Derby odds less than 40-1

[TGJB]

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.

[BitPlayer]

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.

[catcapper]

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.

[pizzalove]

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.

[pizzalove]

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?

[pizzalove]

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.

[TGJB]

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.

[pizzalove]

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.

[TGJB]

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?

[gowand]

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.

[mandown]

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.\'

[pizzalove]

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.

[pizzalove]

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?

[pizzalove]

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?

[TGJB]

And we\'ll end this there. For good.