06/10/2009 8:15PM

$96 at 10,000-1

Email

The most amazing part of the lone winning ticket (worth $969,345) sold on the Belmont Day Pick-6 was not that it only cost $96 but that the 12 horses used on it were the six winners -- and six horses who finished off the board.

According to the NYRA, this was the winning 1x2x2x2x3x2 ticket, purchased by a YouBet customer:

Leg 1: Fabulous Strike (1st)

Leg 2: Diamondrella (1st), Raw Silk (6th)

Leg 3: Munnings (1st), Hull (4th)

Leg 4: Gabby's Golden Gal (1st), Livin Lovin (4th)

Leg 5: Gio Ponti (1st), Cosmonaut (5th), Wesley (7th)

Leg 6: Summer Bird (1st), Charitable Man (4th)

What we don't know is whether this was the winning bettor's entire play or part of a larger one. Maybe he singled Forever Together on his main ticket and this was the backup ticket for the Just a Game, using Diamondrella and Raw Silk?

In any case, there's nothing fishy about the ticket. NYRA said in a press release that it "utilizes progressive scan technology, which generates a report after each leg of any multi-race wager so that all dollars can be tracked throughout the wager, ensuring no one has tampered with any ticket after the first leg of the wager" and that "the winning Pick 6 wager was placed via Youbet at 1:56 p.m. on Saturday, and the pool closed at 2:34 p.m."


 --Here are the winning Beyer Speed Figures for each of the Triple Crown races since the figs were first published (in The Racing Times) in 1991:

As discussed in the last post, judging the quality of a Triple Crown class in June is a dicey proposition, especially in an era when horses are so lightly raced and may still have plenty of upside if they're allowed to stay in training and race. But just for fun, let's see how the Triple Crowns since 1991 stack up when ranked by the combined winning BSF's for each race:

 

Bruce Friday More than 1 year ago
blue_horseshoe raises some very interesting questions ragarding BSFs as measured over a period of time. Unless the Par Times change from year to year in some time-weighted fashion, any speed improvements realized by "improvement in the breed" or track maintenance technology would be cancelled out via the track variant...
Blue Horseshoe More than 1 year ago
RE: Triple Crown BSF assignments First of all, what does the BSF assignment in the Belmont Stakes mean, really??? If this year’s version was won in a final time of 2:29, what would the figure have been? I’d suggest that it would have been similar to the one assigned… Second, in an era of technological developments in sports medicine and performance enhancing drugs (both legal and illegal), are horses really running slower these days versus prior years?? If we are using Beyer Speed Figures assignments as the basis of the argument then I would suggest a couple of considerations: 1) Has the process of developing and assigning BSFs been consistent over this historical period or has it evolved to less of a final time basis to more of a subjective interpretation of what a horse is capable of doing in the future (leaning heavily on prior figures that were similarly subjectively obtained) versus what it actually did, from a time standpoint, in the race in question. 2) How can there possibly be any confidence in comparing BSFs over different years? Isn’t it the reality that BSFs don’t so much capture final time as they attempt to capture relative time differences (based upon historical norms) between the various classes of horses? What I’m suggesting with this is that, if due to improved technology and medications, that lesser horses are running faster than they have historically (or at least compressing the time performance difference between them and better horses) then wouldn’t we expect to see a reduction of the figures earned on the upper end of the scale, assuming that the upper end just isn’t capable (a time performance ceiling) of improving at the same level of the lesser horses beneath them? While the jury is out on the quality of this year’s Triple Crown group, I’m inclined to think that a compression in time performance (lesser horses running faster, not merely a synthetic phenomenon although exaggerated on some synthetic surfaces) is a factor in the lower BSF assignments that we are seeing at the high end. It just doesn’t make sense to me that in this day and age of technology advancements, that horses are getting slower…
Teresa More than 1 year ago
For what it's worth (not much), I've completely abandoned "in the money" because of the ambiguity--got a check or finished in the top three? I pretty much exclusively use "hit the board," which most people understand to mean finishing first, second, or third. (Let's leave for another time the craziness of what it means when a horse "places.") From Gerald Hammond's The Language of Horse Racing: "In the money, first attested in 1902, means that a horse has finished in one of the prize-money places."
spectacularbid More than 1 year ago
steve, another great table. i had started to add up the figures before finishing your blog but then thought...of course steve will summarize it. two things stand out to me. i thought the grindstone year was a very poor crop but it got a 330 and i think that big brown would have won each of the last 19 derbies and his year is right near the bottom.
Dan MacKenzie More than 1 year ago
lacroso: Free House: 110, 118, 108 = 336 http://community.drf.com/formblog/files/free_house.PDF
Matt M. More than 1 year ago
Pretty impressive back to back figs by Point Given. I always liked him and am happy to see him coming around nicely as a sire that can get you dirt,grass or synthetic. Remember seeing him in the paddock/walking ring for the Haskell and thinking that this was a man among boys....absolutely looked the part.
Rich_P More than 1 year ago
I feel this was a really intelligent play. He essentially turned it into a Pick 5 play using Fab Strike right off the bat, then used Hull, Gio Ponti and Charitable Man, all horses vying for favoritism at some point in the wagering. Maybe he just took a stand against Forever Together, for which this wasn't her best distance (she was 3rd in last year's Just a Game) and Justwhistledixie, who was coming back from an issue after being scratched from the Oaks. One thing's for sure, he obviously favors pacesetters and stone closers.
El Angelo More than 1 year ago
Why does everyone assume that the player liked Forever Together? On paper she was an excellent bet-against at 3-5; the soft turf wasn't going to be her preferred surface, her last race BSF wasn't much better than a bunch of others in the race (it wasn't even the best--that belong to My Princess Jess), and the field had a bunch of interesting newcomers. I see nothing odd at all about taking a play against her; I did the same (albeit without Diamondrella).
Paul More than 1 year ago
The winning Pick 6 pick for The Belmont Stakes makes sense to me because I had the following thought process: I excluded Charitable Man from my trifecta because I thought he would be crushed by Dunkirk in a duel. Thus, I too, picked Summer Bird as the closing winner. On the other hand, if had I played the Pick 6, I too would have picked Charitable Man as my alternate, believing, if Summer Bird did not win, my pace theory would have been wrong and then Charitable Man would be the winner. There was no scenario in my mind in which Dunkirk could win and I felt Mine That Bird would be too tired.
Sean More than 1 year ago
Thats a pretty reasonable Pick 6 ticket except for leaving off Forever Together. I didn't like Justwhistlindixie in the Acorn and Pletcher was quoted as being concerned about Cowboy Cal getting the distance. That being said...Id love to know how he ended up on Gabby's Golden Girl...i thought she a total toss. As for the Triple Crown Beyers...I can't believe Birdstone got a 101. That seemed to be a much better race than Jazil or Commendable.