Rich Perloff...really?

[maddog42]

Originally Posted by cj

Just to be clear Gus, I wasn't relating the field size as shrinking. I'm just saying field size is a big factor in the percentage of winning favorites.

Average field size:

2007, 8.70
2008, 8.68
2009, 8.73
2010, 8.68
2011, 8.53
2012, 8.70

It doesn't even appear to be shrinking, but certainly is a big variable in favorite success.

I'll send this to him tomorrow. He went off air right after he made his statements.

The 2012 stats are obviously misleading. Field size will shrink some as the year goes on. Field size must be going up at a few tracks to offset (some)
the tracks where field size has shrunk.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by cj

I'll keep this pretty simple:

All favorites, the last nearly 250,000 races in my database (mid 2007), 36.06%

Field Size < 7, favorites win 42.20%
Field Size > 7 and < 10, favorites win 36.11%
Field Size > 10, 31.37%

I get almost the same results in my databases. I don't have all tracks though. There are some tracks I am sure that are higher. Any outliers?

[cj]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Does your database show whether favorites are more likely to be underplayed or overplayed due to field size?

I can add ROI to the query, but it will be tomorrow.

[cj]

Originally Posted by davew

what exactly did he say?

every race has a wagering favorite 100% of the time.

He said favorites win 33% of the time, and that field size doesn't matter.

[cj]

Originally Posted by maddog42

The 2012 stats are obviously misleading. Field size will shrink some as the year goes on. Field size must be going up at a few tracks to offset (some)
the tracks where field size has shrunk.

I'm not so sure. It may drop some, it may not. Tracks cut days last year and it helped, may do it again.

[cj]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

I get almost the same results in my databases. I don't have all tracks though. There are some tracks I am sure that are higher. Any outliers?

I'll have to check. I would think with a big enough sample size it would be fairly constant.

[Ocala Mike]

What is wrong with my logic? This is a problem in statistical theory, and really has little to do with what we all know about horse racing. PERLOFF IS WRONG because consider two extreme cases.

1. A 2-horse field. One horse is designated the "favorite." Clearly, that horse will win more than 50% of the time, as there is only 1 negative outcome possible.

2. A 100-horse field. One horse is designated the "favorite." Clearly, that horse will win a small minority of the time, as there are 99 negative outcomes possible.

I really don't need to see this confirmed by database analysis.


Ocala Mike

[Elliott Sidewater]

To my way of thinking, the percentage of winning favorites has gone up as steadily as the amount of dumb money in the pools has decreased. Most of the "tourist money" has dried up except for the 4 or 5 biggest racing days of the year. Even with the convenience of betting from home, most people can't be bothered with horse racing. It's out of sight and out of mind for the most part, except when something bad happens to reinforce its indelibly horrible reputation- like Eight Belles/Go For Wand/Charismatic/Ruffian/Holy Bull/Barbaro breaking down or Amtote insiders hacking into the Breeders Cup pick 6. It's a jalopy, unable to avoid obstacles, a leaded gas clunker coughing and sputtering its way to the junkyard. Will the HBO series Luck revive interest in racing? Hell no - at least 70% of the characters are incorrigible, impossible to like degenerates. I don't know how they came up with Luck; Lost Souls would have been a better title. Judging by the reaction to my continuing interest in racing by friends and co-workers, I think they'd have more respect for me if I spent the money on botox injections. Scorn is hard to take, but pity is even worse.

As for Rich Perloff, he should be ashamed of himself for knowing less than the average contributor to this forum. The more one talks just to fill in the embarrassing silence of televised winter racing, the more likely a gaffe of large proportion is to occur.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Elliott Sidewater

To my way of thinking, the percentage of winning favorites has gone up as steadily as the amount of dumb money in the pools has decreased. Most of the "tourist money" has dried up except for the 4 or 5 biggest racing days of the year. Even with the convenience of betting from home, most people can't be bothered with horse racing. It's out of sight and out of mind for the most part, except when something bad happens to reinforce its indelibly horrible reputation- like Eight Belles/Go For Wand/Charismatic/Ruffian/Holy Bull/Barbaro breaking down or Amtote insiders hacking into the Breeders Cup pick 6. It's a jalopy, unable to avoid obstacles, a leaded gas clunker coughing and sputtering its way to the junkyard. Will the HBO series Luck revive interest in racing? Hell no - at least 70% of the characters are incorrigible, impossible to like degenerates. I don't know how they came up with Luck; Lost Souls would have been a better title. Judging by the reaction to my continuing interest in racing by friends and co-workers, I think they'd have more respect for me if I spent the money on botox injections. Scorn is hard to take, but pity is even worse.

As for Rich Perloff, he should be ashamed of himself for knowing less than the average contributor to this forum. The more one talks just to fill in the embarrassing silence of televised winter racing, the more likely a gaffe of large proportion is to occur.

Don't beat around the bush, Elliott; tell us what you REALLY think...

[Elliott Sidewater]

Maybe, like Harry Truman, I just tell the truth and it sounds like hell. Hey, it's really OK, the sun will come up tomorrow and the horses will be running at Parx Casino and Racetrack

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

What is wrong with my logic? This is a problem in statistical theory, and really has little to do with what we all know about horse racing. PERLOFF IS WRONG because consider two extreme cases.

1. A 2-horse field. One horse is designated the "favorite." Clearly, that horse will win more than 50% of the time, as there is only 1 negative outcome possible.

2. A 100-horse field. One horse is designated the "favorite." Clearly, that horse will win a small minority of the time, as there are 99 negative outcomes possible.

I really don't need to see this confirmed by database analysis.


Ocala Mike

Exactly!

[Light]

Originally Posted by cj

I usually like him, but he says that field size has no effect on the percentage of wagering favorites. He still thinks the favorite wins 1/3 of the time. He can't be this dumb, right?

As a coincidence this topic came up today when a fellow horse player visited me while I was in the middle of work. He said there were fewer "long shots" than before. I said it's because there is more information available today than say 20 years ago, and favorites are winning 42% today to 33% previously. Then he pointed out that the higher percentage of favorites is due to the smaller fields. That obvious fact had escaped me while working and carrying on a conversation. I stood corrected. I think Perloff probably knows better as well.

[Shelby]

Originally Posted by big frank

with all due respect , what the heck do you learn from ?

I didn't grow up around racing, so, I learn by listening--and by trial and error.

For example, Rich is very knowledgeable about the conditions of each race and he always gives reasons why a trainer would place their horse in a specific race.

I've never kept track of the horses that he favors so I couldn't tell you if his picks come in or not. I pay attention and digest the information and, in the end, I make my own decisions.

[Tom]

He mentioned this thread just now.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Tom

He mentioned this thread just now.

I didn't hear it, damn. I hope we wasn't too offended, I like the guy. Maybe I was hard, but he is in the public eye and said something that was just flat wrong.

I'm sure I've done the same many times, just not on TV.