Boz
Boz
Joined: Sep 22, 2011
  • Threads: 155
  • Posts: 5701
May 4th, 2015 at 5:02:53 PM permalink
I see no value in +190 even if you believe AP will win the TC. Better to bet the low odds on him in the Preakness and then decide to bet him in the Belmont if you think he can do it. Am I correct on this?
FinsRule
FinsRule
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
  • Threads: 121
  • Posts: 3750
May 4th, 2015 at 5:58:22 PM permalink
Bovada is +220. Seems fair, but why bother? +190 is a bad price.
Tomspur
Tomspur
Joined: Jul 12, 2013
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 2019
May 4th, 2015 at 7:20:51 PM permalink
It's amazing that Baffert decides to tell the betting public about the colic only after he had run......Kind of like Manny telling everyone after the fight he wasn't allowed his injections for his shoulder?

It is amazing to me how punters get treated like pond scum (what is lower than pond scum I wonder) but yet we are a large part of what keeps this industry afloat.....

Anyway, that is another rant for another day!

AP should be real short in the Preakness but I won't have him at Belmont, no sireee bob
“There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man.” - Winston Churchill
Boz
Boz
Joined: Sep 22, 2011
  • Threads: 155
  • Posts: 5701
May 4th, 2015 at 7:39:51 PM permalink
Quote: Tomspur

It's amazing that Baffert decides to tell the betting public about the colic only after he had run......Kind of like Manny telling everyone after the fight he wasn't allowed his injections for his shoulder?

It is amazing to me how punters get treated like pond scum (what is lower than pond scum I wonder) but yet we are a large part of what keeps this industry afloat.....

Anyway, that is another rant for another day!

AP should be real short in the Preakness but I won't have him at Belmont, no sireee bob



Your thinking history and makes betting sense, but it will change one day. Is that day this year? If I knew that I wouldn't be posting it here.
DrawingDead
DrawingDead
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2233
May 4th, 2015 at 9:57:22 PM permalink
In the case of a Belmont Stakes potentially completing a Triple Crown, if I thought I had very good reason to be confident of the most likely result I wouldn't feel any reluctance to say so here, in as much detail as I happened to feel like going into, because it is inconceivable that it would have any effect whatsoever on the odds in the pari-mutual pools given the enormous wagering volume on that event, and where it comes from. The handle on the race last year was $150,249,399. On-track attendance alone was over 100,000 people, about 80-90,000 of them most likely insta-fan folks who went to no other races that year.

In fact I did have quite a bit to say about my opinion of the prospects of Tonalist (and relatively poor prospects of California Chrome) on another site in the week leading up to that race in 2014, and was more than pleased to be able to take 9/1 on him after the negligible effect of doing so. Some other race ten days later could be another matter.

And if it is something that amounts to nothing more than "wow ABC is such a great horse he's beautiful & I love him so much!" and "XYZ is a dog & I hate him!" then it is nothing but a droplet in the waterfall of meaningless background noise that always exists and is universally ignored several hundred times a day on about 300 days a year.
"I'm against stuff like crack and math" --AxelWolf
DrawingDead
DrawingDead
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2233
May 4th, 2015 at 10:27:03 PM permalink
Quote: Boz

I see no value in +190 even if you believe AP will win the TC. Better to bet the low odds on him in the Preakness and then decide to bet him in the Belmont if you think he can do it. Am I correct on this?

I've never come close to buying the "yes" side on this proposition, but you got me curious so I did a little simple arithmetic on a parlay of individual wagers involving last year's final pari-mutual odds.

Chrome paid $3.00 (per $2) to win the Preakness, and went off at 0.85/1 in the Belmont. So if one parlayed the individual races by simply betting $100 on him to win at Pimlico, then used the resulting $150 payout for a win bet at Belmont Park, if he won you'd be looking at a total of $277.50 from your initial $100 for a net profit of $177.50. That's equivalent to getting a little less than the current line on the prop at this time in this year, but not by a lot.

However, that little calculation could be highly misleading for a number of reasons, perhaps most significantly because a major part of the risk on the "yes" side of such a prop is the very real possibility that he doesn't make it to become an official starter in one of the races for any of a myriad of reasons. If you are parlaying individual bets on raceday(s) you obviously will not be betting and losing your intial hundy or your later Benjamin and a half if he doesn't make it to the race, or your wager will be refunded if he is a late scratch. You could even profit while failing in the overall parlay attempt. If the same thing happens after buying a "yes" ticket in the prop, what your wager gets you is: "Thank-you for playing; would you like a drink ticket?"

In case anyone is not aware of this: If the horse does not complete the task of being declared the official winner of all three legs for any reason, including illness or injury leading to not running in one of them, the "no" side is not a "push" that is refunded; it is a winner.

If I liked the horse for the Triple Crown, I don't think I would like +190 for this prop.
"I'm against stuff like crack and math" --AxelWolf
DrawingDead
DrawingDead
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2233
May 6th, 2015 at 11:47:48 AM permalink
With time to look at it more closely, I've changed my mind about the TC prop and will be playing "no" again this year. This was a particularly weak Derby win, tracking a slow lightly contested pace and finishing in mediocre time, with the 4th and 6th place runners Frosted & Materiality having especially strong finishes after severely compromised trips, and any of the first six could be a likely winner of a hypothetical rerun depending on trip and pace, with none deserving retrospective odds under 7/1 to do so. I'm willing to disregard uncertainty over the unknowable properties of Baffert's latest version of magic sauce; he is very unlikely to get through the Belmont. I'm just not sure how much I want to allocate for locking it in during the immediate post-Derby period vs. after the Preakness for a better price closer to even money if the hype machine is in order and the usual impetuous chumps are buying. The line has moved a bit from Wm. Hill as apparently they are getting unbalanced action favoring "no." I'll be checking other lines for it in the coming week.
"I'm against stuff like crack and math" --AxelWolf
DrawingDead
DrawingDead
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2233
May 10th, 2015 at 6:38:50 PM permalink
The money has obviously been coming in disproportionately on the "no" side of the Triple Crown prop at the opening prices, and those offering the wager are apparently begging for action on Pharoah. William Hill's line has moved twice this week and is now at +230/-270, while both Wynn and Westgate have moved to +220/-260.

Also, I found the terms of the prop from these two major brick & mortar Las Vegas books stating: "Must run in Preakness to have action." Maybe it is just my faulty memory, but I don't recall that condition from prior years of wagering on this prop. It is a difference that matters, "stuff happens" is a major part of the game, and though it does not extend to taking out the "stuff happens" in the interval between the Preakness & Belmont, this stipulation still does reduce the desirability of taking the "no" by a few percentage points a week before running at Pimlico. My opinion estimates A.P. at about 55% to win the Preakness, and if he does so then 38% to make the Belmont and win it, for a little over 20% chance (0.55 * 0.38 = 0.209) of cashing on "yes" and a bit less than 80% on the "no" side winning. I expect this is a considerably lower estimate than what some who are more enthused about the horse would come up with, but where my money is concerned my opinion is the one that matters. This leads me to:

YES: $100 + $220 = $320; and $320 * 0.21 = an expected value of $67.20 from a $100 wager, and "yes" comes out as a horrible bet to me, and is strictly a vehicle for fans to pay to express themselves, given my opinion above. It would have to be priced > +500 for me to consider it to be approaching fair value territory, and I still wouldn't be interested with this particular horse this year.

NO: $260 + $100 = $360; and $360 * 0.79 = an expected value of $284.40 from a $260 wager on the "no."

Though with this estimate of where things stand I think there's still some value on the "no" amounting to about +9% ROI following the line movements, it is considerably less attractive at this point than if I hadn't snoozed in getting the price locked in. I did buy a ticket last night at -260, but for considerably less than I originally planned. If A.P. does get through the Preakness, I hope he does so in visually impressive fashion, thrilling his fans & providing an opportunity to play "no" more heavily immediately afterward at a more rewarding price.

There's also a whole boatload of reasons I think it would be best overall for the sport and the future well-being of the equine athletes in it if this horse does not succeed in doing this, but I promise to do my best to paste a smile on my face as the fans cheer him, and to stifle my satisfaction amidst their grief if and when I cash on this.

Wynn also has a future book line specifically on winning the Preakness, and to show any line movements on the list for that below I've included the first odds at open, followed by the second line, followed by the odds being offered as of last night:

WAGERING INTEREST - OPEN - LINE#2 - CURRENT ODDS

American Pharoah 2/3 - 2/3 - 5/7
Firing Line 7/2 - 7/2 - 7/2
Dortmund 4/1 - 4/1 - 4/1
Carpe Diem 7/1 - 8/1 - 8/1
Materiality 9/1 - 10/1 - 10/1
Competitive Edge 10/1 - 13/1 - 14/1
Danzig Moon 16/1 - 18/1 - 15/1
Divining Rod 20/1 - 20/1 - 20/1
Mr. Z 22/1 - 25/1 - 25/1 [uhmm... ?]
Stanford 25/1 - 28/1 - 28/1
Bodhisattva 28/1 - 30/1 - 30/1
Tale of Verve 35/1 - 40/1 - 40/1
Grand Bili 40/1 - 45/1 - 45/1

The vig built into this Preakness line is over 30%. The juice in the 'yes/no' Triple Crown props is in low single digits.

EDIT: I don't know if they still have a line up and would sell tickets on them, but the Pletcher horses have been declared out of this, as has Mr. Z according to the owner.
"I'm against stuff like crack and math" --AxelWolf
DrawingDead
DrawingDead
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2233
May 13th, 2015 at 12:36:54 PM permalink
^And re-edit. In something that is starting to become a little bizarre, after being declared out of the Preakness by the owner for whom he was named (Mr. Zayat of Zayat stables) Mr. Z has suddenly been sold to Calumet and is now said to be going in the Preakness three days hence, while remaining with D. Wayne Lukas as his trainer. One hopes the colt won't be feeling dizzy when they bring him to the paddock. If the day is Saturday, perhaps we are in Baltimore.
"I'm against stuff like crack and math" --AxelWolf
FinsRule
FinsRule
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
  • Threads: 121
  • Posts: 3750
May 13th, 2015 at 2:26:30 PM permalink
Am I allowed to think both of these thoughts?

- American Pharoah will win the Triple Crown
- +220 is not a bet I would like to make on AP winning the triple crown

  • Jump to: