We are hearing a lot of good commentary on the Derby. I also keep hearing terms like \"Value\" being used. I understand what \"Value\" is but sometimes I think there is a correlation with \"Risk\" but they are also two different animals.
If Eskendreya were projected to be 2-1 by a handicappers personal ML and he were to actually be 3-1 does he now have \"Value\"?
If Rule were projected to be 10-1 by a handicappers personal ML and he were to actually be 15-1 does he now have \"Value\"?
Most people would probably say the latter clearly has \"Value\". But really the premiums to the projected ML is actually the same, 50%.
This is where I believe \"Risk\" becomes more prevalent in the decision making process. Making a straight win wager on Eskendreya requires one to believe that all of the variables of a 20 horse field with traffic and pace can be overcome and there is value in either set of odds, 2-1 or 3-1.
I think those same variables with the longer shot are still prevalent along with the variable that he may simply not be fast enough \"yet\". However at the respective prices someone may fell I have the money to lose to try and find out.
Does this make any sense? Because in some ways it does to me.
Let me change this statment below.
\"This is where I believe \"Risk\" becomes more prevalent in the decision making process. Making a straight win wager on Eskendreya requires one to believe that all of the variables of a 20 horse field with traffic and pace can be overcome and there is value in either set of odds, 2-1 or 3-1.\"
I meant \"Value\" at the odds of 3-1.
And yet I do not think there is. It still gets into is it worth the \"Risk\"