The Public: Not as smart as people think?

[Stillriledup]

You always hear how people say that the general public is really smart because the most bet horse wins the most and the 2nd most bet horse wins the 2nd most and so on and so forth.

I think the takeout rates being so high kind of "hides" the incompetence of the public. They're just doing the wisdom of crowds thing, but in specific examples, they're really pretty stupid. For example, have you ever seen a horse who was even money who you know wasnt all that great and most of the even-moneyness of the horse was due to the leading rider and leading trainer? To me, that's not even close to being "smart betting" and yet the 'crowd' consistently overbets humans.

If you were with a friend and he said "im making a large bet on the 6 horse because Rafael Bejarano is riding him" you wouldnt think that player was too smart, yet the public makes this mistake all the time and we call them "geniuses" because the favorite wins more races than the 2nd favorite and so on and so forth.

The reason we think they are super geniuses is because of how difficult it is to beat the races. But, if they were really "smart" wouldnt it still be really hard to beat the races if the takeout was 0?

Another factor is that the public bets every race, and not only that, they bet every horse in every race no matter how little chance those horses have...the public essentially loses 20% blended...so, if you lose 19% blended, you are still smarter than they are. And, a horseplayer who breaks even is MUCH better than the public and you wouldnt call a break even horseplayer a genius by any stretch.

[classhandicapper]

You are making some good points, but there are also examples where I know about some dead rail a horse raced on at another track and some trip in the race before that got no comment. I'm expecting to get 10-1 on a horse that looks terrible off his last 2 starts. He opens at 8-5 and I want to shoot myself. :lol:

[Dave Schwartz]

Individually, The Betting Public is made up of a bunch of dummies.

Collectively, they are brilliant.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

The public not smart? Forget racing. Look at who they vote into public office.

Like many statistics, the "public" being given credit for such great handicapping needs to be looked at in proper context. The chalk still loses two out of every three races.

[thaskalos]

The public not smart? Forget racing. Look at who they vote into public office.

Like many statistics, the "public" being given credit for such great handicapping needs to be looked at in proper context. The chalk still loses two out of every three races.
I dare any handicapper in the nation to pick the winner 33% of the time while handicapping every race on the card.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I dare any handicapper in the nation to pick the winner 33% of the time while handicapping every race on the card.

The chalk still represents a negative ROI, so what does it matter that the win percentage is so high?

How often does "smart", "inside" or "steam" money turn what might be the true public's second, third or lower choice into the chalk?

I won't argue that picking every race and hitting more than 20-25 percent blindly handicapping (without looking at the tote board) is tough, and the public does exceed that. But you can't make a profit betting every favorite in every race either.

So, in context, the winning percentage of the chalk by itself is not so useful, but trying to figure out if the race is in the 67% group where the chalk gets beat and accounts for the takeout is....

[Tom]

I dare any handicapper in the nation to pick the winner 33% of the time while handicapping every race on the card.

What is this, Team Rotundo?
Make three bets, only count the winning one?
The public loses money of every race, every day.

[thaskalos]

The chalk still represents a negative ROI, so what does it matter that the win percentage is so high?

How often does "smart", "inside" or "steam" money turn what might be the true public's second, third or lower choice into the chalk?

I won't argue that picking every race and hitting more than 20-25 percent blindly handicapping (without looking at the tote board) is tough, and the public does exceed that. But you can't make a profit betting every favorite in every race either.

So, in context, the winning percentage of the chalk by itself is not so useful, but trying to figure out if the race is in the 67% group where the chalk gets beat and accounts for the takeout is....
When we say "the public"...we include all the "smart", "inside" or "steam" money. What did you think is meant by "the public"? EVERYTHING that you see on the board is "the public".

Of course the public loses money overall. So would all of us if we had to wager on every race.

Question...if I may:

Which one of us "intelligent" handicappers do you think could predict the actual race results as accurately as the "public" can? Have you seen the studies that show how closely the "public's" selection method mirrors the actual results of the races...even after 200,000 races?

The only way to out-handicap the "public" is by being selective. You can't do it by betting every race. That's why we say that the public is very smart.

[thaskalos]

The public loses money of every race, every day.

Bet every race...and you would lose too. Guaranteed!

[Hoofless_Wonder]

When we say "the public"...we include all the "smart", "inside" or "steam" money. What did you think is meant by "the public"? EVERYTHING that you see on the board is "the public".

Of course the public loses money overall. So would all of us if we had to wager on every race.

Question...if I may:

Which one of us "intelligent" handicappers do you think could predict the actual race results as accurately as the "public" can? Have you seen the studies that show how closely the "public's" selection method mirrors the actual results of the races...even after 200,000 races?

The only way to out-handicap the "public" is by being selective. You can't do it by betting every race. That's why we say that the public is very smart.

I look at there being a difference between "the public" and the final tote odds. While the latter does represent all sources as you point out, the amount of steam/insider/smart money is not consistent between races. Some of the chaos races or short fields might be 95% "public" since they have no value to bet, where as certain maiden races (especially in Kentucky) might be 35% steam, 65% public.

What I think of as public money also represents the readily available information to gauge each horse's chance in the race, as well as the public's favored opinions on certain jockeys or trainers. Sort of like what we see in sports betting, where the public's perception of a team can tilt the spread significantly, especially off recent blowout wins or losses that distort the team's actual capabilities.

As for how accurate the final tote odds are in predicting winners in a 200,000 race sample size, I see it as an obvious result of the nature of the analysis. Yes, given enough samples, the money wagered reflects the chances of the horse to win. And yes, there is some collective wisdom there that merits giving the tote board some respect, especially in races where an individual's favored handicapping methods are less effective.

But at the same time, the "public" odds mirroring actual results also incorporates the effect of massive statistical smoothing. This masks the outliers - some unpredictable, but also the logical overlays which are the only real path to long-term profits.

So, if I had to bet every race, I wouldn't argue the public is smart - smarter than me, and smarter than any other individual handicapper - if picking winners was the only measurement.

But since we don't have to bet every race, then I'm of the opinion the public is not so smart. Or at least not as smart as the stats might imply.

[Stillriledup]

I find the "public" fascinating. In One race, they can bet a horse off the board who's going from a bottom rung jock to an elite jock and then the very next race, they make a horse even money who looks good on paper that's being ridden by a bad jock...so, in one race they're essentially saying "jock is very important" and the very next race, they're saying "jock doesnt matter as long as the horse looks much the best on paper".

[Overlay]

The public may be more accurate, or outperform what any individual handicapper could achieve, in identifying the winning probabilities of horses in the aggregate. But as long as the public continues to misjudge the winning chances of individual horses or multi-horse combinations on a race-to-race basis (as it does every day and always will), I'll take racing over any form of gaming where outcomes are determined by pure chance; where the player is fighting a house edge that (even if small compared to racing's take) is against the player on each and every bet; and where anyone who plays long enough must lose money.

[cashmachine]

I think the public is so good at predictions because it consists from handicappers, just like you and me. I am sure almost everybody who bet on regular basis read some books, almost everybody nowadays has access to some sort of statistics; almost everybody uses figures prepared by unbelievable sophisticated program (I refer to speed ratings, Beyer, etc.). In other words, we are the public.

[burnsy]

I dare any handicapper in the nation to pick the winner 33% of the time while handicapping every race on the card.

Agreed. My approach is to identify races where I believe the public is wrong and try to hit 33% of those races myself. I may only bet 3 races, if I hit one, its a good day. On one of the big days I may bet 6 races which means some horizontal wagers....of course the chalk/public choice must be factored in certain races and used or you are just being foolish. SRU made some good points though........at times the public is way off and their reasoning is flawed. That's my favorite kind of race when I'm right in finding it. Its hard to win at this, people on the internet make it sound easy. If you keep annual records and break even after a year.....you are a genius...if you come out ahead.....you are better than 90% or so. I love the big races and days because the public betting is ruled by emotion and not always the best horse that day....they are still right about 1/3 of the time but I have an easier time finding the "bad" fave on days like that. When you hear everyone "chirping" the same theme.....its usually a suckers proposition. I don't use programs or technology, just basic form reading. I am a spot player from the "old school". This is where spotting a crappy public choice is half the battle.

[Robert Goren]

Bet every race...and you would lose too. Guaranteed!I don't that is true. Maybe if you are trying to bet different circuits at the same time. I think is possible to bet every race on the AQU inner and still come out ahead if concentrate it. You probably be more profitable if you skipped a race here and there though. With so many pools theses days, it is highly likely there value some place on almost every race. Even more so, if you are getting large rebates.

[thaskalos]

Agreed. My approach is to identify races where I believe the public is wrong and try to hit 33% of those races myself. I may only bet 3 races, if I hit one, its a good day. On one of the big days I may bet 6 races which means some horizontal wagers....of course the chalk/public choice must be factored in certain races and used or you are just being foolish. SRU made some good points though........at times the public is way off and their reasoning is flawed. That's my favorite kind of race when I'm right in finding it. Its hard to win at this, people on the internet make it sound easy. If you keep annual records and break even after a year.....you are a genius...if you come out ahead.....you are better than 90% or so. I love the big races and days because the public betting is ruled by emotion and not always the best horse that day....they are still right about 1/3 of the time but I have an easier time finding the "bad" fave on days like that. When you hear everyone "chirping" the same theme.....its usually a suckers proposition. I don't use programs or technology, just basic form reading. I am a spot player from the "old school". This is where spotting a crappy public choice is half the battle.

I agree, Burnsy...the public is way off sometimes. But they are also RIGHT sometimes...when conventional wisdom indicates that they must be wrong. Oddly enough...we don't hear too much about that :). That's what makes the "public" such a formidable opponent; they are maddeningly inconsistent...and that confuses us. They look like idiots in one race...and like geniuses in the next.

Yes...you can out-handicap the public if you are informed and disciplined enough...but to underestimate them, like SRU is doing in this thread, is not a good idea...IMO.

In my 32 years of playing this game...I have seen many horses who looked great on paper, but who were "dead-on-the-board", in spite of their obvious attributes. I used to bet on these horses enthusiastically, thinking that I had uncovered some great "overlay"...but I don't do that anymore -- because they very rarely win.

And every time I see another dead-on-the-board horse fizzle out...I tip my hat to the crowd.

[thaskalos]

I don't that is true. Maybe if you are trying to bet different circuits at the same time. I think is possible to bet every race on the AQU inner and still come out ahead if concentrate it. You probably be more profitable if you skipped a race here and there though. With so many pools theses days, it is highly likely there value some place on almost every race. Even more so, if you are getting large rebates.
If you bet on every single race, you are guaranteed to lose...I don't care who you are -- or what circuit you are wagering on.

It's the only "sure thing" in the game.

[Stillriledup]

I agree, Burnsy...the public is way off sometimes. But they are also RIGHT sometimes...when conventional wisdom indicates that they must be wrong. Oddly enough...we don't hear too much about that :). That's what makes the "public" such a formidable opponent; they are maddeningly inconsistent...and that confuses us. They look like idiots in one race...and like geniuses in the next.

Yes...you can out-handicap the public if you are informed and disciplined enough...but to underestimate them, like SRU is doing in this thread, is not a good idea...IMO.

In my 32 years of playing this game...I have seen many horses who looked great on paper, but who were "dead-on-the-board", in spite of their obvious attributes. I used to bet on these horses enthusiastically, thinking that I had uncovered some great "overlay"...but I don't do that anymore -- because they very rarely win.

And every time I see another dead-on-the-board horse fizzle out...I tip my hat to the crowd.

I'm not underestimating them, but i want to caution people to not OVERESTIMATE them and their "talents". My general point was that because the takeout is so crushingly high, it makes the public look much smarter than they really are.

Also, i think its important for horseplayers to not let the idea that you're betting against other people get into their heads....you're not betting on horses and jockeys and you're not betting against other humans, you're betting on a BET.

You can think the public is smart, or you can think they're idiots or you can think its somewhere in between....but no matter what you think of 'the public' you still have to bet on winners, and that's just a battle between you and you.

[Robert Goren]

If you bet on every single race, you are guaranteed to lose...I don't care who you are -- or what circuit you are wagering on.

It's the only "sure thing" in the game.I believe whales bet every race.

[burnsy]

Also, i think its important for horseplayers to not let the idea that you're betting against other people get into their heads....you're not betting on horses and jockeys and you're not betting against other humans, you're betting on a BET.

You can think the public is smart, or you can think they're idiots or you can think its somewhere in between....but no matter what you think of 'the public' you still have to bet on winners, and that's just a battle between you and you.

I sort of agree with the second statement and disagree with the first.

My strategy is to bet on horses and against the pool. I only bet the major circuits so the jock is usually no concern of mine. I go strictly by current form so I am betting the horse. Shady, dirtied up, good form is my favorite type. The public always gravitates towards the "best" horse on paper.....I don't think the public is smart or dumb but the publics weakness is over betting a horse in a horse race. It takes a really good horse to deserve the paltry odds that are given in many races. Yes, I'm betting the BET but I'm betting that my horse has a better chance than the odds (pool) give it.

Absolutely agree with the second statement....screw the public.....you gotta have some winners yourself. Just as Thaskalos says you have to have information (power of discernment) and discipline (when to pull the trigger). Which is the constant battle between you and you. Its really firkin hard...if you are not stubborn, strong willed and a little bit arrogant.....your ego will be in rubble then you will become a compulsive gambler and your wallet will join you.

[porkchop]

The PUBLIC (those that set the favorite by parimutuel wagering ) are wrong 67% of the time. Weathermen have a better average . Going against the public and beating the take out is the only way I can see to show a profit .

[AndyC]

The PUBLIC (those that set the favorite by parimutuel wagering ) are wrong 67% of the time. Weathermen have a better average . Going against the public and beating the take out is the only way I can see to show a profit .

So if I am wrong 95% of the time on my 50-1 horses I should go against what I am doing? The percentage of winning favorites is really a meaningless stat taken without the context of the underlying odds.

[DJofSD]

I dare any handicapper in the nation to pick the winner 33% of the time while handicapping every race on the card.
I, too, agree.

As to the other part of the original premiss, I look at it in the same way a round of golf is scored: it's the final result that is recorded not how you got there.

In other words, there's nothing on the score card that adjusts the total strokes for great approach shots or 3-putts. In the same manner, if the betting public lands on a winner and some of the reasons have to do with shoe size, birthday dates, whether a horse takes a dump during the post parade, etc., it does not change the outcome, those people are cashing out.

[Greyfox]

If you bet on every single race, you are guaranteed to lose...I don't care who you are -- or what circuit you are wagering on.

It's the only "sure thing" in the game.

I share that sentiment and only bet a few races a day.

Having said that I believe that "If you bet the same amount on every single race, you are guaranteed to lose."

If you place differential wagers on different races, betting lightly on some, and heavier on others, I don't think your original premise is necessarily true for astute handicappers.

[cj]

I dare any handicapper in the nation to pick the winner 33% of the time while handicapping every race on the card.

Probably closer to 36% these days.

[zerosky]

Has anyone got links to research on 'informed' and 'uniformed' money wagered on horse-racing.
It would be an interesting study.

Incidentally there is a great program run by the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence
trying to 'Harness' the wisdom of crowds, anyone can join

http://www.goodjudgmentproject.com/

[whodoyoulike]

So if I am wrong 95% of the time on my 50-1 horses I should go against what I am doing? The percentage of winning favorites is really a meaningless stat taken without the context of the underlying odds.

I just checked one of my databases from several years ago and >50-1 odds horses won 1.1% of the time. Have you re-checked your % lately?

[AndyC]

I just checked one of my databases from several years ago and >50-1 odds horses won 1.1% of the time. Have you re-checked your % lately?

My point was simply to illustrate that a win % means nothing in and of itself.

To your point, I couldn't care less what a database says about how often a certain odds horse wins. I only care how often my horses win at certain odds.

[Poindexter]

To measure the strength of the public's opinion you need to weigh it against the track take. In other words if 1/5's lose 10% on the dollar 2/5's 10.2%, 2-1's 13.5%......50-1's lose 35% on the dollar that would be a strong indicator how strong the public's opinion is. If 1/5's are losing 18% and 4-1's are losing 18 %......then that would indicate to me the public's opinion is not that strong. Also aren't lines ironed out by whales these days anyways, so the public itself has a much smaller influence on the odds than it once did. So you are not really gauging the public anyhow. That is my 2 cents on the subject.

[dannyhill]

Post time favorites are more influenced by large bettors and whales than anything else since the advent of rebates.

[Valuist]

Probably closer to 36% these days.

That 3% cannot be underestimated. A much bigger deal than most realize.

Take sports betting; 52% is basically break even. 55% is considered very strong performance.

[dannyhill]

That 3% cannot be underestimated. A much bigger deal than most realize.

Take sports betting; 52% is basically break even. 55% is considered very strong performance.
Not the same because 1 is parimutuel wagering and 1 is fixed odds. With sports you win more when you pick more winners.(assuming straight wagers) Horses still dependent on the odds of those winners.

[classhandicapper]

Over the years I have found that the more information I have and the more I learn, the more often my own top selection will be the same as the public's.

I have also found that occasionally, otherwise excellent handicappers don't know something about a horse that I do (and I'm sure the reverse is true).

I'll hear them questioning how that horse could possible be getting bet so heavily and saying how it's a dramatic underlay. In the mean time, I'm considering betting that horse because I know something that I'm pretty sure most people don't know. Then when the horses wins they are still whining.

It's my view that we all have gaps in our knowledge and are sometimes working with incomplete or inaccurate information. That's why we don't understand the odds sometimes. IMO it's important to understand why a horse is an underlay or overlay and not just think it is based on the information and insights you have.

[thaskalos]

I have also found that occasionally, otherwise excellent handicappers don't know something about a horse that I do (and I'm sure the reverse is true).

I'll hear them questioning how that horse could possible be getting bet so heavily and saying how it's a dramatic underlay. In the mean time, I'm considering betting that horse because I know something that I'm pretty sure most people don't know. Then when the horses wins they are still whining.

What would be an example of something that you would know about a horse...which other "excellent" handicappers wouldn't?

[classhandicapper]

What would be an example of something that you would know about a horse...which other "excellent" handicappers wouldn't?

Some might know the same things and some might not depending on their source of information and style of handicapping.

1. I have good reason to believe a popular figure maker is incorrect about a particular race or day due to methodology.

2. Popular figure makers disagree and I have access to both sets while others are looking at just one. So I understand the money. I just need to figure out who is right.

3. A relatively new trainer or one with very limited stats has already revealed a strength that hasn't been widely recognized yet.

4. My view on a bias runs counter to prevailing wisdom and I've already seen evidence I am right.

5. The last few horses from a particular barn have all jumped up, but they have been spaced enough to make it hard to notice or others think it's just random when I have reason to think it's something else.

6. A miscellaneous trip or pace insight I have is commonly under or over rated.

7. A horse is taking a drop in class that is hidden because some people don't understand the condition or because the field was much deeper and stronger than the official designation.

For every one one I can come up with there's probably at least 1 hole in my game. But they are different holes.

I am horrible with surface switches, mediocre with pedigree issues, not particularly good unless I am familiar with the class structure at the track etc... Plus, I miss some of the things on my own list from time to time.

I recognize that. So when a horse is taking money I don't understand, I first try to figure it out instead of starting with the assumption that the public is crazy. The public is rarely crazy.

[Robert Goren]

I think the field of handicappers is pretty. That is why it is so tough to get an edge over the public.

[Stillriledup]

Some might know the same things and some might not depending on their source of information and style of handicapping.

1. I have good reason to believe a popular figure maker is incorrect about a particular race or day due to methodology.

2. Popular figure makers disagree and I have access to both sets while others are looking at just one. So I understand the money. I just need to figure out who is right.

3. A relatively new trainer or one with very limited stats has already revealed a strength that hasn't been widely recognized yet.

4. My view on a bias runs counter to prevailing wisdom and I've already seen evidence I am right.

5. The last few horses from a particular barn have all jumped up, but they have been spaced enough to make it hard to notice or others think it's just random when I have reason to think it's something else.

6. A miscellaneous trip or pace insight I have is commonly under or over rated.

7. A horse is taking a drop in class that is hidden because some people don't understand the condition or because the field was much deeper and stronger than the official designation.

For every one one I can come up with there's probably at least 1 hole in my game. But they are different holes.

I am horrible with surface switches, mediocre with pedigree issues, not particularly good unless I am familiar with the class structure at the track etc... Plus, I miss some of the things on my own list from time to time.

I recognize that. So when a horse is taking money I don't understand, I first try to figure it out instead of starting with the assumption that the public is crazy. The public is rarely crazy.

Good post CH.

[Bullet Plane]

Whales are betting mostly chalk. They are the "public." The public, that you refer to, that loses, mostly bets longshots.

Because its hard to make money on 1/5 shots with $2.00.

Maybe they whales are dumb, I don't know. But they are money making dumb. It's a good dumb to be.

Wish I was that "dumb"!

[traynor]

Whales are betting mostly chalk. They are the "public." The public, that you refer to, that loses, mostly bets longshots.

Because its hard to make money on 1/5 shots with $2.00.

Maybe they whales are dumb, I don't know. But they are money making dumb. It's a good dumb to be.

Wish I was that "dumb"!

Few pleasures in life exceed that of a last minute switch by the "betting crowd" onto an entry with "better value" that lets a 2/5 near mortal lock go off at even money--with one's substantial wager on it. Please don't say anything negative about "the wisdom of crowds." Especially anything that would dissuade them from the foolishness that rewards us so generously.

[Robert Fischer]

The Public is like a turkey. Most of the time they do really well.

[dannyhill]

I will never understand the fascination with the public. Since 99% of the public loses i certainly don't wish to do anything that falls in line with them.
IMO the best thing someone can do is come up with a method that produces different selections than the public. Is it possible to beat the game betting favorites, of course. But you had best have extreme discipline and a far better opinion than the public at large.
I have always felt that if i begin looking for short priced horses to wager on i don't spend the time searching for other horses at prices.

[traynor]

I will never understand the fascination with the public. Since 99% of the public loses i certainly don't wish to do anything that falls in line with them.
IMO the best thing someone can do is come up with a method that produces different selections than the public. Is it possible to beat the game betting favorites, of course. But you had best have extreme discipline and a far better opinion than the public at large.
I have always felt that if i begin looking for short priced horses to wager on i don't spend the time searching for other horses at prices.

It is not so much that it is necessary to produce different selections than the public, as that it is necessary to achieve a higher level of accuracy in the prediction of those selections than the public. That is, the simple expedient of weeding out "false favorites" can make a significant bump up in ROI.

It strikes me as a bit strange that the people complaining the most are those chasing "value." It may be that the most valuable strategy in wagering is to focus more on the process of selecting winners, and less on fantasy and rainbow chasing. Everyone likes to bet $2 and get back $3000. Unfortunately, it seems to come down to the point of betting that $2 2000 times to catch that big one. If I can bet that $2 1000 times and get back $3000 for my efforts, I am quite happy.

I don't suppose that anyone has considered that the reason so many short-priced horses win is that the people betting on them are dumping buckets of money into the mutuels pools because it is profitable.

It doesn't take more "value" to make a decent profit, and it doesn't take a major change in the "onerous takeout." All it takes is a bit more skill at picking winners.

[dannyhill]

It is not so much that it is necessary to produce different selections than the public, as that it is necessary to achieve a higher level of accuracy in the prediction of those selections than the public. That is, the simple expedient of weeding out "false favorites" can make a significant bump up in ROI.

It strikes me as a bit strange that the people complaining the most are those chasing "value." It may be that the most valuable strategy in wagering is to focus more on the process of selecting winners, and less on fantasy and rainbow chasing. Everyone likes to bet $2 and get back $3000. Unfortunately, it seems to come down to the point of betting that $2 2000 times to catch that big one. If I can bet that $2 1000 times and get back $3000 for my efforts, I am quite happy.

I don't suppose that anyone has considered that the reason so many short-priced horses win is that the people betting on them are dumping buckets of money into the mutuels pools because it is profitable.

It doesn't take more "value" to make a decent profit, and it doesn't take a major change in the "onerous takeout." All it takes is a bit more skill at picking winners.
Wonderful you have figured out what works best for you. Keep up the great work and continued success.

[thaskalos]

There is no shortage of "winners" on the internet.

[traynor]

In a nutshell, I think the public would do far better learning to select more winners than struggling to make a profit by chasing even-money selections going off at 4/1 or 9/2. The focus on bigger mutuels is all well and good, but it may be self-defeating in the long run, if it is at the expense of increasing one's ability to select a greater number of winners.

The more winners one can select, the lower the mutuel prices required to make a profit. Focusing on that area, rather than arcane strategies for picking winners that no one else knows about or considers, might be more useful. And definitely more profitable.

[dannyhill]

There is no shortage of "winners" on the internet.
If the 9 in the 6th at Oaklawn doesn't hit the board, do you have a cashier position open at the grocery store? I work for cold cuts!

[thaskalos]

If the 9 in the 6th at Oaklawn doesn't hit the board, do you have a cashier position open at the grocery store? I work for cold cuts!
When can you start?

[dannyhill]

When can you start?
I'm driving through Benton Harbor now.
Be there at 4 AM boss.