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