PDA

View Full Version : History says : These horses can't win .. I am just the messenger

BeatTheChalk
05-07-2005, 07:30 AM
by The Associated Press
Date Posted: 5/6/2005 7:42:17 PM
Last Updated: 5/6/2005 7:42:17 PM

More than the odds are against many of the horses in Saturday's Kentucky Derby. They'll have to beat history, too:

- Wilko: No Breeders' Cup Juvenile winner has won the Derby.

- Don't Get Mad, Going Wild: No winner has started from posts 17 or 19.

- Greeley's Galaxy: The last Derby winner who didn't race as a 2-year-old was Apollo in 1882. Greeley's Galaxy didn't make his first start until January of this year.

- Don't Ged Mad: Tim Tam in 1958 was the last horse to win the Derby Trial at Churchill Downs and then the Derby.

- Buzzards Bay: Sunday Silence, in 1989, was the last Santa Anita Derby winner to win the Derby.

- Flower Alley, Greeley's Galaxy, High Limit: No Derby winner since Exterminator in 1918 had only four prior starts.

- Bellamy Road, Closing Argument, High Limit, Wilko: No Derby winner since Sunny's Halo in 1983 had only two prep races as a 3-year-old.
Overlay
05-08-2005, 04:11 AM
I notice that Giacomo was not one of the nine toss-outs. What I'll really be interested in seeing will be how folks who compile these lists (back)fit this race into the elimination criteria that will come out next year saying that if you had applied these factors in order until only one horse was left in the field, you would have had every Derby winner for the last umpteen years.
EQUIPACE
05-08-2005, 06:35 PM
I notice that Giacomo was not one of the nine toss-outs. What I'll really be interested in seeing will be how folks who compile these lists (back)fit this race into the elimination criteria that will come out next year saying that if you had applied these factors in order until only one horse was left in the field, you would have had every Derby winner for the last umpteen years.

OL,
So, am I right that your telling us not to quit our day jobs based off this kind of historical information...
Damn It Jim!... Giacomo was a stand out though!

John
~żo
witchdoctor
05-08-2005, 08:17 PM
Two years ago, Owner-Breeder journal had the stat that any horse runnin in the Derby with Damascus in his pedigree was 0 for 32. Wth that fact, I confidently through out War Emblem. After that Derby, the stat was 1 for 33.
NoDayJob
05-08-2005, 09:06 PM
My program actually picked Giacomo!

Please Scroll Down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>






























































:lol: In the top 4 (Gotcha), :lol: however the two final horses it picked were:

Afleet Alex & Bellamy Road which I posted earlier in the week.

So much for that nonsense.

NDJ
Overlay
05-10-2005, 07:22 PM
OL,
So, am I right that your telling us not to quit our day jobs based off this kind of historical information...
Damn It Jim!... Giacomo was a stand out though!

John
~żo


LOL (Hindsight is always 20/20!) I just wanted to make the additional point that, even though I would be wary of betting against established probabilities (especially in a race that's been going on as long as the Derby), I would also want to avoid giving any horse in the race a zero probability of winning based on falling into one of those "have-never-won" categories. It's better to judge each horse's chances in light of fundamental handicapping characteristics, and bet when value is present. (Although I certainly wouldn't have considered Giacomo as one of my main contenders, I had him at fair odds of 24-1, rather than the 50-1 odds that he went off at.)
JackS
05-10-2005, 09:10 PM
My racing buddy who probably knows more about racing than I do made the statement "I guarantee that Giacomo WON'T hit the board in the Preakness.
My question to him was "How do you know that?".
I personally want to see the DRF with all entrants and make up my own mind.
Win or lose, I want to know that nothing I've heard or read will have anything other than a subjective influance on anything I may or may not bet.
EQUIPACE
05-11-2005, 09:20 AM
LOL (Hindsight is always 20/20!) I just wanted to make the additional point that, even though I would be wary of betting against established probabilities (especially in a race that's been going on as long as the Derby), I would also want to avoid giving any horse in the race a zero probability of winning based on falling into one of those "have-never-won" categories. It's better to judge each horse's chances in light of fundamental handicapping characteristics, and bet when value is present. (Although I certainly wouldn't have considered Giacomo as one of my main contenders, I had him at fair odds of 24-1, rather than the 50-1 odds that he went off at.)

Tim,

I'm with you that hindsight is always 20/20 - And horses should be bet after looking at the fundamental factors... I may be wrong but your fair odds of 24-1 compared to the 50-1 PT Odds certainly made the horse a sure overlay... If my thinking is correct... 24-1 would mean you put the horses chance around 4% ... (Not overlay -- I mean overly encouraging :D ) And with that large field I would only imagine there were several good overlays posibly making all the wagers cost prohibitive... At least for me.

I would be quite curious to see your odds line for the rest of the field.

John
~żo