Has the Derby become too predictable?
 

Since the new Churchill Downs points system has gone into effect, ALL six Derbies run have all been WON by the FAVORITE.

Some questions:

Has it become too predictable?

Will people start to find it boring?

What do you think?

Would you leave it alone or make a change to the point system?

Sample sizes are too small. Most likely the string of favorites is random variance.

Indeed I have some evidence of this from last year-- Always Dreaming was clearly not the best horse in that race, even though he went favored. He apparently took advantage of a track bias produced by the sealing of the racetrack.

Orb was probably not the best horse in his Derby either.

California Chrome and American Pharoah were superlative racehorses who were going to win the Derby no matter what eligibility system was in place. They were the best 3 year olds in their respective crops by far.

So basically, all this hangs on Justify (who might turn out to be another superlative racehorse) and Nyquist, who peaked on Derby day.

There are going to be plenty of non-favorite winners of the Derby in the future, don't worry.

And honestly, I don't care about the points system. We have owners who are ridiculous about entering unqualified horses in the Derby, so they had to cap it at 20 and once you do that, there's going to have to be some arbitrary means of keeping them out. The points system is fine.

i think you are getting chalkier results because of the way the race is run without the cheap speed sprinters setting unrealistic paces and a truly athletic horse that can sit right off the pace and pounce at the top of the stretch.Justify ,nyquist,american pharoh,chrome are prime examples of this,while the likes of mine that bird and giacomo are just abberations of closers winning Though Orb i believe closed from mid pack along with animal kingdom.

that was an unrealistic pace on Saturday, just a superior effort IMO.

I did a study, the paces are not slowing down in the Derby, for the most part, they are fast as always.

Maybe the last 5 or 6 years we just had a series off good horses, who also got good trips.

Well said. In hindsight Always Dreaming was a very lucky winner.

The horse he beat was like 40/1.

In theory, the point system would cause less favorites to win because there would be less horses that didn't belong, making the race more competitive.

20 horses, 3YOs, first Saturday in May, going 10 furlongs for the first (and often the last) time, coming from racetracks all over the country, at the peak of improvement or decline in their careers, with track condition, crowd noise and trip being huge variables, won't become too predictable, IMHO.

My hat's off to the 'cappers that identify and pour the money on the right horses to get the favorites home.

But while the favorite won, what about that $19K super? How predictable was that! (note - natural odds would be $116,280, but with the favorite on top and the tri paying $141.40 (natural odds of $6840), there's something to be said for hitting the all button in the deep slot.)

Instilled Regard had two races that would have made him viable for the superfecta, that was more than some horses who were taking money at the windows on the win bet. I bet him to win when he was 99/1.

I was bored to tears w/the long time between races. With modern technology, shouldn't there be less times between races (people betting from their Ipads and Iphones so no need to wait in line)

This :ThmbUp:

[QUOTE=dilanesp;2313594]Sample sizes are too small. Most likely the string of favorites is random variance.

Do you realize what the mathematical odds are of 6 favorites in a row?

In a twenty horse field?

Even if we take the old standard of favorites winning 1 in 3 (which is extremely generous for that size field) - the odds would be something like -

1/(3x3x3x3x3x3) {1 divided by 3 to the 6th)

1 / 729 = 0.00137

0.137 %

That's some "random variance" you have there!

Thank goodness for SUPERS - otherwise a very boring payoff - like the year Pharoah won. Also very low payoffs for a Derby that year. First four favorites in order, if I remember.

Can't argue with that!

What do they do there for all those hours with all that time between races?
I think it's nuts.

Do they have I-phones in Kentucky? (just kidding)

Do they know how to use self-service terminals there and are there enough of them?

The day is way too long for me.

Don’t forget the smaller crops every year.

Fewer good horses, easier standouts. Bigger fish, smaller pond

[quote=Denny;2313785]Really? I've seen 6 favorites win in the pick 6 sequence any number of times.

And I have seen pocket aces at a poker table win 6 times in a row- it is the favorite.

I am convinced that there's just a fundamental divide between the numerate and the innumerate in life. 6 favorites in a row isn't even nearly as rare as some of the results random variance can produce. Lukas had 6 straight triple crown race wins and 7 of 8 with 5 different horses, only 2 of them favorites. Calvin Borel rode 3 Derby winners in 4 years.

And right now, we could find a roulette wheel in Vegas which hit the same number 5 times in the last 12 spins. The wheels have displays that show that.