Kent D.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by andrasi

Just a little heads up for all you Saratoga players, I am taking it upon myself to crush the remainder of the the meet for Kent D. from here on out I am betting 2$ to win and place on him. By no means is this a result of his rides 8/17, but just a culmination of me never catching a guy who runs 1,2 at a 38% clip and beats me like a drum. I've had it, no jock can carry my 2$ and be successful. j

lescano

[dagolfer33]

If either Desormeaux or Lezcano is on a runner with some odds on them, you had better watch out.

[Kasept]

Matto,

Lezcano? Versus Desormeaux right now? It's not remotely close.

Lezcano: $80.57 in win mutuel in 95 starts: .84
Desormeaux: $166.50 in win mutuel in 78 starts: 2.13

And while I don't have the chance to look at it, I'd guess exacta keys of Kent in those 78 starts would produce some interesting numbers.

Lezcano is simply not getting very many good mounts at the meet given the colony and the first calls ahead of him on the pecking order. He's doing fine and his agent is pleased, but he's literally on the 7th-10th 'best' horse in most races. And he's not 'moving' horses up based on the above ROI. With an average win price of $11.50 (9-2), he's really only winning on horses that were good enough to win.

Desormeaux' average price of $11.10 is amazing considering how many top horses he gets. But many of his Mott winners have been underbet.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Don't you think the sample size is pretty small? You're talking 18 days.

Through yesterday, ...

Desormeaux is just 8-for-81 at finishing 3rd.

Lezcano is 21-for-101 at finishing 3rd.

Things will likely even out a little more over time.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Don't you think the sample size is pretty small? You're talking 18 days.

Through yesterday, ...

Desormeaux is just 8-for-81 at finishing 3rd.

Lezcano is 21-for-101 at finishing 3rd.

Things will likely even out a little more over time.

However you view the sample size, it's 50% of the universe you're going to end up with... It is what we have to work with.

Is finishing third a primary objective? If you're saying some of the thirds Lezcano had in the first half could become exacta finishes in the 2nd half, I wouldn't disagree.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Kasept

However you view the sample size, it's 50% of the universe you're going to end up with...

It's less than a hundred races ... which, for a jockey, is like a squirt of piss in a very large bucket.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

It's less than a hundred races ... which, for a jockey, is like a squirt of piss in a very large bucket.

There's a way to get more statistical significance out of a smaller number of races...

A bettor who has an edge should be betting less on longshots than on favorites.* So, instead of looking at ROI for flat $2 bets, it makes more sense to look at ROI for proportional bets. And it turns out that the end result is much more statistically meaningful. (the standard deviation is much smaller when compared to the ROI fig.)

Here's a link to something I posted on another forum that gives an example of the difference:
http://sharpsportsbetting.com/forums....cgi/read/9760

If you or anyone posts a list of Desormeaux and Lezcano's races (showing odds and if they won), I'll calculate the proportional bet ROI and show how I did it.

--Dunbar


* Ed Thorp showed years ago that the optimal horseracing bet for bankroll growth is Edge*Bankroll/Odds. If you have a 10% edge and a $1000 bankroll, you should bet 10%*1000/2 = $50 on a 2-1 shot, but 10%*1000/10 = $10 on a 10-1 shot.

Some may argue that you do not have the same "edge" on every bet, and that you in fact have a bigger edge on longshots. But given how difficult it is to estimate our edge at all, it's probably safest to assume our edge is roughly the same on every bet.

[Bobby Fischer]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

* Ed Thorp showed years ago that the optimal horseracing bet for bankroll growth is Edge*Bankroll/Odds. If you have a 10% edge and a $1000 bankroll, you should bet 10%*1000/2 = $50 on a 2-1 shot, but 10%*1000/10 = $10 on a 10-1 shot.

i'll look it up, i'm just burn't out right now in need of a power nap... but do you have a link to Ed Thorp's papers?
The formula that I came up with is similar but more reliant on the individual than the public Bankroll*0.05*(lowestimateHit%squared*lowestimate$ 2payout)/2
You plug it all in a spreadsheet with conditions that say if ($2price*hit%)/2 isn't more than 1.3 or1.2 whatever "value" demand, then zero is listed in betsize.
It's not a bad type of thing do work out with bets for a while and develop an intuitive feel of the type of bets you should be making and why, but it's pretty boring.


the effect that Thorp gets from using the odds has the same basis as why I choose to square the low estimate of hit%. Hit percentage is very important in keeping "randomness" out.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

There's a way to get more statistical significance out of a smaller number of races...

A bettor who has an edge should be betting less on longshots than on favorites.* So, instead of looking at ROI for flat $2 bets, it makes more sense to look at ROI for proportional bets. And it turns out that the end result is much more statistically meaningful. (the standard deviation is much smaller when compared to the ROI fig.)

Here's a link to something I posted on another forum that gives an example of the difference:
http://sharpsportsbetting.com/forums....cgi/read/9760

If you or anyone posts a list of Desormeaux and Lezcano's races (showing odds and if they won), I'll calculate the proportional bet ROI and show how I did it.

--Dunbar


* Ed Thorp showed years ago that the optimal horseracing bet for bankroll growth is Edge*Bankroll/Odds. If you have a 10% edge and a $1000 bankroll, you should bet 10%*1000/2 = $50 on a 2-1 shot, but 10%*1000/10 = $10 on a 10-1 shot.

Some may argue that you do not have the same "edge" on every bet, and that you in fact have a bigger edge on longshots. But given how difficult it is to estimate our edge at all, it's probably safest to assume our edge is roughly the same on every bet.

That little factor called Edge and its phantom nature has cut through a lot of bankrolls.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Kasept

However you view the sample size, it's 50% of the universe you're going to end up with... It is what we have to work with.

Is finishing third a primary objective? If you're saying some of the thirds Lezcano had in the first half could become exacta finishes in the 2nd half, I wouldn't disagree.

Depends on the situation. Don't these numbers tend to support the belief that, if Desormeaux can't win, he doesn't care where he finishes.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Depends on the situation. Don't these numbers tend to support the belief that, if Desormeaux can't win, he doesn't care where he finishes.

No.

[CSC]

Numbers mean little when 1-3 Jockies are getting the choice mounts, I've bet a limited number of CV horses this meet and can't say he is riding any better or any worse than Kent, Ramon, or Alan G. The difference are the mounts they are getting, I seriously doubt anyone of those 3 would have made the difference on a Allen Jerkins horse this meet to use him as an example.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

No.

That perception has dogged him going all the way back to his ride on River Special in the 1992 Breeders' Cup. Are you suggesting it's a bum wrap?

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Lezcano is simply not getting very many good mounts at the meet given the colony and the first calls ahead of him on the pecking order. He's doing fine and his agent is pleased, but he's literally on the 7th-10th 'best' horse in most races. And he's not 'moving' horses up based on the above ROI. With an average win price of $11.50 (9-2), he's really only winning on horses that were good enough to win.

Have yet to climb on the Lezcano bandwagon. I fail to see the fascination with him as a jock. Look at yesterday's 6th, with the sprinter stretching out 2nd time turf. She wins IN SPITE of Lezcano and his wide, no cover, rushed trip.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Matto,

Lezcano? Versus Desormeaux right now? It's not remotely close.

Lezcano: $80.57 in win mutuel in 95 starts: .84
Desormeaux: $166.50 in win mutuel in 78 starts: 2.13

And while I don't have the chance to look at it, I'd guess exacta keys of Kent in those 78 starts would produce some interesting numbers.

Lezcano is simply not getting very many good mounts at the meet given the colony and the first calls ahead of him on the pecking order. He's doing fine and his agent is pleased, but he's literally on the 7th-10th 'best' horse in most races. And he's not 'moving' horses up based on the above ROI. With an average win price of $11.50 (9-2), he's really only winning on horses that were good enough to win.

Desormeaux' average price of $11.10 is amazing considering how many top horses he gets. But many of his Mott winners have been underbet.

he may be getting bad mounts or less but i feel hes making the most of what
he has..put him on the mott horses and hes got a better roi than kent..imo
just like corny used too