Orb checklist. Humbling game?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

To the players who lost by betting on any horse other than Orb in this race...this was just another loss and nothing more.

But those who wagered on Orb at odds of 3/5 have some thinking to do.

You don't have a chance in this game if you believe in "sure things"...

I think this is quite wrong for a couple of reasons:

1. Sometimes 3 to 5 shots lose. But that doesn't mean that any particular 3 to 5 shot who loses actually is a bad bet. If they lose less than 37 percent of the time, you should still make a profit. Betting a 3 to 5 shot is no different than betting a 10 to 1 shot-- the question is whether you are getting value for your money, not the result of a particular race.

2. People who reflexively bet against big favorites in big races also have some thinking to do. Yes, every 10 to 1 shot that runs out doesn't fill you with grief and pain the way an odds on horse would. But it's just as possible for a bet on a 10 to 1 shot to be -EV. And your comment suggests something-- that longshot players are actually insulated from thinking about their decisions, because they know that if a 10 to 1 shot runs out that doesn't mean that the bet was a bad one.

I think it's actually pretty clear from the history of Derby winners in the Preakness that it is long term -EV to be throwing out the Derby winner every year. They win too often, and when you add in the takeout (another 17 percent or so), there isn't enough money left in the pool to pay off a bettor who just bets a longshot every year.

The fact of the matter is everyone needs to think about their decisions, pre- and post-race. And not simply assume that just because you took a big price that it was an overlay or a good bet. There's a place in this game for betting the favorite. Sometimes the favorite does, in fact, offer the best value. And there's also a place in this game for passing races-- even big stakes races-- when all you are doing is stabbing in the dark for some horse to hang your hat on.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I think this is quite wrong for a couple of reasons:

1. Sometimes 3 to 5 shots lose. But that doesn't mean that any particular 3 to 5 shot who loses actually is a bad bet. If they lose less than 37 percent of the time, you should still make a profit. Betting a 3 to 5 shot is no different than betting a 10 to 1 shot-- the question is whether you are getting value for your money, not the result of a particular race.

2. People who reflexively bet against big favorites in big races also have some thinking to do. Yes, every 10 to 1 shot that runs out doesn't fill you with grief and pain the way an odds on horse would. But it's just as possible for a bet on a 10 to 1 shot to be -EV. And your comment suggests something-- that longshot players are actually insulated from thinking about their decisions, because they know that if a 10 to 1 shot runs out that doesn't mean that the bet was a bad one.

I think it's actually pretty clear from the history of Derby winners in the Preakness that it is long term -EV to be throwing out the Derby winner every year. They win too often, and when you add in the takeout (another 17 percent or so), there isn't enough money left in the pool to pay off a bettor who just bets a longshot every year.

The fact of the matter is everyone needs to think about their decisions, pre- and post-race. And not simply assume that just because you took a big price that it was an overlay or a good bet. There's a place in this game for betting the favorite. Sometimes the favorite does, in fact, offer the best value. And there's also a place in this game for passing races-- even big stakes races-- when all you are doing is stabbing in the dark for some horse to hang your hat on.

That's not anything like what Thask was saying, and if you don't know that then you, indeed, need to do some thinking. Orb was not a true 3/5 horse, that's the point. Heck he wasn't even a 6/5 horse as he started out as. The horse was a bad bet, simply that.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Especially when he's trained by a man whom we were all told two weeks ago, only sends them when they are "right"...he doesn't push them like that evil LUCAS guy...

Best part of the Preakness is all the glorification of Shug and condemnation of Dwane Lookis has ceased for the time being.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by raybo

That's not anything like what Thask was saying, and if you don't know that then you, indeed, need to do some thinking. Orb was not a true 3/5 horse, that's the point. Heck he wasn't even a 6/5 horse as he started out as. The horse was a bad bet, simply that.

Maybe not. But the longer priced horses people bet may also have been underlays. It is even possible that Oxbow was an underlay.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by raybo

That's not anything like what Thask was saying, and if you don't know that then you, indeed, need to do some thinking. Orb was not a true 3/5 horse, that's the point. Heck he wasn't even a 6/5 horse as he started out as. The horse was a bad bet, simply that.

Longshots in Triple Crown races are overbet for the most part. As far as whether or not Orb was a good 3-5 or not, i believe he was the proper price just on the basis of knowing that there's SO much money spread out in the win pool in TC races, that the favorite is sort of inherently underbet.

Orb had a lot of things going for him before the race. He was a solid favorite and he was the most likely winner. Its pretty easy after the fact to say he had no shot, its amazing to me how brave people get after the races have been run.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by raybo

I don't think most are criticizing Orb, but rather criticizing all the hoopla about his winning the Derby. If he had pushed to the front, the front runners would have run a faster pace, for sure, it would have been a different race completely, but then that's not the way Orb runs. As has been mentioned, don't try to compare what Secretariat did in the Preakness with what Orb might do there. Secretariat could run any style he wanted and still win. The horse was simply a superstar, Orb is not, and has never been, nor will he ever be, one of those. He ran his race the way he should have, but the pace was just too slow, he had the chance to move up on that pace and started to, but could not follow through. He just wasn't ready for that race, regardless of the pace. Fast, medium, or slow, it was not going to be his day, I think that's rather obvious now.

The point is that we will never know. We talk as if we have certainties but we don't. Let's see if we can find someone who backed Orb in the Derby and got off him for the Preakness.

The hype on Orb was justified. The race let me down.

[JPinMaryland]

Originally Posted by raybo

That's not anything like what Thask was saying, and if you don't know that then you, indeed, need to do some thinking. Orb was not a true 3/5 horse, that's the point. Heck he wasn't even a 6/5 horse as he started out as. The horse was a bad bet, simply that.

BObby is under no obligation to repeat whatever was said he has his own countervailing opinions. There's no way any of us can prove objectively what his true odds were. If the horse just couldn't run at all due to injury than OK, but he finished decently.

Just like you I found 3-5 to be scary and I wanted no part of him. Doesn't mean that's proof.

[pandy]

I knocked ORB a lot here and on my website. I did not feel that the hype was justified. His pre-Derby best Beyer was 97, pretty ordinary. Then he ran a 104 after a dream set up where the fast pace contributed to his final figure. I did not think that he would repeat that figure and I felt he'd revert back to 97.

I did my own speed figures and they were published in Racing Action and in the NYRA program. My study of speed figures showed me that certain figures can not be trusted, and one of the biggest false figures is when a deep closer rallies past tired horses in a pace meltdown race and runs a new top. Giacomo ran essentially the same race as Orb when he won the 2005 Derby and no one got excited, but they did with Orb. Here's part of what I wrote on my website:

"I do not agree with many who feel that ORB is a standout here. I actually think this is a wide open race. "

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I think this is quite wrong for a couple of reasons:

1. Sometimes 3 to 5 shots lose. But that doesn't mean that any particular 3 to 5 shot who loses actually is a bad bet. If they lose less than 37 percent of the time, you should still make a profit. Betting a 3 to 5 shot is no different than betting a 10 to 1 shot-- the question is whether you are getting value for your money, not the result of a particular race.

2. People who reflexively bet against big favorites in big races also have some thinking to do. Yes, every 10 to 1 shot that runs out doesn't fill you with grief and pain the way an odds on horse would. But it's just as possible for a bet on a 10 to 1 shot to be -EV. And your comment suggests something-- that longshot players are actually insulated from thinking about their decisions, because they know that if a 10 to 1 shot runs out that doesn't mean that the bet was a bad one.

I think it's actually pretty clear from the history of Derby winners in the Preakness that it is long term -EV to be throwing out the Derby winner every year. They win too often, and when you add in the takeout (another 17 percent or so), there isn't enough money left in the pool to pay off a bettor who just bets a longshot every year.

The fact of the matter is everyone needs to think about their decisions, pre- and post-race. And not simply assume that just because you took a big price that it was an overlay or a good bet. There's a place in this game for betting the favorite. Sometimes the favorite does, in fact, offer the best value. And there's also a place in this game for passing races-- even big stakes races-- when all you are doing is stabbing in the dark for some horse to hang your hat on.

In a year of full-time play, spanning all the tracks in the country, I would hazard to guess that you can count on the fingers of one hand the horses who deserve to be bet at odds of 3/5 in a 9-horse field...especially at a strange distance. And I think I might be generous here...

If you think that Orb was one of them...then I wish you luck. You'll need it...

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Maybe not. But the longer priced horses people bet may also have been underlays. It is even possible that Oxbow was an underlay.

Its a zero sum game. When one horse is strongly overbet, several other horses become overlays. 3-2 would've been a more realistic price on Orb and the difference between 3-2 and 3-5 is ginormous.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Maybe not. But the longer priced horses people bet may also have been underlays. It is even possible that Oxbow was an underlay.

Of course! It depends on what your own personal value for a horse is, if you think the horse has a 50% chance of winning then its odds need to be much better than 3/5. Did you think Orb had a 50% chance of winning the race? I didn't. So, even at 6/5 he would have been a no bet, for me.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Valuist

Its a zero sum game. When one horse is strongly overbet, several other horses become overlays. 3-2 would've been a more realistic price on Orb and the difference between 3-2 and 3-5 is ginormous.

Well, said. I figured I needed 5/2 or higher on Orb to bet him to win.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

The point is that we will never know. We talk as if we have certainties but we don't. Let's see if we can find someone who backed Orb in the Derby and got off him for the Preakness.

The hype on Orb was justified. The race let me down.

Justified by what? The fact that he won as a closer in a suicidal paced race, on an off track? Give me a break.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Longshots in Triple Crown races are overbet for the most part. As far as whether or not Orb was a good 3-5 or not, i believe he was the proper price just on the basis of knowing that there's SO much money spread out in the win pool in TC races, that the favorite is sort of inherently underbet.

Orb had a lot of things going for him before the race. He was a solid favorite and he was the most likely winner. Its pretty easy after the fact to say he had no shot, its amazing to me how brave people get after the races have been run.

I never said he had no shot. I even said he was the probable winner before the race, but probable doesn't mean 3/5 probability. 3/5 is way out of line with almost anyone's fair odds, in almost any race. Unless you're talking about a 2 horse match race, or in a very short field with absolute duds, no way a horse is worth 3/5 odds.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by raybo

Justified by what? The fact that he won as a closer in a suicidal paced race, on an off track? Give me a break.

This is a game that we are wrong 70% of the time. Our assertions have to be based on false premises. All I was contending is that we will never really know why.