Betting the Field?

The second Kentucky Derby Future Wager is currently ongoing, which once again, features 23 individual entrants and the "field" for all other 3 year olds. The field has come in 5 times in the past 11 years, making it seemingly a good bet. But is it? Steve Klein of the Daily Racing Form seems to think so, saying:

A bet on the field is essentially a bet that change and chaos will reign, an acknowledgment of the reality that perceptions regarding which horses are and are not serious threats to win the Kentucky Derby can and usually do change significantly during the last couple of months prior to the first Saturday in May.

This is true, but sort of misses the point. When you're taking the "field", you're making one of two bets:

• The current favorites are all vulnerable and a longshot will win on Derby Day. Therefore, the field ensures you have a bunch of horses in a race where the short priced horses are vulnerable.

It's easy to see the problem here: if you actually like longshots come Derby Day...bet them! Taking 5-1 on the field when you can get 50-1 on this year's Mine That Bird is just crazy. Hell, betting $2 on every field horse the day of the Derby is a better play financially speaking.

• The best horse has yet to reveal himself, and will be a shorter price than the field on Derby Day.

Now this is a much better reason to take the field. But is that what you're getting? We took a look at the results of the last 7 Kentucky Derbies, and the chart below shows how many horses in each Derby were Pool 2 "field" horses:

2009: 11
2008: 8
2007: 6
2006: 8
2005: 7
2004: 7
2003: 8

There are a couple of interesting things here. First, every year (except last year, for some reason), 10-13 horses enter the starting gate that were individual entries in Pool 2. This means if you're taking an individual entry, you've got better than a 50% chance of him making the starting gate--not too shabby for a bet made 9 weeks before a race.

Second, you're guaranteed to get a pool of at least 6 entrants by betting the field, and possibly more. But how good are the horses you're getting? Here's how many horses were in the field each year and were under 12-1:

2009: 0
2008: 1 (Big Brown, 2.40-1, won)
2007: 0
2006: 1 (Sinister Minister, 9.70-1, 16th)
2005: 1 (Bellamy Road, 2.70-1, 7th)
2004: 1 (Smarty Jones, 4.10-1, won)
2003: 3 (Buddy Gil, 7.20-1, 6th; Ten Most Wanted, 6.60-1, 9th; Indian Express, 10.80-1, 14th)

Ignore how well these horses actually did in the Derby. What this basically shows is that when you take the "field", you're taking 6-1 on a bet where, on average, you'll get one horse that's below 12-1 on the day of the Derby plus a bevy of longshots. And what kind of horses are you getting that are good "value"? Three types:

1. Horses who bowled everyone over in an allowance race and stakes race in March and April (Bellamy Road, Big Brown).
2. Upset winners of Derby preps (Sinister Minister, Buddy Gil, Indian Express, Ten Most Wanted).
3. A horse that was inexplicably not in Pool 2 (Smarty Jones).

In other words, unless you get a horse that's going to deliver a blockbuster allowance performance--that is, one that hasn't run yet this year--you're getting horses that are short prices in the Derby with big question marks. So there's value...but are these horses you actually want in the Derby?

The conclusion seems pretty clear: pass on the field bet. If you like an individual entry and he's a square price, go for it. Otherwise, wait until May 1st.

How to Bet the Derby Exacta Future Pool

Churchill Downs, to its credit is trying a new bet this week. For the last 10 years, CD has offered a future bet on the Derby this weekend, under which you can bet on any of 23 discreet contenders for the Derby or the "field" option. That bet is still open this year. Additionally, you will also be allowed to bet on the exacta for the Kentucky Derby, using the same 23 horses and the field, with the catch that you can't bet a "Field-Field" exacta; if Field horses run 1-2, they'll find the highest finishing horse in the race from the pool of 23 to determine who the next horse is.

There's a lot of questions regarding this bet, but let's take one small one: what do you do with the field? Pitch it, play it, or hedge with it? And in which slot? Let's look back to the last 10 years to see whether or not the field was in play for the 2nd future pool.

1999...Charismatic-Menifee. Charismatic was a field entry, so the field ran first here. Menifee, I think, was an individual entry, but even if he wasn't, 3rd place finisher Cat Thief definitely was.

2000....Fusaichi Pegasus-Aptitude. FuPeg was 12-1 in the second pool. Aptitude was not, so the field (at 5-1) ran second.

2001....Monarchos-Invisible Ink. Monarchos was 11-2 in the win pool, Invisible Ink was 22-1. Field did not come into play here.

2002....War Emblem-Proud Citizen. The 1-2 finishers were both in the field, we have to go to 3rd place finisher Perfect Drift for the next horse, who was 90-1 (!) in the Derby future pool.

2003....Funny Cide-Empire Maker. Both were in the pool, at 60-1 and 7-2, respectively. Yowks.

2004....Smarty Jones-Lion Heart. Smarty Jones was in the field (really?), while Lion Heart was not.

2005....Giacomo-Closing Argument. The winner was 27-1 in the pool, Closing Argument was part of the field.

2006....Barbaro-Bluegrass Cat. Both horses were relatively short prices in the future bet, the winner at 15-1, the place finisher at 11-1.

2007....Street Sense-Hard Spun. The winner was 8-1 in the second pool, Hard Spun was 20-1.

2008....Big Brown-Eight Belles. Neither is in Pool 2, but 3rd place finisher Denis of Cork is. Field was clearly a big part of this exacta.

So in 10 years, the field was part of the exacta 6 times, with it winning the race 4 times, placing 4 or 5 times, and being the entire exacta 2 or 3 times (sorry, I can't remember or find whether Menifee was in the field.) You're basically staring at the idea that the field will be part of the exacta 60% of the time, and in either slot roughly 40% of the time.

So is including the field on both sides of your exacta bets the way to go? It depends on how you evaluate this year's Derby crop. It's worth noting that the 4 years it was not part of the exacta were the years that the Derby crops were the strongest in the past 10 years--most would argue that the best classes of 3 year olds in the last decade were in 2001, 2006, 2007, and 2003 would get some supporters. How does this crop stack up? Pretty well so far; we've had a bunch of horses run triple digit Beyers that look legit (I Want Revenge, Quality Road, The Pamplemousse), and a bunch more knocking at the door with worlds of talent (Dunkirk, Old Fashioned, Pioneer of the Nile, Friesian Fire, Imperial Council, to name a few). I think given that this is a strong class, and that you'd be taking somewhere near 4-1 on the field hitting the board, it's a good year to pitch the field and concentrate on the 23 horses currently in the pool.