Tonalist odds drop

[PaceAdvantage]

I was pretty shocked to see Tonalist at 9-1. I would have never bet him at that price, but then again I suck as a handicapper these days.

But yeah, you can count me as one of those who couldn't believe he went off that low.

[alydar]

Originally Posted by Matt Bryan

Tonalist seemed like an easy pick and an obvious overlay. Is anyone that bet on Tonalist REALLY pissed off about the payoff? Is anyone that had Tonalist on top of their exotics pissed off? Ummm....NO. Hell, coming off a decent performance on a wet track at Belmont a few weeks earlier, and having the best pedigree for the distance (although somewhat subjective - of course)....9-1 odds were a steal. I was worried when he dropped to 4-1 early on - had he been pushed down to 2-1 or worse in the early stages by a major wager, the odds would have stayed down there. We all know that, with people hopping on. Until we know there were conspiratorial forces in play, let us be thankful that the 200k wager (in this particular case) was placed late. I mean, seriously...people around me were going deep on Samraat, Chrome, ROC, etc. We all know not to get sentimentally attached to horses - e.g. Chrome. We all knew the history of the Belmont, the stats, etc., etc. As always, that's easier to say in hindsight, but we all knew - and, nobody that cashed a ticket is complaining about the difference between the 11-1 and 9-1 odds...or whatever. As others have already mentioned, who wouldn't wait until the last second with that kind of money? We can argue about whether to sprinkle it in or not, but I wouldn't have...although, that's beside the point. I just don't see foul play here, in this particular race.

I bet Tonalist and was surprised and a little disappointed when I realized the payoff was only 9-1 instead of the 11-1 that I was expecting. However, the race was a thrill for me and I will take 9-1, with a smile.

[Matt Bryan]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I was pretty shocked to see Tonalist at 9-1. I would have never bet him at that price, but then again I suck as a handicapper these days.

But yeah, you can count me as one of those who couldn't believe he went off that low.

Well, I'm still learning the craft, but enough experienced handicappers were touting Tonalist, and horses that hadn't run in both legs of the TC (for obvious reasons). Beyer, for example, had Tonalist as his #2 pick in the article posted on here (from the Washington Post I believe). So, I did expect the odds to go down from the ML 8-1, which they did initially, before climbing back up. So....I don't know. Setting aside the heavily raced TC horses, it did seem Tonalist was 1 of a few contenders...assuming a 20% chance, 4-1 odds seemed 'fair' in my mind. I definitely don't think there was any sort of "insider info".

But yeah, the late drops suck (particularly after horses are running)...something that I agree needs to be addressed. But, even if wagering is stopped at some other established time, the late odds drops will still happen - but, at least the race hasn't started.

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by Seabiscuit@AR

Sometimes they might do this

But the simplest & safest strategy for the big players is to drop their bet on at the very last second so nobody else sees their bet before the race jumps

Betting that much, that late, is not safe at all. What if they didn't get the bet in on time?

[pele polo]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I was pretty shocked to see Tonalist at 9-1. I would have never bet him at that price, but then again I suck as a handicapper these days.

But yeah, you can count me as one of those who couldn't believe he went off that low.

I guess I'm one of the few that was surprised he went off that high.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Matt Bryan

As I recall, Tonalist was down to 4-1 at one point, which were fair odds IMO. I agree the issue needs to be addressed, but in this case it probably benefited everyone (that bet on Tonalist). If placed earlier, I'm not sure the odds would have drifted back up.

Would you please tell me your reasons for considering Tonalist to be a "fair" bet at 4-1 odds? I know that you've already mentioned his impressive front-running victory in the slop...but is a front-running victory in the slop -- however impressive it might be -- indicative of a come-from-behind victory on a dry track?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Would you please tell me your reasons for considering Tonalist to be a "fair" bet at 4-1 odds? I know that you've already mentioned his impressive front-running victory in the slop...but is a front-running victory in the slop -- however impressive it might be -- indicative of a come-from-behind victory on a dry track?

I hate betting horses off big slop wins when they go to a dry track. Sure, they don't all lose, but betting against them are some of the best bets in racing.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by pele polo

I guess I'm one of the few that was surprised he went off that high.

I am also one of the few who thought that Tonalist should be the choice in the Belmont Stakes and my primary reason was breeding which I stated before the Belmont was run on this forum.

I wagered $2k on Samraat in the Derby and did the same on Tonalist in the Belmont because I thought and still think that when it comes to distance and the turf breeding is a major influence.

Take a look at the Belmont States results and you will see that the top three finishers as well-bred and the Blood-Horse on this forum also touted Tonalist as a horse to consider.

Looking back at the field and in my mind there were only two horses that possibly would beat Tonalist and they were Ride On Curlin and Commissioner.

Incidentally, it would take more than $200k to move a horse from 11-1 to 9-1 in a $20m win pool.

For the fans of California Chrome he did not run a bad race up until the 1-1/4 mark at which point he had a normalized adjusted time of 2:02.57 or about 1 second faster than his Kentucky Derby final time.

[Matt Bryan]

Would you please tell me your reasons for considering Tonalist to be a "fair" bet at 4-1 odds? I know that you've already mentioned his impressive front-running victory in the slop...but is a front-running victory in the slop -- however impressive it might be -- indicative of a come-from-behind victory on a dry track?

It wasn't all about Tonalist, of course. As stated elsewhere, I thought Tonalist had a 20% chance to win, which equates to 4-1 odds. Handicapping is subjective, as we all know. The question is, in constructing a personal betting line, with only one TC winner in 30-whatever years, and with only one winner of the Belmont in the last 12 that ran the previous 2 legs of the TC, why would a handicapper consider those horses a high probability winner? So, it had more to do with setting those horses aside, or rather considering them low probability winners, and looking at who was left. Simply, I thought Tonalist was one of 2 or 3 that were left. The Peter Pan performance wasn't a negative (track conditions aside), nor was Tonalist's pedigree for the distance. He seemed to be in good form. I received multiple W2-G's from that race - my first, so not bragging. I'm just saying - I thought 4-1 odds were fair, and that 9-1, 11-1, or whatever was a nice overlay.

[Robert Fischer]

who knows... 4-1 , 9-2, 5-1 ?

or should he have been less than 4-1? (hindsight usually lowers the perception of a winner's fair odds)


The main thing was that he was the best horse other than California Chrome.

And then you have California Chrome a significant underlay @ 0.85-1.

And then you have 3 other horses besides California Chrome going off at lower odds than Tonalist.


If you believe the main point to be true, then the dynamics of the pool were such that there has to be a significant overlay on Tonalist.

Matt Bryan is saying 4-1, I would have said 9-2 before the race, but I don't think these kind or races really require that you be so fine with an exact odds estimate. There were a lot of unknowns. Shit..., Pletcher almost stole the race.

Conservatively, you see there's an overlay(along with a vulnerable favorite), and you try to make some money on it with a decent sized wager.

I don't think you have to take a race like this and run it through Kelly, and make a stab at whether he's 4-1 or 7-1 or whatever.

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by Valuist

Betting that much, that late, is not safe at all. What if they didn't get the bet in on time?

They always get the bet in on time.

[Ocala Mike]

Originally Posted by ronsmac

They always get the bet in on time.

Indeed; see the other thread about rampant past posting.

[Thomas Roulston]

Somebody knew what they were doing - very likely lots of somebodies.

[Striker]

Read the last sentence in the 3rd paragraph. I think you might have your answer to this thread.

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/...ies_at_52.html

[sbcaris]

In order to win 2 million on Tonalist in the Belmont stakes in the win pool one would have to wager around $200,000 to win on him. Wouldn't that change the odds even more drastically than going from 11-1 to 9-1? I would think the odds would drop considerably lower than 9-1.