Racing Melbourne Cup 2018 and all Cup Day discussion.(Posting of bets after the race will be carded)

[Mobythepom]

Lol what an absolute joke of an analysis - this is after timing that Liefzy would be proud of. If he wins that race 2/3 times you are basically saying he is a $1.66 shot pre race!!! That is madness! How many horses have started $1.66 in the Melbourne Cup!?!?!?!

He came out in the Autumn and was flogged in the Sydney Cup which is a race held under exactly the same conditions!?!?!? Maybe that was just one of the 3 he loses I guess?

Truly horrific analysis and staggered anyone with a series interest in horse racing and at least some sense thinks like this

Thank you Mr. Angry.

No you've missed the point again on this subject. Reread what I said and you will see I am saying that pre race he is a $8 shot....from above "Before the Cup is run the prices are pretty much right due to the huge weight of money in the markets"
What I am saying is that having seen the race run, I would be pricing up Protectionist as a £1.67 shot if the race could somehow go back in time and be run again. Perhaps you think the $100 price (which you quoted POST race for if the race was rerun) is more accurate?!

Try calming yourself down a smidge old boy, you'll do yourself a mischief one of these days!

I would suggest that despite winning so "easily", the horse really bottomed itself on Cup day and took a long while to get back to it's pre cup form. You see that a lot in fast run top class races. Look at the record of Grand National winners in the UK after they've won. Truly shocking. Doesn't mean that every one of them fluked their win in the big race.

 

[Mobythepom]

I've not forgotten that you drove Sethlad off this forum you know

 

[Duritz]

I would say that the way Protectionist won the race, he won it like a $2.50 chance.

 

[Mobythepom]

I would say that the way Protectionist won the race, he won it like a $2.50 chance.

That's all we need...another dimension

 

[GreyCrow]

lol au contraire.
I am not a favourite backer and even if a horse is huge overs as favourite i would rather back something at longer odds to win and take the quinella with the horse that i think will win . Has worked for me for many years.
I want to make a profit. I couldnt care how many winners I pick. Plenty of ways of winning. You just got to think outside the square, something I have you never see do,

I'd rather back the winner

 

[Optimistic Dog]

Thank you Mr. Angry.

No you've missed the point again on this subject. Reread what I said and you will see I am saying that pre race he is a $8 shot....from above "Before the Cup is run the prices are pretty much right due to the huge weight of money in the markets"
What I am saying is that having seen the race run, I would be pricing up Protectionist as a £1.67 shot if the race could somehow go back in time and be run again. Perhaps you think the $100 price (which you quoted POST race for if the race was rerun) is more accurate?!

Try calming yourself down a smidge old boy, you'll do yourself a mischief one of these days!

I would suggest that despite winning so "easily", the horse really bottomed itself on Cup day and took a long while to get back to it's pre cup form. You see that a lot in fast run top class races. Look at the record of Grand National winners in the UK after they've won. Truly shocking. Doesn't mean that every one of them fluked their win in the big race.

This Iluvparis guy has a an ego bigger than the Eiffel Tower. He always thinks he is right. Maybe he is so angry because his football team being so bad.

We know the true odds or probability in game of 2 up or roulette.

No one knows the true odds of a horse race there a to many subjective factors. Value is a matter of opinion but to label Protectionist in the 2015 cup as being way under its correct odds and was a fluke is just plain stupid opinion in my view.

 

[FallingLiefs]

This is actually something I think about regularly there’s no correct answer imo.

Odds pre race are based on millions of factors and the stupid human beings we are cannot define every single one of them. as such weighted approximations are given to provide the probabilities, approximations that can be determined but we physically cannot process compute them on that scale and accuracy. On one side the more you can define and predict the more accurate and the more the winner tends to $1.00. On the other side are there factors that are truly random like wind gusts at exactly the 623m mark causing horse 3 wide to baulk etc.

My best answer to this is pricing up a market after the race based on actual margins. Almost all solutions are deeply flawed.

Moral of the story is Protectionist was massive overs after the event.

And for the record, before as well.

 

[Mobythepom]

This is actually something I think about regularly there’s no correct answer imo.

Odds pre race are based on millions of factors and the stupid human beings we are cannot define every single one of them. as such weighted approximations are given to provide the probabilities, approximations that can be determined but we physically cannot process compute them on that scale and accuracy. On one side the more you can define and predict the more accurate and the more the winner tends to $1.00. On the other side are there factors that are truly random like wind gusts at exactly the 623m mark causing horse 3 wide to baulk etc.

My best answer to this is pricing up a market after the race based on actual margins. Almost all solutions are deeply flawed.

Moral of the story is Protectionist was massive overs after the event.

And for the record, before as well.

Nicely reasoned (and clearly correct in my opinion) and set out without vitriol or hyperbole.

 

[iluvparis]

What I am saying is that having seen the race run, I would be pricing up Protectionist as a £1.67 shot if the race could somehow go back in time and be run again. Perhaps you think the $100 price (which you quoted POST race for if the race was rerun) is more accurate?!


I would suggest that despite winning so "easily", the horse really bottomed itself on Cup day and took a long while to get back to it's pre cup form. You see that a lot in fast run top class races. Look at the record of Grand National winners in the UK after they've won. Truly shocking. Doesn't mean that every one of them fluked their win in the big race.

I ask again - how many $1.67 shots have their been in the history of the Melbourne Cup - it is a terrible TERRIBLE call. A horse that is going to win a Melbourne Cup 66% of the time can't even beat Let's Make A Deal over 2400? That's absolute garbage moby whatever way you look at it

Also #noexcuses for his poor subsequent form and lel at comparing the Melbourne Cup to the Grand National FFS - they are not even the class jumpers.

But yes you are right - if you take his massive career spike performance and are happy to right off every other bad run down to something completely different - than yes he is a $1.67 shot - but that is just farcical logic to lose. Of course you are going to nail every race ever if you put all your good calls down to smart punting and bad calls down to b/s excuses.

 

[Duritz]

Yeah similar to liefz I came up with a method of assigning them their true probability post race based on their actual margins. I wasn’t going to say that because I didn’t want anyone to have any bright ideas about copying it but sheesh now liefz has I may as well admit to having done same.

It’s a handy tool.

 

[iluvparis]

Nicely reasoned (and clearly correct in my opinion) and set out without vitriol or hyperbole.

Lol there is no reasoning there at all - just the same after timing opinion that gets you to your conclusions - so no doubt you agree with it.

Like Jug has stated multiple time - by your guys logic all winners are overs after the event.

 

[iluvparis]

Yeah similar to liefz I came up with a method of assigning them their true probability post race based on their actual margins. I wasn’t going to say that because I didn’t want anyone to have any bright ideas about copying it but sheesh now liefz has I may as well admit to having done same.

It’s a handy tool.

So the winning lottery numbers must be good overs after the event each week too

 

[Duritz]

So the winning lottery numbers must be good overs after the event each week too

Lol. It’s not a time machine. It’s a way of quantifying their true probability based on what ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

 

[Duritz]

OK Captain Grumpy, lets say there is a two horse race, and there’s only a nose margin between them at the finish. In fact it’s the smallest margin in history. Virtually a dead heat, but horse A just wins by a short half pimple over horse B. Would you say that with the benefit of hindsight on the day their true probabilities were:

1. About 50% each.
2. Horse A was 100%, horse B was 0%.
3. Whatever the market said pre race.

 

[Watts4Dinner]

OK Captain Grumpy, lets say there is a two horse race, and there’s only a nose margin between them at the finish. In fact it’s the smallest margin in history. Virtually a dead heat, but horse A just wins by a short half pimple over horse B. Would you say that with the benefit of hindsight on the day their true probabilities were:

1. About 50% each.
2. Horse A was 100%, horse B was 0%.
3. Whatever the market said pre race.

Trick question. None of the above.

4. Paris was on the 2nd horse. The winner was a cat that will never win another race and Paris’ horse was STL.

 

[iluvparis]

OK Captain Grumpy, lets say there is a two horse race, and there’s only a nose margin between them at the finish. In fact it’s the smallest margin in history. Virtually a dead heat, but horse A just wins by a short half pimple over horse B. Would you say that with the benefit of hindsight on the day their true probabilities were:

1. About 50% each.
2. Horse A was 100%, horse B was 0%.
3. Whatever the market said pre race.

Can't tell with the limited information provided but C is the most likely outcome

 

[iluvparis]

Trick question. None of the above.

4. Paris was on the 2nd horse. The winner was a cat that will never win another race and Paris’ horse was STL.

100% correct

 

[Optimistic Dog]

This is actually something I think about regularly there’s no correct answer imo.

Odds pre race are based on millions of factors and the stupid human beings we are cannot define every single one of them. as such weighted approximations are given to provide the probabilities, approximations that can be determined but we physically cannot process compute them on that scale and accuracy. On one side the more you can define and predict the more accurate and the more the winner tends to $1.00. On the other side are there factors that are truly random like wind gusts at exactly the 623m mark causing horse 3 wide to baulk etc.

My best answer to this is pricing up a market after the race based on actual margins. Almost all solutions are deeply flawed.

Moral of the story is Protectionist was massive overs after the event.

And for the record, before as well.

Don Scott the doyen of form analysts (not the footballer) started this in Australia in 60's he called this advantage odds by rating all of horses of a number factors form, weight, distance, barrier, jockey etc.

This converted to a rating figure and the highest rated horse gave you the winner and margins from winner which was then priced, the bigger margin the shorter price the horse. You back the horses that are longer prices than your price (overlay).

The doyen used the example of a toss of a coin as even money as true odds. He says when pricing a horse race you cannot calculate the true odds but luckily you do need to , your price assessment only needs to be more accurate than the market available.


You can see this on Gary Crispe's website RacingandSports for free.

 

[Watts4Dinner]

 

[GreyCrow]

So Youngstar , thoughts?

 

[plays tall 1]

So Youngstar , thoughts?

Promising mare, assured of a start.

Must be some doubt whether Waller would take her to the Melbourne Cup at this age...

 

[Duritz]

Can't tell with the limited information provided but C is the most likely outcome

What other information would you require?

 

[Duritz]

Don Scott the doyen of form analysts (not the footballer) started this in Australia in 60's he called this advantage odds by rating all of horses of a number factors form, weight, distance, barrier, jockey etc.

This converted to a rating figure and the highest rated horse gave you the winner and margins from winner which was then priced, the bigger margin the shorter price the horse. You back the horses that are longer prices than your price (overlay).

The doyen used the example of a toss of a coin as even money as true odds. He says when pricing a horse race you cannot calculate the true odds but luckily you do need to , your price assessment only needs to be more accurate than the market available.


You can see this on Gary Crispe's website RacingandSports for free.

In other news, they invented the wheel!

 

[HeathySure]

Can't tell with the limited information provided but C is the most likely outcome

I like that you picked option C when it was a 1 2 3 choice!

 

[HeathySure]

So Youngstar , thoughts?

at best top 10. I doubt any Aus/NZ Breds are up to it including Ace High