Quote:
|
Originally Posted by easy goer
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.
|
Yes, but doesn't it stand to reason that the size of the Derby might matter because if you had say your hypothetical Derby with 1000 starters, it would significantly decrease the odds of the best horse (and therefore the horse with the best chance of also winning the other two legs) winning.
The larger the field size, the less chance the best horse wins right?
Your argument that the field size of the KY Derby is irrelevant is simply not correct in my mind. You are obviously correct in your argument about horse X and horse Y's mathematical chances of winning, but what you seem to be forgetting is that field size in the Derby could prevent the horse most capable of winning the TC from winning the first leg. Therefore, it matters as much as the field size in the rest of the races.
Let's say the KY Derby was limited to the top 12 graded stakes winners instead of the top 20. Neither of the horses that defeated AA in the '05 Derby would have even been in the race. Therefore it is reasonable to accept that the field size of the Derby MAY have prevented a TC winner that year.