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?
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.
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
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
\"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 :)
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
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.
Pizza-- you\'re missing my point, but I\'m out of the office and done for the day. Briefly, you have the relationship between the favorites and long shots backward-- the reason favorites go off so long is the Derby is bet like no other race, by those who only bet one race a year and don\'t handicap.
mjellish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
[i]Exactly my point. In that race there was a 63-1 a 54-1, 49-1, 44-1, 42-1. In this years derby there was no one over 40-1.[/i]This is due to the lukewarm fave. I dont know what mine that bird has to do with it.
>
> 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.
Actually in the race you just used won by Big Brown there was no one at 8-1 to 12-1. How about this: In the derby you have different horses at different odds.
>
> In the exotics like Supers and Tri\'s you will have
> horses that are more like 100-1.
This statement doesnt make sense and where is your proof. This kind of data is not available.
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.
Actually this try is below the tri should average. There are 6840 different trifecta possibles with a 20 horse field. And in a 19 horse field there are 5814 combinations. the tri this year paid $3462 for $1. Even with taxes out this is not an above average tri.
>
> 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.
You have no evidence of this and I would really doubt that statement. How would you know that the \"crowd\" is dispersing enough money on the \"bombers\".
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pizza-- you\'re missing my point, but I\'m out of
> the office and done for the day. Briefly, you have
> the relationship between the favorites and long
> shots backward-- the reason favorites go off so
> long is the Derby is bet like no other race, by
> those who only bet one race a year and don\'t
> handicap.
I am not missing your point. With all due respect you dont have one. You dont understand this area of statistics. Looking at your statement you have to realize that some derby has long faves and sometimes the derby has heavy faves. If your argument was true then why do we get horses at times at 2-1 in the derby? the reason some faves go off long is because some years the public isnt as confident in the favorite. I also guarantee you dont have any proof as to what the betters who bet once a year are likely to bet vs. someone who handicaps. No pattern available because there is no data available.
Pizza,
While I appreciate your analytical approach, if horse racing was statistics the MIT guys would have beat the races a long time ago.
You are missing the point, but it\'s a very simple one.
Go to Belmont on a Wed. You may have 2,000 people there and half of them or more are regulars and almost everyone there will know what the word Superfecta means. Put a 20 horse field in the gate with a few that obviously don\'t belong and I guarantee you will have some 100-1+ longshots in the win pool.
Go to Churchill on Derby Day and you will see 120,000+, 1/3rd who care more about their hats and outfit than the race and another 1/3rd too drunk in the infield to notice if it is raining or not, throw in some celebrities and athletes with deep pockets who could give a hoot about $20k with a betting approach that resembles spin the bottle, pick a name or I heard this from a guy who gambles a lot, and by 5PM all around you the sound of breaking glass... Now take the simulcast action from all around the world, same type of crowd but maybe a little more docile (but they still all come out on Derby Day). Hell, look at the people who were posting on this board 2 weeks ago who aren\'t around now.
You are not comparing apples to apples. The crowd and the way the crowd behaves aren\'t the same so the statistical sample is not relevant. You can\'t assume they bet the same way.
You really want to see something, go to Japan some day and see the way the crowd bets there. It puts our pools to shame. Try doing your analysis on that.
While there may be 5800 possible tri combinations in a 19 horse field, they are not all bet equally. I\'m reasonably certain that if you took all TG user tri tickets on the derby, Orb was on top more than the 8 longest odds horses combined. A ballpark estimate of a tri payoff is to multiple the win odds of the 3 horses. The tri payoff was generous, not below average.
mjellish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pizza,
>
> While I appreciate your analytical approach, if
> horse racing was statistics the MIT guys would
> have beat the races a long time ago. Horse racing is more statistics than anything I know. Dont know what your point about MIT is all about. The statistics I am arguing here have to do with odds.
>
> You are missing the point, but it\'s a very simple
> one.
>
> Go to Belmont on a Wed. You may have 2,000 people
> there and half of them or more are regulars and
> almost everyone there will know what the word
> Superfecta means. Now this I agree with. Put a 20 horse field in the
> gate with a few that obviously don\'t belong and I
> guarantee you will have some 100-1+ longshots in
> the win pool. Once again this depends on how much is bet on the favorite and the others.
>
> Go to Churchill on Derby Day and you will see
> 120,000+, 1/3rd who care more about their hats and
> outfit than the race and another 1/3rd too drunk
> in the infield to notice if it is raining or not,
> throw in some celebrities and athletes with deep
> pockets who could give a hoot about $20k with a
> betting approach that resembles spin the bottle,
> pick a name or I heard this from a guy who gambles
> a lot, and by 5PM all around you the sound of
> breaking glass... Now take the simulcast action
> from all around the world, same type of crowd but
> maybe a little more docile (but they still all
> come out on Derby Day). Hell, look at the people
> who were posting on this board 2 weeks ago who
> aren\'t around now.sometimes people only study once a year for an hour. Sometimes the president drops a bet. What the hell does this have to do with anything. No data here.
>
> You are not comparing apples to apples. The crowd
> and the way the crowd behaves aren\'t the same so
> the statistical sample is not relevant. You can\'t
> assume they bet the same way. My point exactly. Everyone is different and more importantly there is no available data on the sample.
>
> You really want to see something, go to Japan some
> day and see the way the crowd bets there. It puts
> our pools to shame. Try doing your analysis on
> that.Actually the derby is enough of a challenge for me. My analysis is based on standard deviations and statistical principals. Others on this board are making claims as to how the effect of the handicappers wagers vs. the once a year gambler as if they some solid data on what these massive groups do to the odds.
TGJB, Thank you for thinking about this and responding. I believe that you must be right, that the peculiarities of the Derby crowd somehow make it possible. Intuitively, something in me struggles with the math, though, because I wonder why not all 50-1 or less, or all 35-1 or less? I will put it to rest for now.
My thanks also to pizzalove and covelj, too, for their responses. I have been enjoying covelj\'s posts and, like many here, happily following his many successes.
A special thanks to you, TGJB,for your determined battle to get some transparency into the game for players.
milwmike Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While there may be 5800 possible tri combinations
> in a 19 horse field, they are not all bet equally.no kidding
> I\'m reasonably certain that if you took all TG
> user tri tickets on the derby, Orb was on top more
> than the 8 longest odds horses combined.obviously. This is why a trifecta with orb on top would generally pay less then a trifecta with a longshot on top. A
> ballpark estimate of a tri payoff is to multiple
> the win odds of the 3 horses. if that were the case this try should of paid about $2000 for a $2. Multiplying the three is just not accurate. Maybe if multiply the horses numbers. The tri payoff was
> generous, not below average. No generousity involved. Computer based. And it is below average if you look at the number of combinations.
Okay. The evidence is the very thing we\'re talking about, but forget that.
You want to do a study? Take the favorites that comprise 25pc of the field (in a 20 horse field, the 5 favorites). See what percentage of the win money is bet on them in the average Derby. Then do the same thing for a bunch of other races (or stakes, or 3yo stakes, whatever). If its an 8 horse field you\'re using the 2 favorites, etc.
I will bet you sight unseen a smaller percentage of win money is on the favorites in the average Derby than in the average other race.
When we see Florida, Santa Anita and other Derby parties around the country that may change. But not til then.
pizzalove Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Pizza-- you\'re missing my point, but I\'m out of
> > the office and done for the day. Briefly, you
> have
> > the relationship between the favorites and long
> > shots backward-- the reason favorites go off so
> > long is the Derby is bet like no other race, by
> > those who only bet one race a year and don\'t
> > handicap.
>
> I am not missing your point. With all due respect
> you dont have one. You dont understand this area
> of statistics. Looking at your statement you have
> to realize that some derby has long faves and
> sometimes the derby has heavy faves. If your
> argument was true then why do we get horses at
> times at 2-1 in the derby? the reason some faves
> go off long is because some years the public isnt
> as confident in the favorite. I also guarantee
> you dont have any proof as to what the betters who
> bet once a year are likely to bet vs. someone who
> handicaps. No pattern available because there is
> no data available.
I like pizza, but not with anchovies.
Jerry\'s only been doing this for what, 35+ years , what does he know.
This is not rocket science, or even calculus.
If longshots are over bet then non longshots will go to post higher. It\'s a matter of degree, but when you have 10 horses that are over bet, it\'s pretty much guaranteed to juice up the odds rather nicely.
I could calculate exactly how much, but I don\'t think there\'s a need.
Your question, \"why do we get horses at
times at 2-1 in the derby?\". Well, maybe they would have been 7/5 in a normally bet race. How hard is that?
And bettors that bet once a year, nearly certain to bet badly. My once a year brain surgeries don\'t come out well either.
Pizza,
As I understand it, your main question is why aren\'t there horses over 40-1 in the Derby. You have your answer, because the crowd, meaning the whole world (which bye the way, is a much larger and different audience than what bets your average 10,000 claiming race) doesn\'t bet this race that way.
Go to a rock show with a crowd of 500 people. Then go to a rock show with 50,000 people and tell me the experience is the same. It\'s all music, isn\'t it?
That\'s it. That\'s the whole point and in a nutshell that\'s all there is to it. If you try to get too cute with the numbers and go all left brain on this, or on horse racing in general, you are simply wasting your time. And worse yet, if you try to come up with a way to bet the races that way you will lose. I can pretty much guarantee it.
Handicapping effectively is part science, part art. It also really takes some really sound math and creativity to successfully bet and win $ on the races over the long term, maybe throw in a good dose of stubbornness as well.
And by the way, good figure making is also part science and part art. It\'s not all left brain. And this is a figure making board.
Good discussion though.
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.
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pizzalove Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > TGJB Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Pizza-- you\'re missing my point, but I\'m out
> of
> > > the office and done for the day. Briefly, you
> > have
> > > the relationship between the favorites and
> long
> > > shots backward-- the reason favorites go off
> so
> > > long is the Derby is bet like no other race,
> by
> > > those who only bet one race a year and don\'t
> > > handicap.
> >
> > I am not missing your point. With all due
> respect
> > you dont have one. You dont understand this
> area
> > of statistics. Looking at your statement you
> have
> > to realize that some derby has long faves and
> > sometimes the derby has heavy faves. If your
> > argument was true then why do we get horses at
> > times at 2-1 in the derby? the reason some
> faves
> > go off long is because some years the public
> isnt
> > as confident in the favorite. I also guarantee
> > you dont have any proof as to what the betters
> who
> > bet once a year are likely to bet vs. someone
> who
> > handicaps. No pattern available because there
> is
> > no data available.
>
>
> I like pizza, but not with anchovies.
>
> Jerry\'s only been doing this for what, 35+ years
> , what does he know.
>
> This is not rocket science, or even calculus.
>
> If longshots are over bet then non longshots will
> go to post higher. It\'s a matter of degree, but
> when you have 10 horses that are over bet, it\'s
> pretty much guaranteed to juice up the odds rather
> nicely. If you have 10 horses that are \"overbet\" (I am assuming you mean that the other 10 horses are horses you want to bet) then yes the other 10 horses will be better odds.
>
> I could calculate exactly how much, but I don\'t
> think there\'s a need.
>
> Your question, \"why do we get horses at
> times at 2-1 in the derby?\". Well, maybe they
> would have been 7/5 in a normally bet race. How
> hard is that? Maybe they would be 5-1 in a normally bet race. How hard is that? Nothing factual to tell me why. I dont see the argument that because the derby has all of these ladies that care more about their hats and that others are completely drunk and betting 20K that these factors mean the favorites are longer. I have seen many people who thought they were great handicappers bet loads on the favorite and get it wrong.
>
> And bettors that bet once a year, nearly certain
> to bet badly. My once a year brain surgeries don\'t
> come out well either.
You\'re right, random money isn\'t random. Maybe all the hunch bettors had a friend named Orb.
If you guys ever what to discuss derby superfecta stats beleive me I can give you some info that would rock your world.
Pat
I am open to looking at things in new ways. Rock my world!
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay. The evidence is the very thing we\'re talking
> about, but forget that.
>
> You want to do a study? Take the favorites that
> comprise 25pc of the field (in a 20 horse field,
> the 5 favorites). See what percentage of the win
> money is bet on them in the average Derby. Then do
> the same thing for a bunch of other races (or
> stakes, or 3yo stakes, whatever). If its an 8
> horse field you\'re using the 2 favorites, etc.Ok now this I understand. Lets use stake races with horses that can be divisible by 25% So your saying that in a 20 horse derby less is bet percentage wise on the top 25% in odds or the five favorites then would be bet on the 25% favorites in a stakes race of say 8 or 12 horses? I would have to think about this. I can tell you that off the top of my head I would doubt that is true. I think the statistical difference would be insignificant. And derbies do fluctuate wildly from year to year. I know you are saying the untutored derby crowd bets less on favorites because they dont handicap. I am saying that people betting at a derby have some gambling knowledge and if they dont they are with someone who does and those types of people can often take what they perceive as the safest route and bet the fave. But like you I have no evidence of this either.
>
> I will bet you sight unseen a smaller percentage
> of win money is on the favorites in the average
> Derby than in the average other race.
The other thing I would want people to realize is that our data sample is unbeleivably small. We have only allowed 20 betting interests for like the last 12-14 years. When I base my \"averages\" on payouts it is based on how many payouts are probable and at times I figure out the uncles sams take as well. If the derby were run 1 million times these numbers would bear out. When I tell you what average payouts should be that is gospel. I cannot tell you however what a super is likely to pay with a certain horse on top. I can only guess since there is not data available. No where is it posted what all superfecta or tris would pay. I so wish it was.
>
> When we see Florida, Santa Anita and other Derby
> parties around the country that may change. But
> not til then.
give me some time to respond. I may mail this to you directly since I am probably boring everyone to death on this board. I am a numbers geek and I have some theories I would love to hear your opinion on when it comes to the derby.
I DO have evidence of this, it just isn\'t statistical in nature. And I\'m not the only one who has noticed-- Crist has written columns about it.
That, and once a year players naturally want to bet the horse that will return the least when it wins.
Everyone know that.
mjellish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pizza,
>
> As I understand it, your main question is why
> aren\'t there horses over 40-1 in the Derby. you are really getting confused. I didnt ask anyone why there were no 40-1 shots in this years derby. I already know. You
> have your answer, because the crowd, meaning the
> whole world (which bye the way, is a much larger
> and different audience than what bets your average
> 10,000 claiming race) doesn\'t bet this race that
> way.You also love to state the obvious. To add to your simplistic view also remember each derby is different.
>
> Go to a rock show with a crowd of 500 people.
> Then go to a rock show with 50,000 people and tell
> me the experience is the same. It\'s all music,
> isn\'t it?This is sooo deep.
>
> That\'s it. That\'s the whole point and in a
> nutshell that\'s all there is to it. If you try to
> get too cute with the numbers and go all left
> brain on this, or on horse racing in general, you
> are simply wasting your time.[[/b] And worse yet, if
> you try to come up with a way to bet the races
> that way you will lose. I can pretty much
> guarantee it.You dont read my postings well. I have never said I have come up with a way to bet the races. Since you like to make guarantees I have one for you. You will never, ever be successful in betting the races if you dont understand odds and statistics. I guarantee.
>
> Handicapping effectively is part science, part
> art. It also really takes some really sound math
> and creativity to successfully bet and win $ on
> the races over the long term, maybe throw in a
> good dose of stubbornness as well.
>
> And by the way, good figure making is also part
> science and part art. It\'s not all left brain.
> And this is a figure making board.
>
> Good discussion though.
they want to bet the horse they beleive for whatever reason will win and that is how favorites are made.
When you can crack the code of flesh and blood with your zillions of fast running numbers you will win a Nobel Prize.
What is self-evident to those who have spent years around this business and the horses, and who have been handicapping and wagering alot longer than you have had your math degree may never be apparent to you as long as you limit yourself with flat, dry, after the fact statistics. When you realize that, it will be an "Aha!" moment. And those moments, by their very nature, are incommensurate with statistical derivatives. You don\'t even realize when you have those moments now. Rational thinking has it\'s limits.
Try picking up the racing form, pick one horse and reading through the racing lines, all those little numbers, try telling the story of that horses racing career to yourself in regular everyday language. You are delusional if you really think you can statistically hit a superfecta using a computer. If you hit, you got lucky. And if I am wrong, then you should be able to hit every race. Or, a just a percentage? Gee, maybe you should figure the odds on that first before you start throwing your money to the wind. It sounds to me like your work far from complete. I know it\'s exciting to think you can crack the super this way. But you clearly haven\'t been doing it for long or you would have seen the futility of it. Ok, yes there are a finite number of combinations. But if a horse pops a quarter crack at the quarter pole and starts to back up, how do you stats deal with that? Or the addition of lasix? Or a jockey change? They don\'t. So numerical data is incomplete by itself when trying pick a winner, or superfecta exponentially more so.
I\'ll take the racing form and TG, and you take your computer and anything else you want. Let\'s see you can pick the most winners on a card, Or who can hit how many supers, or at least who comes the closet there. If I lose, I\'ll buy you a pizza. If I win, I\'ll still buy you a pizza.
How can it not be statistical?
If your referring to the above statement about Steve Christ I can tell you that I follow alot of racing publications closely and havent seen a Christ column on this. I can tell you that the statement in this posting is drivel.
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.
Are you a betting man? If I can\'t post a Crist column on this that appeared in DRF by the time they run the Preakness you win.
Ummm... The guy you were addressing (MJ) has made a living betting this game.
catcapper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When you can crack the code of flesh and blood
> with your zillions of fast running numbers you
> will win a Nobel Prize.Beleive me I am not trying to crack a code. I just have a very good handle on statistics and their tendencies and the odds involved. Does this ever help me pick a winner? No. but I hope it helps with some value.
>
> What is self-evident to those who have spent years
> around this business and the horses, and who have
> been handicapping and wagering alot longer than
> you have had your math degreeWhere people get foolish here is assuming facts they have no clue about. may never be
> apparent to you as long as you limit yourself with
> flat, dry, after the fact statistics.I love stats. When you
> realize that, it will be an "Aha!" moment. And
> those moments, by their very nature, are
> incommensurate with statistical derivatives. You
> don\'t even realize when you have those moments
> now. Rational thinking has it\'s limits.Irrational thinking is seldom useful.
> Try picking up the racing form, pick one horse and
> reading through the racing lines, all those little
> numbers, try telling the story of that horses
> racing career to yourself in regular everyday
> language. You are delusional if you really think
> you can statistically hit a superfecta using a
> computer. If you hit, you got lucky. And if I am
> wrong, then you should be able to hit every race.
> Or, a just a percentage? Gee, maybe you should
> figure the odds on that first before you start
> throwing your money to the wind. It sounds to me
> like your work far from complete. I know it\'s
> exciting to think you can crack the super this
> way. But you clearly haven\'t been doing it for
> long or you would have seen the futility of it.
> Ok, yes there are a finite number of combinations.
> But if a horse pops a quarter crack at the quarter
> pole and starts to back up, how do you stats deal
> with that? Or the addition of lasix? Or a jockey
> change? They don\'t. So numerical data is
> incomplete by itself when trying pick a winner, or
> superfecta exponentially more so.
>
> I\'ll take the racing form and TG, and you take
> your computer and anything else you want. Let\'s
> see you can pick the most winners on a card, Or
> who can hit how many supers, or at least who comes
> the closet there. If I lose, I\'ll buy you a pizza.
> If I win, I\'ll still buy you a pizza.I have no clue who would win. I can also tell you I have seen people that have been betting horses their entire life that have no clue what they are doing when they walk to the $2 window.
How much has he earned and does this imply he is never wrong? I want to say I am wondering if this is the same guy who did a cd on exotics wagering. As a statistician I was not impressed. this may not be the same guy however.
Honestly I would hope you would win because I would truthfully love to read it. Because of some of the \"blocks\" on data in this game I am always interested in opinions. Maybe it could be something I could use to refine my own.
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.
\'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.
His references to this in columns (plural) are not statistical either. Experiential, as are ours.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That wasn\'t a fresh perspective, it was a change of subject.
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?
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.
moosepalm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.Your pulling one single horse race from 20 years ago and feel you are proving a point. The reason Arcanges was 133-1 could be due to the fact that so much money was wagered on others while a very small amount was bet on Arcanges. You may find this shocking but there is seldom any horse race with a 133-1 shot. This is probably why you went back 20 years. When we get a derby with a 6/5 favorite I promise you that you will see multiple 100-1 shots.
>
> The problem with what you\'ve written has
> absolutely nothing to do with it being boring.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You\'re right, random money isn\'t random. Maybe all
> the hunch bettors had a friend named Orb.
You are the one saying random money isnt random. As if there was some quantifiable thing as random money. Your saying that all \"random\" money is bet equally across the 20 betting interests. That is poppycock. It is just as foolish to go to the derby every year beleiving that you will get a better price on the favorites in the race because the uninformed money is driving the longshots down and the faves up. How much money is bet typically in the random uniformed pool anyway.
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That, and once a year players naturally want to
> bet the horse that will return the least when it
> wins.
>
> Everyone know that.Good argument boscar. So the favorite in the race must be the one that is bet on the least because no one would want that small return. Silly me I always thought the favorite had the most money bet on it.
pizzalove Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> moosepalm Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>.Your pulling one single horse
> race from 20 years ago and feel you are proving a
> point. The reason Arcanges was 133-1 could be due
> to the fact that so much money was wagered on
> others while a very small amount was bet on
> Arcanges. You may find this shocking but there is
> seldom any horse race with a 133-1 shot. This is
> probably why you went back 20 years. When we get
> a derby with a 6/5 favorite I promise you that you
> will see multiple 100-1 shots.
Exactly how soon do you think we will get a 6/5 favorite in the Derby? You get no credit for answering a question with a speculative situation that hasn\'t happened, particularly when part of the reason it hasn\'t happened explains the opposite of the point you\'re trying to make. This isn\'t a fishing expedition. You don\'t like the Arcangues example? There are 100-1 shots running every week, with or without odds on favorites. None of them are racing twenty horse fields? How do you explain that? Yet you can\'t more than 39-1 on a horse in the Kentucky Derby that his owner isn\'t even betting.
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.This adds nothing. Statistically a 40-1 shot will pay more to win than a 30-1 shot. Groundbreaking. What does this have to do with the uninformed crowd betting equally on all 20 horses?
>
> 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.Well if you beleive your above statement is real relavant then I can understand how TGJB explanation would make perfect sense to you.
moosepalm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pizzalove Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > moosepalm Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >.Your pulling one single horse
> > race from 20 years ago and feel you are proving
> a
> > point. The reason Arcanges was 133-1 could be
> due
> > to the fact that so much money was wagered on
> > others while a very small amount was bet on
> > Arcanges. You may find this shocking but there
> is
> > seldom any horse race with a 133-1 shot. This
> is
> > probably why you went back 20 years. When we
> get
> > a derby with a 6/5 favorite I promise you that
> you
> > will see multiple 100-1 shots.
>
>
> Exactly how soon do you think we will get a 6/5
> favorite in the Derby? You get no credit for
> answering a question with a speculative situation
> that hasn\'t happened, particularly when part of
> the reason it hasn\'t happened explains the
> opposite of the point you\'re trying to make. This
> isn\'t a fishing expedition. You don\'t like the
> Arcangues example? There are 100-1 shots running
> every week, with or without odds on favorites. hundreds and maybe thousands of races every week. Big deal.
> None of them are racing twenty horse fields? How
> do you explain that? Yet you can\'t more than 39-1
> on a horse in the Kentucky Derby that his owner
> isn\'t even betting.Ok so you dont like Giant Finish more than others. So what? Are you the nations official oddsmaker? Does only your opinion matter on underlays or overlays. If you did understand statistics you would know that extremely small samples prove nothing. You are really lost here. This isnt that difficult. I am sure at some point we will see a 6/5 favorite in the derby and hopefully soon. Hopefully it is also a horse I want to bet against. The reason Giant Finish was 39-1 or whatever and Arcanges was 133-1 is because those who wagered felt for the most part that giant finish had a better chance then arcanges and they were wrong. End of story.
Pizza, my love, you are beginning to look a bit foolish. You analytically emasculate anyone\'s attempt to share their life long experience and wisdom with such rapid zeal that I don\'t think you have been listening to a word anyone has been saying. It is clear to me that while you have real analytical skills, you lack any ability to think conceptually. Which is why you are here, whether or not you realize this yet.
Please, try actually listening, which if you are someone with strong opinions (such as myself) it may be more difficult to accept a contrary opinion off the top, but before you jump to conclusions about what was said, you need to try a lot harder to actually understand what was being said to you before you attempt to shred the point with over-imposed logic that is out of place at that moment. You never address the whole, only the parts, which by themselves are meaningless. For as seriously as people have taken you, you have returned the same courtesy. No one has critiqued your attempt to do what you are doing, So far as I can read, the discussion with you hasn\'t gotten past the given assumptions. You are way too rigid and dependant upon your analytical skills to find meaning. For that you will need conceptual thinking.
Pizza, you are speaking passionatelyabout your opinions, but you have shared nothing real. Stop teasing before everyone stops listening to you.
To see the big picture, you need to look up and step back. Because right now, you don\'t see the big picture, and if you don\'t start actually listening, you never will. Listening is different than hearing in the same way picking apart the small parts of an argument, is not refutation or rebuttal. It is a lack of understanding of the whole point that many have been trying to share with you.
Don\'t look a gift horse in the mouth.
Pizza - A few win pools:
2012 Kentucky Derby - 52,626,628
2012 Preakness - 20,136,607
2012 Belmont - 20,544,942
2012 BC Classic - 6,086,509
2013 Kentucky Oaks - 4,786,114
2013 Kentucky Derby - 56,864,011
Next highest win pool on Derby Day (Race 9) = 3,014,097
There are two explanations I would think. Either regular players bet around nine times as much on the Derby as the Breeders Cup (and three times as much on the other Triple Crown races) or the Triple Crown pools are significantly swelled by casual players.
The reason Jerry\'s explanation makes perfect sense is that it is the way casual players bet. To them there is no value getting 2-1 about a true 7-5 shot for their $10. What\'s the point they think? It barely buys a round of drinks let alone dinner.
Whether it seems logical to you or not most casual players see the money they bet as money spent, i.e. they almost expect to lose. So their \'reasoning\' is that if they have little chance of winning they might just as well try to win big.
And the reason they are \'uninformed\' is because they (a) can\'t see the point in handicapping as \'everybody knows you can\'t win at betting on horses\' and (b) they don\'t want to make the effort anyway. All they want is the \'buzz\' of thinking they might be a winner and the bigger the better.
Regular players may play percentages but casual players do not. It\'s the same with casinos. You\'ll find more people playing slots (random) than table games (an element of skill).
The attraction for regular players is that the Triple Crown (particularly the Derby) gets some people away from the slots and into the racebooks. It might also be interesting to see if lottery pools are down during Derby week.
In the end I think a psychologist is better qualified to explain Derby odds than a mathematician.
pizzalove Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------.Ok so you dont like Giant
> Finish more than others. So what? Are you the
> nations official oddsmaker? Does only your opinion
> matter on underlays or overlays. If you did
> understand statistics you would know that
> extremely small samples prove nothing. You are
> really lost here. This isnt that difficult. I am
> sure at some point we will see a 6/5 favorite in
> the derby and hopefully soon. Hopefully it is
> also a horse I want to bet against. The reason
> Giant Finish was 39-1 or whatever and Arcanges was
> 133-1 is because those who wagered felt for the
> most part that giant finish had a better chance
> then arcanges and they were wrong. End of story.
Pizza, when you don\'t even know the horse I\'m referring to, you are getting exposed. You\'ve gotten the desired attention you\'ve sought. Now do the research to back up your talk. It\'s all out there on the net. If you\'re a statistician, bring the facts and numbers, and do the analysis.
I don\'t know if it\'s a fresh perspective or a change of topic, but it\'s the most interesting post in the thread.
Could it be that the \"smart money\" is underestimating the chaos inherent in a huge field and a tenth furlong, often in the mud or with a dead rail, and with no veterinary edge left unexploited?
Or maybe that its just sample size is small? Or that in 20 horse fields the favorite will win less than in 8 horse fields? Or that average win payout is a function of field size?
Ok let me just summarize briefly and end this. I am not trying to argue about anything. The derby absolutely fascinates me because of the large field size and the amount of information available, it truly is the betting opportunity of the year in my opinion. Some of the information on the derby is crazily statistical and some of it is crazy subjective. I like to get a ton of both. When it comes to picking a winner I love to read what many are saying on boards like this. I love to use beyer figures and read the thorograph sheets. Do either of these have any absolutes or do they have great success in picking derbies? Not really up to this point but they still can help you with information that you may or may not use to draw your own conclusion. I find slight flaws with many things like this but the flaws beyers or thorograph are few and far between compared to other touts that are out there. Both are such useful sources of info in many ways and as you all have seen I can be very skeptical of certain things. So for me picking horses I am using many subjective things in picking a winner. In the derby I have had what my friends would call great success. I had a $50 exacta in 2001 with Invisible Ink that paid $30K. I had the Big Brown super and tri which paid over $30K and I had the pick four with Giacomo which paid $82K. I am sure that some of the success is partially due to bright people I have listened to on this board. I normally will not challenge your picks or why you like a horse. Trust me I respect your all your opinions.
Where I tend to challenge people are when they use certain absolutes that arent really logical and a knowledge of statistics would explain why they are not logical. Terms like \"smart Money\" \"random bettor\" make me cringe. I always like to challenge and try to get people to examine why they have beliefs and would you have the belief if you knew statistics dont point that way. When people make statements like \"There is no way scratching 1 horse brings the superfecta average down by $25000 per $1 payout.\" or \"This was a higher than average payout.\" Or Favorites are at higher odds in every derby and longshots get bet down in every derby because drunks and dumb bettors are all betting the same on every horse\". \"Professional handicappers know what long shots should be at what odds.\"
Because of how I do it myself is one of the reasons I was arguing one of these points made. True the derby has an unbeleivable amount wagered on it. Because of tv ads and promotions its the only horse race many people hear about all year. But are we to assume that the additional money coming in has a higher percentage of uniformed people than a typical race. Are we to assume that we know exactly the trends of how they bet like saying they all bet equally on all 20 horses? Look at me, I bet on the three triple crown races and then I visit Keeneland once or twice a year. If I wager $15000 in a given year right now $8000 of that is bet on the derby. Because of the betting opportunity this race represents I guarantee you their are alot of people who bet the majority of their gambling wad on this race and you wouldnt refer to them as \"dumb\" bettors or \"random\" gamblers and you would probably find that many of these people know far more about this then we realize. In the end when millions upon millions of dollars are wagered you will find all groups dont fall to far from the statistical averages. And that the groups themselves change every year. People who care more about their hats, or are intoxicated, or whatever group you want will never fall out so far out of the statisical range that you would be able to predict this aberration each year.
Now does the derby have high priced favorites every year? No. When there is a high priced favorite can we link this to a specific group of derby gamblers? No. Horse races with large number of horses will tend to at times have higher favorites than normal and when there is a solid fave they will have a higher number of longshots than normal.
Good luck and I hope I can nail the preakness. Will probably put all of my money on one or two combos.
Pat
I can\'t figure out whether you\'re just being stubborn or really don\'t get it. Because every single other person here does, and early in this nonsense I gave you a study you could run. That aside, if you don\'t think we\'ve had success in the Derby you must not be a long term TG guy.
I dont recall how long I have used thorograph. I want to say I have used it for at least 5 years and maybe as many as 10. You say I dont get it. I really dont think on this you have a clue. Fine. Whatever you say. Just drop it. I would be curious about examples of derby success you have had. which derbies and which horses?
How can you say: \'Because of tv ads and promotions its the only horse race many people hear about all year\' and then follow it with: \'But are we to assume that the additional money coming in has a higher percentage of uniformed people than a typical race?\'
You seem to believe that people who only hear about one race all year are as informed as those who bet regularly. That can\'t be right. Your betting pattern is the exception, not the rule.
Which doctor would you rather go to? One who works one day a year or one who sees patients five days a week, 52 weeks a year?
I guess it\'s possible you\'ve never been to a Derby party, seen the people there, or watched the race on TV and seen the people with the goofy hats. Or been at an OTB on Derby day and seen the incredibly long lines of people reading off a piece of paper, putting in their friend\'s bets. Yeah, those people make selections using the same criteria as serious every day handicappers. So do people who play the lottery.
We\'ve done pretty good pretty often ( this year got it down to 2 1/2 horses, was personally live to all three to have the pick 6 3 times). But the big hits were in 95, 98 and 02, where IN ADVANCE, publicly I gave out the tri (2k) on a 3 horse box, the tri (1k) on a 4 horse box, and a super that paid over 100k for a buck on a larger spread play. All of which I had myself.
TGJB -
Your sample size point is certainly valid. The other two factors shouldn\'t impact ROI.
I\'m not arguing one way or the other. I certainly haven\'t cashed on any of the monster longshots. I just thought it was an interesting post.
There was a discussion of The Black Swan here some time ago. I wonder if some of the dynamics discussed in that book might be at play here.
P, this is my last thought on dead horse. It\'s a tidbit you might enjoy but don\'t let it spin you off your seat.
Correct me anyone if I am wrong, but if I do recall correctly, there was one (1) winning super ticket in the Giacomo derby. How did the winner come by that combo? Well, he walked up to the window with $1500 and asked for as many random super tixs as he could get for that. How many supers can you get for $1500? How many possible combinations in that field again? You do the math. While I think he got lucky in the same way as when some one hits powerball, I still consider it a betting strategy. This might be your kind of play.
catcapper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> P, this is my last thought on dead horse. It\'s a
> tidbit you might enjoy but don\'t let it spin you
> off your seat.
>
> Correct me anyone if I am wrong, but if I do
> recall correctly, there was one (1) winning super
> ticket in the Giacomo derby. How did the winner
> come by that combo? Well, he walked up to the
> window with $1500 and asked for as many random
> super tixs as he could get for that. How many
> supers can you get for $1500? How many possible
> combinations in that field again? You do the math.
> While I think he got lucky in the same way as when
> some one hits powerball, I still consider it a
> betting strategy. This might be your kind of play.
There had to be more than one winning ticket. I think the superfecta pools have been anywhere from 8 million to 20 million over the last 10 years.
mandown Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How can you say: \'Because of tv ads and promotions
> its the only horse race many people hear about all
> year\' and then follow it with: \'But are we to
> assume that the additional money coming in has a
> higher percentage of uniformed people than a
> typical race?\' The percentage of uniformed people could be balanced out by the informed who bet far more on this race then any other and do most of their gambling on this day. There is also no proof that every derby the so called \"informed\" (a subjective term at best) win more often then the uninformed.
>
> You seem to believe that people who only hear
> about one race all year are as informed as those
> who bet regularly. People that are not that informed have a wealth of information they can get now even if they only bet the derby every year.That can\'t be right. Your
> betting pattern is the exception, not the rule.
>
> Which doctor would you rather go to? One who works
> one day a year or one who sees patients five days
> a week, 52 weeks a year?
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess it\'s possible you\'ve never been to a Derby
> party, seen the people there, or watched the race
> on TV and seen the people with the goofy hats. Or
> been at an OTB on Derby day and seen the
> incredibly long lines of people reading off a
> piece of paper, putting in their friend\'s bets.
> Yeah, those people make selections using the same
> criteria as serious every day handicappers. So do
> people who play the lottery. Yeah and you know exactly how all of these people bet and it is sooo much different then the serious handicappers like you who have all the answers. Lets look at your success below.
>
> We\'ve done pretty good pretty often ( this year
> got it down to 2 1/2 horses, was personally live
> to all three to have the pick 6 3 times). But the
> big hits were in 95, 98 and 02,so your last success was over 11 years ago. where IN ADVANCE,
> publicly I gave out the tri (2k) on a 3 horse box, Not bad. But nothing to brag about. Strong fave ran third. This must of been 1995 and this was for a $2 bet. I had a $25 exacta on this day. From the pool in Chicago I got over $6500 for this.
> the tri (1k) on a 4 horse box, and a super that Many people had this. A tote board reader could of nailed this.
> paid over 100k for a buck on a larger spread play.Now this is impressive and is worthy of praise. the problem is none of the years you mentioned had a $100K super. One of the problems with inaccurate information is it leads to false positives.
> All of which I had myself.
The super was the War Emblem year, I took a total of around 120 k out of the race. The 98 Derby-- where a horse I managed ran second at 15-1-- was not won by a favorite (Real Quiet). And who said anything about just having $2 on it in 95 or any other year? Do you know where you are? Most of the people you are arguing with bet more than you bet in a year every weekend. Several make their living in this game. They actually do know what they\'re talking about.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The super was the War Emblem year, I took a total
> of around 120 k out of the race.You said you took out over $100K on a super. That is not true. The 98 Derby--
> where a horse I managed ran second at 15-1-- was
> not won by a favorite (Real Quiet). And who said
> anything about just having $2 on it in 95 or any
> other year?Oh so now you had a fortune bet on these races. You just didnt mention it last time. Do you know where you are?Wow. This statement is actually sad. Most of the
> people you are arguing with bet more than you bet
> in a year every weekend. Several make their living
> in this game. I am sure that you have alot of friends who make a fortune off of their handicapping and are betting hundreds of thousands in a weekend. I just havent seen the huge derby success yet.They actually do know what they\'re
> talking about.Oh I am convinced they do.
First of all, my mistake. the super paid 91k, I was counting the $2 I had on the tri (18k) when I collected. Then there was the win bet... didn\'t have the exacta.
But that\'s beside the point. You have no more reason to believe the details of that than anyone does about the hits you claim after the fact (though there was quite a bit of discussion here about it at the time of the 2002 Derby. Mine, not yours).
Which is why I focused only a) on big hits, not just having winners, b) where I made it clear IN ADVANCE, publicly, what my approach to the race was. For the 95 and 98 Derbies I did it in columns in the DRF. For 2002 I did it in a seminar here.
Look, I get it. Like a lot of people here (and a lot of horseplayers) you are ego invested, though to a far greater degree than most, and require more attention than most. But you are not an idiot. So the points you ignore or refuse to accept (like saying there is no reason to believe informed people bet any different than uninformed ones) are not a function of lack of intelligence, but of a simple refusal to accept you are wrong, and obviously so. It has nothing to do with statistics. It has to do with living in the real world.
Were you here when Chuckles was posting? Has anyone seen you two at the same time?
I\'m willing to accept the part about you having two 30k hits but I\'m calling B.S. on the friends part of that story.
OK I\'ll try an analogy you might be more familiar with.
If you want a pizza do you go to the pizzeria that\'s been run by the same Italian family for four generations or the Indian restaurant that\'s having its annual pizza day and making them using \'the wealth of information they can get now.\'
mandown Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK I\'ll try an analogy you might be more familiar
> with.
>
> If you want a pizza do you go to the pizzeria
> that\'s been run by the same Italian family for
> four generations or the Indian restaurant that\'s
> having its annual pizza day and making them using
> \'the wealth of information they can get now.\'Truthfully right now I am crazy hungry.
Im sorry you have to help me. What are you referring to when you say my friends part of the story? What are you calling BS on?
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First of all, my mistake. the super paid 91k, I
> was counting the $2 I had on the tri (18k) when I
> collected. Then there was the win bet... didn\'t
> have the exacta.Like i said this deserves credit. I wish I had used you in 2002. I am sure I started using your stuff after that. I think I had perfect drift that year and cashed nothing. That would of been a decent one to hit.
>
> But that\'s beside the point. You have no more
> reason to believe the details of that than anyone
> does about the hits you claim after the fact
> (though there was quite a bit of discussion here
> about it at the time of the 2002 Derby. Mine, not
> yours).Look I do beleive you about your win. if you dont beleive me I can tell you that honestly it doesnt matter to me. But the one big hit isnt a sign of Derby greatness. I have done better.
>
> Which is why I focused only a) on big hits, not
> just having winners, b) where I made it clear IN
> ADVANCE, publicly, what my approach to the race
> was. For the 95 and 98 Derbies I did it in columns
> in the DRF. For 2002 I did it in a seminar here.
>
> Look, I get it. Like a lot of people here (and a
> lot of horseplayers) you are ego invested, though
> to a far greater degree than most,your analyzation is foolish and require
> more attention than most. But you are not an
> idiot. So the points you ignore or refuse to
> accept (like saying there is no reason to believe
> informed people bet any different than uninformed
> ones)I am saying there is no statitical correlation or pattern to either. are not a function of lack of intelligence,
> but of a simple refusal to accept you are wrong,
> and obviously so. It has nothing to do with
> statistics. It has to do with living in the real
> world.
>
> Were you here when Chuckles was posting? I dont know if anyone has seen me. I have made appearances watching horses work in the spring at Churchill and Keeneland. I love that. I am from Wisconsin. Has
> anyone seen you two at the same time?
And we\'ll end this there. For good.
Several folks on this board who publicly have used the TG numbers for big scores on the Derby more recently than 2002. Super Saver and Big Brown years come to mind. Keyed BB over the 6 horses that had run \"0\" in tris and supers and got very overlaid odds on EB, DOC and TOE. Still can\'t believe TOE coming off his top in winning the Wood was 43-1 while his stablemate Big Truck whose top was a \"7\" was half the odds. TG had the Wood much faster than Rags or Beyer.
The way I read it, the BS part was that you had any.
Just saw Pizzalove, in frustration, throw a stack of sheets in the air. JB said \"If any of those sheets hit the floor yer outta here\"!!! Good call by JB.
The sheets all landed in the trash can.
So what do like on your pizza, kid? Love pepperoni and sausage. BUt i am currently on a diet so I have cut back
Pep and sausage? really? you call yourself pizzalove? those are basically default toppings. tantamount to not knowing what kind of sandwich to make and
giving in to PB&J. Fwiw, try bacon, onion and jalapeno. slightly xtra sauce
and fairly light on the fresh mozzarella. Now the most important thing: don\'t eat the pizza right away. take it home and fridge it for a day. When you\'re ready to eat pre-heat the oven( for heavens sake don\'t EVEN think microwave) to
275 and heat until cheese is fairly hot. This WILL rock your world!!
Lee\'s Tavern, Staten Island, Broccoli, Sausage, Garlic somehow all balanced on a
matzoh - thin crust.
One summer, what, 20 years ago, I went by Lee\'s for a bar pie and a glass of beer
at about noon. Noticed that the street near Lee\'s was lined with garbage trucks.
Once inside I found a large group of New York\'s Strongest, likely already into a
couple of hours worth of Budweiser; some of the fellas were paired up, slow
dancing to the Sinatra tunes on the jukebox.
Tried so hard to avoid this thread, which to me was a thread about nothing, but
once it turned to a thread about pizza, I couldn\'t resist.
Preakness undercard looks tough, a bunch of unfamiliar mid - Atlantic horses, a
couple of RudyRods, and of course the entire Lukas barn. The only clue I have is
that there is a runner in the Dixie who spots all weight and looks to lose a lot
of ground... an absolute Thoro -toss.
(Just joking. Best of luck, Jimmy C.)
Had a delish pizza last night. My wife and granddaughter tried this small out of the way place that was exactly what people said it was. We will be back. The bacon, onion, and jalapeno does sound fantastic and I will give that a try.
For great pizza there is a couple of places in Green Bay I really enjoy but that is an hour drive. I moved about 30 miles from where I grew up. One bad thing about this area is the pizza. Nothing at all spectacular. The place I ate last night will probably become our number 1. Had a nice house built here 11 years ago and never even thought about how I would miss our home pizzarias.
Iron,
There are a few posters on this board upon whose every word I hang like grapes in the August sun, but none have opened a door to the likes of such delicious possibilites as jalepenos on my pizza! For years and years, bacon and onion has been my choice of delight, but the thought of adding jalapenos is dizzying to me. I luv jalepenos.
Kitten is a hot mess just thinking about it......I've got to make a phone call...
Richie. If you get down to the Snore by the Shore this summer, you should stop by Nunzio\'s in Long Branch, around 5 minutes from MP. Old school, outer boroughs type family owned pizzeria---no slices. As good as any and I have been to all of the Staten Island, E harlem and Brooklyn places. A lot of track folks (Derrick Ryan, etc) spend time there. Say hello to Lou and Snookie.