Derby odds less than 40-1

[pizzalove]

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.

[pizzalove]

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.

[pizzalove]

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.

[moosepalm]

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.

[pizzalove]

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.

[pizzalove]

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.

[catcapper]

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.

[mandown]

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.

[moosepalm]

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.

[BitPlayer]

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?

[TGJB]

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?

[pizzalove]

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

[TGJB]

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.

[pizzalove]

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?

[mandown]

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?