Derby odds less than 40-1

[pizzalove]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because after doing this a while you understand
> what the relative odds of two horses should be.
> You understand that in ordinary races horses who
> on form appear extremely unlikely to win go off
> more than 8 times the odds of the favorite, even
> in smaller fields.
Truthfully I dont see the merit in this argument or how it is helpful.  What are we proving here?  In a field of 8 if the favorite is even money Im sure it is possible to have a longshot at 8-1.  In this derby the favorite was 5.5 - 1 and we had longshots close to 40-1.  In big browns derby we had a favorite at 5-2 and long shots at 50 or 60-1.  20 times the favorite.  So what?   How about this?  In the derby this year the fave was 11/2.  This would roughly be the equivalent of a 5/2 or 3-1 favorite in a 10 horse field.  Certainly you have seen hundreds of races like that.  I would have to see hard evidence before I would concede that less money is bet on the favorites in the derby because the drunken dummies pick the longshots and the slick handicappers who are always there load up on the faves.

[catcapper]

\'irrational thinking\' is only an oxymoron. It is not the absence of reason.

Please, answer this question for me, how do you deal with the addition of lasix, for one example? Until you do, aren\'t your algorithms incomplete?

Please address this, if you are looking at only Derby supers, that seems like a very small data pool from which to derive patterns that will consistently hit the Derby super every year. I have no doubt you have found patterns, but please, tell us what they mean.

There is a great leap of faith from pattern to wager..

And bear in mind, it\'s not the size of the wager that matters, it\'s the payoff.
You can bet a super for $1.

[TGJB]

His references to this in columns (plural) are not statistical either. Experiential, as are ours.

[mjellish]

Pizza,

You seem to be making the assumption that I don\'t understand statistics and numbers.  You don\'t know me well at all.  I actually am very left brain in some respects.  I got admitted to med school and never went.  I had plenty of math, chemistry and physics.  Numbers are numbers.  Big deal...  

What I am saying is simply that your approach is wrong.  You can run all the statistical studies you want to and the bottom line is that although math is a constant, sometimes your study may have relevance and sometimes it won\'t.  Your true math doesn\'t mean anything.  The number of mathematical possible combinations in a superfecta is about as relevant to making money at the track as bra size is to a woman being good in bed.  

But if you can look over the past performances and know right away when a horse is going to be an overlay or an underlay - that can be very relevant.  Or knowing that a given horse is going to be an underlay or an overlay but passing the race because it\'s a bad race to bet anyway - that can be very relevant.

Or knowing that in the KY Derby, the crowd will bet the longshots in the win pool disproportionally and the Tri and Superfecta will almost always be overlays because most of the crowd doesn\'t know how to mathematically structure these types of bets or isn\'t willing to spend an hour at the window punching out all the necessary tickets - that is relevant.

[pizzalove]

moosepalm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pizza, if your fallback position is always going
> to be there\'s no relevant data, then there is no
> discussion here, because no one is ever going to
> commission a study.  So, the alternative is to
> share observations made by people who have
> invested twenty to fifty years of their lives, on
> nearly a daily basis.  It won\'t get beyond the
> anecdotal, or the insufficient sample size, but if
> there is a preponderance of circumstantial
> evidence, folks are going to be pretty comfortable
> taking a position.  If it doesn\'t meet your level
> of statistical purity, I doubt it will dissuade
> those who feel the way they do, because, again,
> that level of statistical certainty isn\'t going to
> be found.  Absent that, some of us rely on the
> mixture of common sense with many years of
> observation, and those doing so generally have
> highly refined analytical skills, because, at the
> level they play, the game warrants it, or you will
> quickly crash and burn.  So, yes, the influx of
> casual players on Derby day likely skews the
> betting pattern.  I can\'t prove, nor can you
> disprove, that if you were take a sampling of
> bettors responsible for, let\'s say 90% of the
> action on every other day of the year, you would
> see a dramatically different array of betting odds
> than what winds up on the Churchill board.  When
> Orb goes off at 5-1, I\'m thinking he\'s no more
> than 7-2 among the \"regulars.\"  When Big Brown
> goes off at 5-2, I\'d say he\'s less than 2-1 with
> the more serious players.  When Giant Finish goes
> off at 38-1, I can\'t believe he\'d be less than 70
> or even 80-1 in a pool of mainstream customers.
> Twenty years ago, Arcangues won the BC Classic at
> odds of 133-1 in a 13-horse field.  Here you have
> a contrast between two of the most significant
> races of the year.  There is relatively little
> \"tourist\" money in the Cup.  If there had been, do
> you seriously think you would have gotten 133-1?
> It was predominantly serious money, or the absence
> thereof, that got you those odds.  The pool is not
> diluted by the multitudes who do precisely what
> Covello said his friends were doing.  
>
> So, save the \"this is not statistically
> verifiable\" response.  We know that.  This is not
> a Statistics seminar.  The best we have is
> anecdotal material which serves as a springboard
> for what can occasionally be interesting bar talk.
>  As those kinds of things go, this material is
> reasonably solid.

Because of the high amount wagered on derby day I doubt that these \"handicapping experts who have spent 20 to 50 years doing this\" would of had Orb at 7-2 if they had been the only ones wagering.  Lots of people that have been betting for this long are also living in an alley.  there were plenty of people I am sure that would of bet the homeboy \"shug\" because of his connections.  You would refer these people as the non handicapping experts.  There are plenty of people who were handicapping experts who were betting against orb with both fists.  It is just as likely that the tutored derby bettors had orb around 7-1 as 7-2.  I also know this can be boring stuff but if you dont like then dont read it and dont respond.

[pizzalove]

mjellish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pizza,
>
> You seem to be making the assumption that I don\'t
> understand statistics and numbers.  You don\'t know
> me well at all.  I actually am very left brain in
> some respects.  I got admitted to med school and
> never went.  I had plenty of math, chemistry and
> physics.  Numbers are numbers.  Big deal...  
>
> What I am saying is simply that your approach is
> wrong. Approach to what? You can run all the statistical studies
> you want to and the bottom line is that although
> math is a constant, sometimes your study may have
> relevance and sometimes it won\'t.  Your true math
> doesn\'t mean anything.How would you know?  The number of mathematical
> possible combinations in a superfecta is about as
> relevant to making money at the track as bra size
> is to a woman being good in bed.  Something tells me you would have no statistical experience here.
>
> But if you can look over the past performances and
> know right away when a horse is going to be an
> overlay or an underlay - that can be very
> relevant.  Or knowing that a given horse is going
> to be an underlay or an overlay but passing the
> race because it\'s a bad race to bet anyway - that
> can be very relevant.
>
> Or knowing that in the KY Derby, the crowd will
> bet the longshots in the win pool
> disproportionally and the Tri and Superfecta will
> almost always be overlays because most of the
> crowd doesn\'t know how to mathematically structure
> these types of bets or isn\'t willing to spend an
> hour at the window punching out all the necessary
> tickets - that is relevant.

[pizzalove]

catcapper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \'irrational thinking\' is only an oxymoron. It is
> not the absence of reason.
>
> Please, answer this question for me, how do you
> deal with the addition of lasix, for one example?
> Until you do, aren\'t your algorithms incomplete? I do look at lasix and weigh it. I handicap probably like you do.  My stats dont give me any formula or anything but I beleive they help me get maximum value on my wager.
>
> Please address this, if you are looking at only
> Derby supers, that seems like a very small data
> pool from which to derive patterns that will
> consistently hit the Derby super every year. I
> have no doubt you have found patterns, but please,
> tell us what they mean.Actually I have not found any derby patterns.  I study alot of numbers that have to do with the derby payouts and the 20 horse fields.
>
> There is a great leap of faith from pattern to
> wager..
>
> And bear in mind, it\'s not the size of the wager
> that matters, it\'s the payoff. [bAgreed.[/b]
> You can bet a super for $1.

[mjellish]

I said my peace.  I\'m done with this thread. Keep up the good work with the math.  In some ways you\'re on the right track and asking all the right questions, and in some ways you\'re so wrong you\'ll never be able to see the forest through the trees.

[pizzalove]

mjellish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I said my peace.  I\'m done with this thread. Keep
> up the good work with the math.  In some ways
> you\'re on the right track and asking all the right
> questions, and in some ways you\'re so wrong you\'ll
> never be able to see the forest through the trees.But again this is your opinion and you can pretend whatever you like.

[moosepalm]

pizzalove Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Because of the high amount wagered on derby day I
> doubt that these \"handicapping experts who have
> spent 20 to 50 years doing this\" would of had Orb
> at 7-2 if they had been the only ones wagering.
> Lots of people that have been betting for this
> long are also living in an alley.  there were
> plenty of people I am sure that would of bet the
> homeboy \"shug\" because of his connections.  You
> would refer these people as the non handicapping
> experts.  There are plenty of people who were
> handicapping experts who were betting against orb
> with both fists.  It is just as likely that the
> tutored derby bettors had orb around 7-1 as 7-2.
> I also know this can be boring stuff but if you
> dont like then dont read it and dont respond.


I guess it was a case of \"I\'ll see your anecdotal evidence, and raise you an uneducated guess.\"  

I gave an example of a horse going off at 133-1 in what might be the most prestigious race of the year, in a 13-horse field.  Explain why that might happen, and yet you can\'t get more than 39-1 in a twenty horse field on what is the most widely bet race of the year.

The problem with what you\'ve written has absolutely nothing to do with it being boring.

[Boscar Obarra]

Holybull Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

 You understate your own case.

 50 to 40 is trivial.
 
 5-1 to 10 or 15, enormous. You\'d have to double or triple the pool and bet no NEW money on the 5-1.

 Think about it.

 Not really sure why the 9/2 on ORB is seen as some big deal, the \'real price\' was probably closer to 7/2.  Bigger discrepancies happen daily.

[Thehoarsehorseplayer]

Hi guys, it\'s been awhile, but this conversation needs a new perspective.

The bottom line is that betting horses with a 50-1 morning line, (win, place) in the Kentucky Derby has been a gold mine. This year for every $8.00 invested in such a bet the return would have been $38.60.

Then let\'s not forget Giacomo and Mine that Bird.

From an investment perspective it\'s akin to the old stock theory of putting your money into the Dow Jones stocks that underperformed the year before. This year\'s return might suck, but long term you will do all right.

Now the problem with arguing that deflated prices on long shots in the Kentucky Derby is a natural by-product of uninformed crowds is, as pizzalove pointed out, it is a rather recent phenomena, at least to the degree it is manifesting itself now.

Now it\'s also true we\'ve had two $100 winners in the last eight years, and maybe that has encouraged a greater interest in the once a year money to spread itself among the long shots. And if the argument is that there is only so much informed money to be put into the pools, then the rise in handles, by logical deduction, must be coming from uninformed sources, which lends some credence to the argument that it is uninformed money that is finding its way onto hopeless long shots in greater proportions. But here, I also have some sympathy with pizzalove\'s argument that many once a year bettors are going to bet the favorite, especially if they\'re throwing big money around.

I\'m not going to come down on either side of the argument. In the end, I\'m getting too old to care what people think; I\'m much more interested in how they think.  And one thing is still true in Racing: there is a lot of lazy and flaccid thinking being hailed as wisdom.

Still, here\'s the conundrum: If somebody was dumb enough to bet every horse in the Kentucky Derby that was 50-1 in the morning line, and I\'m presuming there were very few 50-1 morning line\'s before the twenty horse field, their ROI wouldn\'t be very dumb.

OK, so throw Giacomo out as an anomaly, when Mine That Bird wins there is a history of 50-1 morning lines winning the Derby. Enough of a history to whet some body\'s interest. And all of a sudden the 50-1 horse in the Kentucky Derby disappears. Smart money, or dumb money, that is the question? Whether it is nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of handicapping the race,,or just be satisfied with betting, or batch betting, a promising angle and getting a $38.60 return on every $8.00 bet.

[TGJB]

That wasn\'t a fresh perspective, it was a change of subject.

[catcapper]

Now, we can find some common ground to have a discussion. I have watched many many races with a worthy 6/5 favorite and then maybe three or four horses at, say 5/2 to 5-1, and then three or four horses at double digits, sometimes pretty big double digits. And wouldn\'t you just know, the worthy 6/5 runs first and the double digit horses run 2nd, even 3rd, even 4th sometimes, and make for big exotic payouts. Sometimes I find it hard to resist wagering a race based on this \'results pattern\' because I have seen it so many times.
My thinking as to what is behind this type of \'result pattern\' is that the three or four middle odds horses are being bet by people who are just trying to beat a 6/5 favorite and they bet them down disproportionate to their true chances, and consequent to this, the double digit horses are just overlooked but really on a par with the the middle odds horses. If my thinking on this is fairly accurate, then why do they all get on the same three or four horses and not on all of the other horses equally? bad handicapping? no handicapping? betting the tote board? or a faulty way of looking for betting value? I don\'t think we can know exactly why, but I would wager that human nature has something to do with it. And human nature is impossible to quantify. You will need chaos theory for that.

Now, If I were to wager on the \'results pattern\' described above, it would obviously be the worthy 6/5 over the double digits in exactas, tri, and super.
If you just hit the exacta, you would show good profit. But I can\'t wager on just pattern alone. Too many other factors that matter.

I would very much like to hear about your work and the resulting patterns. Please share them. You are a statistician. Numerical descriptions of otherwise unseen patterns in phenomenon is your thing. Here you will find minds that can help you determine their relevance and whether or not they might be applied successfully to wagering. If you don\'t know horseracing, I don\'t see how you, by yourself, will figure out how to apply them. But you have come to the right place here. You won\'t find another place where people will appreciate such efforts, whether or not they agree with you. We can all learn something from each other. People aren\'t being critical, we are trying to share our hard won wisdom and want to know more, but you have to present it in a way that is meaningful to the veteran horseplayer We are not statisticians, and I don\'t think you are a horseplayer -yet. We can all learn something.

So what do like on your pizza, kid?

[pizzalove]

catcapper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now, we can find some common ground to have a
> discussion. I have watched many many races with a
> worthy 6/5 favorite and then maybe three or four
> horses at, say 5/2 to 5-1, and then three or four
> horses at double digits, sometimes pretty big
> double digits. And wouldn\'t you just know, the
> worthy 6/5 runs first and the double digit horses
> run 2nd, even 3rd, even 4th sometimes, and make
> for big exotic payouts. Sometimes I find it hard
> to resist wagering a race based on this \'results
> pattern\' because I have seen it so many times.
> My thinking as to what is behind this type of
> \'result pattern\' is that the three or four middle
> odds horses are being bet by people who are just
> trying to beat a 6/5 favorite and they bet them
> down disproportionate to their true chances, and
> consequent to this, the double digit horses are
> just overlooked but really on a par with the the
> middle odds horses. If my thinking on this is
> fairly accurate, then why do they all get on the
> same three or four horses and not on all of the
> other horses equally? bad handicapping? no
> handicapping? betting the tote board? or a faulty
> way of looking for betting value? I don\'t think we
> can know exactly why, but I would wager that human
> nature has something to do with it. And human
> nature is impossible to quantify. You will need
> chaos theory for that. interesting theory. I can honestly see ur logic.  And I love hearing the different theories.
>
> Now, If I were to wager on the \'results pattern\'
> described above, it would obviously be the worthy
> 6/5 over the double digits in exactas, tri, and
> super.
> If you just hit the exacta, you would show good
> profit. But I can\'t wager on just pattern alone.
> Too many other factors that matter.
>
> I would very much like to hear about your work and
> the resulting patterns.I would not say that I follow specific patterns per say.  Lets just say I have my opinions (on derby day) that have no proof. Please share them. You are
> a statistician. Numerical descriptions of
> otherwise unseen patterns in phenomenon is your
> thing. Here you will find minds that can help you
> determine their relevance and whether or not they
> might be applied successfully to wagering. If you
> don\'t know horseracing, I don\'t see how you, by
> yourself, will figure out how to apply them. But
> you have come to the right place here. You won\'t
> find another place where people will appreciate
> such efforts, whether or not they agree with you.
> We can all learn something from each other. People
> aren\'t being critical, we are trying to share our
> hard won wisdom and want to know more, but you
> have to present it in a way that is meaningful to
> the veteran horseplayer We are not statisticians,
> and I don\'t think you are a horseplayer -yet. We
> can all learn something.
>
> So what do like on your pizza, kid?  Love pepperoni and sausage.  BUt i am currently on a diet so I have cut back.