That would be an ideal way to look at it- this system sort of has to work around the fact that I don't know much about parimutuel math or odds distributions (aside from the classic 33/66% favorite performance rates). Just looking at the raw data, you can pull out horses who go off between 8-1 and 12-1... Belmont preppers in this range have a mean finish of 5th and differential of -16.5. Keeneland horses (very few, so no conclusions here) finish 3rd with a +0.24, Santa Anita horses finish 5th with a -16.2 (these all account for field size). So I don't know how those compare to the previous outcomes of ~10-1 horses, but it looks like the bettors aren't great at evaluating these horses and the prep location effects are more from false favorites and missed longshots.Kennedy wrote: I wonder if it might be easy to translate these findings into Impact Values? So you take a 10/1 shot and say that they are expected to win xx% of the time based strictly on the fact they they are 10/1. Then you could potentially isolate 10/1 entrants who last prepped at Belmont vs the overall 10/1 average. Or the same with Santa Anita. It may be interesting to draw out if a 10/1 from California is a "better" or more likely winner than a 10/1 from another locale (when the BC is hosted in Cal). Or is it even the other way around? Do the locals take more money and a 10/1 from another regional base is actually a better play?
This may be particularly interesting to note with Europeans. How many times have we seen well backed Europeans lose to other Europeans in the BC who are actually quite good but for whatever reason aren't as well received at the windows. A lot of the European winners are not the odds on choices.
I'm fascinated by the European question as well, can't wait to get to that part. My instinct here is that Americans are pretty bad at evaluating overseas horses- I certainly am, and I usually just bet them based on their offshore odds. I wonder if I could find offshore odds for past BCs and compare them to the post-time odds here? That might be one way to evaluate it.
Ooh I would love to see that too! Unfortunately Equibase charts are protected from export, so I have to input all the horses manually- but it is definitely a project for the offseason and I'd love to see how bettor capabilities vary from track to track. I agree with you that bettors approach these races very differently, and there's also that aspect of casual bettors and non-bettors influencing the win pool. Win odds are probably one of the worst parameters for this, because they are swayed by the pubic in a way that exotic pools are not.Somnambulist wrote: The betting public is interesting (Cuvee being listed as an example of an under performing comes to mind) and there is seriously way more attention to the lead up of these races than there is most others, save the TC. People watch works and formulate opinions based off weeks (which I do NOT agree with) of trainer comments, works, dozens of articles, and worse now... social media. It garners more way more casual attention from the national as a whole.
Who the betting public decides to stand behind is an exercise in collective decision making I'd like to see expounded on more. For the 20 or so people globally who care.
TB, honestly I'd like to see your formula applies to claiming and allowance races because I view the TC races and the BC to be an anomaly in terms of how people come to their decisions.
Worth mentioning that Baffert today said he doesn't think there's any advantage for SA horses going to Del Mar, because "it's totally different down there." Of course, Baffert says a lot of things.