Derby odds less than 40-1

[TGJB]

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.

[pizzalove]

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\".

[pizzalove]

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.

[mjellish]

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.

[milwmike]

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.

[pizzalove]

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.

[razzle]

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.

[pizzalove]

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.

[TGJB]

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.

[Boscar Obarra]

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.

[mjellish]

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.

[moosepalm]

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.

[pizzalove]

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.

[TGJB]

You\'re right, random money isn\'t random. Maybe all the hunch bettors had a friend named Orb.

[Paolo]

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!