Two space aliens on a routine trip to Earth witnessed the Kentucky Derby.They were interested in the earthlings practice of racing and wagering upon four-legged creatures known as horses. Upon learning that there would be a similar race in two weeks involving some of the same participants, as well as, some new competitors who were determined to be unqualified for the Derby, the aliens were somewhat confused. They couldn\'t understand the need for another race since the creature that won the Derby was so clearly superior.
The moral of this story is simple: avoid over analysis. The Derby winner won with relative ease, he is trained by a quality horseman, he is reportedly training in exemplary fashion, the competition is not impressive, they are running on a surface that he handles and the Preakness is almost always won by a horse that competed in the Derby.
In my view, Animal Kingdom is the most likely Preakness winner. No amount of sophisticated analysis should alter this obvious conclusion. The only question that remains is whether Animal Kingdom offers any real value.
If that is your opinion then even money would be fair. 2-1 should feel like a steal. 5/2 would be a gift. 3-1 should make you empty your wallet. And 7/2 would require you to borrow as much as you can at whatever interest rate because it doesn\'t matter you will easily pay it back by 7PM tomorrow. So go get em. You could be right.
Oversimplification is something you may want to avoid as well. If this is the analysis you are buying into (avaiable now in almost every daily newspaper in the United States), it\'s not going to be worth anything unless you can hook up your short priced winner with some bombs for a pick three or get some bombers under there for a decent tri or exacta.
I\'m assuming that your aliens don\'t bet. If the aliens figure out what it takes to succeed at this game they may zap you, since your analysis isn\'t going to make them any money. HP
albany Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Two space aliens on a routine trip to Earth
> witnessed the Kentucky Derby.They were interested
> in the earthlings practice of racing and wagering
> upon four-legged creatures known as horses. Upon
> learning that there would be a similar race in two
> weeks involving some of the same participants, as
> well as, some new competitors who were determined
> to be unqualified for the Derby, the aliens were
> somewhat confused. They couldn\'t understand the
> need for another race since the creature that won
> the Derby was so clearly superior.
>
> The moral of this story is simple: avoid over
> analysis. The Derby winner won with relative ease,
> he is trained by a quality horseman, he is
> reportedly training in exemplary fashion, the
> competition is not impressive, they are running on
> a surface that he handles and the Preakness is
> almost always won by a horse that competed in the
> Derby.
>
> In my view, Animal Kingdom is the most likely
> Preakness winner. No amount of sophisticated
> analysis should alter this obvious conclusion. The
> only question that remains is whether Animal
> Kingdom offers any real value.
Honestly, I don\'t understand a post of this sort on this site...I read a lot of divergent points of view here, which I value greatly. I learn here. If repeating a score in ANY race were this easy and obvious, why on earth (heh, heh) would you need Thorograph to begin with? Horses that win would just keep winning if they beat a field by a couple or more lengths, right? Happens every day, right? There are no surprises because they\'re all a bunch of machines, right?
Excuse me.
To be clear, my opinion is that Animal Kingdom is the \"most likely\" winner of the Preakness. How \"likely\" is the question.
Even money would not offer substantial value unless Animal Kingdom has a 70% chance of winning. His likelihood of winning is not near that figure. Although not susceptible to exact quantification, I would place Animal Kingdom\'s chance of winning at between 30-35%. Other than recreational action plays, I only wager when there is an overlay. In Animal Kingdom\'s case, I will pass the race unless he is at least 7-2.
Alm:
Perhaps my post required too much creative license. I am sorry if it offended the more seriously minded among us.
There is no question that you are right: this game does not often present easy and obvious answers. In fact, my greatest enjoyment and financial rewards come from devining winners that are not obvious. Unfortunately, I couldn\'t find a horse in the Preakness that fit the bill. Sway Away was a candidate, but I feel that he will be overplayed. If he is overlooked, he could present value. I\'ll wait and see.
In the final analysis, I felt that the Derby winner is the most likely winner. I have been playing horses for about 50 years (I started very young) and have outsmarted myself more times than I\'d like to remember. Sometimes the most likely winner actually wins. That being said, I will only make a play if his odds are right.
That type of analysis has led to an awful lot of horses going for the TC who could not lose the Belmont...
Albany,
You are wasting your time. If your view is that you are waiting to get better than 7-2 on Animal Kingdom, which you surely are NOT getting, then move on to the Belmont.
Many of the rest of us have realistic goals about what we want and expect to get in the Preakness. Win or lose, we will be \"in the game\".
Jimbo:
I am good at waiting. I don\'t like to bet unless there is value. I\'m sorry, but this is my approach.
I am still in the game after a half century, while those who I have known that needed more action are long gone.
In any event, I enjoy your posts and wish you the best.
Albany
TGJB
I agree that this type of analysis has led to many notable failures in the Belmont.
Why would you assume that I would reflexively adopt a similar approach in the Belmont? Among other things, the distance of the Belmont brings other factors into consideration and the fact that it is the third race in a short period of time is a clear distinguishing factor from the Preakness.
In my post, I expressed the opinion that Animal Kingdom is the most likely winner of the Preakness. I also indicated that I would pass the race unless there was real value (for me defined as Animal Kingdom at odds of at least 7-2). I find it curious that these comments would engender harsh criticism and downright disdain.
Albany
Hey Jellish. Keep your unsolicited opinions to yourself. You havent hit since Big Brown which we all hit
Buck - If this board was for unsolicited opinions only there would never be a post on it, would there?
Yeah but your post came across as condescending - telling someone how much they should bet and how they should be greatful for a short price. He knows what he\'s getting if he\'s eating chaulk.
The great thing about bulletin boards is that you can go back and see what the person wrote. You wrote about not over analyzing the race. You (and most of America) like Animal Kingdom. He won the Derby. You\'re expecting praise for this?
You did not specifically define \"value\" at 7/2 in your original post, and if you think you\'re getting anywhere near that you REALLY must be spending time with the little green men.
I think there may be some value in the race. Others have talked up Astrology, Sway Away and Dance City. I like King Congie a little too. I will take a small stab at the longshots. I\'m not taking out a second mortgage because...Animal Kingdom isn\'t exactly a throwout for me. He won the Derby. HP
albany Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB
>
> I agree that this type of analysis has led to many
> notable failures in the Belmont.
>
> Why would you assume that I would reflexively
> adopt a similar approach in the Belmont? Among
> other things, the distance of the Belmont brings
> other factors into consideration and the fact that
> it is the third race in a short period of time is
> a clear distinguishing factor from the Preakness.
>
> In my post, I expressed the opinion that Animal
> Kingdom is the most likely winner of the
> Preakness. I also indicated that I would pass the
> race unless there was real value (for me defined
> as Animal Kingdom at odds of at least 7-2). I find
> it curious that these comments would engender
> harsh criticism and downright disdain.
>
> Albany
Albany,
Your post was clearly a light hearted attempt to tell us that Animal Kingdom was the most likely winner. As such, you don\'t want to bang your head against the wall and find \"value\" so that you can be \"in the game\".
There are some on this board that take themselves so seriously, as seen by some of the condescending replies to your post, that they are unable to take your comments in the spirit intended.
Yeah, its a Thorograph board. We get it. I have found the various threads regarding the Preakness, as well as other races (ROTW for example), informative and enlightening.
For those of you banging on Albany about betting a favorite, I\'ve seen many posts where people brag about a $8 winner, or just recently complaining that a 2/1 shot at the gate paid even money.
If you disagree fine. But don\'t tell the guy that the \"value\" you found, thus allowing you to be \"in the game\", is better than passing a race where you feel the favorite is strong enough for you to pass. Especially if you are shredding tickets.
All of that value hunting didn\'t do many around here any good 2 weeks ago.
Jeez Buck,
I have no idea what you are talking about. No condecension. Was merely pointing out that if albany thought AK was that clear cut of a winner, 2-1 or better was more than fair. And he will probably go off higher than that.
I know it\'s difficult to tell tone from a message board. But hell, I even acknowledged that albany may be right. Could be the simplest way to play the race and if the horse wins he won\'t be anywhere near 5/2 on Belmont day. If you like him, tomorrow is the day to plunge.
mjellish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jeez Buck,
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about. No
> condecension. Was merely pointing out that if
> albany thought AK was that clear cut of a winner,
> 2-1 or better was more than fair. And he will
> probably go off higher than that.
>
> I know it\'s difficult to tell tone from a message
> board. But hell, I even acknowledged that albany
> may be right. Could be the simplest way to play
> the race and if the horse wins he won\'t be
> anywhere near 5/2 on Belmont day. If you like
> him, tomorrow is the day to plunge.
MJ,
You\'re one of the most level headed guys on this forum. Your posts, for me at least, are must read.
It sounded a little rough at first, but you acknowledged he could be right. Indeed, tough to tell tone and intent on a board. Good luck tomorrow.
A space alien might wonder why cappers on a speed figure board are tossing out the fastest horse at 20-1 odds based on questionable pedigree. Sure he might come in last, but it\'s not like there\'s zero chance he can run his race. If he does win, the regret will torture many speed guys.
HP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You did not specifically define \"value\" at 7/2 in
> your original post, and if you think you\'re
> getting anywhere near that you REALLY must be
> spending time with the little green men.
>
In a 14 horse field, with several high profile connections, with a Derby winner that wasn\'t picked by many \"serious\" handicappers, why would you assume that he will be pounded down??
This horse will probably be closer to 7/2 than 2/1. Maybe its you thats spending too much time with little green things. Put down your pipe.
Albany,
I just re-read my post and can see how someone may take it the wrong way. So to be clear, I did not mean to sound arrogant if I did. I was merely trying to say that if you feel that way about AK you probably should consider plunging tomorrow because you could be right. That\'s it.
P-Dub:
I appreciate your defense of my position and your understanding that my post was intended to be light-hearted.
Both you and I know that if you drain the ego out of some handicappers there would not be enough left to fill a thimble. By the way, it has been my experience that those ego-driven types almost always go bust.
Albany
MJ:
I did not take offense at your post. I think that was reflected in my response to you in which I tried to define what value Animal Kingdom may have. Contrary to some of the comments on this Board, I fully recognize that it is unlikely that he will reach 7-2. That\'s ok, I don\'t need to bet the Preakness to enjoy the race.
Keep up the good work, I really find your posts to be insightful.
Albany
I know you certainly don\'t need me to come to your defense, but I would refer anyone who took offense to MJs response to Albany to a post he made on 12/1/10 which started off by stating: \"I dunno. I have no problem betting a chunk of change to win at 5/2 or 3/1 if I think the horse is 8/5 or 2/1 win. Seems to me the key is to always look for value.\"
I read the post in question as simple advice - go pound AK if that\'s what you believe. As the guy on this board who probably knows the least about handicapping, I am forced to keep a binder of posts that help me handicap and bet. MJ\'s post I referenced is on page 1 of the tab called \"Value\" in my binder. It is also cross-referenced in \"Wager Construction\" as I certainly didn\'t hit for $90K in the BC using Blame and Goldikova with ALL, ALL in the 3rd and 4th legs. My guess is MJ has made a few hits since BB...
Albany,
Patience is a good thing. I wish I had some.....
Hey, with Dialed IN at 3-1 early, maybe you get 4-1. I don\'t think so, but you never know.
Thinking Animal Kingdom 3-1 and Dialed In 4-1, with Mucho Macho Man at 6-1. A few in the 8-1 to 12-1 bucket after that.
Interesting that Sway Away was bet very hard in the Black Eyed Susan\'s doubles, but not in the win pool yet, at all.