Why don't favorites win the Kentucky Derby? [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Wickel

04-19-2007, 05:20 PM

Derby handicappers get overwhelmed by the media darlings like Smarty Jones, Empire Maker, the Steinbrenner horse (can't recall his name) and, this year, Curlin and Street Sense. Some win the big race, but most don't. A lot has to do with the distance, as has already been pointed out, but also horses competing in the late preps aren't giving an optimal performance, thus improving their odds. They're leaving a little in the tank for the first Saturday in May.

Lasix1

04-19-2007, 05:37 PM

:confused:
For starters:

•20-horse fields.
•Fast paces almost guaranteed with lots of name horses running too fast, too early.
•20 horses being asked to do something none of them has ever done before.
•Handicappers extrapolating from 1 1/8 mile prep races which don't follow.
•Too many handicappers chasing questionable pedigree data.
•Too much unsophisticated money being bet on press-clipping horses for irrational reasons.
•Too many name horses exhausted from the derby trail by the time they get to the big dance.

This circus is wonderful for those of us who like overlays on horses that ought to be 7/2 that the public lets off at 10-1.

I wish they ran the Derby everyday. I might not have to work anymore.... :jump:

boomman

04-19-2007, 06:37 PM

For starters:

•20-horse fields.
•Fast paces almost guaranteed with lots of name horses running too fast, too early.
•20 horses being asked to do something none of them has ever done before.
•Handicappers extrapolating from 1 1/8 mile prep races which don't follow.
•Too many handicappers chasing questionable pedigree data.
•Too much unsophisticated money being bet on press-clipping horses for irrational reasons.
•Too many name horses exhausted from the derby trail by the time they get to the big dance.

This circus is wonderful for those of us who like overlays on horses that ought to be 7/2 that the public lets off at 10-1.

I wish they ran the Derby everyday. I might not have to work anymore.... :jump:

Very sharp post!

Boomer

Overlay

04-19-2007, 06:54 PM

People pay too much attention to what the horse has done in the past, rather than asking what the implications of that performance are for what it will do today. (That might be valid at other times, but not when young three-year-olds can still markedly improve from one race to the next.) They interpret the sharpest pre-Derby races as leading up to a winning effort, when the horse is probably past its form peak. I think the race more often goes to a horse that has run well, but not necessarily in the top tier of the field, while progressively improving, and showing the potential for still more improvement in the Derby. (That, mixed in with all the other factors already mentioned, like the large field and the new longer distance.)

john del riccio

04-19-2007, 07:26 PM

Either a horse must have the gift of enough early speed to be positioned where the jock is lucky enough to be in the first tier and have the talent to then make his run when asked (SMARTY JONES) OR he must be a warrior and be able to withstand a little rockin-and-a-rollin along the way (REAL QUIET). The first style is what the best horses in the land posess. The second style requires a little more racing luck. Many horses will be tested for their meddle in this race and their unknown weaknesses are often exposed (INDIAN CHARLIE). In a 20 horse field, the natural odds are 19-1 (think about that for a moment). The extra 1/8 of a mile early in their season in a circus like atmosphere will expose the ones with weak constitutions that may have real talent but just can't deal with the crowds/noise/attention/added stress.

Then there is the form cycle. Peaking too soon whther by accident or by design is a delicate balancing act. We've all hear the analogy of sports teams when they say "we've won the division so we are coasting now and we'll turn it on in the playoffs". I think some horsemen may overthink things like this and others may squeeze all of the juice out of the lemon without knowing it or because they have to in order to even make the race.

Thats my 2 cents.

John

bobphilo

04-19-2007, 08:08 PM

It's just a harder race to handicap with many variables whose affects are hard, if not impossible, to predict including:

1) 20 horse field on small track with tight turns.

2) Possible troubled trips for all types of runners

a) Front-runners – hot pace.

b) Pressers and mid-pack – hot pace, trapped inside other horses.

c) Closers – traffic, wide trips.

3) Ability at 10 furlong distance for immature horses not known

4) Surrounded by 100,000 + screaming lunatics on both grandstand and infield sides.

Bob

Niko

04-19-2007, 08:33 PM

Opposite reasons all the favorites win the Preakness;

Big fields, horses that run big races to get earning that get into the Derby and the other reasons mentioned.

Why don't more longshots win the Preakness?

JPinMaryland

04-20-2007, 02:54 AM

gIracing

04-20-2007, 03:10 AM

Preakness seems to put the emphasis back on speed. Which seems to be more identifiable quantity. Would also suggest tactical speed and ability to place themselves in the pack, but not sure that is really true as I try to recall the last few races.

ALso the fields seem to be smaller at least in recent memory.

I don't think it's the distance... there are mile and a quarter races that go on.. albiet not many.

No, what I think, it's when people who watch horse racing 4 days a year put big money down on horses with "nice names" or becuase they saw that one race 2 months ago on nba or whatever.

that and you have 20 horses, and the avg kentucky derby better knows nothing about bad trips or whatnot.

I remember the year Bellemy Road won that race in the wood. It was a fluke (in my eyes) if there ever was one, the race was setup wrong because going wild came up lame and he was not pressed and drew off. All it took was him to romp like that and for sportscenter to find out who owned him, and you had your fav. like george has that extra kick that other oweners don't.

Now I didn't guess the winner, I had afleex alex (which I don't think was a bad bet to this day) but it was alot better than betting a one trick pony horse in a mile and quarter race with other speed in it as well.

I know who the media darling is this year, however I won't say anything because it might offend people.

JPinMaryland

04-20-2007, 10:06 AM

I was referring to the Preakness, GI.

skate

04-20-2007, 01:55 PM

and, they do not win elsewhere either.

thelyingthief

04-21-2007, 01:08 PM

cuz favorites suck.

46zilzal

04-21-2007, 01:34 PM

Every year when March Madness comes along, Super Bowl comes along, World Series, NBA playoff, Stanley Cup etc. etc., the couch potato "experts" come out IN MASS and become the self appointed holy grail purveyors of all that is erudite. They read all of two minutes and bet in mass.

I know one year I made a bet with one of these self-appointed idiots that no HORSE had ever on the Triple Crown in this half of the century. The conditions of the races (before they were almagamated) stated "colts," since an Equs Callubus is not designated a horse until age 5.

At the age they raced in the Triple they were colts.

AwolAtPA

04-21-2007, 11:35 PM

my my how people can forget that Smarty Jones in 2004
was the FAVORITE and paid $10.20

oh, but some folks think that a ten dollar favorite is NOT really a favorite!!

yes, I enjoyed collecting that bet
oh BUT, I did have some hesitation at the window because
I recall thinking, OH Darn he is going to be the favorite.
BUT, I did not change my bet!!

duane

Greyfox

04-21-2007, 11:47 PM

gIracing

04-22-2007, 01:12 AM

5 months before the Triple Crown the media, the hypers, and whoever
are starting to salivate on who will win.
The media works up a frenzy within itself.
The truth be known:
The Kentucky Derby with multiple entries is very tough to win.
Picking the winner, and exotics, usually ain't easy.
Then the timing has to be right. Just ask Jeremy Irons and Kent DesOrmeux.
Myself. I refuse to read anything about the Derby.
I handicap the race as I would any other.
The more you read the bloodline analyzers, the pro public handicappers, the
whoevers... you'll be Lost in a Fog.
I've held my own. Admittedly, if Jeremy Irons hadn't gone to early,
I'd a lost.

amen to that. just like any other race, you can't possibly pick a winner until you get closer. People who are saying they have their "derby horse" now are crazy... what if he doesn't ship well? What if he gets sick? What if he gets the inside post and he is Tiago?

I don't get serious until post positions have been drawn.. by then they have a work or so (i hope) over the track. Last year I had a thing for showing up... turned out to be a good horse.. just wrong surface

NY BRED

04-22-2007, 07:50 AM

While you may have the best two year old in the country, that
very fact works against you as your horse, going through the eligible
races is running faster and harder than the competition and becomes
more easily prone to injury or ailment.

stu

04-22-2007, 08:42 PM

Y'all,

If you go to the charts (http://www.kentuckyderby.com/2007/derby_history/derby_charts/index.html) then you will see that the Ky Derby favorite in the 132 runnings have won a significant number of the races.

That said, I don't like any of the likely favorite this year for value but do think that Street Sense and Curlin could be legitimate favorites.

Stu

jonnielu

04-23-2007, 10:07 AM

:confused:

Usually for the same reasons that favorites lose other races. The Kentucky Derby is usually a chaos race. The real question is "If tons of handicapping is the answer, why are the handicappers so frequently wrong?" Is it too much handicapping, too little handicapping, or is it incorrect/incomplete handicapping?

thelyingthief

04-23-2007, 05:28 PM

you will see that the Ky Derby favorite in the 132 runnings have won a significant number of the races

i recall some research i ran across a few years ago that said favorites, prior to the advent of year round racing, previously won at or around 40%. the success of the favorite in the derby in times previous may be a reflection of same.

thelyingthief

04-23-2007, 05:36 PM

but do think that Street Sense and Curlin could be legitimate favorites
i watched the arkansas derby several times recently, and was impressed with curlin's action, which lengthened in stride and exuded power throughout the stretch. very fluid and direct. yes, i think he may be a legitimate favorite. Beyer has been publically hostile to curlin's derby chances, disregarding his genetics as faint hearted.

anyone have beyer's figs on the arkansas?

bobphilo

04-23-2007, 07:55 PM

i watched the arkansas derby several times recently, and was impressed with curlin's action, which lengthened in stride and exuded power throughout the stretch. very fluid and direct. yes, i think he may be a legitimate favorite. Beyer has been publically hostile to curlin's derby chances, disregarding his genetics as faint hearted.

anyone have beyer's figs on the arkansas?

Curlin's Ark Derby figure was 103 - the best Derby prep figure of any horse this year. I wouldn't take Beyer's knocks on the horse very seriously - he's been spouting a good deal of nonsense lately.

Bob

jonnielu

04-24-2007, 07:10 AM

Curlin's Ark Derby figure was 103 - the best Derby prep figure of any horse this year. I wouldn't take Beyer's knocks on the horse very seriously - he's been spouting a good deal of nonsense lately.

Bob

Any reasonable observer, being in posession of horseracing knowledge, would have to conclude that Curlin is the best example of a champion that the derby field offers. Scat Daddy is the other that shows up by this measure.

spilparc

04-24-2007, 08:43 AM

Does anyone have the stats of 20 horse Derby fields by post position?

I'm curious how many times the Derby has been won by the 1 horse. Same can be said for the 20 horse, but especially the 1 horse.

SMOO

04-24-2007, 08:59 AM

Does anyone have the stats of 20 horse Derby fields by post position?

I'm curious how many times the Derby has been won by the 1 horse. Same can be said for the 20 horse, but especially the 1 horse.
I don't have the link, but I am positive that both the 1 & 2 posts have not won the last 20 years. I read that in order to cram 20 horses in they "cheat" towards the inside rail, causing the inside horses to be jammed in soon after the gate opens.

Tom

04-24-2007, 10:10 AM

Go to DRF.com and then the Derby 2007 area - it's under Statistics.

Lefty

04-24-2007, 11:54 AM

The Derby, with all them horses, generally boils down to who gets the best trip.

bobphilo

04-24-2007, 02:05 PM

Does anyone have the stats of 20 horse Derby fields by post position?

I'm curious how many times the Derby has been won by the 1 horse. Same can be said for the 20 horse, but especially the 1 horse.

Here's an analysis I did before the 2006 Derby.

Kentucky Derby Post Position Analysis (1975-2005)

Note: Instead of just taking the win % from all posts, which would
skew the results against the outer posts because there was not
always a full field, I divided the # of winners by the # starters
from each post, giving a better indication of each posts win %.

P.P.---Starters--Winners--Win %

1-------31--------2------6.5
2-------31--------2------6.5
3-------31--------4-----12.9
4-------31--------1------3.2
5-------31--------4-----12.9
6-------31--------1------3.2
7-------31--------1------3.2
8-------31--------2------6.5
9-------31--------0-------0
10------30--------6-----20.0
11------29--------0-------0
12------29--------0-------0
13------29--------1------3.4
14------25--------0-------0
15------24--------3-----12.5
16------19--------3-----15.8
17------16--------0-------0
18------13--------1------7.7
19------10--------0-------0
20-------4--------0-------0
21-------2--------0-------0

Now by Quadrants

P.P.---- Starters---Winners----Win%

1-5-------155---------13--------8.4
6-10------154---------10--------6.5
11-15-----134----------4--------3.0
16+ -------63----------4--------6.3

Analysis: The inner posts have an advantage but, something
interesting seems to happen when we get to the auxiliary gate - the
win % stops dropping and actually bumps up, mainly at the first 2
posts in the auxiliary gate (15 and 16). I'm guessing that the space
between the 2 gates gives these horses more move to maneuver for
position.

Bob

Tom

04-24-2007, 03:29 PM

Wassup wid the ten hole?
Maybe it opens early?:D

bobphilo

04-24-2007, 04:05 PM

Wassup wid the ten hole?
Maybe it opens early?:D

Yeah, the 20% looks great, but with only a couple less winners it would drop to the low teens. One always has to take into account the effect of small number changes in interpreting stats. Given that there is not likely to be a dramatic differences between adjacent PP’s, unless they’re in different gates, I divided the field into quadrants for a better picture.

Bob

JPinMaryland

04-24-2007, 04:38 PM

is it possible to do the same analysis for runners up? That would be nice to see if more data pts. can confirm or contadict the initial data that we see.

bobphilo

04-24-2007, 05:39 PM

is it possible to do the same analysis for runners up? That would be nice to see if more data pts. can confirm or contadict the initial data that we see.

I guess you could do in the money % by post position to get more data.
By taking into account the # of starters from each post I was basically trying to give a better estimate than just reporting the # of wins from each slot. That, and dividing the posts into quadrants gives a pretty good indication that the inner posts are generally more favorable and the rail is not as bad as some trainers seem to feel when picking their post.

Bob

rastajenk

04-25-2007, 08:23 AM

I wonder if Brother Derek's people could have changed the outcome last year with a little basic homework like this.

04-25-2007, 03:53 PM

Here's an analysis I did before the 2006 Derby.

Kentucky Derby Post Position Analysis (1975-2005)

Your analysis is a little skewed. You should consider that when a horse is breaking from the 20 hole, he is facing at least 19 other horses. When a horse breaks from the 1 hole, he could be facing as few as 1. So, you not only count wins, but factor in the varying field sizes faced.

In your sample, there were 2 21 horse fields, so the expected wins for the 21 post would be 1/21*2. There were 2 20 horse fields, so the expected wins for the 20 post would be 1/21*2 + 1/20*2. There were 6 19 horse fields, so the expected wins for the 19 post would be 1/21*2 + 1/20*2 + 1/19*6, and so on.

This sample is way too small to draw any meaningful conclusions, IMO.

04-25-2007, 03:55 PM

I wonder if Brother Derek's people could have changed the outcome last year with a little basic homework like this.

I have said since the very beginning of post selection that taking these outside slots before the inside is ludicrous.

Overlay

04-25-2007, 06:26 PM

Wassup wid the ten hole?
Maybe it opens early?:D

I'd say far enough out from the rail to avoid getting pinched back or encountering other trouble at the start, but close enough in to be able to maneuver over to save ground and be strategically positioned by the time they hit the first turn, while not expending too much energy in the process.

GaryG

04-25-2007, 06:36 PM

On the subject of favorites, back in the 70s when we didn't know nearly as much as we do today (?) there were a whole slew (pun intended) of winning favorites. Without looking it up there were the 3 TC winners, Cannonade, Foolish Pleasure and Bid. The fields were generally smaller though.

Bill Olmsted

04-25-2007, 06:40 PM

Question: Why don't favorites win the Kentucky Derby?

Answer: Because they haven't.

bobphilo

04-25-2007, 06:44 PM

Your analysis is a little skewed. You should consider that when a horse is breaking from the 20 hole, he is facing at least 19 other horses. When a horse breaks from the 1 hole, he could be facing as few as 1. So, you not only count wins, but factor in the varying field sizes faced.

In your sample, there were 2 21 horse fields, so the expected wins for the 21 post would be 1/21*2. There were 2 20 horse fields, so the expected wins for the 20 post would be 1/21*2 + 1/20*2. There were 6 19 horse fields, so the expected wins for the 19 post would be 1/21*2 + 1/20*2 + 1/19*6, and so on.

This sample is way too small to draw any meaningful conclusions, IMO.

Picky, picky.

I was going beyond the usual PP analysis that typically just report the %winners from each post without regard to how many starters there were from each slot, which is way I divided the # of winners by starters from each post. Factoring in field size, as you suggest, would be an additional refinement to show each posts chances.

As for sample size, I went back 30 years to bring in as many horses as possible without going too far back to a time where the data would no longer be as relevant. Beyond 30 years we risk bringing in a very different track at Churchill. Even so just looking a particular posts can be misleading so, as I explained, I also combined the posts into quadrants to give samples large enough to show the pattern. Sufficient sample size for significance is not a matter of anyone’s opinion but can be determined by doing a power test.

I think the analysis shows that the inner posts are advantageous and trainers, like in Brother Derek’s case, are making a mistake in drawing wide PPs. It also shows an interesting effect of the auxialry gate.

Bob

bobphilo

04-25-2007, 06:50 PM

I'd say far enough out from the rail to avoid getting pinched back or encountering other trouble at the start, but close enough in to be able to maneuver over to save ground and be strategically positioned by the time they hit the first turn, while not expending too much energy in the process.

That would appear to make sense and the numbers almost agree except that they say the closer the rail the better. This paranloid fear that a lot of trainers have of the rail, to the point that they'd rather pick post 20, is totally unwarrented.

Bob

Bill Olmsted

04-25-2007, 06:56 PM

This paranloid fear that a lot of trainers have of the rail, to the point that they'd rather pick post 20, is totally unwarrented.

Bob

Horses on the outside in distance races can "settle in" and stalk. Those on the inside are sometimes pinched and crowded, which is probably why trainers have a fear of the inside.

jma

04-26-2007, 09:49 AM

I think the analysis shows that the inner posts are advantageous and trainers, like in Brother Derek’s case, are making a mistake in drawing wide PPs. It also shows an interesting effect of the auxialry gate.

Bob

Of course in recent years, if you didn't bet the outside posts in the Derby, you would have missed Barbaro (post 10)...and Giacomo (post 10)....and Smarty Jones (post 13)....and Monarchos (post 16)....and Fusaichi Pegasus (post 15)...and Charismatic (post 16). You would have won a couple times though, so keep tossing out those outside posts! :)

JPinMaryland

04-26-2007, 11:26 AM

Jeezus, did you even read what he posted?

, something interesting seems to happen when we get to the auxiliary gate - the win % stops dropping and actually bumps up, mainly at the first 2 posts in the auxiliary gate (15 and 16). I'm guessing that the space between the 2 gates gives these horses more move to maneuver for
position. Bob

Robert Fischer

04-26-2007, 12:22 PM

Running styles and strategies also come into play regarding which post "quadrant" best suits a specific horse.

JPinMaryland

04-26-2007, 02:01 PM

Here is the totals of winners by post position from 1900-2005. I have no idea where I got it from but somewhere on the internet in the last couple of years is most likely.

Of course this takes no account of the size of the field and you would have to make adjustments accordingly. Going from memory, field sizes were pretty good in the 1930s, they got a lot smaller in the 40s; 50s got somewhat better, the 60s were up and down with an 8 horse field (?). without working on field size, this will not mean alot but you can see possible trends..

1. 12
2. 9
3. 8
4. 10
5. 12
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8
9. 4
10. 10
11. 3
12. 3
13. 4
14. 2
15. 3
16. 3
17. 0
18. 1
19. 0
20. 1

SMOO

04-26-2007, 02:08 PM

Stats can be misleading, the 1 post hasn't won in decades...

chickenhead

04-26-2007, 03:46 PM

Stats can be misleading, the 1 post hasn't won in decades...

You're right, the 1 post is way over the hill now.

bobphilo

04-27-2007, 11:23 PM

Running styles and strategies also come into play regarding which post "quadrant" best suits a specific horse.

Right Robert. The analysis just shows general tendencies whose effects can vary depending on running style. A frontrunner with an outside post and speed starting inside of him is looking at a wide trip unless he can learn to take back.
A closer can take back regardless of field size and draw but risks getting caught in traffic or having to rally wide. The only thing that seems constant is that with a huge field packed into a small track, a horse with a wide draw will have more trouble working out a trip not too far from the rail because of the packed field.
however, the Derby is notorious for the wide variety of trip scenarios for all horses so it's almost imposibble to exactly predict which horse will benefit most from thier post except in a general way.

Bob

bobphilo

04-27-2007, 11:39 PM

Of course in recent years, if you didn't bet the outside posts in the Derby, you would have missed Barbaro (post 10)...and Giacomo (post 10)....and Smarty Jones (post 13)....and Monarchos (post 16)....and Fusaichi Pegasus (post 15)...and Charismatic (post 16). You would have won a couple times though, so keep tossing out those outside posts! :)

The stats do not show that the outside posts are complete throwouts. Just that the wider you go, the lower your odds of winning go in general. Of course, a superior horses can usually make up for this if he's not too far out, and in some cases, even far out, but this is rarer.
Remember, in a 20 horse field, even the 10 horse really has a middle draw and a better draw than half the field. Also remember, that while the average horse runs in about the 2 path in a typical race, the average Derby horse gets about a 4-6 wide trip, so that a horse that draws 10th in the Derby is facing no more ground loss than one who draws a bout 5 in an average race. The thing that is the same is that the rail is the shortest way home.

Bob

JPinMaryland

04-28-2007, 12:21 PM

... while the average horse runs in about the 2 path in a typical race, the average Derby horse gets about a 4-6 wide trip, so that a horse that draws 10th in the Derby is facing no more ground loss than one who draws a bout 5 in an average race.

Bob

THere's something that doesnt quite add up here. If the 10 horse in the derby gets an average trips that's a 4-6 wide trip, yes? Bit that's not the same trip as drawing a 5 hole in an 8 or 9 horse field, is it?