Derby odds less than 40-1

[razzle]

None of the 19 horses exceeded 39-1, again.  Bizarre since some were hopeless. Does anyone here know if that is a pre-programmed batch-bet phenomenon (like \"stops\" in option trading)?  Is there something statistically significant about 40-1 in a ~20 horse field?  Regardless, does the fact that this isn\'t the first Derby in which that has occurred recently change your assessment of the value of verticals? Of horizontals?

[pizzalove]

You have a couple of things at play here.  First you had 19 horses instead of 20.  This does have an effect.  It knocks the average superfecta down by about $25000.  Second you have a derby with a very lukewarm favorite.  I think I saw somewhere that this was the highest priced favorite to come in in the derby ever.  If you get a field of 20 horses and you have a favorite of 5-2 or better you will see your whopping longshots.  Giacomo 50-1 Closing Argument 70-1.  As for the horizontals and verticals I spend my entire derby wad here.  It is hard to know what effect it has because we dont see any projected trifectas or superfectas.  I would love to have some of this data.  I think alot of superfecta payouts would shock people.  I predict by the end of this decade we will see 3 supers pay over 1 million.  If you want a long explanation of why I feel that way I will give it to you gladly.  right now I have probably bored enough people.

[jimbo66]

pizza,

There is no way that having 19 horses instead of 20, reduces the \"average\" superfecta payoff by $25,000.  What is the \"average\" superfecta payoff in the derby?  50k?  Having one less horse cuts it in half?  Nope.

Razzle,

There is certainly no programmed trading that keeps horses odds below 40-1.  That would make even the biggest conspiracy theorists proud.  The \"win pool\" in all the triple crown races is very different than the exotics pools, both vertically and horizontally.  Many commented on that leading up to the Derby. You can call it the Mine that Bird factor, or the Giacomo factor, but the win pool gets spread very wide in the Triple Crown races.  There were many horses over 40-1 in the will pays for the pick-3\'s and pick 4\'s, so I would not let it affect the way you approach exotics.  The question for me prior to the Derby was whether I should just plunge a large win bet on Orb, as he sat 6-1 or 7-1 with 30 minutes before post, instead of the same amount of money spread in the verticals, since Orb was shorter than that in the verticals.  I decided not to, only because you can\'t hit a 50k superfecta, making win bets.  (of course, I didn\'t hit the superfecta, so perhaps I made the wrong move...

Good luck,

Jim

[pizzalove]

JImbo,

Remember I am not talking about payout history here.  I realize that the average payout in the past has been far less.  But things will change.  Keep in mind we have only allowed 20 different betting interests in the derby for less than 15 years.  But here is a fact.  With 20 horses you have 116,280 possible superfecta possibles.  With 19 you have 93,024.  A difference of almost 25,000.

Pat

[razzle]

\"That would make even the biggest conspiracy theorists proud.\"
I would think automated plays seek mathematical edges, hardly the stuff of  conspiracies. I believe those plays are part of the game today, just as they are in all financial markets.  I cannot paint Giant Finish with a 40-1 brush against 18 much faster horses, nor does \"coincidence\" seem to apply, since this has happened before. The latter two are the only options remaining if one excludes my question.

[pizzalove]

I am also sure of regardless who wins at whatever odds the track takes the same amount.  No need to lower odds of a longshot.

[jimbo66]

Razzle,

I am familiar with several of the automated play outfits.  Are you?  They have algorithms that look at the potential payouts of exactas relative to the way they have handicapped the race.  I believe TGJB was part of a lawsuit with some of these guys.  (sorry to bring up a wound).

There is a HUGE difference between searching for \"value\" in the exotics pools, using computer programs and handicapping, then some programmatic betting that keeps horses that should be 150-1 below 40-1.

[razzle]

Jimbo, it is somewhat clarifying that you know about conspiracies and are familiar with auto-play outfits and algorithm platforms that search for value in exotics. From your response, I take it you are ruling those out in case I was asking about conspiracies or searching for value in exotics using algorithms. Thank you.

In this year\'s Derby, as in at least one in the recent past, no horse exceeded 40-1.  That seems very strange to me, just on the face of it.  Does it to anyone else? This year, it is difficult to reasonably account for a horse like Giant Finish going off at 38-1 against 18 much faster horses, nor does \"coincidence\" seem to apply, so I was asking if there is some mathematical explanation. If so, with $56 mil in the WPS pool(I assume the majority in win pool but no further breakdown available), impacting the odds would likely require some form of automated betting.

[TGJB]

The percentage of money in Derby pools coming from non-horseplayers is far higher than usual, and as Steve Crist has pointed out in several columns that flattens the prices out.

[pizzalove]

Statistically that really doesnt make any sense.  Every dollar bet hurts some prices and helps others.  More bettors regardless of their knowledge would not have an effect of driving overall prices down.  If it did hurt the price on a few horses it would then help the price on others.

I am on this board because I love thorograph and the terrific information so many of you have.  Statistically I have a graduate degree in mathematics and that is one of the fascinating things about the derby.  It really draws me to it and I hope one day to hit the big one.

[TGJB]

Yes. It hurts some prices and helps others. Exactly.

Imagine half the money in the pool was bet by handicapping, the other half completely randomly, which is to say equally on all horses. What would be the effect on the odds of the favorites, and what on the longshots?

Remember when everyone thought the Derby favorite would go off 3-1?

[Holybull]

Statistically it takes a smaller amount of money to knock a 50-1 horse down to 40-1 than it does to move a 5-1 horse up to 15-1.

I enter bets for many friends and family members and many of them are WPS bets on the longest shots on the morning line.  TGJB\'s explanation makes perfect sense.

[covelj70]

Pizza,

Just an anecdotal point on this topic.  I literally must have had 200 friends email, text or call me before the Derby telling me that they were betting on my horse in the Derby.

I BEGGED all of them not to do that and told that I was not playing the horse.  Not a single person listened and some of them bet real money because a) they knew me and b) they like longshots.  So many of these people said \"wasn\'t the horse that won a few years ago 50-1\"  

I even had friends of friends and people like electricians of friends play the horse because \"they knew someone who knew someone who owned a horse in the Derby\"

Trust me when I tell you that I know how ridiculous all of this sounds but I swear to god it\'s true.  I have even had multiple people bring me their losing tickets for me to sign.

I think this explains the reasons behind why theren\'t aren\'t anymore 50-1 shots in the Derby. Same reason so many people play the lottery, they see dollar signs and they sign up.  That\'s why people like MJ come out and make a killing on the Derby every year.  There\'s alot of dead money in these pools.  Hopefulyl next year, not so much of it will be dead money from people I know

[pizzalove]

Covelj70 and Tgjb,  Love all  your posts and I am anxious to order the thorograph data for the preakness as soon as it is available.  I believe you guys are mistaken on your odds and statistical assumptions.  

Covelj, Your friends all betting on your horse may have had some effect.  It is an obvious statement that the more bet on a horse the lower the odds.  Because I am guessing that everyone in the derby (All favorites and longshots) had 200 some people betting on \"their\" horse I doubt your friends had alot of impact.  The absolute number one reason that no horses were over 40-1 this year was because of a very tepid favorite.  Especially with a field less then 20.  Now in this case the tepid favorite would be a bigger reason then just the max field size dropping by one horse but these are the factors.  If Orb was 5-2 instead of 11-2 we would have seen several horses at 50-1 or better. in a twenty horse field it would of been likely that at least 4-5 horses would of been at 50-1 or more.

TGJb,  You stated that what if there was a scenario where half the money was bet by handicappers and half by people with no knowledge.  This needs alot of claification.  Are you assuming that all handicappers would have the same conclusion?  I am sure that isnt the case.  Are you assuming that handicappers win more often then those with no knowledge?  I would even question that as well. I like to beleive that I am likely to be more successful then the average joe because of my research.  My knowledge of stats has helped me with the Derby so I am profitable there.  But i dont know if I am as profitable on everything else.  I need to buy more thorograph figs. Also Why would you assume that people with no knowledge would been evenly across on all horses?  Are they all betting the same amounts as well?  I have seen several surveys that show people who just randomly wager without handicapping are more conservative.  If they have a tote board in view they are much more likely to bet a lower priced horse then a huge longshot.  I would also guess that this would vary as well.  So you see if half the money is coming in from handicappers (another unproven assumption) and half from the gen pop the effect it would have on a horses odds would vary by race and no real pattern would result.

If you guys ever what to discuss derby superfecta stats beleive me I can give you some info that would rock your world.

Pat

[mjellish]

Pizza,

Inn 2008 Big Brown was 5/2.  There were two horses over 50-1, Anak Nakal and Z Humor.  And that was before Mine That Bird.

In the win pools of the Derby you may have a strong favorite, you may have a couple that are close to co-favorites.  You will then have a small group that are 8-1 - 12-1.  Another group right behind that, and then everyone else.  That\'s for the win pool.

In the exotics like Supers and Tri\'s you will have horses that are more like 100-1.  This year is a perfect example.  You had the favorite, over a 34-1, over the almost co-favorite.  And the Tri paid almost $7k.

What TGJB and Covelj70 are dead nuts on.  The crowd disperses enough money on the bombers to even them out in the win pool, but they lack the sophistication to do that in the Tri and Super.