Smarty would have paid about $2.40 to win

[highnote]

If Smarty would have won he would have paid about $2.40 or $2.60. He paid $3.30 to place and $2.60 to show.

Talk about market inefficiency. It never ceases to amaze me how people overlook the place and show pools.

This brings up an interesting dichotomy. Maybe Smarty's win odds were lower than they should have been because of all the souvenir tickets bought on him. On the other hand, maybe his win odds were true, but the market doesn't not know how to recognize value in the place and show pools.

Maybe a little of both.

I made a show bet on him. I should've bet to place, too, but I wasn't convinced he'd get the distance.

[Buckeye]

He would have paid $2.70 to win.
Sounds like you have a great future ahead of you.

[highnote]

HAHAHA. I'll take that as a compliment.

Thanks, for providing the exacta win payout, too.

I actually was one of those people who bought a $2 souvenir win ticket on Smarty -- just in case.

I saw a losing Belmont Stakes win ticket on Funny Cide for sale on EBay for $3. Now there's a person with a great future. 50% profit betting losers.

All else being equal, I wonder who would have the greater future: Someone willing to take $2.70 on a Smarty Jones win bet in the Belmont Stakes or someone willing to take $2.60 on a Smarty Jones show bet in the Belmont Stakes?

I suppose that's a rhetorical question.

[cj]

Originally posted by swetyejohn

All else being equal, I wonder who would have the greater future: Someone willing to take $2.70 on a Smarty Jones win bet in the Belmont Stakes or someone willing to take $2.60 on a Smarty Jones show bet in the Belmont Stakes?

I suppose that's a rhetorical question.

You are overlooking the obvious...most people who bet the win tickets expected them to be worth much more than there face value of $2.70. I don't think there were a lot of $100 win 9 tickets out there.

[highnote]

cj
I'm not so sure about that. Remember, there are a lot of big bettors who get rebates. Not to mention a lot of bookmakers who might have wanted to lay off some of their risk.

Over 9 million was bet on Smarty. I don't think all of that was souvenir money.

That's why I think the market efficiency scenario is so interesting.

People overlook the place and show pools when they actually offer better value than the win pool on the same horse.

This has been going on for decades now, and yet there public makes no correction for it.

It's not the most important situation to understand, but I find it interesting.

[ceejay]

I was following the place and show pools. SJ had about 35% of those ). Even if he won the likelihood of higher place and show payoffs than win were likely.

Before the race I heard lots of talk about bridgejumpers that didn't happen....

[Turf2Dirt]

Originally posted by swetyejohn
cj
I'm not so sure about that. Remember, there are a lot of big bettors who get rebates. Not to mention a lot of bookmakers who might have wanted to lay off some of their risk.

Over 9 million was bet on Smarty. I don't think all of that was souvenir money.

That's why I think the market efficiency scenario is so interesting.

People overlook the place and show pools when they actually offer better value than the win pool on the same horse.

This has been going on for decades now, and yet there public makes no correction for it.

It's not the most important situation to understand, but I find it interesting.

Birdstone's long odds accounted for some of that

[JPinMaryland]

Yeah I agree...My one regret on the day was not making a show bet. I studied the 8th race, a turf race w/ fillies I've never heard of, but saw Vanguardia (ARG.) at about 26-1 who had done real well on turf, only raced a couple of races in the US. Seemed like a good bet on track that was playing fast and a field of off the pace horses. She came in 2nd, probably paid 6 or 7 to 1. Stupid, I had completely overlooked the place bet.

I saw that Smarty paid 3.30 to place and looked at the guy beside me and he was shocked but then again, I guess not that many had bet him to place or show.

[highnote]

Originally posted by Turf2Dirt
Birdstone's long odds accounted for some of that

That's right. The longshots subsidize favorites in the place and show pool. The public does not do a good job estimating the place and show pool odds. That is part of the reason these anomalies exist.

Also a lot of people will overbet the longshots to place and show figuring they will offer value if they come in. When the overbet longshots run out of the money that also helps subsidize the favorite's place and show payoffs.

[highnote]

Originally posted by JPinMaryland
I saw that Smarty paid 3.30 to place and looked at the guy beside me and he was shocked but then again, I guess not that many had bet him to place or show.

This is what I can't figure out. CJ provided some clues. If this had not been a race with the Triple Crown on the line, what would Smarty's final odds have been? How much did the souvenir ticket buyers depress his odds.

Given his place payoff of $3.30 it seems reasonable that he might have paid $5.00 or $6.00 to win on a normal day. So maybe his odds would have been 2-1 on any other day?

If that's the case, then the other horses should have had lower odds. Heavy betting on Smarty caused the other odds to rise. So maybe Birdstone would have been 20-1 rather than 36-1. Still an overlay -- after the fact.

[BMeadow]

Smarty Jones looked like he should be about 1-2 or 2-5, and no doubt the souvenir hunters made him a tad less. However, that does not explain his exceptional value in the place and show pool.

I checked the board with less than one minute to post. Smarty had 62% of the win pool, 35% of the place pool, and 37% of the show pool--outstanding value.

I bet him place and show.

Doesn't make me a genius; obviously, he could have run out. But it's an example of why you should check EVERY pool in case there anomalies.