The darkest of dark horses just won the Kentucky Derby at 73-to-1 odds after filling in for a scratched horse just before the race.
The overhead video shows absolute nobody Rich Strike starting way back in the pack, then apparently deciding, "I don't like all these horses in front of me. Is this supposed to be a race or something? Is this the best the rest of you guys can do?"
I saw one report yesterday that said the first half-mile was run at a near-record pace. This video picks up for most of the last half of the overall race, so it's difficult (for me, anyway) to tell whether the end leaders were among the leaders in that first half-mile.
It may be, though, that the leaders at the end were among those rabbits at the beginning, and they'd run themselves out. They certainly had nothing left with which to answer the challenge.
Contributing, possibly, is that the lead jockeys may have been so focused on each other and each other's horses that they didn't know they were being challenged by a third party until it was too late.
Still, a terrific run by Rich Strike and his jockey.
Conspiracy alert: the winning horse was the one that replaced the scratched horse? Coincidence? Hmm....
Would "being a good judge of horse-flesh" have morphed at some point at the dawn of the industrial era? Change from actually choosing a mount or team (for commerce or riding to war) to demonstrating manly competence by winning bets at the races? Why is this particular form considered a "sport of kings" unless related to war?
This doesn't invalidate AVI's overall point but Derby wagering is pari-mutuel. The line certainly has an impact on bets but if bettors spread their wagers across the horses, once betting opened it would be reflected in the odds by virtue of the system without any further input.
A late entry into the Derby would therefore be likely to have odds too high or too low.
Not so much beyond the impact of the amount of time available to get the bets down on the late entry. The track may well have offered an initial set of odds just to get the business started, but track betting (and lots of off-track betting) is perimutuel: the actual payout odds are determined by the amount bet on a particular horse compared to the total amount bet (neglecting the track's cut, which comes off the top), and those odds change constantly until betting is closed with the race start.
The payout is IAW the odds at close, not at open or at any time in between. Rich Strike paid 73-1 because that was the perimutuel odds outcome at the race's start. Anyone placing a bet on Rich Strike at any time the betting was open, at the odds then current, would have been paid at 73-1.
Yes, that is so. It is the initial odds only that would be valuable to exploit. After that the wisdom of crowds would begin working slowly against you.
The lead changed several times, and the first out of the gate in the first half mile were soon replaced, then replaced again. I watched it (on TV) and it was a heck of a race. I thought it was going to be a photo finish until Rich Strike shot ahead out of nowhere. The jockey used no whip, just hunkered down and let the horse do his thing.
Rich Strike really did not want to calm down after the race. It took two out-riders to get him in hand and to cool his jets.
Yeah, he seems to be a mean horse, barely under control. It will be interesting what happens going forward, not only in racing but in breeding. People are going to be careful about who they pair that one with. But in the end, everyone will want to take the risk on a Derby winner, all believing that they are the ones who can manage this.
BTW, I believe the odds went from 80-1 to 73-1 fairly quickly, suggesting that the number of people putting money down wasn't insignificant. Like the stock market, a good number is reached eventually, but not necessarily immediately.
I saw one report yesterday that said the first half-mile was run at a near-record pace. This video picks up for most of the last half of the overall race, so it's difficult (for me, anyway) to tell whether the end leaders were among the leaders in that first half-mile.
ReplyDeleteIt may be, though, that the leaders at the end were among those rabbits at the beginning, and they'd run themselves out. They certainly had nothing left with which to answer the challenge.
Contributing, possibly, is that the lead jockeys may have been so focused on each other and each other's horses that they didn't know they were being challenged by a third party until it was too late.
Still, a terrific run by Rich Strike and his jockey.
Conspiracy alert: the winning horse was the one that replaced the scratched horse? Coincidence? Hmm....
Eric Hines
Would "being a good judge of horse-flesh" have morphed at some point at the dawn of the industrial era? Change from actually choosing a mount or team (for commerce or riding to war) to demonstrating manly competence by winning bets at the races? Why is this particular form considered a "sport of kings" unless related to war?
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't invalidate AVI's overall point but Derby wagering is pari-mutuel. The line certainly has an impact on bets but if bettors spread their wagers across the horses, once betting opened it would be reflected in the odds by virtue of the system without any further input.
ReplyDeleteA late entry into the Derby would therefore be likely to have odds too high or too low.
ReplyDeleteNot so much beyond the impact of the amount of time available to get the bets down on the late entry. The track may well have offered an initial set of odds just to get the business started, but track betting (and lots of off-track betting) is perimutuel: the actual payout odds are determined by the amount bet on a particular horse compared to the total amount bet (neglecting the track's cut, which comes off the top), and those odds change constantly until betting is closed with the race start.
The payout is IAW the odds at close, not at open or at any time in between. Rich Strike paid 73-1 because that was the perimutuel odds outcome at the race's start. Anyone placing a bet on Rich Strike at any time the betting was open, at the odds then current, would have been paid at 73-1.
Eric Hines
Yes, that is so. It is the initial odds only that would be valuable to exploit. After that the wisdom of crowds would begin working slowly against you.
ReplyDeleteContributing, possibly, is that the lead jockeys may have been so focused on each other and each other's horses that they didn't know...
ReplyDeleteVery plausible; the announcer doesn't seem to have realized it was happening until the last second, and he had a bird's eye view.
Great race by a tough horse. Apparently afterwards he tried to bite another horse and its reins, and had to be restrained by outriders.
The lead changed several times, and the first out of the gate in the first half mile were soon replaced, then replaced again. I watched it (on TV) and it was a heck of a race. I thought it was going to be a photo finish until Rich Strike shot ahead out of nowhere. The jockey used no whip, just hunkered down and let the horse do his thing.
ReplyDeleteRich Strike really did not want to calm down after the race. It took two out-riders to get him in hand and to cool his jets.
LittleRed1
Yeah, he seems to be a mean horse, barely under control. It will be interesting what happens going forward, not only in racing but in breeding. People are going to be careful about who they pair that one with. But in the end, everyone will want to take the risk on a Derby winner, all believing that they are the ones who can manage this.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I believe the odds went from 80-1 to 73-1 fairly quickly, suggesting that the number of people putting money down wasn't insignificant. Like the stock market, a good number is reached eventually, but not necessarily immediately.
"Why is this particular form considered a 'sport of kings' unless related to war?"
ReplyDeleteBecause you needed to be as rich as a King to afford to race horses. HRM Elizabeth II has a stable that is actually financially successful.
Also, you all keep citing the payoff on Rich Strike as 73-1. He actually paid 81.8 - 1.