Kentucky Derby Odds Lines

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

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]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

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]

Originally Posted by BlueChip@DRF

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

I ran out of XXX's

[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]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

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]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

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

so 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]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

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 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]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

justify 7-1
Bolt d-oro 7-1
audible 12-1
good magic 16-1
magnam moon 16-1
enticed 18-1
hofburg 19-1
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]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

...
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 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]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

"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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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