Logics behind a Preakness favorite ??????????

[Jorge]

Is it sufficiently logical and appropriate to follow the popular notion
that the horse who wins the Kentucky Derby "ought" to be considered
the favorite to win the Preakness Stakes? This in spite that we are dealing with a different racetrack, distance, turn-geometry, dirt, certain-racing style proneness and so many variables? This in spite the fact that many horses during the last decade have won the Preakness following the Derby.

It seems to me that both races are extremely different. Somehow like winning the Two Thousands Guineas and the Epsom Derby (extremely improbable THESE DAYS, but not so in the past).

For me the Kentucky Derby and Preakness are two extremely different
paradigms but somehow a horse winning both is en vogue.

[Jorge]

Now a question: Do you agree the Kentucky Derby winner should be automatically regarded as the favorite for winning the Preakness Stakes?
Perhaps this decade is a good one for analyzing this point.

[Dave C]

The morning line 'favourite' is merely a guess about how the wagering will play out. The post time 'favourite' is the horse on whom the most money has been bet. Neither has anything to do with which horse will actually win, just who the most people think will win. Given that the Preakness attracts a lot of casual bettors and the KD is hyped as a field of the best 3yo's, it does not seem unreasonable to think that the casual bettors are going to gravitate to the KD winner in the absence of the KD winner having upset a dominant 3yo.

[Aug27]

It makes perfect sense. As Dave C pointed out, favoritism is simply based on money wagered. However, the KD winners have also performed up to expectations. On average, favorites win about one-third of the races overall.

In the past 27 runnings of the Preakness, the KD winner competed 25 times (Grindstone and Spend A Buck being the exceptions.) Among those 25 starters, 9 won, for a 36% win pct. (Also note that 6 ran 2nd and 3 ran 3rd, in case you are a trifecta player!)

In comparison, there have been 37 Preakness runners coming off a 2nd or 3rd place KD finish, and 6 of them won (16.2%).

There were also 78 KD “Also Rans”, with 9 winners (11.5%).

Finally, anyone who did not run last in the KD: 144 starters and 3 winners (2.1%) –- Red Bullet, Bernardini, and Rachel Alexandra.

So, with the KD winners out-performing the national average (W%), I think it makes a lot of sense to view them as the favorites for the Preakness.

They have successful current form, and a measure of class. Of course, there are other considerations (track condition, trouble lines, pace) that come into play, as in any race.

[zinn21]

Looks like Dialed In just took over betting dollar favoritism but Jorge to answer your question-no I don't think every Derby winner should be the automatic Preakness favorite. Super Saver and Mine That Bird were, IMO, trip winners and subject to far more handicapping an betting scrutiny.

I like Animal Kingdom because he ran what I consider a dominant race in the Derby. He ran one of the faster final half miles in Derby history.. I understand he did extremely well coming out of the race. He'll be double tough tomorrow..

One last bit of trivia- Not since The Factor won the Rebel Stakes has a favorite won any of the subsequent Derby preps or this year's Kentucky Derby. I believe the "law of averages" should start catching up..

[Terrapin Flyer]

like any race, recent winners are backed more than other horses, unless a huge disparity in class is present. The Derby to Preakness is no different than and open nickle 2 weeks apart