Kentucky Derby Odds Lines

[Dave Schwartz]

Our Talking Handicapping Group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/605708732808780/) has been voting on odds for the Derby. Using some snazzy math, I've produced this line.

The data has been updated as of 6:30am (pacific) Thursday.

I will continue to update in this thread.

https://www.practicalhandicapping.com/desktop/package/PublicImages/PA/KYDerbyOdds.jpg


Good luck.

Feel free to contribute your line.


Dave Schwartz

[Tom]

I hope I can get that on Lone Sailor! :jump:

I thing you have Firenzie Fire a little too low!;)

[Dave Schwartz]

I hope I can get that on Lone Sailor! :jump:

I thing you have Firenzie Fire a little too low!;)

Remember, these are not my opinions but rather about 35 people.

[PaceAdvantage]

I only have three contenders on my line...:pound:

:7: Justify 2/1
:11: Bolt d'Oro 9/1
:3: Promises Fulfilled 25/1

But I always like speed...:bang:

BTW, my longshot pick is :15: Instilled Regard

[JimG]

I only have three contenders on my line...:pound:

:7: Justify 2/1
:11: Bolt d'Oro 9/1
:3: Promises Fulfilled 25/1

But I always like speed...:bang:

BTW, my longshot pick is :15: Instilled Regard

Hi PA,

Do you still have your old program? As I recall it did pretty good on the big days. If you have it and can show a printout of the big race, that would be nice. Best of luck to everyone betting the Ky Derby.

Jim

[Dave Schwartz]

There is some canceling going on. Just like at the track. LOL


The money is moving towards the top.

https://www.practicalhandicapping.com/desktop/package/PublicImages/PA/KYDerbyOdds3.jpg

[jb729]

Mine That Bird would have been 100,000-1 with this group.

[jay68802]

For what it is worth, how I rank the derby.


:7:.....1929
:11:...1926
:17:...1901
:14:...1897
:15:...1885
:5:.....1885
:6:.....1883
:2:.....1876
:12:...1874
:16:...1867
:18:...1860
:4:.....1859
:19:...1857
:9:.....1851
:20:...1841
10... 1834
:3:.....1834
:1:.....1826
:8:.....1789
13... 1747

[biggestal99]

:7: justify 7-1
:11: Bolt d-oro 7-1
:5:audible 12-1
:6:good magic 16-1
:16:magnam moon 16-1
:12:enticed 18-1
:9:hofburg 19-1
:18:vino rossi 19-1

Allan

[Pensacola Pete]

Magnum Moon: 5/2
Justify: 3-1
Mendelssohn: 5-1
Audible: 10-1
Field: 4-1

[Denny]

I have:

Justify - EVEN
.
Good Magic - 10
Bolt d'Oro - 12
Audible - 15
Vino Rosso - 20
Mendelsohn - 25
Magnum Moon - 25
Hofburg -35
Instilled Regard - 35
Solomini - 40
.
Rest divide what little is left

[Clocker]

Any considerations or hedges about weather? Forecast is for rain Friday and Saturday.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=louisville+kentucky+weather&pc=MOZI&form=MOZTSB

[Afleet]

Our Talking Handicapping Group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/605708732808780/) has been voting on odds for the Derby. Using some snazzy math, I've produced this line.

The data has been updated as of 6:30am (pacific) Thursday.

I will continue to update in this thread.

https://www.practicalhandicapping.com/desktop/package/PublicImages/PA/KYDerbyOdds.jpg


Good luck.

Feel free to contribute your line.


Dave Schwartz

Mendolsshon was getting a lot of votes to win @Paulick Report-may go off favored

[Dave Schwartz]

Mendolsshon was getting a lot of votes to win @Paulick Report-may go off favored

That will be interesting to see if it is reflected in the next poll update I do.

Thanks.

Edit: As of right now, (just eyeballing) he actually has dropped in the rankings!

[zerosky]

This line is based on two criteria Prime Power and Jockey Rating

6 Good Magic 8/1
5 Audible 9/1
7 Justify 9/1
14 Mendelssohn 10/1
16 Magnum Moon 13/1
12 Enticed 15/1
11 Bolt d'Oro 16/1
17 Solomini 16/1
18 Vino Rosso 18/1
19 Noble Indy 19/1
15 Instilled Regard 22/1
10 My Boy Jack 23/1
9 Hofburg 25/1
4 Flameaway 30/1
1 Firenze Fire 30/1
20 Combatant 35/1
2 Free Drop Billy 46/1
13 Bravazo 62/1
3 Promises Fulfilled 63/1
8 Lone Sailor 78/1

[Dave Schwartz]

Updated as of 6:30pm pacific.

https://www.practicalhandicapping.com/desktop/package/PublicImages/PA/KYDerbyOdds4.jpg

[Speed Figure]

I would definitely take the 182-1 on My Boy Jack hoping for a HOT PACE!

[Dave Schwartz]

I would definitely take the 182-1 on My Boy Jack hoping for a HOT PACE!

I think you've missed the point. The line is saying that he's got 1 chance in 183 of winning.

[thaskalos]

For what it is worth, how I rank the derby.


:7:.....1929
:11:...1926
:17:...1901
:14:...1897
:15:...1885
:5:.....1885
:6:.....1883
:2:.....1876
:12:...1874
:16:...1867
:18:...1860
:4:.....1859
:19:...1857
:9:.....1851
:20:...1841
10... 1834
:3:.....1834
:1:.....1826
:8:.....1789
13... 1747

Did you rank them by BODY-WEIGHT? :)

[horses4courses]

I think you've missed the point. The line is saying that he's got 1 chance in 183 of winning.

I think he is right.
If he liked a horse at 3-1, odds are it has 1 chance in 4 of winning.

[jay68802]

Did you rank them by BODY-WEIGHT? :)

And the length of their tail.;)

[Parkview_Pirate]

Interesting take.

I'm a bit confused over the numbers here, with only 35 people voting/betting. How does a horse with a zero percent chance to win have any fair odds (other than infinity) at all? Is the Morning Line part of the math?

As a side note, I think these numbers are a bit out of whack, but quite likely more accurate than the actual closing tote numbers. In other words, once you get past the top 10 or so horses, the bottom half of the field represents only a very small slice of a tiny fraction of a chance to win.

Now, if I can just figure out where to draw that Mendoza line....:)

[biggestal99]

Now, if I can just figure out where to draw that Mendoza line....:)

I drew mine at 8. and 12 no hopers.

Allan

[Dave Schwartz]

Interesting take.

I'm a bit confused over the numbers here, with only 35 people voting/betting. How does a horse with a zero percent chance to win have any fair odds (other than infinity) at all? Is the Morning Line part of the math?

As a side note, I think these numbers are a bit out of whack, but quite likely more accurate than the actual closing tote numbers. In other words, once you get past the top 10 or so horses, the bottom half of the field represents only a very small slice of a tiny fraction of a chance to win.

Now, if I can just figure out where to draw that Mendoza line....:)

I created a fibonacci-based weighting to rank position.

They still have a rank position (even though it is terrible).

[Dave Schwartz]

7am Pacific time update:

https://www.practicalhandicapping.com/desktop/package/PublicImages/PA/KYDerbyOdds5.jpg

[lamboguy]

there was a year that Pletcher and Larry Jones put out the 2 favorites that had less than ZERO chance of winning. now these good trainers don't put horses on the track that have no business being in the race, they are all on go.

with a bunch of horses that are relatively close in ability, i see no reason to swallow on JUSTIFY a legitimate favorite. often times 3-year-olds improve day to day and looking at past performances has little to do with the way they perform.

[dnlgfnk]

7am Pacific time update:

https://www.practicalhandicapping.com/desktop/package/PublicImages/PA/KYDerbyOdds5.jpg

Dave, forgive my PM if you have seen it, inquiring into an updating of your 2002 table listing odds and corresponding win pct. for the year as established by the public. Your initial posting of these Derby projections prompted my inquiry.

The odds and probs are about 3 to 5 pts. higher than '02 with regard to the larger numbers (i.e., 1.98 odds equaled roughly 29% win rate back then, etc. Even Magnum Moon's 33.91 odds equaled 2.1 % in '02.)

[cordoba]

justify
audible
noble indy

your welcome :coffee:

[biggestal99]

there was a year that Pletcher and Larry Jones put out the 2 favorites that had less than ZERO chance of winning. now these good trainers don't put horses on the track that have no business being in the race, they are all on go.

with a bunch of horses that are relatively close in ability, i see no reason to swallow on JUSTIFY a legitimate favorite. often times 3-year-olds improve day to day and looking at past performances has little to do with the way they perform.

I went to the sheets seminar last year just before the BC. The Juvy was being discussed. and basically said the very thing about Bolt d'oro. why take a short price on the chalk when one of the others they like was bound to take a step up.

Even though I have justify as the most likely winner, he will be severely underlaid. I will prolly take a shot with Bolt, enticed and Hofburg.

Allan

[upthecreek]

https://twitter.com/ScottTVG/status/992450167306641410

[Tom]

:7: 3-1
:14: 4-1
:6: 7-1
:11: 10-1
:5: 12-1
:16: 18-1
:18: 18-1

[planks46d]

My Odds line:

5 - :7: JUSTIFY
5.5 - :11: BOLT DORO
6.8 - :3: PROMISES FULFILLED
16.1 - :5: AUDIBLE
25.3 - :18: VINO ROSSO
55.2 - :14: MENDELSSOHN
77.1 - :6: GOOD MAGIC
127.2 - :4: FLAMEAWAY
134.1 - :8: LONE SAILOR
216.4 - :17: SOLOMINI
xxx - 1 FIRENZE FIRE
xxx - 2 FREE DROP BILLY
xxx - 9 HOFBURG
xxx - 10 MY BOY JACK
xxx - 12 ENTICED
xxx - 13 BRAVAZO
xxx - 15 INSTILLED REGARD
xxx - 19 NOBLE INDY
xxx - 20 COMBATANT

[BlueChip@DRF]

My Odds line:

5 - :7: JUSTIFY
5.5 - :11: BOLT DORO
6.8 - :3: PROMISES FULFILLED
16.1 - :5: AUDIBLE
25.3 - :18: VINO ROSSO
55.2 - :14: MENDELSSOHN
77.1 - :6: GOOD MAGIC
127.2 - :4: FLAMEAWAY
134.1 - :8: LONE SAILOR
216.4 - :17: SOLOMINI
xxx - 1 FIRENZE FIRE
xxx - 2 FREE DROP BILLY
xxx - 9 HOFBURG
xxx - 10 MY BOY JACK
xxx - 12 ENTICED
xxx - 13 BRAVAZO
xxx - 15 INSTILLED REGARD
xxx - 19 NOBLE INDY
xxx - 20 COMBATANT


Wow... You really don't think much of Magnum Moon, eh?

[Parkview_Pirate]

I created a fibonacci-based weighting to rank position.

They still have a rank position (even though it is terrible).

Thank you for the clarification. I tend to think of using fibs in terms of price points, but I suppose in a weight-for-age race it can also be useful for determining a true odds line, though I'd have to think that over a bit. While the true odds remain static, the tote odds would fluctuate back and forth across critical inflection points, at least in theory.

As for my odds line for the Derby, I take into account the odds and relative chances to win, as well as a single projected order of finish. Plenty of chaos and other noise, but what can you do? Which means the horse I'll be betting, Enticed, isn't really the one I consider most likely to win, but he represents the most value, IMHO. Something like this, in a projected order of finish, with M/L odds, current odds Friday night with $1.2M in the win pool, and my rough odds to win.

# 12 Enticed (30-1, 52-1, .10)
# 7 Justify (3-1, 7-2, .21)
# 6 Good Magic (12-1, 8-1, .15)
# 9 Hofburg (20-1, 24-1, .09)
# 5 Audible (8-1, 6-1, .06)
# 20 Combatant (50-1, 79-1, .05)
# 10 My Boy Jack (30-1, 5-1, .05)
# 15 Instilled Regard (50-1, 99-1, .03)
# 17 Solomini (30-1, 68-1, .03)
# 18 Vino Rosso (12-1, 18-1, .05)
**Mendoza Line (for betting) goes about here*******
# 4 Flameaway (30-1, 53-1, .02)
# 11 Bolt d'Oro (8-1, 8-1, .02)
# 2 Free Drop Billy (30-1, 42-1, .02)
# 8 Lone Sailor (50-1, 29-1, .00)
# 13 Bravazo (50-1, 68-1, .00)
# 14 Mendelssohn (5-1, 5-1, .05)
# 3 Promises Fulfilled (30-1, 41-1, .01)
# 1 Firenze Fire (50-1, 65-1, .01)
# 16 Magnum Moon (6-1, 13-1, .05)
# 19 Noble Indy (30-1, 49-1, .00) Not sure what his odds are for this, but I'd bet him to finish last if I was in Vegas or England.

Good luck to all....

[Poindexter]

My line on top Contenders

Justify 9/2
Audible 6-1
Magnum Moon 10-1
Bolt De Oro 12-1
Good Magic 15-1
Hofburg 15-1
Mendlessohn 15-1
Enticed 20-1
Vin Russo 20-1

[FakeNameChanged]

Thank you for the clarification. I tend to think of using fibs in terms of price points, but I suppose in a weight-for-age race it can also be useful for determining a true odds line, though I'd have to think that over a bit. While the true odds remain static, the tote odds would fluctuate back and forth across critical inflection points, at least in theory.

As for my odds line for the Derby, I take into account the odds and relative chances to win, as well as a single projected order of finish. Plenty of chaos and other noise, but what can you do? Which means the horse I'll be betting, Enticed, isn't really the one I consider most likely to win, but he represents the most value, IMHO. Something like this, in a projected order of finish, with M/L odds, current odds Friday night with $1.2M in the win pool, and my rough odds to win.

# 12 Enticed (30-1, 52-1, .10)
# 7 Justify (3-1, 7-2, .21)
# 6 Good Magic (12-1, 8-1, .15)
# 9 Hofburg (20-1, 24-1, .09)
# 5 Audible (8-1, 6-1, .06)
# 20 Combatant (50-1, 79-1, .05)
# 10 My Boy Jack (30-1, 5-1, .05)
# 15 Instilled Regard (50-1, 99-1, .03)
# 17 Solomini (30-1, 68-1, .03)
# 18 Vino Rosso (12-1, 18-1, .05)
**Mendoza Line (for betting) goes about here*******
# 4 Flameaway (30-1, 53-1, .02)
# 11 Bolt d'Oro (8-1, 8-1, .02)
# 2 Free Drop Billy (30-1, 42-1, .02)
# 8 Lone Sailor (50-1, 29-1, .00)
# 13 Bravazo (50-1, 68-1, .00)
# 14 Mendelssohn (5-1, 5-1, .05)
# 3 Promises Fulfilled (30-1, 41-1, .01)
# 1 Firenze Fire (50-1, 65-1, .01)
# 16 Magnum Moon (6-1, 13-1, .05)
# 19 Noble Indy (30-1, 49-1, .00) Not sure what his odds are for this, but I'd bet him to finish last if I was in Vegas or England

Good luck to all....
Interesting Line. Surprising that you have Bolt and Mendel...below your Mendoza line. I don't have a read on Mendelssohn, but Bolt appears like he's a strong candidate to make a big improvement over his 2nd place finish after a major prep race. I will probably include him in an exacta. GL.

[Dave Schwartz]

Good luck today!

Saturday, 6:15 am Pacific

https://www.practicalhandicapping.com/desktop/package/PublicImages/PA/KYDerbyOdds6.jpg

[depalma113]

:7: 5/2
:11: 5/1
:5: 8/1
:6: 12/1:
:16: 15/1
:14: 20/1
Everyone else 25/1

[Jeff P]

KY DERBY 2018

With a little more than 5 hrs to go before they head to the post, these are the top 7 in order according to my before the tote UPR odds line:

num horsename ol
--- ------------------ -----
3 PROMISES FULFILLED 5.90
12 ENTICED 7.63
19 NOBLE INDY 8.31
11 BOLT DORO 11.68
1 FIRENZE FIRE 16.69
7 JUSTIFY 17.67
9 HOFBURG 18.73


Good luck to all,


-jp

.

[Pensacola Pete]

Magnum Moon: 5/2
Justify: 3-1
Mendelssohn: 5-1
Audible: 10-1
Field: 4-1

UPDATED LINE:

Magnum Moon: 2-1
Mendelssohn: 4-1
Audible: 7-1
Justify: 10-1
Field: 3-1

[Pensacola Pete]

UPDATED LINE:

Magnum Moon: 2-1
Mendelssohn: 4-1
Audible: 7-1
Justify: 10-1
Field: 3-1

Updated Redboard Line:

Justify: 1-100
Field: 100-1

[Dave Schwartz]

Good picking! (Remember, I didn't do the picking. I just totaled the numbers.)

https://www.practicalhandicapping.com/desktop/package/PublicImages/PA/KYDerbyOverlays.jpg

[Denny]

I have:

Justify - EVEN
.
Good Magic - 10
Bolt d'Oro - 12
Audible - 15
Vino Rosso - 20
Mendelsohn - 25
Magnum Moon - 25
Hofburg -35
Instilled Regard - 35
Solomini - 40
.
Rest divide what little is left

I think I'm the Winner!!!

Had the first four finishers ranked:

1st
2nd
4th
9th

Anybody do better?

[Parkview_Pirate]

I think I'm the Winner!!!

Had the first four finishers ranked:

1st
2nd
4th
9th

Anybody do better?

Good picks. If we had a point system, I believe you'd win for that, but I didn't too badly, for a change (when it comes to the Derby)

My predicted order of finish for the top 5 by betting was:

2nd
3rd
5th
8th
7th

My odds line for the top 5 was:

1st
2nd
5th
(T) 11th
(T) 6th

In other words, I tossed some of the higher odds horses I thought were awful underlays when considering betting.

It's safe to say that both Instilled Regard and Bravazo outran their odds, especially Bravazo, though of course running 6th doesn't get you anything. Personally, I was able to salvage a profit from some saver exactas and tris.

Hindsight being 50-50, as Pat Dye once said, I could have maybe caught the super with a larger investment, since I keyed the 6-7-12 on top is some tickets, but it's such a crap shoot after a certain point.

Thanks for the thread Dave. Some things to think about, though to be honest I gotta say your "fair odds" calculations seem very heavily weighted towards the top. 4-1 on Justify seems more accurate than 9-5, and Instilled Regard was totally out of whack. Matter of fact, I'd argue that from Hoffberg on down the line was totally not realistic......just my two cents.

[Dave Schwartz]

Thanks for the thread Dave. Some things to think about, though to be honest I gotta say your "fair odds" calculations seem very heavily weighted towards the top. 4-1 on Justify seems more accurate than 9-5, and Instilled Regard was totally out of whack. Matter of fact, I'd argue that from Hoffberg on down the line was totally not realistic......just my two cents.

And yet, they turned the top 2 horses into the only overlays in the race. Ultimately, they produced the winner and the 3rd horse.

Remember... I didn't make the points. I only interpreted them.

The voting determined the result.

[lamboguy]

And yet, they turned the top 2 horses into the only overlays in the race. Ultimately, they produced the winner and the 3rd horse.

Remember... I didn't make the points. I only interpreted them.

The voting determined the result.in this game you are only as good as your oddsline, yours certainly was one of the best i have ever seen for any race let alone a Kentucky Derby. if you can consistently do this type of good work you will never have anything to worry about.

i have an oddsline that is based strictly on pace and its good for that but still does not make you a winner without being able to adjust it to other factors and a human touch.

[Dave Schwartz]

in this game you are only as good as your oddsline, yours certainly was one of the best i have ever seen for any race let alone a Kentucky Derby. if you can consistently do this type of good work you will never have anything to worry about.

i have an oddsline that is based strictly on pace and its good for that but still does not make you a winner without being able to adjust it to other factors and a human touch.

Thank you, Lambo.

It really was not difficult. Just used two principles that I have confidence in:

1. Multiple views at the final number
2. Fibonacci.

It was really the voters who did the job. (I did not vote, BTW.)



Dave

[planks46d]

Wow... You really don't think much of Magnum Moon, eh?

I ran out of XXX's :lol:

[jasperson]

CD RACE 12 ODDS SPD FIN EPR CLS PP LAST RACE COMMENTS
7 JUSTIFY E/P(7) 6-1 1 D 1 1 2 0N3 Drift out;in str;clear
5 AUDIBLE E/P(4) 9-1 3 D 1 4 2 0N2 4wd run1/4p;drift1/16p
19 NOBLE INDY E/P(7) 12-1 4 D 1 3 2 0N4 Hit gate;bmpd;2p turns

[Parkview_Pirate]

And yet, they turned the top 2 horses into the only overlays in the race. Ultimately, they produced the winner and the 3rd horse.

Remember... I didn't make the points. I only interpreted them.

The voting determined the result.

I would agree that in this case, the factors analyzed by the "sharp gang of 35" appeared to have zeroed in on the live horses. I would further agree that "multiple views", if by that you mean obtaining unique analyses, could be useful in ferreting out the value horses. And while I can appreciate the use of fibonacci for this weight-for-age race, I see some limitations of using it in handicaps where the track secretary, in theory, is attempting to get all entrants to the finish line at the same time. That might not work in Hong Kong.

OTH, with so little data to go on (three races), a 20 horse field, an off-track, and asking the horse to go 10 furlongs for the first time, it's hard to accept Justify was a .36 horse, and also hard (for me anyway) to accept there were only two overlays in the race.

We're also talking a sample size of 1 here. How would the same group of voters and methodology done the years Animal Kingdom, Mine That Bird, or Giacomo won? In 2018 the horse with the towering speed figures won, and the horse with the second best set of figures (Bolt d'Oro, on the cusp in yellow), ran 12th. Obviously chaos wasn't equally experienced. And with the two overlays at 2.90 and 7.00, the process of wagering becomes problematic in dutching those - at least for me - where the appropriate risk/reward ratio isn't there.

I hope you don't think I'm being ungrateful here, since you took the time to post it. And, who can argue with the results? (Well, I guess I'm doing that).
But do you personally think the approach is valid longer term for such an unusual race as the Derby? The approach, as you've described, certainly seems powerful and valid for many types of day-to-days races, but IMHO the Derby is a different kind of nut to crack.

[lamboguy]

Thank you, Lambo.

It really was not difficult. Just used two principles that I have confidence in:

1. Multiple views at the final number
2. Fibonacci.

It was really the voters who did the job. (I did not vote, BTW.)



Daveso you didn't use a pace figure to derive the odds? and what fib numbers are you basing this on?

[FakeNameChanged]

Dave, Will you please provide your line on elections? If you did this with 35 votes, probably only need about 350 to do a better job than we've had lately. Great job. I can see you now on CNN, Fox et al discussing your fibonacci's for the masses.

[Dave Schwartz]

I would agree that in this case, the factors analyzed by the "sharp gang of 35" appeared to have zeroed in on the live horses. I would further agree that "multiple views", if by that you mean obtaining unique analyses, could be useful in ferreting out the value horses. And while I can appreciate the use of fibonacci for this weight-for-age race, I see some limitations of using it in handicaps where the track secretary, in theory, is attempting to get all entrants to the finish line at the same time. That might not work in Hong Kong.
...

I hope you don't think I'm being ungrateful here, since you took the time to post it. And, who can argue with the results? (Well, I guess I'm doing that).
But do you personally think the approach is valid longer term for such an unusual race as the Derby? The approach, as you've described, certainly seems powerful and valid for many types of day-to-days races, but IMHO the Derby is a different kind of nut to crack.

Never thought you were ungrateful (or any other negative). You're not exactly an offensive fellow around here.

Does the idea have merit for day-to-day racing? Of course it does.

Could the spreadsheet I made in 30 minutes be good enough to beat the game? Probably not.

Could an improved version beat the game? Probably not.

Could an improved version with improved picks (whatever that means) beat the game? Possibly.

++++++++++
There is no escaping the fact that beating the game takes consistently good handicapping and good analysis.

One race and a little snazzy spreadsheet just do not begin to qualify on either count.
++++++++++

1. The "sharp gang of 35" was just a group who were invited to pick up to 4 horses, all equally. Not taking anything away from them, but I am a believer in Prediction Markets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market) and the variety concept.

2. Does it prove anything? Of course not. It was simply a way to make some sense of a poll. It's like a guy saying, "I like 1-2-3 in this race," in the sense that there isn't enough detail in that statement, so I made some.

On this very topic, I had an interesting email conversation with one of our PA members just before I analyzed the poll. He is actually the guy who put the idea for a spreadsheet in my head. (I invite him to add to this conversation about his own endeavors.)

What he did was send me a really cool looking spreadsheet where people could go online and place votes in a race. Those votes were totaled and sliced and diced to produce probabilities and overlays, etc.

The whole thing was much nicer than what I did.

Dave

[biggestal99]

:7: justify 7-1
:11: Bolt d-oro 7-1
:5:audible 12-1
:6:good magic 16-1
:16:magnam moon 16-1
:12:enticed 18-1
:9:hofburg 19-1
:18:vino rossi 19-1

Allan

well the good news if you boxed the top 4 in the tri. cha-ching

the bad news is that there were 5 underlays with my line

and the my overlays (Bolt 8-1, enticed 50-1, hofburg 27-1) all ran out.

oh well lots of fun

will do it again next year

Allan

[Parkview_Pirate]

...
1. The "sharp gang of 35" was just a group who were invited to pick up to 4 horses, all equally. Not taking anything away from them, but I am a believer in Prediction Markets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market) and the variety concept.

2. Does it prove anything? Of course not. It was simply a way to make some sense of a poll. It's like a guy saying, "I like 1-2-3 in this race," in the sense that there isn't enough detail in that statement, so I made some.

Thanks for the response. More insight. Four horses, equally weighted as input.

Ah, prediction markets. An interesting concept, which I struggle with due to my lone wolf nature, my suspicions on motivation, and my suspect handicapping skills. But if one has confidence in the members of the sharp gang, I could see it being very useful in identifying the chaos versus "as expected" events.

I forgot to mention I struggle with underrating the chalk's chances to win, and in turn overrate the chances of the "sweet spot" or longshot horses I do like. This leads me to pass on the six horse fields where the 4-5 shot may be a huge overlay, since I'm not confident enough (nor excited enough) to make the play. My top four for the Derby (12-7-6-9) would have snagged the exacta, but

Your approach here definitely seems to merit use in today's racing world, where being able to discriminate between the "value" 7-5 shot, and the "vulnerable" 7-5 shot is the difference between red and black for the year. That just leaves the question, how do you obtain the necessary input for Tuesday's card at Fairmount?

[Dave Schwartz]

Your approach here definitely seems to merit use in today's racing world, where being able to discriminate between the "value" 7-5 shot, and the "vulnerable" 7-5 shot is the difference between red and black for the year. That just leaves the question, how do you obtain the necessary input for Tuesday's card at Fairmount?

I wasn't advocating this odds line approach as a handicapping/betting model. It was just for fun.

But... what comes out of this simple, highly unscientific approach is that one must do something to determine value.

At the end of the day what we have is: inputs, massage into something that determines value/playability, etc., and final decision.

All of this is a PROCESS that needs to be developed, tested, changed, tested, and changed some more, until it gets good enough. (Whatever "good enough" means to the handicapper.)

Most people will simply not do the testing, track, improvement, part. Instead, they continue to refill their accounts.

[Denny]

I think "value" is nonsense.

I couldn't care less about it. I wanted to win, and did, had the Exacta cold.
(check my odds posting on this thread - they were my 1 -2 in odds.).

Who cares about that price? I still would have played it if the exacta was much lower!

That's just me.

[Parkview_Pirate]

I think "value" is nonsense.

I couldn't care less about it. I wanted to win, and did, had the Exacta cold.
(check my odds posting on this thread - they were my 1 -2 in odds.).

Who cares about that price? I still would have played it if the exacta was much lower!

That's just me.

Depends on your definition of value, I suppose. After the race, the odds line goes to 1.0 for the winner, and any exacta paying over an even money over a 10-1 shot ($40?) is gravy. I cashed the exacta too, but it was as a saver, and IMHO was a substantial underlay.

If your motivation is simply to pick winning combinations and you don't take value into account in some fashion, the takeout and breakage will eventually grind you down into the dust. I don't even consider that an opinion, that's pretty much the Law.

That's just my two cents.

[thaskalos]

I think "value" is nonsense.

I couldn't care less about it. I wanted to win, and did, had the Exacta cold.
(check my odds posting on this thread - they were my 1 -2 in odds.).

Who cares about that price? I still would have played it if the exacta was much lower!

That's just me.

"Every winner is an overlay"...I heard someone say in an OTB once. And maybe he was right...for that particular race. But we still gotta pay for all the losers that come along with our winners. And that's where the "value" comes in.

[biggestal99]

I think "value" is nonsense.

I couldn't care less about it. I wanted to win, and did, had the Exacta cold.
(check my odds posting on this thread - they were my 1 -2 in odds.).

Who cares about that price? I still would have played it if the exacta was much lower!

That's just me.

Of course I hold the contrarian view, since I bet the x. I am highly intune to value. I don’t care about picking winners. My favorite playing grandma would have had justify. The only thing that I care about is making money, not picking winners.

Price is everything.

Allan

[Tom]

The idea of value and overlays allows you to walk away from losers with your pride! :D

[PaceAdvantage]

I think "value" is nonsense.

I couldn't care less about it. I wanted to win, and did, had the Exacta cold.
(check my odds posting on this thread - they were my 1 -2 in odds.).

Who cares about that price? I still would have played it if the exacta was much lower!

That's just me.You can't be a winning player if you're not betting value. Whether someone realizes this or not or cares about it or not really isn't the point.

If you are winning long term, then you are betting on value horses. There is no other way around this fact.

So you might as well embrace it fully.