Derby Picks

[rush66]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was really going to guess -800 for the no on this thing and say if it was below this I was going to load up. But here it is.

Will Street Sense win the Triple Crown in 2007? Must race the Preakness and Belmont Stakes for action. No Parlays. Max $100
Yes
+500

No
-900

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is that? That's an absurd overlay just from a straight pricing perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

VIP NO = -350.
BODOG yes = +500 max $100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a reason not to bet a fuckload on No?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because if you aren't simply looking for an arbitrage, the value is still on Yes all the way down to like +250 IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely disagree. I unloaded on the No at -400. How can there be value all the way down to +250. You think this horse wins the triple crown more than 28% of the time. Though only 11 of 132 that have tried have done so and none in the past 29 years. Only 29 have won both the KD and preakness...still less than 28%. Now, that being said, every case is different for sure and I understand that, this horse was not that impressive to me. Im 100% open to arguments for the Yes, though it will take a lot to change my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't even know horse racing at all and this sounds totally ignorant to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about it is ignorant? I dont know horseracing either and have never have claimed so. I was stating (using numbers) that the horse has history against him. +250 equates to the horse winning the triple crown 28% of the time which has not been the case throughout history. The history of the triple crown is what makes winning it so sacred.

Clark, you said yourself the horse must win both. Races, none of those 6 horses that won the preakness won both races. My point is that the triple crown has been won so few times (which I tried showing with statistics) that this horse would have had to show me something extremely imrpessive in order for the yes to have value.

[Clarkmeister]

Rush,

I walked you through the math that led to my estimate. Please let me know where you disagree and how you came up with your estimate of value at -400. Thanks.

[Thremp]

I hate reading random "handicapping" please more figures.

Clark, for what you say to hold truth he'd likely need to be head and shoulders above what everyone else is ATM. I don't understand why he was 4-1 in Derby and would be 6-5 in another race soon after. Seems like standard recent form fallacy.

[whipsaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I don't even know horse racing at all and this sounds totally ignorant to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about it is ignorant? I dont know horseracing either and have never have claimed so. I was stating (using numbers) that the horse has history against him. +250 equates to the horse winning the triple crown 28% of the time which has not been the case throughout history. The history of the triple crown is what makes winning it so sacred.

Clark, you said yourself the horse must win both. Races, none of those 6 horses that won the preakness won both races. My point is that the triple crown has been won so few times (which I tried showing with statistics) that this horse would have had to show me something extremely imrpessive in order for the yes to have value.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Kansas City Royals won on May 8th and 9th last year. Does that make it more or less likely that they will win this year on May 8th and 9th?

[rush66]

Clark's values are probably correct however, why would you not just bet them seperatly then, rather than better this prop. I got -400 as having value from the fact that the triple crown has been won so few times throughout history. That alone is all I need to know. Past results do not equal future results but in this case I think that they provide a very good framework.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate reading random "handicapping" please more figures.

Clark, for what you say to hold truth he'd likely need to be head and shoulders above what everyone else is ATM. I don't understand why he was 4-1 in Derby and would be 6-5 in another race soon after. Seems like standard recent form fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's dramatically more information available now, even considering it's just one race. In addition, the Preakness will have at least 6 fewer horses, maybe half the number of horses, and the new horses in the field are almost always worse than the horses they are replacing from the Derby. Plus, field size in the Preakness significantly reduces luck relative to the Derby, especially for a closer. There are a lot of reasons the favorites in the preakness have historically won at a rate dwarfing that of favorites in the Derby.

Again, I likely will bet against the horse in the race itself. But -400 is simply a silly bet.

[whipsaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Clark's values are probably correct however, why would you not just bet them seperatly then, rather than better this prop. I got -400 as having value from the fact that the triple crown has been won so few times throughout history. That alone is all I need to know. Past results do not equal future results but in this case I think that they provide a very good framework.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this a special case for past results = future results?

[Thremp]

Whipsaw,

What are you getting at with your retardo comment? I think 100+ instance is enough to establish a confidence interval great enough to show that the average horse isn't enough of a favorite in each race to have a realistic shot of doing this.

What were Street Sense's TC odds pre-derby? +1500? Is some new information out that wasn't before?

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Clark's values are probably correct however, why would you not just bet them seperatly then, rather than better this prop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the prop gives you +360 or whatever and the parlay will likely pay +240 or less.

[whipsaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Whipsaw,

What are you getting at with your retardo comment? I think 100+ instance is enough to establish a confidence interval great enough to show that the average horse isn't enough of a favorite in each race to have a realistic shot of doing this.

What were Street Sense's TC odds pre-derby? +1500? Is some new information out that wasn't before?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's basing his entire bet on the fact that, historically, horses haven't won the TC at a clip that would warrant a +250 line. I would think he's want more info than that before "loading up."

I have no idea if it's a good bet, as I said before, I know nothing about capping horses. But if you're going to bet SS, it seems that doing the TC prop provides a nice overlay against the likely lines you'll see.