MTB An Underlay
 

You deserve to get paid if you picked that horse. To me, 103.00 was an underlay. He was available at 150-1 offshore on Friday. That might have been a fair price.

overlay or underlay - he jogged randall , if you bet him to win once calvin got though the hole on the rail you were a winner and didn't even have to sweat

Not the point. It was a great performance. I'm simply saying he was not Arcangues like value and he could've been.

randall how many horses had run over a muddy track? (besides ff and desert party i don't remember any others)did anyone really know what any of these 3 yr olds were going to do in this slop, were any of the prep races in the mud?


he got a clean trip , compared to the others , the jock saved a ton of ground , and maybe he loved the off?

We are having two different conversations.

I wrote this on another thread. He should have been over 100/1.
But when you have a Derby where a horse who ran a mere 3 times was 5/1, anything is possible. Giacomo was 50/1 and he had far more to go on than Mind a Bird.

i hear waht you are saying , based on his PP's he should have paid $300+ dollars if you bet $2 to win - that would have been fairer value than the $105 , what he actually paid ,so a strict numbers/value palyer would never have played the horse

my guess is that it's the derby , people bet numbers , people might have made a bet on calvin just as their favorite jock , who knows, perhaps if IWR was in the race he would have went off higher

Which is why the Derby is unique. People play bombs for the hell of it. There is always value in the pools. But actually, in this case, the value was not on this horse at all.

where was the value in your opinion Randall?

Win betting in the Kentucky Derby is one giant underlay in my opinion.

It's more of a question of where the value wasn't. A horse like General Quarters for instance who gets bet down b/c of the story crushes your value proposition....Horse racing is simply risk/reward prop when it comes to betting.

That simply can't be true.

in theory wasn't musket man an overlay at 22/1 (based on his pp's compared to what was left in the field - no iwr , no qr)

I thought Musket Man,Summer Bird,Regal Ransom,West Side Bernie,Desert Party and Mr. Hot Stuff offered value compared to the rest of the field.

I think it simply can be but will admit I'm being general about the statement.

There are no longer big longshots. Giacomo is wreaking havoc. Mine That Bird at ~50-1 is the world's biggest underlay. So longshots are, right now, being overbet.

As for the others, when you factor in the randomness of the Derby, and the uncertainty, getting just 7-2 or 3-1 on Friesan Fire is insane. If you're going to bet FF, I would skip the $20 win bet and do ten $2 exactas instead. If Mine That Bird was 50-1 in the exotics, where in my opinion the true overlays exist, I'm going to have to take-up water polo instead.

The best horse more often than not wins the Derby. The price that you get on that horse is normally more than it should be because of the size of the field and the stupid money and you will never get the same price in the Preakness or the Belmont. I agree with Randall, the race gives value in most years. Let's be serious, there were horses in that race that shouldn't have been bet at 250-1. So a freak result happened this year, such things happen, but one must be foolish to risk their money when these longhots rarely win the race.

I believe there have been only 3 50-1 or over longshots to win the race in its history, clear risk/reward analysis says stay away from any horse at those odds, but be certain that many people are dumping money on such horses which logically has to create overlays on others. So it has happened twice in the last 5 years, it still doesn't turn the race into a bad betting race.

The only good to come out of this will be the really foolish money put on horses that have no shot in the next few years that will create overlays on horses that actually do have a shot. There will probably be no better race to bet than next years Derby.

The "Bet Barbaro's Pink Eight Blanket In Memory" ontrack crowd Friday and Saturday. That might just be the difference ;)

I would say the best horse rarely wins the Derby. I can only count 8 of the last 23 Derby's were won by, arguably, the best horse. In my opinion, which can be debated, of all the Derby's I've seen:

1987: Alysheba (likely best)
1988: Winning Colors (would say Forty Niner was best)
1989: Sunday Silence (would say Easy Goer was best)
1990: Unbridled (probably best--Summer Squall was close)
1991: Strike the Gold (not the best of the weak bunch, likely Hansel)
1992: Lil E Tee (certainly not best, likely Arazi or Devil His Due)
1993: Sea Hero (weak group, likely not best, maybe Prairie Bayou or Diazo)
1994: Go For Gin (would say Holy Bull was best)
1995: Thunder Gulch (would say Tejano Run or Timber Country were best)
1996: Grindstone (Unbridled's Song was best)
1997: Silver Charm (may have been best, Pulpit was pretty solid, too)
1998: Real Quiet (would have leaned toward SA Derby winner, Indian Charlie)
1999: Charasmatic (General Challenge, maybe)
2000: Fusaichi Pegasus (best)
2001: Monarchos (Point Given best)
2002: War Emblem (likely Johannesburg or Medaglia d'Oro)
2003: Funny Cide (Empire Maker)
2004: Smarty Jones (best)
2005: Giacomo (everyone was better)
2006: Barbaro (best)
2007: Street Sense (maybe Curlin)
2008: Big Brown (likely best)
2009: Mine That Bird (hardly best, maybe worst)

I thought he was a big underlay, too. I had him at a mere 100-1 in my own line. Pinnacle was offering 200-1 on Friday, as I posted in this thread: http://derbytrail.com/forums/showthr...t=28920&page=2 At those odds I thought he was an overlay.

As for the value in the win parimutuals, I thought Regal Ransom, Hold Me Back and Flying Private had value. Not a very impressive group with hindsight.

--Dunbar

How many times does Sunday Silence have to beat Easy Goer before he becomes the better horse?

Wow, 200-1. I saw 150-1.

That is quite some work to undermine my premise! Maybe I should have said that a logical horse wins the Derby most of the time, but the point is that the Derby often gives odds on a horse relative to the chances of the horse actually winning that are better odds than you are normally going to find in any other race due to the size of the field and the stupid money placed in the pool.

Sorry, but this is silly. Alysheba was "likely best"?! Big Brown "likely best"? Are you serious?

You can say that Easy Goer was better than Sunday Silence, but it's a silly way to argue that the best horse doesn't win the Derby. At worst they were equally talented.

Winning Colors was a better horse than Forty Niner during the Triple Crown. She beat him cleanly in the Derby, and when a frustrated Woody Stevens sent Forty Niner out to run with Winning Colors in the Preakness, which one folded first?

With Real Quiet you are dismissing the closest thing we've had to a Triple Crown winner in 30 years.

Arazi?!! Johannesburg?!! Pulpit?!! Give me a break.

From '87 through '08 I'd say 12 of the 22 races were won by the best horse, and another 3 or 4 are arguable.

--Dunbar

randle the double with a lead pipe cinch increased your odds to 118 / 1 from 50/1 - was this better value ?

This doesn't really prove much because the scratch of I Want Revenge screwed-up a direct comparison of odds but it's interesting. Here is a comparison of rank in the Oaks-Derby Double pool compared to the win pool:



I bolded General Quarters because he was the 9th favorite in the DD pool, but was the 5th favorite in actual win pool betting. Also interesting is how Hold Me Back was the fourth favorite in the DD, but went off the seventh choice in the race itself.

I think the Oaks/Derby double is a more accurate representation of how horses were bet from an exotics standpoint (non-WPS in the Derby itself). The logic being the more serious handicappers - those are pumping money in exactas, trifectas and superfectas - would also bet the Oaks/Derby double.

If anyone has updated Derby/Oaks willpays post the scratch of IWR that'd be helpful, as it'll truly show how the DD was bet in relation to the Derby.

I had a $50 future bet in Vegas on him from around early Feb. Stood to make $1200 if he won. Guess I was a little biased.

I'm pretty sure I used the terms, subjective, can be argued, and in my opinion. Guess in your case....they are all facts.

Sorry for not thinking like you.

Going into the Derby, Easy Goer was the better horse. He had simply done more at that point.

In my opinion, the two colts were very close but, based on overall resume, I would give the edge to Easy Goer. In the head to head matchups, Easy Goer was running on an off track in the Derby (clearly not his best surface) and was pinned to the rail in the Preakness. I think Sunday Silence was better in the Classic. Easy Goer crushed in the Belmont.

In other words, in this unique case, I wouldn't base my opinion solely on their head to head matchups. If they were running tomorrow, both at peak form and on a fast surface, I would bet Easy Goer.

While the best horse might not always win the Derby, usually the winner is from a pool of "logical" horses. Other than Giacomo, I don't see any of the last 10 Derby winners as illogical. From the list posted I say Lil E Tee and maybe Sea Hero and Go For Gin were illogical though Go For Gin was lone speed.
I thought Giacomo who had never beaten winners was illogical though he had hit the board against major contenders. Usually illogical results stem from weak crops or races where several of the leading prep winners don't end up in the Derby. Saturday's race and NO GRADE ONE dirt winners. That seemed to be begging for an oddball result, esp when the track didn't dry.

If I were to get off my butt and research some of the history of the race I venture a guess that about 12-18% of the winners of the Derby were "illogical" horses, based on their odds and editorial comments from news clippings etc. The sample of 23 above yields 3 or 4 such results. (Four illogicals = about 17.3%.) Most of the other Derby winners probably "figured" to a great extent.

As long as the race was at Belmont which suited his ouchy ankles.

In the Preakness, Sunday Silence was boxed inside on the backstretch, had to wait for Easy Goer to go by, then used his superior athleticism to rush up on the outside. It was not an easy trip for Sunday Silence.

Apologies for coming on too strong in my previous post. When anyone questions Alysheba's superiority in his Derby, I get excited. ;>) And I'm still annoyed at Woody Stevens for that stupid Preakness gambit.

--Dunbar