Shanahan-- one of the problems here is that when I point out good results from the analysis I am accused of cherry picking. I\'m not going to claim we beat the takeout, but I think we do about as well as anyone could making plays that far ahead of time.
Are you guys seriously claiming that a horse off a layoff can\'t be the most likely winner of a race?
The \"bottom line\" (ex-\"overview\") was Jimbo\'s idea, and a good one, to sum up the analysis. But \"most likely\" does not mean \"will win\". Unless we take the time to work out a % chance for every horse, it\'s about the best we can do-- it\'s important to make clear that one horse might be 30% to win but a worse bet than one that is 15% to win. And both are UNLIKELY to win. This ain\'t sports against the spread, where blind stabs will win 50% of the time.
And when we did use percentages for the Derby, it was a sure thing that unless the horse we had most likely (at only 15-20%, no less) was the right one out of 20 horses, some putz who had the winner was going to say we underestimated his chances. If Barbaro hadn\'t won, it would have been someone else-- and he would always be right, after the race. Percentages get higher then, and the reasons they won are always obvious. It\'s called redboarding.
