This appears to be a Derby where the Rag. and TG sheets pointed to the same horses, at least based on the comments on both boards, particularly about Supah Blitz and Funny Cide.
I\'m one of the several thousand people (apparently) who had FC at 93:1 in the future book, largely b/c of his 2 y.o. number and immediate pairing of it as a 3 y.o.
I am also curious about the late money that steamed in for FC in the last couple of minutes. He was 15:1 with about 2 minutes to post. Given that there was $22+ million in the win pool, there had to be at least $200 to $300k that went in for him in the last couple of minutes. Maybe the fix was in.
how is it that TG players were playing S. Blitz. Look at Jerry\'s post below. Also, according to Freedman, S. Blitz was the key and F. Cide was a MARGINAL use at ML!!!
You\'ve got to be kidding.
Anybody who does not have the courage to use their own judgment when betting horses -- i.e. ignoring what Friedman and Brown think deserves whatever happens to them. I have taken Friedman to task on a number of occasions for the way he positions his picks and have never constructed a betting strategy based on his opinions -- at least not since the \'98 BC when I learned my lesson good.
When I did my morning line for this year\'s Derby, the horses lined up like this:
Funny Cide: 4:1
Empire Maker: 9:2
Atswhatimtalkin: 7:1
Peace Rules: 8:1
Ten Most Wanted: 9:1
Offlee Wild: 12:1
Supah Blitz: 13:1
Brancusi: 18:1
Buddy Gil: 21:1
Indian Express: 30:1
Everyone else -- no shot
Supah Blitz was an interesting horse to throw some money on, but he was only about 40:1, not the 80 or 100:1 that many figured he would go off at. At the prices the horses actually went off at, FC was the biggest overlay and deserved to be the key. In fact, the only horses overlaid were FC, Offlee, and Supah, but given Offlee\'s and Supah\'s relatively small shot of winning (7-8% on my ML), FC deserved the bulk of the money. Since I had FC in the future book, I backed off a bit and did not hammer him in the Derby itself.
If you want to pick a fight, have at it, but if you look at the sheets, FC was a very strong contender on Ragozin.
It just seems to me if you make these figures religiously you are the expert in determining the merits of the animal on your figs. Ragozin said in regard to Funny Cides chances on Ragozin figs and I quote:
\"Funny Cide is a marginal contender at the morning line odds\"
He went off at less than morning line.
Interesting odds line. For what it\'s worth, I had it:
FunnyCide: 4-1
Empire Maker: 5-1
Indian Express: 10-1
Peace Rules: 11-1
Supah Blitz: 17-1
Brancusi: 17-1
Ten Most Wanted: 18-1
I\'m curious what methods you used to come up with FunnyCide at 4-1 and Empire Maker at 9-2. Our top 2 both came out similar and the methods I use I am still \"experimenting\" with.
I\'m not sure any special methods were needed, to make a horse 4-1 (a bit low but we won\'t quibble) who was beaten less than a length by the favorite and who had no particular faults other than the NY bred thing (irrelevant) and the gelding thing (irrelevant, if an impressive statistic).
The only reason the gelding theory made any sense at at, would be to assume that the boyz in ky made sure that a prestigious win was not \'wasted\' on such a beast. Maybe Alex H. is past his prime.
Everyones figures put the winner right in the mix, without any projections or fancy analysis needed. Of course , this is all after the fact, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, if you know what I mean.
Hey, last time I payed any serious attn to the game, Tagg was a player. Can\'t let Frankel win everything.
Tommy,
That\'s very close to my line for most of the horses and it would have taken just a tweak here or there in my estimation of probabilities to get the ML\'s to change from, say 9:1 to 18:1.
In brief: my ML method is just an excel spreadsheet where I estimate the % chance each horse has of running a given number (e.g., a 5% chance to run a 2, a 15% chance to run a 3, etc.) and then I have a formula that allocates and adds the percentages for each horse, taking into account the chance that the other horses have of running the same or faster number. If I think a horse\'s trip will be better or worse, I build that into my estimates. I only do this for the big races b/c it can be pretty time consuming but it definitely helps me take a look at my assumptions and then make sure that they are realistic.
dpatent,
I also use Excel and similar mechanics, although a bit more automated with fixed probability distributions based on several factors--top, post position and probable ground loss, last few races relative to top, weight, age. I was just surprised to see your line so similar. My initial concern after doing my spreadsheet was that 4-1 and 5-1 were pretty low odds--as pointed out by the other post. It is a problem I have noticed...my program gives my \"favorites\" a better chance than maybe they should have and dismisses other horses at ridiculously long odds. As you mentioned, a small tweak in assigning probabilities has a potentially huge effect on the longer horses.
I was just curious. Because I focus soley on overlays, I want my line as accurate as possible. I know I am on the right track focusing hard on a good morning line since I now have more good days than bad. Because I don\'t play so often and haven\'t had much extra time to do a proper statistical validation of my lines, I guess I was just looking for validation in some other way. It probably was coincidence, though, since you manually assign probabilities and I do not.
Thanks for your input.
Tommy,
I think you are on the right track.
The best way to test your odds line is to keep track of how well it performs. One fairly easy way to do this it to group horses into different pct chance of winning \"buckets.\" (For those of you that are math inclined I am suggesting that Tommy create a histogram.) For example, group all the horses that your model predicts will win in the 25% to 35% range and then compare how often they actually win to the predicted probability. If in the above example the horses that you predicted would have a 25% to 35% chance of winning actually do win about 30% of the time, you can start feeling pretty good about your odds line (assuming you have lots of data). You can start feeling even better if you see similar results for all the other \"buckets\" (e.g., 0%-5%,5%-15%,15%-25%, etc.)
Of course, such an accurate model does not guarantee success. I could build a \"system\" that converts the post-time odds into a pct chance of winning and it would prove to be a very accurate predictor of a horse\'s true odds of winning (despite popular opinion the betting public as a whole is pretty darn good). Unfortunately, I would lose at a rate just about exactly equal to the takeout. So you need to have an accurate model that can point out overlays and underlays to turn a profit (in other words an odds line that is as accurate as the betting public\'s but also has some frequent, contrary and correct opinions).
It is easy to be contrary and incorrect. It is also easy to go along with the crowd and be correct about 1/3 of the time. The challenge is to be contrary and correct often enough to show a consistent long-term profit. Building an odds line is a good way to start down that latter path.
Good luck with your model. Even if it never quite pans out you will learn a lot about handicapping and value in the process.
Chris