Whose horse is it anyway?

"The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit."

-- Milton Friedman


A lot of racing topics are discussed on Facebook, but a certain thread took me aback today. The thread had to do with the announcement that Line of David, the longshot winner of the Gr. 1 2010 Arkansas Derby (defeating 2010 Kentucky Derby winner Super Saver, among others), was retired and will stand at Spendthrift Farm in Kentucky. What struck me as odd was how several contributors to the thread DESPISED this transaction, as if they had any input on the matter. I'll just show the content of the posts without the names.

#1: Yes he's (Line of David) one of the most non exciting prospects to enter stud in a long time.

#2: He'll be in Oklahoma or South America soon enough. Personally I would cut him (geld him. i.e. remove his testicles) and try to have a nice 4 year old...

#3: Either they thought he couldn't stay racing sound or thought he only had one Grade 1 win in him. Nothing else makes much sense. So . . .Line of David and Battle Plan with, what?, 13 wins between them. Three cheers for fragility.

#1: Until the industry rejects these "one hit wonders" they will continue to leave them intact and allow them to pass along their genes. "He won't stand for a lot" in other words if your mare has ovaries that have produced a runner you get the season for free..


Wow! I wonder how many Graded stakes winners #1, #2 and/or #3 have been involved with? Obviously they "know" what the racing industry needs. My thinking is they know little, except in their own "purple-skied" world. Certainly they know how to disparage other horses, owners, farms, etc.

This deal with Line of David and Spendthrift Farm was a deal made between consenting adults, and we have to assume that the deal was beneficial to all parties. The owners of Line of David probably got a multi-million dollar deal and get to stand their horse in Kentucky, where the best mares are. Spendthrift Farm got a very good looking speed sire with a solid Grade 1 win on his resume'. Line of David gets to meet a lot of female mares. This whole agreement has win-win-win all over it.

Now, #1, #2 and #3 are certainly UNHAPPY, but the beauty of the free market is they can breed to horses like Empire Maker for $60,000 a shot and hope the horse will break it's maiden before it turns five. The beauty of the free market (and in general the world's equine markets have very few restrictions besides capital requirements) is that people get to CHOOSE what they want to do. Please don't hate on people for choosing.

What are average results at the track?

IT FIGURES
I've recently become enamored with Thoro-Graph, the specialty speed-figure people. For $25 a card (or $15 for British racing), they can provide very, very good speed figures. If you are interested, they are on the "web" at thorograph.com.


AVERAGE TRAINER PERFORMANCE
In addition to its speed figures, Thoro-Graph crunches a LOT of data. Here are some FREE stats Thoro-Graph provides with their speed figure data that I found useful:

Average Trainer win % (all odds ranges, all horses) = 12.2%
Average Trainer win % for horses 10/1 or higher in odds = 3.4%
Average Trainer win % for horses coming back on 90 days or less = 12.5%
Average Trainer win % for horses coming back on over 90 days = 9.6%

Average Trainer win % for all 2yo starters = 11.9%

Average Trainer win % for all 2yo 1st starters in MSW (maiden special) races = 9.6%
Average Trainer win % for all 2yo 1st starters in MCL (maiden claiming) races = 9.1%

Average Trainer win % for all 3yo 1st starters in MSW (maiden special) races = 7.7%
Average Trainer win % for all 3yo 1st starters in MCL (maiden claiming) races = 6.9%

Average Trainer win % for 1st time TURF = 7.8%

Average Trainer win % for 1st time ROUTE = 10.4%

Average Trainer win % for Route to Sprint = 10.2%
Average Trainer win % for Sprint to Route = 10.9%

Claimers, Down in Class, win % = 13.8%
Claimers, Up in Class, win % = 9.8%


SIRE AVERAGES
All dirt runners = 12.2%
All 'synthetic' runners = 11.5%
All 'wet tracks/off tracks' = 12.4%
All turf = 11.1%
1st time turf = 7.8%
1st time starters = 8.5%

Fillies/Mares = 12.1%
Colts/Geldings = 12.1%
(So much for the female runners being more 'inconsistent'...)

Historical Breakdown of the Belmont Stakes - Last 30 Runnings

Over the last few weeks I have been analyzing the last 30 runnings of the Belmont Stakes. Why, you may ask?

(1) Greed and envy.

While I stumble on a Belmont Stakes winner every few years, I have been much more successful selecting winners for, in order, the Preakness and the Kentucky Derby. I would liken my struggles to the student taking an ACT exam who does well on the first two-thirds of the test, but runs "out of gas" on the last section. My game is identifying brilliant speed horses up to a mile, ideally one turn mile races. That kind of horse is not what the Belmont, with its 12 furlong distance over usually dry, sandy terrain, calls for. I am hopeful that doing this years' research will put me on more winners, or at least the RIGHT winners.


(2) NYRA.com made the charts for EVERY Belmont Stakes (going back to 1867) available on its website. This made the research relatively painless. Here is the link:

http://www.belmontstakes.com/racing/belmontstakes.aspx


(3) The 30 year period I researched correlates with the last time there was a Triple Crown winner (Affirmed in 1978), and supplied enough runners to give me confidence in the data.


"B" STANDS FOR "BELMONT," BUT ALSO FOR PARIMUTUEL "BOMBS"
The Belmont Stakes has thrown a LOT of price horses in the last 30 years, starting with Temperence Hill winning in the slop in 1980 and paying $108.80 to win. Other significant longshots in the Belmont Stakes over the last 3 decades were Sarava ($142.50), Da' Tara ($79), Birdstone ($74), and Lemon Drop Kid ($61.50). As you can see, the modern era of the Belmont Stakes has produced some shock prices. The Belmont Stakes has been called the "Test of the Champion," but a better name for it might be the "Test of the Handicapper."


A TALE OF TWO TYPES OF BELMONT WINNERS
From a parimutuel perspective, there are two kinds of winner payouts - horses who won at least one race in the Triple Crown, versus a horse who did not win a Triple Crown race.

In the last 30 years, 7 horses have won the Belmont Stakes after winning at least the Kentucky Derby or Preakness. There are 23 winners over that same span that DID NOT win a Triple Crown race. Please go to my Google Docs link for the complete breakdown:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tIEKmqxdf7p18N-cvAfWdCg&output=html


What I find interesting is the huge disparity in WIN PAYOFFS between horses with Triple Crown form, and those without such form. Of the 7 horses coming off a Kentucky Derby or Preakness win, the average winning mutuel was $6.32. Not terrible, if you were able to pick the right horses on other criteria. The other 23 winners, in contrast, had an average win mutuel of $31.68, a much, much higher return! So my first recommendation on betting the Belmont stakes is picking a horse that did not win or run notably well in the Kentucky Derby or Preakness Stakes.

Now, who are the glamor horses in the 2010 running of the Belmont Stakes? There would be Ice Box from the Kentucky Derby (2nd) and First Dude from the Preakness (2nd). The crowd will make these two horses the favorites off their Triple Crown efforts, which may be a good reason to avoid them. Here is the list of the 7 horses who won a Kentucky Derby or Preakness and then the Belmont:

Swale - very nice horse
Risen Star - very, very nice horse
Hansel - very nice horse
Tabasco Cat - very nice horse
Thunder Gulch - very nice horse
Point Given - just voted into the Hall of Fame
Afleet Alex - potential Hall of Fame horse

That's a pretty imposing list. So my recommendation on using Ice Box or First Dude would be to DEMAND VALUE, because history is going against you.


THE BELMONT STAKES AND RUNNING STYLES
Lastly, I looked at this Belmont Stakes data and tried to see any patters in running style and wagering profits. I broke the running styles of horses in the Belmont into five categories:

(a) Horse on the LEAD at the 1/2 mile (second call)
(b) PRESSING the lead horses (0 to 2 lengths off the lead - second call)
(c) MIDPACK horses(2 to 4 lengths off the lead - second call)
(d) "BACK MARKERS" (the last 2 horses - second call)
(e) TOWARDS the BACK - horses between "midpack" and "last." - second call

Note: If a running of a Belmont Stakes was run with 10 or less horses "BACK MARKERS" were combined into the TOWARDS THE BACK category.

The result of this analysis is shown at the BOTTOM of my Belmont Stakes spreadsheet:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tIEKmqxdf7p18N-cvAfWdCg&output=html


I thought the results were stunning. THREE of the running styles (LEAD, MIDPACK,and TOWARDS BACK)threw profits if the player bet EVERY horse that fit that style over 30 years!!! The crowd probably overbets (see the expectation value" calculations in the spreadsheet) PRESSING and "BACK MARKERS" compared to the other styles.


SUMMARY
(1) Focus your win keys on horses that do not have Triple Crown form
(2) Don't be afraid to bet a big price. LONGSHOTS WIN THE BELMONT STAKES OFTEN!!
(3) Look at horses that you expect will be on the lead, or sitting 3 to 6 lengths off the lead (but NOT last!!!). These horses have running styles that over time pay fair value.

Betting North American 2 year olds

Not everyone likes betting on 2 year olds. These types of races have few horses with starters in them (in fact many races are filled with first time starters - FTS), and evaluating pedigrees of race horses can confound experienced players, much less the novice fan. Despite these challenges, I can attest I do very well playing 2 year olds every year. I have a basic method that combines QUANTITATIVE and QUALITATIVE analysis of experienced runners and FTS.


2YO RACES - QUANTITATIVE FACTORS
(1) Trainer stats - some trainers are very successful winning with a FTS. Most data services will provide this information. A guideline I use is a trainer that can win with 14% of his FTS is a threat to win with a FTS in today's race.

(2) Pedigree information - I uses Brisnet.com's products a lot, and they are really effective at identifying which horses have a pedigree to "win early" in its first or second start. Using Brisnet.com's data I can identify if a sire (father of the runner) and damsire (father of the MOTHER of the runner) both produce 14% winners or more from FTS. A higher percentage of winners from FTS, the more likely the combination produces a quick juvenile. Another stat I look at is the dam (mother of the runner). If a dam has produced 50% or greater 2yo winners from 2yo starters that also implies today's runner could be quick. Lastly, a good rule of thumb for "win early" breeding is look for a sire and damsire that both had sprinter/miler speed when they raced.

2YO RACES - QUALITATIVE FACTORS
(1) Workout Pattern - I look at the initial work first, to see if the horse "breezed" well. A good initial breeze would be 36 3/5 or faster, but 37 1/5 would be OK. This demonstrates that the FTS has some talent. Then, the FTS should work every 6 to 7 days, leading up to race day with NO BREAKS in its worktab. Lastly, I want to see some 4 furlong bullet or near bullet works mixed in with some 5 furlong works for stamina.

(2) Trainer touches - some trainers have a special move getting young horses ready to race. Steve Asmussen has two notable moves - any FTS he trains that breezes 5 furlongs in 1:01 3/5 or less in its worktab is most likely a serious runner, and he works a LOT of horses at Sam Houston, even ones he unleashes at Saratoga in July and August.

(3) Sales Prices - generally yearling sales prices are meaningless in trying to predict success in sprint baby races, so I would submit not using yearling prices as a benchmark. I can recall a 2yo MSW at Saratoga a year or two back where a $50,000 yearling THRASHED a $250,000 yearling. 2 year old buys, on the other hand, are extremely dangerous. Why? Because 2yo buys have another 6 to 8 months to develop, they are thoroughly vetted, and they have to work out under a STOPWATCH. Expensive 2 year old buys ($250,000 and up) almost always can run. Cheaper 2 year old buys ($50,000 to $245,000) often times can be overlooked at the windows and should be considered live animals.

(4) Kentucky-trained 2 year olds at Saratoga - usually the older, arguably classier Belmont-based horses win more than their fair share at Saratoga, compared to the Kentucky horses (Steve Crist of DRF.com tracks this on his blog every year). However, the Kentucky-trained 2 year olds win quite often and should be considered a threat in every 2 year old race at the Spa.

(5) Number of starts - 2 year old horses that don't break their maidens by their third start are huge under performers at the windows. They tend to lose by narrow margins, so their odds will be low, but it is my experience you are better off with a horse making its first or second start than betting on a potential "career maiden."

(6) First year sires - look for "hot new sires" that are getting winners, especially sires that are getting GOOD PRICES. Paying attention to successful sires would have put a player on Wildcat Heir in 2009 and Medaglia d'Oro (Rachel Alexandra's sire) in 2008. A sire that I think has a lot of potential for 2010 is Bluegrass Cat.

Which bets are the right bets?

TO BET, OR NOT TOO BET THE DIME SUPERFECTA

As I asked myself which bets are the right bets, I came to realize I didn't know the answer. But I decided to try to figure it out.

Generally horse racing bets (plays) are either "Horizontal" (picking winners in consecutive races) or "Vertical" (picking horses in exact order of one race as they cross the finish line). This blog post will focus on Vertical plays.


Here are the main types of vertical plays:

(1) Win - The first horse to cross the line first is declared the winner. This is a relatively simple Vertical play.

(2) Exacta - Pick the winner AND the second place horse, in exact order.

(3) Trifecta - Pick the top THREE finishers, in exact order.

(4) Superfecta - Pick the top FOUR finishers, in exact order.

(A DIME Superfecta is a Superfecta wager made on a dime per combination basis)


I reviewed the results of 52 races run over Kentucky Derby weekend - April 29 through May 1 from Churchill Downs that had superfecta wagering (30 races), and April 30 through May 2 at Belmont Park that had superfecta wagering (22 races), for a sample of 52 races. To compare the results on the same basis, I made a few assumptions:

(A) The base wager on every race would be $12 ($12 to win on every race, compared to a $4 exacta key over 3 horses, compared to a $1 trifecta play with 12 combinations, compared to a "Dime super" with 120 combinations).

(B) The returns for each scenario in (A) would be added up, then adjusted for degree of difficulty - Example: exactas are harder to hit than win bets, trifectas are harder to hit than exactas. It will be assumed that trifectas and dime supers have the same degree of difficulty.


Results (total adjusted return):
$12 to win on each of the 52 winners = $4,119.0

$4 exacta (wheeled over 3 horses), every race successful = $6,306.48

$1 trifecta (wheeled over 3 horses, then 4 horses), every race successful = $7,948.82

Dime super, every race successful = $5,392.742

Note the trifecta had the highest return by a fair margin, then the exacta wheel play. Win wagering had the lowest return. This indicates that exacta and trifecta wagers are the best Vertical plays to focus on.

When should a player decide to play the trifecta or the exacta? Using the trifecta, the payoffs are greatly reduced if the favorite wins, so the best time to play the trifecta is then the favorite is not your top selection. The exacta should be used if the favorite is not expected to be in the top two positions, OR the player has a very strong opinion on which horses will complete the 1-2 finish.


WHAT ABOUT THE SUPERFECTA?
There was a strong correlation on when to play the superfecta - when the player thinks the favorite will finish out of the TOP FOUR POSITIONS. Even a favorite running 3rd or 4th can absolutely kill the superfecta payoff. If the favorite figures to finish in the top 4, try the trifecta instead, as the trifecta will usually pay better than the Dime super.

What's is YOUR takeout at the track?

THE TRACK TAKE

How familiar are people with the term "track takeout?" TRACK TAKEOUT is the amount of wagering money, following the state regulations where the track is located, removed by the track before the winning bettors are paid. A higher track takeout means that the winners get a smaller remaining percentage of the pool. Each pool has its own level of takeout. Generally 15% is the takeout for win, place and show bets; daily doubles and exactas have a 20% takeout; and more complicated exotic wagers have 25% takeout.

While I agree with all players that race tracks should experiment with their business models to find out if their revenue could be enhanced with a lower takeout structure (some economists point out that lowering track takeout could actually INCREASE revenue for the tracks, because people would get more money back and they could "re-bet" their extra winnings back into the pools), but today I am going to propose some ideas in keeping more of YOUR dollars.


LOWERING YOUR PERSONAL TAKEOUT

I think following these suggestions will help you wager better at the races.


(1) Try to do your own research and develop new concepts for your betting.

What new or innovative research do you do that separates you from the betting crowd? Do you do pedigree research? How about looking at trainer stats or trips? If you are starting out as a handicapper, have you looked at reading some of the better authors? I would recommend Derek Simon (of YouBet.com), Jeremey Plonk and Joe Kristufek (of Horseplayernow.com), Cary Fotias, Tom Brohammer (the book "Modern Pace Handicapping"), and Steven Crist (the book "Exotic Betting," and Steve's blog at DRF.com).


(2) Watch video replays

Can you determine what a good trip was, versus a bad trip? How does PACE and POST POSITION affect trip? Do you know where to find good video replays? Some tracks like Tampa Bay Downs post all their video replays on the internet for free. Most tracks put their races on sites like RaceReplays.com - 100 free replays for $12.95 a month. Bloodhorse.com has FREE replays for all maiden, allowance and stakes races in the US and Woodbine.


(3) Don't jump on the bandwagon

The broad consensus before the Kentucky Derby was Lookin at Lucky was the best horse in the Kentucky Derby field. Why that was so was unclear, as he had never run fast enough to be considered a clear choice. Try to look for angles on horses that run COUNTER to public opinion - that's the only way to make money in our game.


(4) Have the right amount of capital to make the bet

If you want to play a serious pick 6, consider this advice from Bob Neumier: "If you have $1,000 and you want to play the pick 6, find a friend with another $1,000 and combine resources for the bet." Advanced exotic bets are fun, but require a fair amount of capital to play. If you are low on capital focus on win and exacta betting.


(5) Don't bet money you don't really want to lose

This isn't an anti-gambling rant, but in my experience when people get emotional they make poor wagering decisions, usually by "holding back," rather than playing the right horse at the right time.


Happy punting!

How fast does a horse have to be to win a Derby?

Starting in 2007, I came up with a different approach to look for the winner of the Kentucky Derby, using pace figures supplied by Brisnet.com. I tried to see if I could get a more accurate read on the horses running in the big race by taking BRIS' pace figures and ADDING their E2 number (pace figure to the 6 furlong mark in routes) to their Late Pace (LP) number. I then, for lack of a better term, coined the phrase "Total Energy" (abbreviated TE) to represent this E2 + LP sum.

This year's Kentucky Derby 3/1 favorite, Lookin at Lucky, would have this kind of result, taken from his Rebel Stakes at OP:

E2 = 92
LP = 108
TE = 200

By ranking every horse in the field, it is usually pretty easy to determine who's tough, and who's fluff. This method hit the 2007 Street Sense/Hard Spun exacta cold ($100 for $2, thank you very much) and the 2008 Big Brown/Eight Belles exacta, also cold, (for $141, thank you very much). Those races were on fast tracks, which may have contributed to the method's success. In 2009 the Churchill Strip was a quagmire and Mine The Bird ran the race of his life. Right now I am still hoping for a fast track (or at least "good") on Derby Day.


2010 "Total Energy" Results

Keep in mind 4 points in Total Energy is roughly one length. I will add Devil May Care's numbers when Brisnet.com releases them on Wednesday.


Horse Total Energy Race
Awesome Act 201 Gotham Stakes
Lookin At Lucky 200 Rebel Stakes
Noble's Promise 200 Rebel Stakes
Conveyance 200 Southwest Stakes
Ice Box 198 Florida Derby
American Lion 197 Illinois Derby
Super Saver 196 2009 Ky Jockey Club (2yo)
Dublin 194 Rebel Stakes
Jackson Bend 194 2009 FL-bred "In Reality" Stakes (2yo)
Line of David 194 Arkansas Derby
Dean's Kitten 193 Lane's End (Polytrack)
Stately Victor 193 Blue Grass Stakes (Polytrack)
Sidney's Candy 192 Santa Anita Derby (Pro-Ride)
Discretely Mine 192 Risen Star
Mission Impazible 192 Southwest Stakes
Endorsement 188 Sunland Derby
Paddy O'Prado 185 Blue Grass Stakes (Polytrack)

The total energy numbers of Awesome Act, Lookin at Lucky, Noble's Promise, Dublin and Conveyance were all recorded at a a mile or a mile and a sixteenth, so they all have to prove they can get a mile and a quarter on Saturday. Ice Box has a good run at nine furlongs in the Florida Derby, so it could be argued he's in good position to have a top 3 finish on the board.

I would not downgrade Sidney's Candy, or maybe even the other "synthetic surface" horses, because horses going from synthetic to dirt can improve 10 to 12 points in Total Energy (roughly 3 lengths). If Sidney improves that much he's the horse to beat on Saturday.

Reacting to Change

A lot of Derby news so far this week!

• Derby Favorite Eskendereya was withdrawn from the Derby.
• Rule was also withdrawn.
• Lookin at Lucky is now the new 3/1 Derby Favorite (whether he deserves it or not).
• Endorsement is possibly facing some physical issues.

How does a horseplayer handle these developments? Here is what I would recommend:

• Don't lock into any horse right now.
• Realize the remaining horses, on speed figures, are very, very close together. This is the most "wide open" Derby I can remember in my 22 years watching and betting the race.
• Get as much information from "alternative media" as you can - twitter, facebook, DRF,
• Horseplayernow.com and Brisnet.com live chats.
• Try to ELIMINATE as many horses as possible without eliminating the winner!

Good luck, and if there is anything to post I will do so on Tuesday. Otherwise I will look at the field after the Wednesday afternoon draw.

Happy betting!


Anthony

Parimutuel payoffs for the Kentucky Derby (1990 through 2009)

For some, this list will bring back memories of IRS signers and pride, others probably pain and suffering. But as they say, whoever controls the past controls the future! Let's take a look back at the last 20 years of Kentucky Derby wagering.


Kentucky Derby Payoffs 1990-2009

2009 $2 PAYOFFS - Mine That Bird WIN $103.20
EXACTA       $2,074.80
TRIFECTA    $41,500.60
SUPERFECTA $557,006.40

2008 $2 PAYOFFS - Big Brown        WIN $6.80
EXACTA         $141.60
TRIFECTA     $3,445.60
SUPERFECTA  $58,747.80

2007 $2 PAYOFFS - Street Sense    WIN $11.80
EXACTA         $101.80
TRIFECTA       $440.00
SUPERFECTA  $29,046.40

2006 $2 PAYOFFS - Barbaro         WIN $14.20
EXACTA         $587.00
TRIFECTA    $11,418.40
SUPERFECTA  $59,839.00

2005 $2 PAYOFFS - Giacomo        WIN $102.60
EXACTA       $9,814.80
TRIFECTA   $133,134.80
SUPERFECTA $864,253.50

2004 $2 PAYOFFS - Smarty Jones    WIN $10.20
EXACTA          $65.20
TRIFECTA       $987.60
SUPERFECTA  $41,380.20

2003 $2 PAYOFFS - Funny Cide      WIN $27.60
EXACTA          $97.00
TRIFECTA       $664.80
SUPERFECTA   $5,591.60

2002 $2 PAYOFFS - War Emblem      WIN $43.00
EXACTA       $1,300.80
TRIFECTA    $18,373.20
SUPERFECTA $183,529.00

2001 $2 PAYOFFS - Monarchos       WIN $23.00
EXACTA       $1,229.80
TRIFECTA    $12,238.40
SUPERFECTA $125,973.80

2000 $2 PAYOFFS - Fusaichi Pegasus WIN $6.60
EXACTA          $66.00
TRIFECTA       $435.00
SUPERFECTA   $3,270.80

1999 $2 PAYOFFS - Charismatic     WIN $64.60
EXACTA         $727.80
TRIFECTA     $5,866.20
SUPERFECTA  $48,031.00

1998 $2 PAYOFFS - Real Quiet      WIN $18.80
EXACTA         $291.80
TRIFECTA     $1,221.00
SUPERFECTA   $6,014.80

1997 $2 PAYOFFS - Silver Charm    WIN $10.00
EXACTA          $31.00
TRIFECTA       $205.40
SUPERFECTA     $700.00

1996 $2 PAYOFFS - Grindstone      WIN $13.80
EXACTA          $61.80
TRIFECTA       $600.60
SUPERFECTA  $11,688.40

1995 $2 PAYOFFS - Thunder Gulch   WIN $51.00
EXACTA         $480.00
TRIFECTA     $2,099.20

1994 $2 PAYOFFS - Go for Gin      WIN $20.20
EXACTA         $184.80
TRIFECTA     $2,351.40

1993 $2 PAYOFFS - Sea Hero        WIN $27.80
EXACTA         $190.60

1992 $2 PAYOFFS - Lil E. Tee      WIN $35.60
EXACTA         $854.40

1991 $2 PAYOFFS - Strike the Gold WIN $11.60
EXACTA          $73.40

1990 $2 PAYOFFS - Unbridled       WIN $23.60
EXACTA          $65.80

For me, my Kentucky Derby wagering has been mixed. I started betting the Derby in 1988 (when my Proper Reality got fourth to Winning Colors), picked up Sunday Silence as a 3/1 winner in 1989 (yay!!), and over the last 21 Derbies my "top pick" has won 6 times, not an incredible number, but I am improving. Over the last seven years I have had 4 winners (Funny Cide, Smarty Jones, Street Sense and Big Brown).

Interestingly, my "second picks" could have paid for a vacation home in Aruba. Check this out:
1990 - Unbridled $23.60
1995 - Thunder Gulch $51.00
1998 - Real Quiet $18.80
2001 - Monarchos $23.00
2006 - Barbaro $14.20

How I would explain my performance? My second picks are my hunch plays, where I use a little more "feel." My first picks do a lot better at Pimlico and the Preakness, where speed and brilliance is more important. Right now my top pick for "Kentucky Derby 2010" is Eskendereya and my second pick is Endorsement (the EEasy EEXacta Box?). But don't hold me to that just yet. I want to see the PPs and post draw, workouts etc. before I get too excited.

Happy Punting!

How does a horseplayer determine the odds?

DON'T WANNA PLAY CHALK?
Ask most horseplayers about odds and wagering startegy, and they will respond "I don't play chalk," or "I like the number 8 today in race 5 because he's 10/1 on the morning line (or ML, for short)."

While it's true that MOST favorites are overbet (their offered odds are lower than their true odds) and SOME longshots are underbet (their offered odds are higher than their true odds), many players do not know how to quantify their advantage. This blog post will hopefully explain how to quantify a player's advantage when betting to win.


CONVERTING ODDS TO A WIN PERCENTAGE
Suppose a player thinks a horse is fair odds at 4/1. That implies that he or she believes this horse will win the race 1 out of every 5 times, or a win probability of 0.20 (1/5 = 0.20).

In general, the win probability for a horse at THEIR TRUE ODDS, not the ML, is:
1/(true odds + 1).

Example: A player thinks a horse's true odds to win a race is 9/1. This implies the probability to win a race is 1/(9 + 1) = 1/10 = 0.10.

Why is this important? Because the player can now quantify his or her edge (if one exists) if the crowd offers HIGHER odds on their preferred horse.

Example: Say that a horse at Saratoga is 9/1 on the player's personal odds line but is 13/1 on the board with 3 minutes to post (not really that rare of a scenario). We saw above that the 9/1 horse has a probability of winning of 0.10. That means the horse has a probability of losing of 0.90 (either the horse wins or loses, right? All the total probabilities, win and lose, in a race for each individual horse have to add to 1.0). So what would be the player's edge in this case?

If the player bets $1 to win, the "expected win return" is ($1)*(13)*(0.10) = $1.30
If the player bets $1 to win, the "expected loss return" is (-$1)*(0.90) = -$0.90
If we add the win to the loss, then we have a POSITIVE EXPECTATION of $0.40.

In other words, IF the player is a good handicapper, and only bets when the odds on the board are HIGHER than the true odds, the player has the ability to grind out a profit. If the player bets on UNDERLAYS (short priced favorites that don't have advantages in speed and/or pace figures, for example), they can't "handicap their way to profits."


HOW MUCH SHOULD A PLAYER BET?
The bet size is CRITICAL. If the player bets too much of their bankroll on any one race, short-term financial ruin (or worse) can be the result.

A mathematician named Kelly came up with the KELLY CRITERION, which is a guide to determining how much to bet on a single wager. It works best with win betting but can be adjusted to suit any parimutuel situation IF the risk is known.

The Kelly Criterion is an estimate of how much of a fraction of bankroll to wager on any one race. Of course, the player should NEVER wager on any event that has a negative expectation (i.e. underlays).

The formula for the Kelly Criterion is as follows:

Fraction of bankroll wagered = (Positive expectation)/(True odds of horse)

Going back to our Saratoga horse, the positive expectation was $0.40 and the true odds were 9/1. So the Kelly Criterion would be 0.40/9 = 0.0444

What does this number tell us? If the player is an EFFECTIVE AND CONSISTENT handicapper, over the long-term he or she can bet roughly 4% of betting capital on the Saratoga horse with little fear of "tapping out" because of over-betting their advantage.

Suppose the player had $120 in his wallet for wagering and that represents his total bankroll. Then the ideal bet size on the Saratoga horse would be ($120)*(0.0444) = $5.328. Rounding down to the nearest dollar, the player should wager $5 on the Saratoga horse to win.

Now let's suppose the player won the race at 13/1. The player would get back $70, but $5 was wagered originally, so the "profit" on the bet was $65. This means the player now has a bankroll of $185 ($120 + $65 in profit). In the next good betting race this $185 is the new bankroll total which sets the wagering amount. Also, the next betting race will probably have a different Kelly Criterion (it varies every race, depending on the positive expectation of the next horse and the horse's true odds).

How to play the Pick 3

There once was a time when tracks only offered one or two pick 3 wagers in one day. The pool size for these pick 3s was pretty good, and there was no competition for the bettors' money from the early and late pick 4s, or rolling doubles, like we have now. For the most part, just HITTING the pick 3 during this era meant a nice, profitible day at the track, and possibly a SCORE.

Today, however, the "rolling" pick 3 pools are among the smaller pools at any track (especially compared to the trifecta pools), and the returns on the pick 3 typically are not quite as lucrative. Unfortunately, I have a healthy love of the Pick 3, and I like to make money using the wager.

Here are some ideas my buddies at the track and I have shared over the years for successful pick 3 playing.

(1) Try to limit your play to one or two pick threes per day per track.

(2) Don't UNDERBET a pick 3 play. A good pick 3 strategy that includes some long shots will have 32 to 40 combinations.

(3) Look for races featuring short priced favorites that may be highly vulnerable (horses coming off layoffs of 90 days or more, incompetent human connections, suspicious class droppers, horses making their debut on a new surface and/or distance), especially in they START the first race of the sequence. The crowd loves to single short-priced horses in the pick 3, an if the favorite goes down it's an opportunity to get some of the crowd's money.

(4) In the same race as the weak and/or overbet favorite, look for horses with odds of 5/1 or higher that can "kick start" nice pick 3 payoff.

(5) In maiden and maiden claiming races, don't be afraid to use horses that are lightly raced or making their debuts, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT BET OR FAVORED ON THE MORNING LINE. If the experienced runners in a maiden race are poor, they probably won't get any better without a class drop. When possible, use "speed figure pars" in maiden and maiden claiming races to determine which experienced horses can possibly be kept off your ticket(s). Be very, very wary of betting maiden and maiden horses that run close seconds and thirds often. These horses are always underlays unless they drop in class.

In short, to succeed with the pick 3, handicap well, have enough capital to make the correct wager, and focus on beating short-priced favorites that have negative angles going against them.

Happy wagering!


The Prophet