While some view betting favorites akin to dancing with the devil (or at the very least "eating chalk"), I preach the gospel of value. Give me a 2-to-1 favorite who has a 50% chance of winning over a 15-to-1 horse with a 5% chance of winning any day.
But when does it make sense to bet an overbet favorite? When you only have one bet to make for a potentially life-changing (or at least altering) score.
That is the dilemma Glen Fullerton will face on Saturday when he gets $100,000 to bet on the nose of one Kentucky Derby starter. At that level of bet (more than my annual handle and annual salary combined), I'd be far more interested in who the most likely winner is than who the best value is.
If you give Lookin At Lucky a 20% chance of winning (fair odds 4-to-1) but he's 7-to-2 (22.2% chance) or 3-to-1 (25%) chance than those odds actually represent underlays and not good bets to win. If you give another horse a 10% chance of winning, and s/he is 15-to-1, then that is a good bet day to day, but would you rather have a 20% chance of winning $400,000 or a 10% chance of winning $1.6-million (the whole return is pure profit since Fullerton isn't having to put up the $100,000 bet).
A horse you give a 3% chance of winning offers value at 40-to-1, but is the chance of $4-million worth pursuing a three in 100 chance, which is more than six times less likely to happen than a 20% chance?
It's an interesting game theory question. Think of a game of roulette. All bets typically offer the same takeout, but how would you play if you had one bet to make for $100,000. Your options are a single number on a 38-number wheel for 40-to-1 (a 7.9% overlay) or odd/even at even money (5.26% underlay). Do you take a 2.6% chance at the overlay or a 47.3% chance of winning?
This wouldn't be a dilemma for me since I love Lookin At Lucky and see him as an overlay at anything better than 3-to-1.
Another thing people should remember about the $100,000 bet is that it doesn't affect the other pools, so just because one horse seems unusually low because of the bet doesn't mean s/he was bet that way in exactas, trifectas, etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thoroughbred Times article had this:
ReplyDeleteBased on final odds for last year’s Kentucky Derby, a $100,000 DreamBet placed on 2009 winner Mine That Bird would have returned more than $5-million.
Not exactly.
I would think that $100,000 on Mine That Bird would have caused a significant lowering of his win mutuel.
As for Lookin at Lucky, I'd demand 9/2 or higher to consider him an overlay. But given his trip trouble in the Santa Anita Derby, the crowd is certain to hammer him and I'll most likely be looking elsewhere.
The thing with trip trouble horses, is that they're liable to get in trouble again with that running style in a more fuller field.
But the intangible will be how he's feeling on race day. The 'blinkers off' as well as the switch to the new racing surface compounds the difficulty for the horse. To say nothing of the $100,000 bettor.
But I've got to hand it to the contest-masters. This is one brutal decision they've forced Mr. Fullerton has to make.
As worded, the statement is correct. Based on the final odds, $100,000 would have returned more than $5-million.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it's a contest that creates great drama on Derby day.
Ed -
ReplyDeleteAt odds of 50.6 to 1 don't you think $100,000 win bet would have dropped Mine That Bird's odds to lower than 50/1 ?
I'm envisioning a parimutuel payoff with a gross payout in the range of mid-to-high $4 million plus.
I wish I could do the math but the DRF chart lumps the three pools (WPS) into one MUTUELS pool. So that prevents me from making my point.
Is there win pool total available somewhere?
For a race like the Kentucky Derby they shouldn't be lumping in three separate pools.
In a game of information how does an aggregate WPS total help the public?
I am not blaming DRF or the chartman, perhaps it's Churchill? What do you think?
http://www.drf.com/tc/kentuckyderby/2009/2009derbychart.pdf
Let's see if this changes my life..
ReplyDelete$100,000 win on #2 Ice Box.