You are sitting in an airport bar, impatiently waiting for your flight to Louisville. You strike up a conversation with the guy sitting next to you. He says that he loves the Kentucky Derby. Never misses it. Watches it every year. On television.

You decide that you might have a pigeon ready to be plucked.

You say, "I’ll bet you an evening of drinks that you can’t name two horses that have won the Kentucky Derby by more than two lengths."

Our pigeon begins thinking. You can just smell the smoke. You know that he got Secretariat right away. Everybody knows that one. Click! He has it! He’s sure he’s got you. "You’ve got a bet he says."

He starts by proudly announcing, "Secretariat," and waits for your pain to begin. You smile.

He continues, explaining about all the different possibilities he had considered, and that he finally settled upon Real Quiet as his second selection because he was sure you would remember him. Now he smiles big.

You say, "You lose." He asks, "Why?" That is when you explain that no "horse" as ever won the Kentucky Derby because the races isn’t for "horses." It is for "three-year old colts, geldings, and fillies."

Okay, so while your wheels are turning around who your own personal pigeon for this trap is going to be, let’s get on with the real story.

Although we not typically taken the Kentucky Derby too seriously from a profit standpoint, we find that our annual analysis is generally right on the money.

As with any analysis, we have to start with some races. We decided to use all races from our database which fit the following criterion:

1. three-year old males only
2. dirt
3. distance of 1 3/16 to 1 1/4 miles
4. January through September
5. Handicaps and Graded Stakes
6. Purse value of $100,000 or more

Our search produced 25 such races, including the last 7 Kentucky Derbies. The results are very enlightening, to say the least.

The Tote Board

The tote board tells much of the tale at the Derby. First, let’s look at how the different public choices rank:

Before going on, let’s make sure everyone understands our column labels:

Starts - Number of horses with this characteristic
Pays - Number of winning horses
Pct - Win percentage
$Net - Return for each $2.00 wagered
IV - Impact Value (wins / expected wins)
PIV - Pool Impact Value (wins / pool expectation)
AvPay - Average Payoff
Av Odds - Average Odds of all starters

The fact that the favorites in this type of race have not done well, should come as no surprise. But notice that the second choices have more than taken up the slack.

The critical point here is that a whopping 23 of the 25 races were won by one of the lowest 5 public choices at the race track.

The logical thing to do is to divide the horses into 3 groups:

If we look at the raw odds themselves, we find that the odds groups break nicely into three categories:

In this type of race, the public is usually wrong, picking the wrong favorite. But they are not too wrong. While betting on favorites is usually a bad idea, betting on horses beyond the fifth public choice or above 8/1 is the kiss of death.

And notice that 0.70 PIV? That means that favorites only win 70% of the races that the public thinks they should win based upon how the money in the win pool is distributed.

Early Speed

Not too much to recommend here, accept that true early horses (7 or 8 points) do not typically last at these distances.

Earnings per start has long been used as a yard stick for determining who the better horses are in a given race. In our calculation of earnings per start,we looked for a 10% edge between horses to make an edge in the rankings.

Notice that after the top 5 ranks the IVs drop off drastically, as do the odds. In other words, the public is well aware that horses with greater earnings win more often.

Total Earnings, Last 2 Years

In Dr. Frederick Davis’ manuscript, Percentages & Probabilities (Wildwood Publications) from 1973, he suggested that a good way to measure class was to simply rank the horses by total money earned in the last two years.

This factor deserves some serious attention. First, notice that the first two rankings (and three of the top four) produced a significant profit. But before you get all excited and decide that you can bet the Derby on earnings alone, notice the relationship between Average Pay and Average Odds.

See how the average pay is way out of line with the odds? That points to the fact that these rankings were inflated by some higher than normal winners.

But that isn’t necessarily bad news. Perhaps this is a way for us to point to those few horses that did pay big mutuels.

The way to use total earnings is as an excuse to put back in as contenders some of those longshots on the tote board.

Average Purse Value, or APV as it is usually called, measures the size of purse for which each animal has been competing. For a more in-depth definition, look in Dr. WIlliam Quirin’s Winning at the Races (referenced earlier in this article).

In the table above we have ranked the horses, demanding a 10% edge over the next horse in the rankings. Notice that 23 of the 25 winners were ranked in the top 5.

What if we just looked at the final time ratings of each horse? The first question is, "How do we look at final time?"

We are searching for ways to use final time as a contender selector here. In looking at these 13 different final time factors we have chosen the most effective ranking as a contender selector and ranked the factors by impact value.

In most cases, we broke the contender/non-contender status at the 6th ranking. That is, the unmarked ones above (such as B2L3) include the totals for horses ranked 6th or worse in their field. Wherever a different ranking was more effective we marked it appropriately.

In studying the above table, we do not suggest that "Best 2 Ever" is the factor to use. Notice that we had to drop down to the 7th ranking to use it as an elimination. That is because the 6th-ranked horses actually performed respectably.

Some of the factors in the above table actually allowed us to move up a notch to the 5th ranking. Stand back from this table and look at the order. You will notice a pattern.

The absolute worst way to use Speed Ratings was "Last Race," followed closely by several "Best-of-Last-Somethings." In other words, no single, big race is going to point to a winner in the Derby! It requires multiple big races!

Look at the PIVs. Remember that this is "Pool Impact Value." This means that horses which did not rank in the top 4 for B3L4 (Best 3 of Last 4) won only 11% of the races that the public thought they should have won. This is a very significant finding and should be taken very seriously.

By the way, we feel that using the Beyer number or any other high quality approach to speed ratings should work well. Just remember that if you are using the Beyer number, you must look for at least a two-point edge in the ratings.

One of the other questions that you would logically be asked would be, "Should sprint races be used in computing these rankings?"

Our approach to speed was to use all races, all distances, all surfaces, and to demand a full length of difference in the speed ratings to break a tie.

Speed ratings offer a simple, yet powerful way to pick contenders in the Kentucky Derby. No single race qualifies a horse as a contender. Throwing in one clunker in the last 4 is okay, but more than one is enough to strongly downgrade a horse’s chances.

Early Pace

In studying early pace, we simply looked at the early pace rating earned by each horse, just as we did the speed ratings. Obviously, this is not as easy to apply as the final time ratings mentioned earlier because it takes more work to calculate the ratings. The extra effort may well eliminate an extra horse or two on Derby day.

It appears that best 2 of last 4 races is the best way to apply the early pace factor. Notice that this would have eliminated 134 starters and only 1 winner! This factor was powerful enough that it deserves a more in depth look.

In analyzing this factor, it is obvious that horses ranked 1st-3rd significantly outperform the rest of the horses. I suggest that you concentrate on the PIV column rather than the $net column. Notice that all of the top 3 ranks are winning a full third more races than the public expects them to win! This is where you will likely find profitable plays. Notice that the top-ranked horse is going off at slightly more than 3/1. This is because the public does not expect that early speed will be much of a factor. Generally, top-ranked horses in any factor which the public uses consistently will have odds under 2/1.

"Factor W," a powerful pace factor created by Howard Sartin many years ago, essentially mixes the Early Pace rating (EP) with Stretch Run, weighting the early much heavier. In other words, it is less one-dimensional than the EP rating because it demands the horse have some run left for the run to the wire.

Compare the performance of best two of last 4 with the Early Pace factor shown earlier. Notice that the EP factor had a slightly higher PIV. I would not permit this to disuade me from using this factor. Instead, I would choose to see that the factors are interchangeable. In addition, we once again see that "proving" the horse is capable demands precisely two races.

Another Sartin creation, Sustained Pace (SP) is essentially early plus late, weighted late. It generally points to closers.

Okay, so we know that the Derby is generally won by a horse with a run down the stretch, right? Well, apparently not. What we can glean by this less-than-overwhelming factor is that horses that do not rank in the top 6 off of those best 2 of last 4 sustained pace ratings don’t get there.

Did you notice the common thread between the three pace factors? Best 2 of last 4! What does it tell us? That is how you should select your pace lines! The horse with the great single pace line without a second one to back it up will likely disappoint you at the wire. The winner will need two good lines.

Since the horses in this type of race are all well-intended, recency does not play a part. The only significance we could find was that horses off more than 36 days were 0-12. That sample is too small to mean much of anything.

Even a recent work (or lack thereof) had no importance.

The only significance we could find with workouts was the number of furlongs raced or worked in the 21 days prior to the race. Horses that had a combined total of race and workout furlongs of 20 or more did remarkably well.

None of the above factors proved to be of any value in the handicapping equation.

Let’s look at what we have learned:

1. Public Choice 1st-5th - These horses won 92% of all races. Give the edge to non-favorites.

2. Odds less than 9/1 - Again, 92% of all races were won by one of these.

3. APV rank in top 5 - Once more, 92% of all races were won by one of these.

4. Early Pace (Best 2 of Last 4) rank top 6 - This eliminates almost 50% of all starters and only 4% of the winners. Give an extra edge to horses in the top 3.

5. Factor W (Best 2 of Last 4) rank top 6 - This eliminates almost 50% of all starters and only 4% of the winners.

6. Sustained Pace (Best 2 of Last 4) rank top 7 - This eliminates 42% of all starters and only 4% of the winners.

7. 20 Furlongs Worked+Raced in last 21 days - Solid win percentage and return.

 

What About Those Longshots?

Now that we have eliminated those big losers, what about when a longshot wins? In our sample of 25 races there were two longshots. The question is, "Do those two longshots have anything in common?"

The answer is a simple, "Yes." They both ranked in the top 2 for:

Early Pace, Best 2 of Last 4 (11 starters beyond 5th public choice)
Early Pace, Best 3 of Last 4 (12 starters beyond 5th public choice)

In addition, they ranked in the top 4 for:

Final Time, Best 3 of Last 4
Total Earnings, Last 2 Years

Although this is thin evidence, one could build a case for being careful of longshots with early speed, some good final times, and/or big earnings.

Is there any way to find profit from the favorites? In querying all the factors in our system amazingly, we could not find one factor that showed a profit wagering on the favorites in this sample.

And what about the horses in the sample that met all of the first six criterion? Remember that the qualifications we not exactly stringent.

Good luck in the Derby!