The Worst ‘Overlay’ in History
Racing
fans and pundits alike have been quick to label California Chrome as “overrated”
or “the best of a bad lot.” Hence, it should come as no surprise that nine
rivals have lined up to challenge the Derby champ in the Preakness Stakes,
including seven who did not compete in Louisville.
Now,
I’m no chalk-eating weasel and I applaud those who perpetually look for
legitimate knocks against short-priced favorites — in any race. But I must
admit to rolling my eyes a bit when folks claim that they are “looking for
value” by eschewing the Derby winner.
Value
is not determined solely by price.
One
makes a profit at the races by betting on propositions that offer odds over and
above their “real,” or actual, odds — period. If a horse has a 90 percent
chance of visiting the winner’s circle, a win bet at 2-5 odds is a great wager.
Conversely, an exacta that stands to pay $100 for a buck is a horrible bet if the
combination is likely to connect fewer times than Donald Sterling at an NBA
meet-and-greet.
The
fact of the matter is the Derby runners (and California Chrome in particular) are
holding all the aces when it comes to Saturday’s Preakness Stakes.
In
the past 50 years, horses that did not
compete in the Run for the Roses are just 7-for-242 (2.9 percent) at Pimlico. Horses
that did compete in the most exciting
two minutes in sports have won 43 times (16.6 percent) during that span.
And
it gets even worse if the “new shooter” did not win its last race, as only Bee
Bee Bee (1972) and Red Bullet (2000) managed to capture the Preakness after failing
to get the job done in their previous start. Worse, just nine percent of these
horses have even hit the board in Baltimore.
 |
(Click on
image to enlarge)
|
Which
brings me to Social Inclusion, everybody’s upset special in this year’s Run for the Black-Eyed Susans.
Simply
put, I think Social Inclusion may be the worst “value” play in the history of organized
horse racing.
Look, I
get it: next to California Chrome (the Derby notwithstanding), the son of
Pioneerof the Nile has the best overall speed figures in the field. But to
understand why I think Social Inclusion is such a terrible bet in the Preakness
Stakes, we have to dig deeper:
 |
| (Click on image to enlarge) |
This is a horse that has never been headed early and, according to his connections, he’ll be on the engine again in Maryland… yet he’s not very quick. His early speed rations (ESRs) rank fourth in the Preakness field — behind California Chrome, Pablo Del Monte and Ring Weekend. And the only time he met today’s late speed (LSR) par was when he set a dawdling pace (0 ESR) in an allowance win at the notoriously speed-favoring Gulfstream Park.
2013
WIRE-TO-WIRE RATES (main track)
Aqueduct
(AQU): 26 percent at 1-1/8 miles (23 races).
Gulfstream
Park (GP): 27 percent at 1-1/16 miles (97 races).
Pimlico
(PIM): 20 percent in all routes (100 races).
Then
there’s that stat I shared before: Non-Derby starters who didn’t win their last
start are just two-for-144 in the Preakness over the past 50 years. And 5-1 (according
to the morning line) is value on Social Inclusion? Value? (Picture Jim Mora asking the
question to get the full effect of what I’m saying here.)
If
you’re seeking “new shooters” that have a chance at a good price, look at
Dynamic Impact, Bayern or — one I really like — Kid Cruz. And, of course, don’t
forget about the other Derby starters: General A Rod and Ride On Curlin.
History
has shown that they’re the ones that typically offer the real value.
My
Plays:
EXACTA
BOX 1,2,3,5,7,10.
TRIFECTA
3 with 2,7,10 with 1,2,5,7,10.
To get my Win Factor and Pace Profile Reports for ALL of Saturday's races at Pimlico, click HERE.
To get my Win Factor and Pace Profile Reports for ALL of Saturday's races at Pimlico, click HERE.
14 comments:
- Great Analysis As Always. I'm Going 3,10 with 2,7,3,10 with 1,2,3,5,7,10 in my Trifecta.
You're boxing 6 in the exacta? If CC finishes 1 or 2 that's an automatic losing wager.
the derby favorites list shows Califonia Chrome as finishing 3rd in kentucky derby going to win bet Chrome for a fan if I played an ex would put arod and kid cruz underneath
I also had Orb finishing second on that chart (wishful thinking given that I liked Golden Soul? LOL).
I fixed the mistakes. Thanks Tony!
Klocker, the idea behind the exacta bet is to profit slightly if California Chrome doesn't win and post (probably) a 50%-60% loss if he does. I disagree with you that the wager is an automatic loser if Chrome places -- I'm keeping the likely second choice (Social Inclusion) off all my tickets -- but obviously I will be watching the board.
Furthermore, the trifecta bet is there for a reason. If California Chrome wins, I hope to make up for any exacta loss with that wager.
The reality is, if you like California Chrome to win, you have to find a way to make better than 62.5% (3-5 odds) on your bet to exceed what you would make on a win bet (again, the odds should dictate one's ultimate strategy).
You lost $9 for every $1 wagered on that exacta. There's no shame in losing but the problem I have with this wager is boxing 6 horses in a 10 horse field isn't handicapping. If you wanted to make better than 3-5 then you should have bet the tri and super, not the exacta. I didn't look at the probables near post time so I don't know how many of your possible winning combination would have made you what you were looking for. My guess is it wasn't many if CC was there.
Klocker, your math is WAY off. The loss on the exacta box (69.7 cents per dollar) WAS more than I anticipated (50-60 cent per dollar), but it was nowhere near the $9 per sawbuck that you came up with.
I won't argue your second point — a six-horse exacta box definitely is NOT handicapping — but, as I stated previously, it was part of a broader strategy… a strategy that would have come to fruition had General A Rod not been shuffled back on the far turn, thereby costing him the show.
That said, as we both know, would-coulda-shoulda scenarios don’t pay the bills, so I’ll just have to take my lumps on this one and move on.
That's all we can do no matter how well we wager. But correct me on the math please. A $1, 6 horse ex box cost $30. The $1 ex paid $9. So the bet lost $21 for every $1 wager. If it was a $10 6 horse box you would lose $210. No??
I focus on ROI and ROI is always expressed as a net dollar amount or a percentage. The total bet was $30, not $1.
Also, this bet was part of an overall strategy -- scaling it up ARBITRARILY was NOT what I intended anyone to do. In retrospect, I should have listed the exacta as a $1 bet and the trifecta as a $2 bet, as that was my planned bet (in reality, I wound up keying California Chrome on top in all of my wagers... and I STILL lost because I didn't have Social Inclusion in my tri).
I just wanted to prove my math wasn't "way off". When I said for every $1 wagered you lost $21 I wasn't wrong. I didn't phrase it correctly. I meant for every $1 box ($30) you lost $21.
Understood and appreciated. Thanks for the comments. Good luck on the Belmont!
An individual advance is a kind of credit that is selected by numerous purchasers at one phase or the other. It is regularly used to cover different kind of costs and buys. It can be to buy a pristine auto, a family escape or to cover the costs of a wedding. It is however obligatory that any individual who is considering gaining an individual advance be all around educated and instructed. payday loan san diego
Your posts really brought positiveness to a task that sometimes looks profuse.
Grateful for the effort you put into creating such valuable content. Solar
Post a Comment