Derby odds less than 40-1

[pizzalove]

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.

[pizzalove]

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.

[TGJB]

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.

[Boscar Obarra]

That, and once a year players naturally want to bet the horse that will return the least when it wins.

 Everyone know that.

[pizzalove]

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.

[pizzalove]

they want to bet the horse they beleive for whatever reason will win and that is how favorites are made.

[catcapper]

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.

[pizzalove]

How can it not be statistical?

[pizzalove]

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.

[TGJB]

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.

[TGJB]

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.

[TGJB]

Ummm... The guy you were addressing (MJ) has made a living betting this game.

[pizzalove]

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.

[pizzalove]

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.

[pizzalove]

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.