating, but that isn't why I love the sport. Every conceivable aspect of life has human interest stories, so let us focus on what is unique to horse racing- like horses that race eachother and betting on them.

If you like human interest stories, you may not necessarily love horse racing. But if you love horse racing, then you love horse racing. So lets focus on horse racing. You have to aim high- and if someone watching ESPN's broadcast fell in love with everything ESPN was saying, that doesn't make them a fan of actual horse racing, just a fan of horse racing stories. And if you go to the track on any given saturday, you won't know any of the stories. Similarly, if ESPN's broadcast was focused on handicapping and someone fell in love with that coverage, they could visit their local track the next day and help support the sport.

ESPN and the horse racing community need to prepare the populace with the ability to fend for themselves at the track.. Namely arming them handicapping and betting knowledge. That and only that will help bring people back.

Today's broadcast of the Belmont Day is probably the best day of racing in America other than the Breeder's Cup- Four Grade 1 races and two Grade 2s. Sadly, such an exciting concentration of talent is lost on ESPN's coverage. While they should be telling us how exciting the next race is and why, they merely show the odds of the horses in the upcoming race, before going to more human interest stories, debates about the Triple Crown structure and showing the Belmont Stakes odds yet again. The casual viewer at home has no idea what a special DAY of racing this is and how special the horses on their television screen really are. While they could be learning about how important post position or pedigree is to a sprint race, they instead are forcefed another drunken-like stumbling of Hank Goldberg interspersed with Kenny Mayne making sure the focus is on him and not the horses.

I used to wonder why no one follows horse racing.

In Jack Keruouc and William S. Burroughs book, And The Hippos Were Boiled in Their Tanks, there is a scene where the characters are at a port in NYC and are waiting around to be interviewed for the Merchant Marines. They're bored and nearly broke but they can't leave their area for fear they'll miss their interview. In an effort to cure his boredom, one of the characters picks up a Racing Form and gives it a quick look to see if he likes any horses running that day and can maybe make some easy money before he is interviewed and possibly deployed.

In the entire book about NYC's WWII-era Beatnik Boehemia, that scene struck me as the most outdated.

















That's how I roll.

Thanks for Comin out, Illinois

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com, @AndyDisco on Twitter


Quick history lesson: Politicians used to be old, successful retirees who used their battle-tested-and-proven wisdom to steer the less-accomplished populace in the right direction. This is how our first few presidents got elected. They achieved, their achievements were recognized and appreciated, and that carried them to office. Our elected officials were kinda like what a company's Board of Directors looks like now: old, accomplished dudes showing the way.

Fast forward to June of 2010 in Illinois's Senate race. In the Republican corner we have Mark Kirk, who is known as the guy who lied about his accomplishments in the Navy. Not particularly classy coming out of the party voted Most Likely to War-Monger in their high school yearbook.

His opponent: Alexi Giannoulias, who is known as the guy who ran his father's bank into the ground when he was in charge of lending, totally shit the bed, quit, and the bank collapsed, partially under the weight of Alexi's poor performance. Now he wants to represent me.

Isn't this the exact OPPOSITE of what politics is supposed to be? Someone who failed to achieve a lot who resorted to lying, pitted against a proven private-sector failure.

Gotta love a bi-partisan system. And to think, I used to wonder why our country has gone to shit.









That's how I roll.

2010 Belmont Analysis

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com, @AndyDisco on Twitter

Update after seeing the Belmont: Whoops.

After looking at the race for the first time I thought that this would be a Belmont that we forget in five years. Ideally, you look at a Grade 1 race and think, "Wow! All of these horses are outstanding, I can't envision a scenario in which any of these 4 favorites lose. I can't believe at least 3 of them will go home a loser." but other times you think the opposite- "Wow. One of these horses gets to exit the track tomorrow as a Grade 1 winner? hmmmm. Well, tt's gotta be somebody I guess, lets see here.....". Saturday's Belmont Stakes falls under the latter heading.

When I see a race like that, I play contrarian and look for a horse that doesn't deserve to win to defeat another horse that doesn't deserve to win, but that has lower odds. Great horses rarely get beat- Curlin, Zenyatta, Rachel, Ghostzapper, Smaryt Jones, Azeri, etc. They are talented, run to form, and their best is nearly always enough to win AND they usually have their best.

Our Belmont has no such horse. It's easy to think Ice Box is THE MAN because he has run two good races. Looking only towards this race, he appears as a looming, scary figure. But a step back reveals that this monster isn't all that scary. This is a Grade 1 race, yet it took him 4 races to break his maiden. After that his handlers said, "whew. thank god he broke his maiden (at the Meadowlands, no less). He can't be that awesome, lets just put him in an Allowance race for his next one." they did and did he go off as the favorite in that modest race? Nope. He went off at 6-1 and to his credit, he won. The victory gave his handlers the confidence to enter him in a Grade 2- where he finished 5th of 10, beaten by 12 lengths.

This is the scary, bully on the block? Really? Despite my Devil's Advocacy there, I think he is the most logical win contender, but he is just the best of what's in front of us. None of these horses are historically good, and none of them have established a history of running to form.

In other words, there are few surprises when AWESOME horses run. Surprises happen in the lesser ranks, and I think this race falls under that heading. I am looking for a surprise. When a huge shocker happens on the track, usually my next thought is not, "I am shocked that unbeatable horse has been vanquished." It's, "I knew that dog horse wouldn't run to his 'form', he's just a two hit wonder."

I am expecting to say that at the end of the Belmont. Now the challenge is to find 1) the good horse(s) that disappointed, 2) the good horses that were legit favorites and finished in the money, and 3) the longshot/dog that was running well at the right time, ran the race of his life, and knocked off an overrated horse. In South America they refer to this kind of horse as "la Sopresa"- "the Suprise". That's not an easy task, but since it pays to try, I'll do just that.


Analysis

This is the only race all year I handicap for breeding and distance. The first thing I do when I look at the race, my first round of cuts, if you will, is to eliminate the horses who can't get the distance, and note the horses that might love the distance. The race that inspired this modus operandi was of course Birdstone beating Smarty Jones.

First things is first for me: does AP Indy have any progeny in this race? Yes. 3 grandsons- Ice Box, First Dude and Fly Down. The three favorites. If my fat neighbor were the grandson of AP Indy, he'd go off at 25-1 in the Belmont. Point being that they lose value for being related to AP Indy. Sure, it's for good reason, but we're just looking for value here.

After looking at the first horses (numerically in Post Position order I think, respectively): Get out of the race, get out of the race, get out of the race, you're likely a last-out one-hit wonder and you lost on that one hit. That = bad value Thanks for comingout top 4."

Bring us the to 5, Fly Down. That name makes me think it means "zipper down" and I'll be honest, I dislike the mental imagery. Anyway, he seems legit enough- his grandfather is AP Indy who won this race in 1992 and sired Jazil and Rags to Riches, two recent Belmont winners. His dad was awesome, and his connections appeared to have always pointed him to route races. His recent bullet work was noted as well. All positives. We'll come back to him.

6- Ice Box. I think he's the legit favorite, but in a race like today's, that is all relative. He's 3-1, and does appear to the best horse, but he is still highly beatable. If he loses by 14 lengths tomorrow you won't think, "What??? No way! How??" You'll throw up your hands and say, "Yeah, I guess he just strung together two good races and those were his career best. We saw him fall back to Earth today.". I try not to leverage too heavily on those horses, but, conversely, if he does win I'll think. "Wow, good for him. I guess he was legit." We'll come back to him either way and decide if he's worth 3-1.

7- I'll put my cards on the table here- I can't wait to bet against him and I hope he goes off as the 3rd or 4th choice.

8- Game on Dude (I'd call him Gay Mon Dude, if I were trackside with my friends). Not by AP Indy, but as a half-brother to Ghostzapper, his pedigree gets my attention/respect. It looks like his connections have always thought of him as a router. Reading his 4 race history from his first race to his last I'm thinking, "Sucked, won a maiden, got humilated after his owners got excited and thrust him in a Gr. 1." then it takes a turn to, "sold and trained by Baffert ok. Baffert (or his veternarian) worked his magic and he improved by 30 BSF points in his second race. Interesting."He didn't beat the world in his last race, but he beat every horse he faced, won comfortably and at a distance and on dirt. This could be the beginning of a trend.". His works show 2 bullet workouts at Santa Anita over Synthetic which intrigues me before the Belmont, even if he was ridden Handily and wasn't merely Breezing. From what I gather about Poly is that it is a bit more tiring than dirt, so his bulleted works on a tiring surface may make for a verrryyy interrressssssting prep before the longest race of his life. We'll come back to him.

9- Stately Victor. I get that he's a wiseguy's longshot, but I'm betting against him. I think he's a BSF two-hit wonder and won't be in the mix tomorrow. He's had plenty of chances to show us he's a dominant horse, and he only showed that a half of a time, sauntering past horses that were running backward in a questionably-stocked race. If he wins I won't have a seizure, but I can't bet on everyone. next.

10- Stay Put. Steve Haskin is high on this guy, and he does appear to offer good value at the very least. Getting the distance shouldn't be as much of a problem for him as it is for others- his grandfather is Unbridled, and it looks like he's always been a router. He is one of three horses whose last 3 races have all produced an 89 Beyer or higher (Uptowncharlybrown and Drosslemeyer are the other two. That could be an interesting angle for a huge Trifecta box). So I appreciate his consistency in this race of horses who are either two hit wonders, or just starting a really nice stretch of races. While he doesn't win a whole hell of a lot, I do like how he always improves his position from his last call to his finish. My guess is that he won't win or vie for the Exacta, but he's type of horse you leave out in your tri and after getting the exacta you look up and think, "Ohhh, who got third? Was it my horse??? What? it was Stay Put?? How'd he clunk up? *checks Racing Form* Oh. Well, yeah I guess that isn't shocking. I just missed him." But since we're looking for value here, we'll come back to him.

11- is he Da' Tara nouveau? Can he steal this race on the lead? Gotta remember he is by AP Indy, afterall. Those are positives. What else is there to like about him? Oh right, very little. What can you really COUNT on him for? If we average his last 4 Beyers to try to estimate how he might run on Saturday- we see the average is 91.25, great. So we'll pencil him in to run a 91.25 Beyer which should put him.......out of the money. So this horse is 7-2 and has reason to run a 91.25 Beyer is a Grade 1. Where I come from that is called bad value. This is the kind of horse you bet on and think, "Well I can't leave him out, he's the second favorite!" and not, "Sweet, this horse has it locked up.". We aren't betting those kind of horses for this edition of the Belmont. But...he is the only horse we are POSITIVE will have the lead at some point, so we will reluctantly take another look at him.

12- I'm looking for him on VH1's new show, "So your career best BSF is a 94 (and 2nd best is 89) and you think you can win a Triple Crown Race, even though your last 6 races haven't been on dirt?". What was your favorite of his wins in 2010? Well, with all of the zero wins to choose from, that question becomes rather difficult. Not my guy.

Phase 2

So who is left? Fly Down, Ice Box, Gay Mon Dude, Stay Put and First Dude (defensively). We could be wussies and box them all for an exacta or trifecta, but we won't just yet. We'll see how the race should shape up.

Upon further review- Stay Put is sorta hard to like in this spot. What I like most about him is that he is consistent and wins at nearly a 50% clip (he is for 2010). But, his two finishes off the board were 5th place finishes in Grade 2 races whose field had un-awesome horses. He's the weak link of our final 4, but worth including in exotics due to his consistency and his value.

What we do know is that First Dude will get sent to the lead, and then something will happen. He is talented enough to wire the field if he gets loose on the lead, so who will catch him? The three remaining horses we have all seem to know where the wire is and pass horses as they near it- that's a good sign for them, but will anyone duel with First Dude on the lead and loosen him up any for our closers? I kinda think the 2 and 3 horse might. My guess is that their owners/trainers are telling the jockey, "look, we probably can't win. we lack talent and we drew inside. IF we have any chance of winning, it will have to be a ground-saving trip near the lead. Give our horse a chance." And I think that will be enough to make sure that First Dude doesn't get away with his hair combed. He may take the lead down the homestretch for a bit, but eventually this will happen. You'll think: "Holy crap, he's still on the lead! Is he stealing this race? He's had the lead forever down the stretch. I think he did just steal the race!! Holy cow! Wait, where is the wire? Oh right this is Belmont and there is a long ways to g.....HOLY CRAP WHO ARE THESE TWO HORSES SPRINTING DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE TRACK??!!!! They're going to pass him? Holy crap, I forgot how long the Belmont is!!"

And that's the scenario I think will unfold. It could be 3 horses chasing him and only one passes him, or maybe all three will pass him and a few others. I just don't think he'll wire the field.

Looking at Formulator to determine which horse of the remaining three has the best closing kick was a little inconclusive, but it does look like Game On Dude is the weakest of the three. I'd say that Ice Box has the best, with Fly Down in the middle.

BETTING

I will use all five of my "we'll come back to" horses in some exotics.

Our 5 horses were:

5 Fly Down
6 Ice Box
8 Game on Dude
10 Stay Put
11 First Dude


I'd do a trifecta that looks like this: 5,6/5,6,8,11/5,6,8,10,11. Since I think that will be how it shapes up.

If the 11 were better value, I'd include him on top. BUT he is the only horse that we are positive will be in the lead. Whenever that is the case I try to key on him in an exacta, so we'll hope to get some value on the back end of our:

11/5,6,8,10 exacta

Then I'd swing for the fences with a 8,10/5,6,8,10,11 exacta.







That's how I roll.

I tell you what else pisses me off: Perceived News

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com, @AndyDisco on Twitter



The worst type of headline by far is the type that asks whether or not we should be outraged: "Were Glenn Beck's Comments Sexist?" or "Is that Billboard Offensive?". If you are not totally totally outraged within .0005 seconds of hearing it, it isn't shocking or offensive. Outrage is never the result of sitting around like Rodin's Thinker then, in light of all the evidence you have weighed, you are outraged and offended.

What these headlines are really announcing is, 'Slow News Day!' or, 'We're trying to make a scandal for you, America, but we just don't have the materials. Stay tuned!'. It's petty, it's lazy and it isn't a story. It's like a fat lady in bikini, we know what you're wanting to do, but you don't have the goods necessary to do so, let's go with Plan B.

The headline I hate the second most, I'd categorize under then heading of, "uhhh, I don't know. Everyone is talking about him/her/then, so I thought I'd put them in a headline". Case in point: That missing Jonas Brother, Justin Bieber.

Today the Huffington Post had a story that I didn't click on called something like, "6 Justin Bieber Quotes That Remind us he is Still a kid". My first reaction was to be insulted that my home page's editor assumed that I sit back and 1) think about that guy and, 2) while I am thinking about him I think, "man, it seemed like yesterday he was a squeeky-voiced, annoying corporate automaton with a laughable hair(non)cut trying to sell black music to white girls and who seems to be all over Twitter and everywhere else. But now he is so grown up and adult-like. I guess I should just admit he's a grown man now. Doesn't he have a PhD or something? Wait, is he older than me??"

There is no way anyone at the Huffington Post cares about that guy. And they should be positive zero of their readers do too. Their editor got lazy again and thought, "Well, I mean his name is everywhere. I guess we'll put him on our page."

Stop. That kinda thinking is the difference between him being another, predictable, dispensable, cyclically-occurring, and a media sensation. As soon as there is a void in the tween demograhic someone will fill the void- New Kids on the Block, NSync, Backstreet Boys, Hanson, Justin Timberlake, Miley Cyrus, Jonas Brothers, etc. There is never a vacuum because that's Disney money out the window. There is always one, and it's currently his time for another two years.

It's like the Ecuadorian president. Sure we know there is one at all times, and I'm sure people closest to there find it to be a big deal, but that doesn't mean I need to start caring. The HuffPo got lazy and said, "well we don't care. And you probably don't, but if you do, here's some stuff on this annoying guy your daughter screams over." I don't call that news.

The job of a newspaper is to say, "Hey guy on the street. While you were working we searched around and unearthed this story. You will want to read it because it affects you and you'll be better for this knowledge." not, "Hey, here's this lame-o story. If you care. I mean,I don't personally care, but you might cuz everyone's talking about it. I don't know."

That's called Infotainment and it makes our country dumber. You know how our country's kids are stupid and so are nearly all adults? That kinda crap is why.







That's how I roll.

Where I Draw The Line With Soccer Jargon

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com, @AndyDisco on Twitter

I wanted to get this out before the 2010 World Cup started because this has been annoying me forever.

It makes sense that soccer jargon doesn't sound very American Englishy- the game was neither invented here nor thrives here. Given how geographically dispersed the game is, it also stands to reason that it might have a few verbal oddities too and I'm totally ok with that. At the risk of sounding too jingoistic, there is still one I cannot stand. But first I'll review the tolerable ones.

Pitch- the playing field. As in, "he was the best player on the pitch tonight." I don't know why they can't just call it a "field", but we call a baseball "field" a diamond, so I guess I can cut them some slack.

Nil- zero. As in, "his team lost 3- nil." It sounds a little Eurotrashy, and for some reason seems to be used only for soccer, but I guess I'm ok with it. Well, I'm ok when foreigners use it. I hate when American soccer fans feel obligated to say "nil" as if it ups their soccer credibility.

Match- usually it's a soccer match and not a soccer game. As a former tennis player I am ok with that because I know that in tennis you play points, games and sets, which are collectively known as a match.

Football- I wish the rest of the world called it soccer, but I must concede that calling it football makes a lot more sense than us calling our football, "football".

Here's what annoys me about soccer lexicon- when people refer to a country as plural, as in, "England are very strong right now and should advance to the finals", or, "If Argentina are really ready for the challenge, we'll see it early on."

The country, (e.g. England, Argentina) is singular. It is only one country. Conversely, their team, though it comprises several players, is still singular. The singular verb in that case is "is.". You say, "where is your shoe (singular)?" and "where are your shoes (plural)?". One may correctly say, "The players on Spain are in top form" but you can't say, "Spain are in top form".

Sadly, stupidly, maybe arrogantly, annoyingly, lamely, unfortunately, seriously-what-the-fuck-ly, this grammatical rule is repeatedly broken in an attempt to sound more soccer credible. The same a-hole who will say, "Where is my book? I have zero books. Where are your books?" will later put on a soccer jersey, and turn on the soccer match and state, "England are great. They'll win 4-nil." . And it is fucking awful.

As indicated above, I'm ok with some with some slang unique to one's sport. I don't chastise snowboarders for riding "goofy" or getting "squirrelly". It's how snowboarders talk, and that's cool. But they still have the dignity to keep the rules of grammar in tact. They don't say, "Dude, hill steep I anyway down ride it to the wall balls, bro. What? Oh no, it's ok to make my own syntax because I'm talking about a sport, bro." They know better.

With all of this crappiness (sadly) in mind, the real question is: Do I sound more learned about soccer when I make a poor, jargon-buttressed prediction like, "America are going to win the World Cup 6-nil over Argentina." or when I use non-soccer jargon but make a rational prediction. "If Tevez gets injured Argentina is not going to win 3-zero, but probably 3-1."?

Don't bother trying to answer it. It's an Ancient Chinese Riddle.

That's how I roll.

I was Right. Again.

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com, @AndyDisco on Twitter

The NYPost's Page 6 is confirming what I predicted on March 2, that Erin Andrews would wind up dating her dancing partner.

I know, I know, you're thinking, "I think everyone predicted that." But here's the kicker, I knew you were going to think that!

That's how I roll.