Guess no big Preakness Trends out there ?

[The Biscuit]

Anyone know of any recent trends in Preakness , besides Derby horse usually wins ?

[Mc990]

Originally Posted by The Biscuit

Anyone know of any recent trends in Preakness , besides Derby horse usually wins ?

Yes... The derby winner is always an underlay. Hope that helps.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by Mc990

Yes... The derby winner is always an underlay. Hope that helps.

You are wrong. The derby winner is a huge overlay in Preakness:

[Mc990]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

You are wrong. The derby winner is a huge overlay in Preakness:

I'm not sure what this arbitrary chart proves but.. 1) this is not a large enough sample size to correlate anything and 2) why is 1997 the cut off point?? Could it be because the derby winner was 0 for 7 the seven years prior to that...

Yes, my opinion that the derby winner is always underlaid in the Preakness is a subjective opinion (although it makes a whole lot of sense) but please don't cherry pick results to argue against it.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by Mc990

I'm not sure what this arbitrary chart proves but.. 1) this is not a large enough sample size to correlate anything and 2) why is 1997 the cut off point?? Could it be because the derby winner was 0 for 7 the seven years prior to that...

Yes, my opinion that the derby winner is always underlaid in the Preakness is a subjective opinion (although it makes a whole lot of sense) but please don't cherry pick results to argue against it.

You can have any opinion you like assuming that you are willing to reject what hard data are telling you. As you can see there is no cherry picking at all as I am taking all of the last 20 years triple crown races. Your "opinion" is as wrong as it gets. The KD winner is a HUGE overlay when running in the Preakness.

[letswastemoney]

If the Derby winner has speed, he usually wins the Preakness.

If the Derby winner is a deep closer, he usually loses.

Deep closers who ran well in the Derby generally flop or run a disappointing race at Pimlico, although this did not turn out true last year when the Preakness pace turned out to be suicidal.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

You can have any opinion you like assuming that you are willing to reject what hard data are telling you. As you can see there is no cherry picking at all as I am taking all of the last 20 years triple crown races. Your "opinion" is as wrong as it gets. The KD winner is a HUGE overlay when running in the Preakness.

Yup...

[Mc990]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

You can have any opinion you like assuming that you are willing to reject what hard data are telling you. As you can see there is no cherry picking at all as I am taking all of the last 20 years triple crown races. Your "opinion" is as wrong as it gets. The KD winner is a HUGE overlay when running in the Preakness.

Why 20 years? Why not 10? 30? 50?

Yes, the ROI for the last 20 years has been positive but that does not prove anything except that the ROI has been positive for the last 20 years. It does not prove all or any were overlays or even underlays for that matter.

I'll stand by my subjective opinion and I'll stand by the fact that 20 races is not an adequate sample size.

Agree to disagree and good luck this weekend.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by Mc990

Why 20 years? Why not 10? 30? 50?

Yes, the ROI for the last 20 years has been positive but that does not prove anything except that the ROI has been positive for the last 20 years. It does not prove all or any were overlays or even underlays for that matter.

I'll stand by my subjective opinion and I'll stand by the fact that 20 races is not an adequate sample size.

Agree to disagree and good luck this weekend.

I use twenty years for the simple reason that this is how back in the past my database goes. If you have more data, please go ahead and post your data.

More than this there are absolutely no proofs when we talk about any kind of a handicapping factor but if we are going to talk in terms of over- under lays we need to use some kind of historical evidence and the best that I know lies in the races themselves.

[cj]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

You can have any opinion you like assuming that you are willing to reject what hard data are telling you. As you can see there is no cherry picking at all as I am taking all of the last 20 years triple crown races. Your "opinion" is as wrong as it gets. The KD winner is a HUGE overlay when running in the Preakness.

If you start in 2000, it changes to a 1.006 ROI. I have to agree with mc990, 20 is an arbitrary number. For example, if you used 1997 as your starting point when betting in 2000, you'd be expecting an ROI of 5.67 and you've only gotten 1.006. If you picked the last 12 years instead of 20, you'd get 0.0725.

[f2tornado]

Most of the same rules of thumb as the Derby. Raise A Native sire line wins two out of three in spite of only one in seven runners. Fast final fractions in 9F prep helpful. Buckpasser-x has played strong. Strong tail female family also a big plus. Most winners are favorite or co-favorite.

Anecdotal: 1. It seems like if the Derby winner won his 9F prep then horse will win Preakness. If lost the 9F prep then tends to lose the Preakness. 2. Deep closers rarely win. 3. Horses that don't lose ground to to the Derby winner tend to fare well.

With all that in mind, Always Dreaming the logical choice but if he falters then Classic Empire actually fits several angles. Lookin at Lee is a deep closer that will have a tough time but otherwise fits a number of angles. Conquest Mo and Hence are Buckpasser-x and pace types that can parade around the track. My exacta is probably Always Dreaming/Classic Empire, Hence, LoL. Maybe Gunner and Conquest Mo on bottom of tri.

[Robert Fischer]

Preakness is usually kind to those who really know the horses.

Public tends to weight the Kentucky Derby too heavily on face value.

The promoted new-shooters, tend to take more money than the more subtle new-shooters.

There is also the favorite-longshot bias in play, where once in a while, they let a 1/5 shot like Pharoah or Chorme go off at 1/2.

In general there are opportunities for value, but sometimes the obvious and the truth meet in a valueless pit.

Enjoy it as a triple crown jewel, and if something jumps out at you, take advantage.

[The Biscuit]

Copied ...

The past two years a new shooter finished second at very big odds. Last year it was Cherry Wine at odds of 17.30-1 and the year before it was Tale of Verve at 28.50-1. The $2 Exaggerator-Cherry Wine exacta paid $88.40 and the 2015 American Pharoah-Tale of Verve exacta returned $124.40. That year when new shooter Divining Rod got third place, the $2 trifecta yielded $985.

Of the 15 new shooters who have hit the board six made their last start before the Preakness at Keeneland, six at Aqueduct, two had the home course advantage of Pimlico, and one was from Santa Anita. Of these horses all but two of them were at double-digit odds with Magic Weisner leading the way at 45.70-1.

With the injury to Royal Mo the other day, the chances for this group of new shooters took a very big hit. Conquest Mo Money and Cloud Computing have the best resumes with top three placings on the Kentucky Derby Trail and the best speed figures. Multiplier, Term of Art, and Senior Investment like to run from well off the pace and this could set them up to make a run for a top three finish, but all three of them have not had success against the best three-year-olds. Lancaster Bomber, who was last seen in America running second in the Breeders' Cup Juvenile Turf, is a possible starter for Aidan O'Brien.

Conquest Mo Money did have enough points to get into the Derby field, but was not nominated for the Triple Crown. His owners passed on the supplemental nomination for the Run for the Roses to give their horse more time to prepare for Baltimore. He is the most likely new shooter to contest the second jewel.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Hope the turf races don't come up soggy. My angle. THat other thing is 1 race!