Results 5/11/04 HAW, CRC, RD, and final Recap

[wolsons]

Whew! The 500 race test is over, finished up with 26 selections today that yielded 7 winners and the barest of profits. In order to save room here, I'll just post the winners today:

CRC:
4) #5 WON $11.40

8 other losers there today, 4 of which finished 2nd, including an 11-1 shot in the 6th who looked like a winner until the final 50 feet or so...:mad:

RD:
3) #10 WON $6.00
6) #7 WON $4.00

2 others finished 3rd, the other 5 were out of the money

HAW:
3) #4 WON $7.40
4) #7 WON $14.80
5) #7 WON $6.00 pick-3 $186.40
6) #4 WON $4.40 pick-3 $119.20

2 others finished 2nd, including a 17-1 shot in the 2nd who led into the stretch but was blown away by the favorite in the lane, 1 finished 3rd, and 1 finished out.

26 plays - 7 wins, $52 bet - $54 ret'd profit +$2.00

Overall since March 25th:

500 plays - 158 win ( 32% winners)
$1000 bet - $1107.40, profit +$107.40, ROI +11%

That's it for now - this was somewhat tiring! Gonna take a break for a couple a weeks, let the BEL and HOL models fill in, then maybe try another one of these after the Belmont Stakes runs in June. In the meantime, good luck to everyone, and thanks to everyone who contributed positive comments and vibes along the way - and thanks to PA for letting me do my thing here!

Steve

[Zaf]

Nice Job Steve, Thanks for posting your selections !

ZAFONIC

[bugboy]

thanks for all the help you gave me steve. you are a top notch person. i hope to keep in contact with you and good luck. stay safe.will be looking forward to your next adventure!!

frank

[keilan]

Nice work Steve, I like your approach :) :)

[Secretariat]

Very impressive Steve. One of the best 500 race runs I've ever seen playing almost every race. Congrats to you and powerline.

[Fastracehorse]

You beat the game!

fffastt

[Que]

Steve,

That was a very, very nice performance. When PA started this board many years ago we had a poster named "Peopleplayer" that claimed that nobody could ever post a 100 picks and show a profit. He even offered a monetary prize if someone could do it. Several people tried, and "Peopleplayer" (Carl?) even tried to do it himself a few times. In fact, once Peopleplayer got so close himself to accomplishing the challenge, that he decided to withdraw his cash prize offer. However, it still took a long time before someone actually accomplished the feat--and not too many people have accomplished it since. But nobody had ever picked as many horses as you did and still show such a healthy ROI, i.e. +11%. Therefore, I again want to congratulate you on a very, very nice performance. If you can repeat that performance, then you will prove to a lot of sceptics out there that this game can be beaten. Great job!

Que.

[John]

That was a great ride Steve, I enjoyed every day of it. [ and made a few dollars too.]

Thanks

[BIG RED]

I followed along the whole time, great job!

Good idea to take a rest, enjoy it, and come back later.

[melman]

Just wanted to add my note of congrats for a job very well done Steve. As Que pointed out quite a while back "Peopleplayer" had offered a challange to anyone to post a winning workout of over 100 plays his thinking being that no one could do it. Much talk on the board of a software challange also but you just stepped up and hit a home run. I think a grand slam home run, as the KISS method although a fair way, is also a very hard workout to do. I think that if Sal's picks were tallied up over the course of his posts you would also find a winning result. Someone posting picks or not I can understand either way as some will say it is just a "ego" thing. One last item Steve, if you get a chance drop into the War Room some weekend, you will be amazed at the level of ability of some of the people who chat there. With Keilan, cj, d2u, teeitup, JoeG and others I can hardly get all the bets in!!!!!!!LOL I freely admit I like stealing their picks.

[Fastracehorse]

I wonder if Steve could still collect on Peopleplayer's offer ??

:)

fffastt

[Light]

Que

Not taking anything away from Steve,but If you look at the results of the PK4 contest, you and I had a much more impressive record. We theoretically bet $5200 and I doubled that and you more than doubled that returning more than a 100% profit each.

I have to reemphasize that I am not taking anything away from Steve and this is not a critique of his product(so calm down Roco) ,but personally I would not want to bet a $1000 and get back $1100. The time and effort is too great for such a small profit. I can get 7%ROI just in offshore rebates.

[cj]

Light,

I doubt he was betting $2 per race to win 100. At 100 per race, that profit would be 5000. He did it over 500 races. Betting 20 races per day 300 days per year would be 6000 races. Bet a 100 per race for the year, that is 600,000. 11% ($66,000) of that is worth the time and effort for me!

[Light]

CJ

I'm not sure I understand all your math.I know your average player is not going to bet 1/2 mil to make a 10%ROI.All I know is his results are a 10% ROI. My point is if I was offered a 10% ROI in win betting or a 100% return in exotic betting which do I choose?Let's see.

In my math,he bets $5200(the total investment of the Pk4 contest) in win bets and returns a $520 profit. I bet $5200 in Pk4's and get back a $5700 profit. Same investment,different output. So sorry I am one of the few not impressed with Steve's results allthough I agree most handicappers cannot do what Steve did. But I'm not in this game to lose or eek out 10%.

[cj]

If you think you can consistently win 100% betting P4s, more power to you. The impressive thing about Steve was he did it over a large volume of picks. Lets be honest here, the small sample size of the P4 contest doesn't really prove much.

By the way, people make very handsome livings "eeking out" 10% on Wall Street! You'd be surprised how much money you can bet in a year when you churn that same money over many times a day.

Its not the ROI, its how much you make.

[wolsons]

CJ's point is right on the money (excuse the pun!)

I'm not familiar with the Pick-4 contest - how many Pick-4's were played during it, how many did you hit, and how much did you wager on each one?

Once we have that data, we can determine what size bankroll you'd need long term to avoid the high risk (in that wager) of gambler's ruin. This game is ALL about risk vs reward...

Steve

[Niko]

"I'm not sure I understand all your math.I know your average player is not going to bet 1/2 mil to make a 10%ROI"

Maybe that's why most people lose, unrealistic expectations. If I could play that many races a day at 10% I'd be quite content with my hobby.

If you can make 100% ROI on pick 4's in a years time and clear $50,000 grand or more consistently, more power to you. Seems like Que is very sharp but I doubt he maintains even a 20% ROI over the years on exotics unless he's hit a monster or two but I could be wrong.

Take a test and bet 100 or so pick 4's over a years time and see what the results are.
Then for a REAL test, do it with real money.

I'm impressed by Wolsons workout but in horseracing it doesn't take much to impress me anymore

[Light]

I suppose it comes down to betting style. If you are a predominatly win betting type better then Steve's play is pretty good. I am predominatly an exotics player. In all my years of playing,the only thing that gets me out of the red and into the black is a nice paying exotic.I just need a handful a year and I'm in a 5% elite category of profitable players. Considering that we are wrong most of the time,when I get a hit it has to be substantial enough to cover my losses. The only time I bet to win is when the horse is going off at decent odds. But IMO,grinding out 10% on win bets is a hard way to play. The advantage of the PK4 is to be able to spread out on multiple horses. And the beauty of it is my top pik doesn't have to win for me to collect and make a profit. But in win betting,if your top pick don't win,you lose. And that's why your ROI would be bettor with exotics than win betting ,or at least mine is.

[John]

LIGHT,

Different strokes, for different folks.

[Rferguson]

Most horseplayers tend to forget there losses and remember there big hits. Anybody can have a good short run, means nothing, but to grind it out like Steve did is something special.
Kudos

[bettheoverlay]

I would suppose that if you took only those horses going off at say 3/1 or better among the 500 selections, the ROI would be much higher.

[chickenhead]

It's not clear to me why horseplayers calculate their ROI the way they do. Measured how it is, Steve's ROI is 10%, which is great, like CJ said I think, 10% is considered a very good baseline for any investment, with inflation at 3%.

I can't help but think however that isn't the true measure of ROI the required starting bankroll to achieve the same end result? For instance, in CJ's example $600,000 invested gives $60,000 return at $100 a race. Obviously you do not need a $600,000 bankroll to achieve that end, I don't know what it would be to guarentee you could make it with the standard deviation and all, but substantially less.

I'll try and give a for instance of what I'm trying to say.

Say I've got $10,000 that I invest in a stock for one year, it goes up 10%, at the end of the year i sell and have $11,000. Hurray for me, I've made 10%. This is the standard way to measure your yearly return, right?

Or say instead, I was a day trader, and bought and sold $10,000 worth of stocks every single day, just churning away. At the end of the year I have $11,000. I have made 10%, right? But if we measure like horseplayers, I've invested (or wagered) something like $3,000,000 for a $1,000 return. Terrible. But isn't it the same thing?

What am I missing guys? It seems to me you could achieve that $60,000 gain on Steve's plays with maybe a $5,000 or $10,000 bankroll max, which I don't care how you measure it is a lot better than 10%.

Sorry for rambling, but this has always confused me.

[Light]

Chickenhead

In your example,if you invest $3,000,000 and get a $1000 profit your ROI is not 10%.It's much smaller. It's whatever percentage $1000 is of $3,000,000. In Steves work his ROI is also a direct result of his TOTAL investment.$1000 wagered and $1100 returned.
$100 profit is 10% of total investment($1000)

BTW,I still think if you guys are ooed and ahhd by a 10% ROI from win betting ,I'd suggest a mutual fund. Better return and less work.

[chickenhead]

you've obviously missed the point I was making, probably my fault not yours, my point is that steve did not have to invest 1000 of his money to make 100, he likely had to invest about 50 or less, which is not 10% from my point of view, it is 100% or more. To me that is the beauty of win betting, you don't undergo long droughts, and as a reult you don't have risk losing a large investment, you are simply churning the tracks money.

Can someone explain this better than I can please?

[bettheoverlay]

Last Saturday I bet $20 to win on an 8/1 shot and won - my first bet of the day. I lost 6 in a row, and then hit a 10/1 shot. Lost 11 in a row and hit a 9/1 shot on my last bet.

So I made 20 $20 wagers - $400. I had 3 winners and returned $610. I made $210.

But I actually only invested $20, as I never fell back past my original $20. So is my ROI 50%, or is it something spectacularly higher? I'm confused.

[chickenhead]

both, your ROI is 50%, and it's spectacularly higher. LIGHT confuses a mutual funds returns with ROI as measured by horseplayers, they are not the same thing at all, they measure different things entirely. In the real world it is risk vs. reward that matters, you risked $20 during your betting session and made $210. Find me a mutual fund to do that. Nice handicapping btw.

[Light]

You make the mistake of assuming you are playing with the track's money. Not true.It's your money when you win it and if you reinvest it ,it's still your money when you are reinvesting it. You fail to recognize the profit margin you were at.Let's say you stopped there before your losing streak(while you were ahead) and came back the next day and started the same losing streak(that you previously did on the same day). Now you recognize a negative cash flow out of your pocket for the day.So it doesn't matter that your sequence was in a particular day or not. It's all YOUR money. The risk/reward is the same if you realize it's allways your money and look at betting in a consequetive way rather than an interrupted way.

[chickenhead]

I am looking at it in a consecutive way, you look at it in an interrupted way. Risk vs. reward is not truly represented at all, IMO, in ROI. If it was, you would not compare Steve's ROI with a mutual fund. They are radically different. It's all about the volume. MIT blackjack team turned 100% profit in one year with a 1% ROI.

[wolsons]

You have to try to understand the fallacy in comparing a 10% ROI in horseracing and a 10% return from a mutual fund. In the case of a mutual fund, you are investing the money lump sum, and earning a 10% return (in your example) over the period of 1 year. In the case of horse racing (at least as it applied to my limited workout sample), you are 'reinvesting' the money over and over again - in terms of my workout, you would have invested a few $2 dollar bets at the beginning of the workout, and then would have been playing on profits from that point on. In terms of the actual starting bankroll risked, the return is quite significant.

Steve

[John]

Nicely said, Steve

[Light]

Chickenhead said:MIT blackjack team turned 100% profit in one year with a 1% ROI.

Is this the new math?Please explain.

[chickenhead]

if you make 1% avg. profit per transaction, and you make thousands or hundreds of thousands of transaction, you end up with big numbers. They turned 1mill into 2 in one year. 10% ROI shows 10X the potential. The only problem is, you can't get anywhere near the number of transactions betting horses as you can betting cards, which is bad.

But that in and of itself is what is so neat about his picks compared to most handicappers, he didn't spot play like everyone does, he ran the gamut. That makes an enormous difference, it's all about volume.

Truly truly impressive.

[Light]

I see what your saying. A 1% ROI PER TRANSACTION returned a 100% OVERALL PROFIT. Fine. Now are you telling me that Steve did better than a 10% profit OVERALL ?Or are you telling me his ROI is GREATER than 10% per transaction?That's impossible. All I see is a guy who made $100 bucks after betting a grand. Still quite unimpressive to me. And maybe he wasn't pulling it out of his pocket for the next wager and using "track money". I still would rather invest with my money(risk) if it means in the end I'm going to be 10 times richer than Steve(reward),if that's what it takes. Just like in the PK4. I went in the hole(with my money),but when I came out ,I was way ahead.

[wolsons]

You never answered my question to you many posts back in this thread...

"I'm not familiar with the Pick-4 contest - how many Pick-4's were played during it, how many did you hit, and how much did you wager on each one?"

You keep talkin "about" me - please talk "to" me -


Steve

[Light]

Steve:

The PK4 contest I was reffering to concerned the Aqueduct Spring meet. The meet was 13 weeks and we played on the weekends,and a few holidays(there were days cancelled due to weather). I remember that it came to approximately 26 PK4 plays.Each contestent was given $200 to play a PK4 each of the 26 plays,so mythical investment comes to $5200. I came in 5th or 6th with approximately a $10,700 mythical bankroll. PA has it under "Contests" in the Home page screen under "The Ridersup Memorial Aqueduct Inner Track Challenge".

[Light]

Forgot to answer one of your questions. I recall hitting about 6 Pk4's.

[chickenhead]

Originally posted by Light
Now are you telling me that Steve did better than a 10% profit OVERALL ?Or are you telling me his ROI is GREATER than 10% per transaction?That's impossible. All I see is a guy who made $100 bucks after betting a grand.

2*1.1*500=1100 or 10% avg. return every transaction.

This is not special, your numbers are even better, but you can see how different it is than a mutual fund, where you are limited to one transaction per year essentially. You can increase the 2 in the above equation to any reasonable number.

Your numbers are great with the pick4, but I think what you may find is that over the long haul, you will need a much larger bankroll to sustain yourself without tapping out. You hit 1 out of 433 plays 0.02% (assuming $2 bets), you can imagine I'm sure a streak of 1000 or more plays with no wins pretty easily. With win betting you can hit 30% or more.

If it works for you though, more power to you.

:)

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by Light
. All I see is a guy who made $100 bucks after betting a grand. .

Oh to be counted among his number!!

Joe M

[wolsons]

Thanks for updating me on the background of the Pick-4 contest structure. As CJ pointed out earlier in the thread, it was a very small sample (26 races) to base any kind of long term assumptions on. Hell, the 500 race sample I posted is actually a very small sample as well from a long term point of view.

If you feel you could generate a 100% ROI long term playing Pick-4's, and actually did so, I would humbly bow before you, as would most of the handicapping world. We all would HOPE you could do so, and I for one would be legitimately very happy for you if you did, but it is highly unlikely (I'm being diplomatic here) that you could do it.

Prove me wrong (please!)

Steve

[Light]

My point is that horseracing offers the gambler a unique opportunity as opposed to Casino's where you get even money. In exotics you can get 300-1 and up.I don't know any other form of gambling where you can get those odds on a regular and reasonable basis. I havent seen a software developer yet exploit this most lucrative field. All focus is on picking winners which IMO is allmost as hard as picking an exoctic, and not nearly as profitable.

BTW all my picks in the PK4 contest were also computer generated cause I have absolutely no interest in hours of bloodshot eyes. I also used all my best angles/methods to design the program and a programmer did the actual mechanics.

I think settling for 10% in a form of gambling that can be far surpass any other form of gambling in return on investment is really selling yourself short.

[wolsons]

All well and good, but you've got to convince me that your way is viable on more than a 26 race sample. I could show you a 26 race sample during my 500 race workout (from 3/31 through 4/2)where (betting $200 per race), I would have bet the same $5200 that you did, and I would have gotten back $10,880, or a profit of $5680, virtually identical to the profit you made in the contest over the same number of wagers.

But so what? The sample size is so small as to be meaningless. Do you have longer term results to show us?

Steve

[penguinfan]

Originally posted by formula_2002
Oh to be counted among his number!!

Joe M

There's one guy who gets it. I am amazed at Light who was able to record such a nice profit and yet, in my eyes, understand so little. Steve made 11% on EVERY DOLLAR bet over a very nice size sample with A BLACK BOX for crying out loud! If I could duplicate those results, IE download the file, play the top choices, collect 11% of every dollar then my boss would have my notice stapled to his forehead tomorrow.

Steve I get the feeling if you found Alladins lamp somone would bitch about only getting 3 wishes, great job, I have yet to see it duplicated or even approached, nice job, nice effort and congrats on the way you carry yourself.

Penguinfan

[Light]

Steve


No need to get defensive. I'm just making a point. I have nothing to sell,so I have no incentive to prove it. It may be fun to post Pk4's and find out if I could make 100% profit,but the problem is it's irrelevant. In reality I don't bet $200 per anything. What I am trying to do is to be able to narrow down the contenders so I don't have to play a $200 ticket. Also if I did a run like yours it would take much longer cause I only deal with 2 or 3 tracks at the most per day. It would take me 250 days to post 500 pk4's.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Light
Steve


No need to get defensive. I'm just making a point. I have nothing to sell,so I have no incentive to prove it. It may be fun to post Pk4's and find out if I could make 100% profit,but the problem is it's irrelevant. In reality I don't bet $200 per anything. What I am trying to do is to be able to narrow down the contenders so I don't have to play a $200 ticket. Also if I did a run like yours it would take much longer cause I only deal with 2 or 3 tracks at the most per day. It would take me 250 days to post 500 pk4's.

Which means that you could make more actual dollars with Steve's paltry 10% -- which is just the point they're all trying to get through to you.

[wolsons]

B]It may be fun to post Pk4's and find out if I could make 100% profit,but the problem is it's irrelevant[/B]

If it's irrelevant, then why did you bring it up in the first place and waste everybody's time?

'Defensive' Steve

[GameTheory]

New Contest Idea: "Beat Steve Wolson"

Post 500 win picks and achieve an ROI of greater than +10%...

[Light]

If it's irrelevant, then why did you bring it up in the first place and waste everybody's time?

Because that's the path you are leading me to isn't it. You said "prove it". It's irrelevant to me cause I don't bet $200 a pik 4.Don't start taking things I say out of context. It is you who haven't proved I can make 100% profit. So far I have. I could take this further and say that your pattern showed an steady slide in profits from the initial high and in another 500 bets you would be in a negative cash flow. It's irrelevant isn't it?

[wolsons]

And I could have said that ALL of your Pick-4 profits came from a freakish $13,000+ payoff that it's unlikely you'll ever see again. I've been having an awfully good time posting here, and you're now doing your best to ruin it, for god knows what reason - but thats OK, enjoy yourself, I will commence ignoring you as of now.

:p

[jackad]

I think an important point is being missed.
With Steve's 32% win frequency, it would be extremely conservative to make his bet size 1% of bankroll. That would mean that for $2 bets, bankroll need be only $200.

Thus Steve's profit of $107.40 was earned with only $200 at risk.
His profit divided by money at risk is .537.

That's really his ROI .. +53.7%!

[John]

good post Jackad, But as the bank roll grows. He should be betting more than just $2.00 a bet.I think.

We can figure this any way we want. Bottom line Steve said I am going ti post every day for 500 races and bet $2 bucks on each pick. lets se what happens. It Happen .He came out a winner.End of story...... Now go and buy the damm thing.

[jackad]

rocajack
You and I both wrote "I think."

Reminds me of this parody of Descartes:
I think. I think I am. Therefore I am. I think?

[JimG]

Originally posted by wolsons
I've been having an awfully good time posting here, and you're now doing your best to ruin it, for god knows what reason - but thats OK, enjoy yourself, I will commence ignoring you as of now.

:p

And it has been very enjoyable having you post here as well. Any chance you could post your picks/output for the Preakness tomorrow?

Jim

PS...You could post 10 winners in a row here and there would be somebody that would try to poop on that and say "big deal", "I wouldn't settle for that". I think most of us on this board have been very impressed by the performance of your picks.

[sam i am]

First I am very impressed with your"test period".
But, what I would like to know is how did it proform in your eyes?
did it meet your expectations ? or exceed them?

thanks again,
David

please don't let one person rain on your parade.

[BIG RED]

Can you imagine what his bankroll would be if he did just 2% after each race?

I'm a win, sometimes place bettor, and I'm impressed! Tell us when this goes out to the market, please.

[wolsons]

Hey, thanks again for the kind words, trust me, I'm not goin' anywhere - just got a little ticked off last night - wasted a little too much time (as did many here) trying to explain the obvious - like you said Jim, there's always one...

My software is picking Lionheart in the Preakness, but the model is EXTREMELY small, and I wouldn't put too much faith in it at all. Remembering the great Seattle Slew, I'm of the mind at this point that I wouldn't really feel comfortable betting against Smarty any longer until he shows me that he can lose a race. The problem most handicappers face with a horse like him is that you don't really know how good they are until they lose. I remember that everyone continued to question Slew's true greatness even after he won the Triple Crown undefeated lifetime up to that point - it wasn't until he finally lost (I believe it was the Jockey Club GC, or some other big Fall stakes at BEL that year), by a nose after engaging in a prolonged speed duel with Affirmed (2 Triple Crown winners in a suicidal speed duel!). Coming into the stretch, the world-class closer Exceller blew by both of them, opened up 4 lengths or so looking like a runaway winner, and then Slew started to close on the rail, and missed by a nose - an unbelievable performance that finally convinced all the doubters of what none of his prior wins could!

David - good question - I really didn't know what to expect when I started the test, because I personally had never used the software in that manner - sitting back after the fact and looking at the results, I am somewhat amazed myself!

Big Red - it's already on the market, you can check my website at 'www.poweronlinesoftware.com'

Good luck on the Preakness, wife and I are heading down to Atlantic City for the weekend!

Steve

[Light]

Steve said:"And I could have said that ALL of your Pick-4 profits came from a freakish $13,000+ payoff ..."

And I could say if we took out your $38.60 win on 3-31 your return wouldn't cover the cost of the PP's used in your run.

You know Steve,I am not attcking you personally. And if others here disagree with my unenthusiastic opinion of your work,that's o.k. They're adults.

I do agree with your above point and it is a valid criticism allthough it also holds true for you too. However,I use to think these "freakish" payoffs were an anomoly,but I have found that they are not. My program surprises me in that in does continue to catch these "freakish" payouts."

I find Your response of wanting to ignore criticism and just wanting the pat on the back a bit immature. I can understand if I was attacking you personally,but you would have to point that out.I was simply disagreeing on the on the issue of your program's ROI.

[John]

light....LIGHTEN UP

[penguinfan]

Steve, I will be in Atlantic City for the week starting on Monday, if we can hook up I'll buy the drinks.
Penguinfan

[fight]

in 1997 berry meadow did a study on wolsons v2.0 21% win losing roi. 5.0 may be new and improved.:eek:

[Zaf]

Originally posted by GameTheory
New Contest Idea: "Beat Steve Wolson"

Post 500 win picks and achieve an ROI of greater than +10%...

Great idea Andy, I would love to see someone else do it !!!

ZAFONIC

[Zaf]

Originally posted by wolsons

Good luck on the Preakness, wife and I are heading down to Atlantic City for the weekend!

Steve

Thats where I watched Funny Cide destroy the field last year. You should of heard the noise in that tiny little box Resorts calls a Race Book.

ZAFONIC

[John]

zafonic

You must be talking about "SHOWBOAT CASINO"

[Zaf]

John ,

Your right thats even worse than Resorts ! Resorts used to have a decent room, but when they renovated the A.C. Tower they demolished it and put it in their main building, In a box a little bigger than the Showboat.

ZAFONIC

[Secretariat]

Steve,

I know you recommended Lionheart, but I've been playing your Class Angle on the Preakness since 1997. It has hit 6 of those 8 Preaknesses including Smarty Jones. Thanks.

[John]

SEC,

How has POLSW done in the Belmont in the past years.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by rocajack
SEC,

How has POLSW done in the Belmont in the past years.

I only have back as far as 1997 when Touch Gold won the Belmont, but POLSW has done better at the Derby and as mentioned above the Class Angle in the Preakness.

However, a few of Steve's methods have done OK at the Belmont since 97.

Power Line PLus is only 1 for 7 but hit 61.50 Lemon Drop Kid in 1999

System 2000 has done better with 2 of 7 with Victory Gallop in 98 paying 11.00 and Lemon Drop Kid for 61.50 in 99.

Explosion Angle has only had 1 of 3 plays but hit touch Gold in 97 for 7.30

The Jockey Factor has 2 of 7 with some monster hits with Commendable in 2000 for 39.60 and Sarava in 2002 for 142.50.

The Win Factor is 2 of 7 with Point Given and Empire Maker for 4.70 and 6.00.

Looking at above I guess System 2000 and The Jockey Factor have done the best.

The Belmont has been the most dififcult to pick for all the public as well over the last 7 years. Common sense tells me to look for a price in the Belmont, but I'm rooting for Smarty Jones this year.

Derby total payoffs - 203.80
Preakness total payoffs - 71.80
Belmont total payoffs - 272.60