Let’s see if I can do it again.
All eyes are on Orb and Oxbow, the winners of the first two legs of the Triple Crown. Those two horses are likely to be heavy betting favorites in the Belmont. And according to my model, they look okay, but not attractive at the odds they will go off at.
Instead, my numbers suggest a trio of long shots are the place to put your money: Palace Malice, Overanalyze, and Golden Soul. Each of those horses should pay about 15-1 if they were to pull off an upset victory. Read More »
I made a mess out of this year’s Kentucky Derby. The worst part is that a bunch of friends placed bets using my picks, collectively losing a large stack of money.
After the Kentucky Derby, I blogged about the misery, noting what a strange race the Derby was:
Read More »
The race is 1.25 miles long and there were 19 horses in the race. Of the eight horses who were in the front of the pack after one-fourth of a mile, seven ended up finishing in back: 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th. Only one horse that trailed early also finished poorly, and that horse started terribly and was way behind the field from the beginning. In contrast, the horses who ended up doing well were in 16th, 15th, 17th, 12th, and 18th place early on in the race. Basically, there was a nearly perfect negative correlation between the order of the horses early in the race and the order of the horses at the end of the race!
My condolences to anyone who bet my picks in the Kentucky Derby. Of the four horses I liked, the best finisher was Revolutionary in third place, but even that was unimpressive because he surprised me by going off as the second favorite in the betting. Just be glad I didn’t post my picks for the entire day’s racing at Churchill Downs…the few friends I did give those picks to are cursing me today!
The Kentucky Derby was extremely interesting, however, from a statistical perspective. Here is a link to the results chart for the race. If you don’t study horse racing, it will just look like gibberish. If you know how to read a results chart, you will see a remarkable pattern jump out of the numbers. The race is 1.25 miles long and there were 19 horses in the race. Of the eight horses who were in the front of the pack after one-fourth of a mile, seven ended up finishing in back: 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th. Only one horse that trailed early also finished poorly, and that horse started terribly and was way behind the field from the beginning. In contrast, the horses who ended up doing well were in 16th, 15th, 17th, 12th, and 18th place early on in the race. Basically, there was a nearly perfect negative correlation between the order of the horses early in the race and the order of the horses at the end of the race! Read More »
The dangerous thing about gambling is that you happen to win sometimes just by chance. The gambler is quick to take credit for successes, but can always find some external factor to blame for losses.
Case in point: my Kentucky Derby picks. I picked three horses out of twenty starters: one to win, one to place, and one to show. The horse I picked to win had some terrible luck, hurting his ankle and eventually finishing 19th.
The horse I picked for second, I’ll Have Another, ended up winning the race. Bodemeister, my third-place pick, finished second. A two dollar exacta-box on my top three horses would have cost $12 and would have returned $306.
I also picked a horse to finish last, Daddy Long Legs, and he indeed finished dead last.
So, like the gambler I am, I take credit for the good outcomes, and write off my horse finishing 19th as merely bad luck.
And, of course, that means I will push my luck on the Preakness, which goes off today.
I wish I had more exciting picks, but this time my algorithm likes the two favorites, Bodemeister and I’ll Have Another. For third, I’d go with Optimizer.
Every year I post Kentucky Derby picks.
Every year they turn out to be terrible.
Every year I vow I will not embarrass myself again next year.
Every year two or three loyal readers email me and ask why I didn’t post my picks this year, so then I post picks after all.
So, against my better judgment, here they are.
Read More »
Dubner and I have been thinking a lot these days about pundits who make predictions. The incentives surrounding predictions are completely skewed. If I make a wild prediction, and it just happens to come true, I have strong incentives to constantly remind the world about how my prediction came true. If, as is much more often the case, the prediction is wrong, it is likely to be quickly forgotten because there is typically no one else who cares enough about my failed prediction to go to the time and effort to continually remind others that I was wrong. Thus, even if I am rarely correct, it makes sense to make a lot of crazy predictions.
Which leads me, of course, to the Kentucky Derby. I’ve made Kentucky Derby predictions every year since we started the blog. Rarely have I been correct. But I did, many years ago, publicly and correctly predict that a 50-1 shot would win the race. I cannot tell you how many times I have mentioned that to people. I have been much quieter about the time that the horse I predicted would finish dead last actually won the race, although in its own way that is also quite a feat. Read More »
Levitt’s predictions. Read More »
There is likely no prediction I can make for the Preakness that will generate as much entertainment value as my ill-fated Kentucky Derby picks.
But here goes anyway. Read More »