MTB An Underlay

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

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

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

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Split Rock

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)

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.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Split Rock

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)

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

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

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

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

[Travis Stone]

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.

[Split Rock]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I agree with your premise for the most part. But Tejano Run?

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.

[Split Rock]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

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

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.

[Split Rock]

Originally Posted by copying

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

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.

[Linny]

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.

[Linny]

Originally Posted by Split Rock

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.

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

[HaloWishingwell]

I feel the same way. One look at the form screamed 99-1 and higher. I believe Andy mentioned his odds were closer to 150-1 in the exotics. I guess if you had the money and liked him, wheeling him in exotics was the way to go.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Split Rock

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.

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

[HaloWishingwell]

Originally Posted by Split Rock

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.

I guess regardless of how it was done 3 out of 4 is not good enough. You want to make excuses for EASY GOER. About the track conditions in Churchill, well that's part of racing and always will. Should we put a dome over the tracks to prevent from happening? In The Preakness take a look how much ground SS lost in the blindswitch? I can easily come here and say SS would have swept him if he didnt have to face him on his home track Belmont but I'm not going to go into putting down EG because it only brings down SS achievements.