Quote:
|
Originally Posted by miraja2
In fact, I believe the way to do this that makes the most sense is simply to examine the average field size of all three races for every single year. Then you could identify trends between "TC decades" like the 1940s and the 1970s.....
|
No. The field size of the Ky Derby is irrelevant to all this. The field size of Prekness is as well as Belmont, the only question left in my mind is whether the field size of ALL belmonts is important or only those Belmonts w/ a TC on the line.
The reason if the field size of Ky derby is irrelevant. Imagine a Ky derby w/ 100 horses. Horse "X" wins. Okay now imagine the Preakness has only two runners, the Belmont has only one runner. Okay so what were the odds of horse X winning the TC? Make up a number say 50%...
NOw, imagine a derby w/ 1000 runners. Horse "Y" wins. Now Preakness has two runners and Belmont only one. Whats the difference with the chanes of horse "X"? Nothing I can see.
Or a derby w/ 10,000 runners, or one w/ 20 or one w/ 10, etc. The size of the Ky derby field makes no difference in all this.
It seems non intuitive but it makes sense. Why does it seem to violate common sense? Because the odds of a SINGLE horse winning the TC would change depending on the size of the derby field. Hence our "Common sense' view that the size of the derby matters. But the question was does the chance of a horse winning the TC depend on field size....
Hmmm. Okay I see the problem, there is an ambiguity posed in the original question.
Holland: here is the question back to you: Is your question: does the chance of an INDIVIDUAL horse winning the TC change w/ field size? or is the question: Does the chances of the public seeing a TC change with field size?
Two different questions, right? If the first question, then "yes" derby field does matter, if the only question is will the public see a TC then the answer is "no" derby size does not matter.