Derby Trail Forums
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   Triple Crown Topics/Archive.. (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Derby AE List (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28068)

Danzig 02-25-2009 06:19 PM
Quote:
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....?

Danzig 02-25-2009 06:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch
Having an AE list is overkill in a field that is going to be 20 most of the time. It's like having the NCAA tournament teams argue about the "last 4 out". How many times is a legit contender not going to make the field anyway? The graded earnings system isn't perfect, but I haven't heard many alternatives that provide better fields. When a late bloomer misses on earnings, too bad. Get them started earlier and win a graded race. It doesn't take many to be #20 on the list.

they should not let 2 yo graded earnings count. it's done elsewhere. it's a new season, they should start from scratch.

31lengths 02-25-2009 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SniperSB23
I don't have a problem with letting the connections choose their post. But why not do it in order of graded stakes earnings instead of a random draw? Would reward the best horses and give more incentive for horses to prep more to move up in the earnings list. Just getting in as #20 would no longer be as desirable.
I like that idea.

Like Travis said. 14 would be swell.

justindew 02-25-2009 06:53 PM
Quote:
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.)

Danzig 02-25-2009 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by justindew
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.)
i don't think they bet less. i think a lot of folks who only go on derby day will bet-they just might not pick the right horse, like what you mentioned with big truck. either that or there were a lot of guys who like trucks, so they bet him.
but they do tie up windows.

justindew 02-25-2009 07:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
i don't think they bet less. i think a lot of folks who only go on derby day will bet-they just might not pick the right horse, like what you mentioned with big truck. either that or there were a lot of guys who like trucks, so they bet him.
but they do tie up windows.
I just imagine a scenario where people who don't follow Derby news that closely try to bet on the #24 in the Oaks-Derby Double only to find out that #24 isn't in the field, but the #22 is, even though they are both on the AE list.

CD has a history, in my opinion, of taking bettor intelligence into consideration. For example, The Matrix.

wac 02-25-2009 07:24 PM
Drugs, i agree wiht you i call it "looking for Giacomo" syndrome. People get so scared about missing out on some huge hit they bet horses that should legit be 60-1 down to 30-1 or even lower. Its happened every year since Giacomo and is pretty odd. Course when you see the odds lower on a horse that you threw out you start wondering what am i missing?? Leads to good comments in the betting lines.

Danzig 02-25-2009 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by justindew
I just imagine a scenario where people who don't follow Derby news that closely try to bet on the #24 in the Oaks-Derby Double only to find out that #24 isn't in the field, but the #22 is, even though they are both on the AE list.

CD has a history, in my opinion, of taking bettor intelligence into consideration. For example, The Matrix.
i would think most casual bettors would bet by the horses name, not the #. regardless, i don't see churchill changing any of it anyway.

Thunder Gulch 02-25-2009 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
they should not let 2 yo graded earnings count. it's done elsewhere. it's a new season, they should start from scratch.
Like I said, the graded earnings requirement isn't perfect. You can modify it for 2yo starts and weight it more strongly for 8f or more if you like, but I still feel no sympathy or regret for the #21 and #22 horses on the list every year.

Danzig 02-25-2009 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch
Like I said, the graded earnings requirement isn't perfect. You can modify it for 2yo starts and weight it more strongly for 8f or more if you like, but I still feel no sympathy or regret for the #21 and #22 horses on the list every year.
oh, i don't either. there's usually a couple of hot horses late before the derby that don't get in-and more often than not, they fade from view anyway. you won't get a perfect system, you can't please everyone.

Cannon Shell 02-25-2009 09:52 PM
Quote:
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?
Simple. First horse off eligible list get place of first horse scratched. Why would they do it any other way?

Cannon Shell 02-25-2009 09:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch
Having an AE list is overkill in a field that is going to be 20 most of the time. It's like having the NCAA tournament teams argue about the "last 4 out". How many times is a legit contender not going to make the field anyway? The graded earnings system isn't perfect, but I haven't heard many alternatives that provide better fields. When a late bloomer misses on earnings, too bad. Get them started earlier and win a graded race. It doesn't take many to be #20 on the list.
Actually your analogy isnt that great. the last 4 in the NCAA tourney almost never challenge for a title nor are favs but for the Derby it is possible for one of the favs to not get in when you have so many lightly raced horses, fillies with big earnings and so many 2nd rate races with huge purses.

Cannon Shell 02-25-2009 09:59 PM
Quote:
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

Cannon Shell 02-25-2009 09:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurlogue Champ
If they automatically let the winner of the Kempton Park in the race, then anything can happen.
They will be a long ways back after the first quarter

Cannon Shell 02-25-2009 10:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by justindew
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.)
Like the drunk people dont? Who said confused people bet less. Never heard of PG 1985?

Cannon Shell 02-25-2009 10:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by justindew
I just imagine a scenario where people who don't follow Derby news that closely try to bet on the #24 in the Oaks-Derby Double only to find out that #24 isn't in the field, but the #22 is, even though they are both on the AE list.

CD has a history, in my opinion, of taking bettor intelligence into consideration. For example, The Matrix.
I would imagine that people who dont follow Derby news that close dont bet the Oaks/Derby double. Have Scratchtime at 1 pm on Friday. Dont open oaks/Derby double betting till then

Cannon Shell 02-25-2009 10:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by justindew

CD has a history, in my opinion, of taking bettor intelligence into consideration. For example, The Matrix.
The matrix and over/under show clearly that the bettors are far smarter than CDI management. Who the hell thought these things could work? The matrix is far more complicated than AE's for the Derby. Complicated and stupid

justindew 02-25-2009 10:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
Like the drunk people dont? Who said confused people bet less. Never heard of PG 1985?
So why do you think CD hasn't implemented an AE list? Laziness? Are they just trying to piss people off? Has it just never occurred to them?

justindew 02-25-2009 10:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
The matrix and over/under show clearly that the bettors are far smarter than CDI management. Who the hell thought these things could work? The matrix is far more complicated than AE's for the Derby. Complicated and stupid
Agreed. And The Matrix was created to dumb things down (unnecessarily) for new fans. And my point is that CD has a record of worrying about whether or not bettors can figure things out. Thus, no AE list for the Derby.

Thunder Gulch 02-25-2009 10:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
Actually your analogy isnt that great. the last 4 in the NCAA tourney almost never challenge for a title nor are favs but for the Derby it is possible for one of the favs to not get in when you have so many lightly raced horses, fillies with big earnings and so many 2nd rate races with huge purses.
Name a couple who actually wanted in that had a shot. It's possible, but the occurrence is so infrequent that it's ridiculous to change the rules for that once a decade horse.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:41 AM.
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.