Derby AE List
 

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?

Easy. End the ridiculousness of connections choosing their own post. Draw the damn race like any other race is drawn. The 'made for TV' draw is farcical.

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.

:tro: :tro:

An AE list is fine by me.

Agreed. But that's not going to happen.

So then what?

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.

Wouldn't there be a challenge with tote board in the event of late scratch?
The AE's are assigned a number prior to the race. (If the 2 scratches the 13 draws in. I don't see how they can use more than 20 numbers.

But they still chose post 20 over post 19.

I think the Derby should be 14 horses...

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.

I think it should be 24.

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.

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.

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!

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.

If they automatically let the winner of the Kempton Park race in the field, then anything can happen.

But Rock Hard Ten didn't get in the gate in 2004! WAAAAH!

or..have them run like Nascar time trials where each is out their on their own. Then you can have 50 horses. The top 20 times make it in and pick posts by their times. Run it 2-3 weeks in advance.

No, I'm not serious, but that would be interesting.

what he said.

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

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

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

I like that idea.

Like Travis said. 14 would be swell.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Simple. First horse off eligible list get place of first horse scratched. Why would they do it any other way?

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.

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

They will be a long ways back after the first quarter

Like the drunk people dont? Who said confused people bet less. Never heard of PG 1985?

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

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

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?

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.

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.