BC Distaff

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Good posting!

This kind of "stats" are good because they create overlays though.

Good point, Delta.

As someone with graduate training in stats I cringe when I hear people misuse them.
On the other hand, as a bettor, I do appreciate the overlays they bring about, as you say.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Good point, Delta.

As someone with graduate training in stats I cringe when I hear people misuse them.
On the other hand, as a bettor, I do appreciate the overlays they bring about, as you say.

The true is that this way of thinking is what makes the game so profitable.

Handicapping based on deceiving "numbers" (like a New York State bred have never win the Kentucky Derby, Kentucky Derby runner up never wins the Preakness or a three year old is in huge disadvantage when facing older early in the year) is responsible for the most crowd's betting errors.

The most typical example of this kind of thinking can be found in Ainslie's book, which is one of the worst betting books written ever. His naive handicapping is the definition of a favorite bettor and a definite recipe for disaster. The good thing is that even today the vast majority of the bettors still follow his approach, desperately trying to pick the cinch creating nice overlays that are always there to be discovered..

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

The true is that this way of thinking is what makes the game so profitable.

Handicapping based on deceiving "numbers" (like a New York State bred have never win the Kentucky Derby, Kentucky Derby runner up never wins the Preakness or a three year old is in huge disadvantage when facing older early in the year) is responsible for the most crowd's betting errors.

The most typical example of this kind of thinking can be found in Ainslie's book, which is one of the worst betting books written ever. His naive handicapping is the definition of a favorite bettor and a definite recipe for disaster. The good thing is that even today the vast majority of the bettors still follow his approach, desperately trying to pick the cinch creating nice overlays that are always there to be discovered..

Pre- rebate overlays. What are those?

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by ronsmac

Pre- rebate overlays. What are those?

Food for thought!

[JohnGalt1]

On Songbird-- Her age is not a problem for me at this time of the year.

Yes, she repelled many good/great horses in her major wins.

BUT, the horses she repelled were 3 year olds.

Can she repel older horses?

On Friday I will proportion my win bet 60% on Stellar Wind and 40% on I'm a Chatterbox, the only horse with a race in the last month, though that's less important in stakes races. Having recent races has worked for me. And at 12-1, a nice alternative.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

The true is that this way of thinking is what makes the game so profitable.

Handicapping based on deceiving "numbers" (like a New York State bred have never win the Kentucky Derby, Kentucky Derby runner up never wins the Preakness or a three year old is in huge disadvantage when facing older early in the year) is responsible for the most crowd's betting errors.

That's why I love to bet big races like the Derby. Not only is there lots of stupid money in the pools by people who know nothing about racing, there is also money bet by those who should know better who believe in such nonsense like "race specific" handicapping. Total misuse of stats.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by JohnGalt1

On Songbird-- Her age is not a problem for me at this time of the year.

Yes, she repelled many good/great horses in her major wins.

BUT, the horses she repelled were 3 year olds.

Can she repel older horses?

On Friday I will proportion my win bet 60% on Stellar Wind and 40% on I'm a Chatterbox, the only horse with a race in the last month, though that's less important in stakes races. Having recent races has worked for me. And at 12-1, a nice alternative.

I agree with most of what you say except your statement that Songbird's age is not a disadvantage for her. Horses are not fully mature until 5 or 6 and California Chrome and Beholder are living examples of how horses improve with maturity.

The reason 3YO males can hold their own against older horse is that almost all the good 3YO males are whisked off to stud early, thus weakening the older horse ranks. That's why I don't think Arrogate is at a disadvantage in the Classic, especially since he has already shown he's as fast or faster than the field. Much less often the case with fillies and mares.

I agree that the question is can she repel great mature mares. She would have to be a super precocious filly and I doubt that.

[depalma113]

Corona Del Inca

She carried 133lbs going a mile and a quarter and closed the final quarter going :24.16 to finish in 1:59.40. The works at Santa Anita have been good. We know she can get the distance and she gets a weight break.

I've seen a lot worse 50-1's

[overthehill]

initally i liked chatter box but now i prefer curalina. seems to me that pletcher has mapped out the filly entire racing this year with the goal of having her run her very best today. I think there is a very good chance she will run better than a 105 beyer today, and that may be good enough to win the race.

If Stellar Wind and/ or Beholder can run a 110 again after two tough races, more power to them.

[ebcorde]

Originally Posted by overthehill

If Stellar Wind and/ or Beholder can run a 110 again after two tough races, more power to them.

THEY CAN!

I HAVE songbird, Curalina, i'm a chatterbox, stellar wind, beholder in no order. Found a reason to get rid of unbridled forever. but she can win too.
I give each of the 5 horses an equal chance to win 1-6 odds.

Technically Songbird is a toss and Beholder and Stellar Wind should be the favorites The Santa Anita Track speed pars are a tick faster then the east coast.
Curalina has a lot of heart. Remember his Travers day race.


BTW: the guy who owns the #4 either needs to get on the drugs or off them

[johnhannibalsmith]

There probably wasn't a horse on the card that I had less interest in betting to win than Songbird. But, after the last week of nearly everyone declaring her the worst bet as well, I'm starting to wonder if she might wind up being playable after all.

[davew]

This will be my favorite race to watch today. Has the 3 all have been mentioning and Curalina is not that shabby either.

Songbird has 'won for fun' so many races, her speed and pace figures could be deceptively low (or maybe not...)

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by davew

...

Songbird has 'won for fun' so many races, her speed and pace figures could be deceptively low (or maybe not...)

That's the way that it works for me too. I don't really find her easy to bet against because of her speed and pace numbers because I just don't really think that they are necessarily indicative of what she'll do in a spot like this. I'm just not really eager to find out if she wilts like Lost in the Fog or swells up and runs twenty points faster if need be when asked to get near the bottom if the price is in the even money range. But I have to admit that if it this theme of her being a terrible play catches total fire and she's closer to 2-1 than she is to even money then I'm reconsidering. I wish I really liked one of the others but I really don't have a high opinion of really any of them at this point and have let myself get pretty convinced that Songbird is pretty legit and belongs facing older Grade I mares and probably has for a while. I think the closer we get to 2-1 the more I'm willing to back my shaky opinion on her and the others. Thankfully I don't think there's a chance I have to even worry about it.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm thinking of going with Beholder and Curalina here...I'm a slave to my figures...Stellar Wind will be overbet but has a really nice chance here

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

That's why I love to bet big races like the Derby. Not only is there lots of stupid money in the pools by people who know nothing about racing, there is also money bet by those who should know better who believe in such nonsense like "race specific" handicapping. Total misuse of stats.

Which horses will the stupid money be backing? Knowing that stupid money will create good betting opportunities for smart money, wouldn't the smart money increase dramatically to suck up all of the stupidity?

Big races usually bring more confusion. Not knowing whether or not a shipper will like the surface. Distance questions. Ambiguous pace scenarios. Etc., etc. For most of us, our money is also stupid. The good news is that confusion also brings opportunity. If for just one magical race a handicapper can cut through the fog of the confusion they will generally be rewarded with a good payoff. The attraction of such races to handicappers is hard to resist.