Derby AE List

[philcski]

Originally Posted by justindew

I've heard a lot of talk recently about the Kentucky Derby adding an also-eligible list to the entries. This discussion picks up steam whenever a filly (or multiple fillies) are under consideration for the Derby AND the Oaks.

Here's my question that I am sure someone here can answer: With such careful consideration given to which spot in the starting gate each horse "chooses", how could horses who draw in off the AE list be placed in the gate fairly?

For instance, Dutrow clearly wanted spot 20 in the gate last year. If there had been an AE list and, say, Eight Belles had chosen to go in the Oaks instead of the Derby, would the newly drawn-in horse get spot 20, screwing up Dutrow's plan?

They drew 18th, so he only had 3 choices. post position 1, 19, or 20. They're all terrible, so he took the least terrible of the group. There was no "master plan" involved.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by philcski

They drew 18th, so he only had 3 choices. post position 1, 19, or 20. They're all terrible, so he took the least terrible of the group. There was no "master plan" involved.

But they still chose post 20 over post 19.

[Travis Stone]

I think the Derby should be 14 horses...

[Travis Stone]

Churchill has motivation in an AE list... for every non-starter below 20 equates to $x in handle (this number I've heard, but really can't remember it well enough to post, but it's significant). But there are some logistical obstacles, including the post draw and placement of a drawn-in AE horse.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

Churchill has motivation in an AE list... for every non-starter below 20 equates to $x in handle (this number I've heard, but really can't remember it well enough to post, but it's significant). But there are some logistical obstacles, including the post draw and placement of a drawn-in AE horse.

As well as the fact that many Oaks and Derby goers will be totally confused by an AE list.

How many people bet Big Truck last year thinking they were betting on Big Brown? Go back and look. Big Truck's odds were much lower than they should have been.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by justindew

How many people bet Big Truck last year thinking they were betting on Big Brown? Go back and look. Big Truck's odds were much lower than they should have been.

Ever since Giacomo - it seems like almost all of the longshots go off at much shorter prices than they should be in triple crown races.

That's why I want a 24 horse field in the Derby!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by justindew

As well as the fact that many Oaks and Derby goers will be totally confused by an AE list.

How many people bet Big Truck last year thinking they were betting on Big Brown? Go back and look. Big Truck's odds were much lower than they should have been.

and this is a bad think becaaaauuuse....?

[justindew]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and this is a bad think becaaaauuuse....?

Because confused people bet less, if it all. And when they do bet, the tie up betting windows.

I'm sure this line of thinking is at least partly to blame for the fact that we still only have 24 options in the Future Wager, and why dime superfectas aren't offered on Derby day (unless they are now. They didn't used to be.)

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by justindew

As well as the fact that many Oaks and Derby goers will be totally confused by an AE list.

How many people bet Big Truck last year thinking they were betting on Big Brown? Go back and look. Big Truck's odds were much lower than they should have been.

This is total bs. If they cant figure out the ae system then they arent expecting to win anyway. The same theory kept "exotic" wagers out of the game for years and CA kept the $5 min for exactas long after it shouldnt have. The players arent as dumb as track execs think. Track execs ARE as dumb as players think they are

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

I think the Derby should be 14 horses...

I think it should be 24.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I think it should be 24.

hell, just run a couple divisions of the sucker. think how many starters they'd have.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

I think the Derby should be 14 horses...

Reducing the number of horses will not necessarily mean that the race will be more cleanly run. In the 1994 Derby won by Go For Gin, there were only 14 horses, and it was a pretty roughly run race.