Post Positions 1 and 2 are the kiss of death in the Ky Derby.
Since 1963 there have been only 2 winners from the dreaded 1 post: Chateugay in 1963 when the Derby field totaled 9 starters and Ferdinand in 1986 when the field was 16 starters. Thats 2 winners in 50 years or only 4% winners. Or one may look at the data as only 1 winner when the field size was over 15 horses in the last 50 years and that was Ferdinand.
The 2 post has had ONLY 1 winner in the last 50 years and that was Triple Crown winner, Affirmed back in 1978.
Lets hope that your favorite pick does not end up with the dreaded 1 or 2 post come Derby Day.
post positions 1 and 2
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster, K~2
Re: post positions 1 and 2
stancaris wrote:Post Positions 1 and 2 are the kiss of death in the Ky Derby.
Since 1963 there have been only 2 winners from the dreaded 1 post: Chateugay in 1963 when the Derby field totaled 9 starters and Ferdinand in 1986 when the field was 16 starters. Thats 2 winners in 50 years or only 4% winners. Or one may look at the data as only 1 winner when the field size was over 15 horses in the last 50 years and that was Ferdinand.
The 2 post has had ONLY 1 winner in the last 50 years and that was Triple Crown winner, Affirmed back in 1978.
Lets hope that your favorite pick does not end up with the dreaded 1 or 2 post come Derby Day.
Hi Stan,
Since the advent of the starting gate and since its first use in the 1930 KY Derby....as of 83 years. The top 5 % post positions according to % starters to winners are as follows:
#10, (11.8%) winners
#16 & 8, (9.8%) tied
#1 & 5, (9.6%) tied
#2, (8.4%)
#7, (7.3%)
Last edited by TJ on Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: post positions 1 and 2
post error.
Re: post positions 1 and 2
TJ: My point above concerns mainly the Derby with larger field size of 16 or more. The percentage of wins for the 1 post position when the field size is 16 or higher is very poor going back to 1963. Only Ferdinand managed to overcome the 1 post when the field size was 16 or higher.
The percentage of wins from the 2 post over that same time period is also very poor. ONLY Affirmed, the Triple Crown Winner of 1978 could manage to win from the 2 post all the way back to 1963.
Since 1963 the 1 and the 2 post in the Derby is pretty much like the kiss of death.
Triple Crown winners Assault 1946 won from the 2 post and War Admiral 1937 won from the 1 post and Needles in 1956 also won from the number 1 post.
You can use the whole history of the Derby but I think you are missing the point of large fields. When the field size is over 15 horses the 1 and the 2 are the most dreaded of all post positions
The percentage of wins from the 2 post over that same time period is also very poor. ONLY Affirmed, the Triple Crown Winner of 1978 could manage to win from the 2 post all the way back to 1963.
Since 1963 the 1 and the 2 post in the Derby is pretty much like the kiss of death.
Triple Crown winners Assault 1946 won from the 2 post and War Admiral 1937 won from the 1 post and Needles in 1956 also won from the number 1 post.
You can use the whole history of the Derby but I think you are missing the point of large fields. When the field size is over 15 horses the 1 and the 2 are the most dreaded of all post positions
Re: post positions 1 and 2
Hi Stan,
I understand your point...but why so selective? I don't understand why you didn't follow through with the criteria you mention of (15+ starters), over the entire history of the Derby since the first use of the starting gate in 1930? Why select '63 (a year that had 9 Derby starters) to present day, when there were another 15 Derby's run between 1930 and 1962 that fit your parameters? During that period, the 1 post won three times and the 2 post won once. TJ
I understand your point...but why so selective? I don't understand why you didn't follow through with the criteria you mention of (15+ starters), over the entire history of the Derby since the first use of the starting gate in 1930? Why select '63 (a year that had 9 Derby starters) to present day, when there were another 15 Derby's run between 1930 and 1962 that fit your parameters? During that period, the 1 post won three times and the 2 post won once. TJ
Re: post positions 1 and 2
TJ: The data seemed overwhelmingly in favor of avoiding wagers on the 1 or 2 post horses to win the Derby. Only 1 winner in 50 years from the 1 post and in that same time frame only 1 winner from the 2 post and that was Triple Crown winner, Affirmed.
I honestly think that 50 years is going back far enough to recognize a definite negative trend. Horses from the inside in a 20 horse field are very unlucky. Remember Lookin at Lucky-- how unlucky can you get?
I honestly think that 50 years is going back far enough to recognize a definite negative trend. Horses from the inside in a 20 horse field are very unlucky. Remember Lookin at Lucky-- how unlucky can you get?
Re: post positions 1 and 2
stancaris wrote:TJ: The data seemed overwhelmingly in favor of avoiding wagers on the 1 or 2 post horses to win the Derby. Only 1 winner in 50 years from the 1 post and in that same time frame only 1 winner from the 2 post and that was Triple Crown winner, Affirmed.
I honestly think that 50 years is going back far enough to recognize a definite negative trend. Horses from the inside in a 20 horse field are very unlucky. Remember Lookin at Lucky-- how unlucky can you get?
Hi Stan,
Yes in recent years we could look at Lookin At Lucky and Jazil....both hampered by the inside post. If I'm not mistaken, some complained that the gate was set in a bad position almost forcing the inside horses into the rail. Personally I prefer to look at the overall picture, then zero in on changing trends. I also believe that horses that drew the 1 and 2 posts didn't have the ability to begin with....seems more research could be necessary to make such a statement. Yet there is no doubt the inside post could force the hand of a speed horse and can benefit a stone cold closer who gets to save ground thanks to that post. Listen, 20 horses is a tough field to get a clean trip at any post. Recent trends with 20 horse fields also indicate the auxiliary gate to be the place to be. Although not a single horse has ever won the Derby who broke from the 17 post.
Over the course of the Derby, since the starting gate has been used, the total cumulative winning posts have been, the 10 post with 9 wins, the 1 and 8 posts tied with 8 wins each, the 2 post with 7 wins and the 7 post with 6 wins. TJ
Re: post positions 1 and 2
TJ: Here are some recent example of why the 1 or 2 post with huge fields is considered by many to be dreaded:
In 2013 Revolutionary, the second choice at 6-1 went from the 2 post and was bumped at the start. Now horses can be bumped from anywhere but when at the rail or 2 post your in tight to begin with and that is a disadvantage. Revolutionary was shuffled back to 17th position in the first quarter mile and rallied to be third but could not menace the winner. Here is an interesting point: Either you go to the lead from the 1 or 2 post which is a disadvantage in the Derby to begin with or you get shuffled way back which is also a disadvantage in the Derby. Derby winners are often runners from slightly off the pace, not stone closers or Bodemeister need the lead types.
In 2011 Archarcharch from the 1 post was steadied early, pulled up lame and never raced again.
In 2010 Lookin at Lucky drew the 1 post and was bumped severely by Stately Victor at the break and then was roughed again in the first furlong. I remember Baffert with the look of defeat at the post position draw. He knew he was up against it with the dreaded 1 hole. With a better post he might have been the Derby winner and two weeks later he validated that hypothesis with a win in the Preakness.
Also in 2010 Ice Box was in the 2 post and was steadied early in traffic, fell back to 19th at the quarter and rallied for second. He might have won that Derby with a better post position. Now don't get me wrong--- a horse can get smacked from any post - its just that its more likely to run into trouble from the inside posts 1 and 2 in a big Derby field which tends to squeeze horses on the inside.
In 2007 Curlin raced from the 2 post and was steadied at the start and fell back to 13th at the quarter. He then rallied somewhat to finish 3rd. It might have been different with a better post and he validated that hypothesis with a win over Street Sense in the Preakness two weeks later.
In 2006 Jazil from the 1 post swerved at the start and fell back to 20th. He did rally to finish fourth. With a better post he probably would have finished second to Barbaro. Jazil validated that hypothesis with a win in the Belmont stakes 5 weeks later.
You can use the whole history of the Derby to validate your idea that post position is not important in the Derby but I would rather look at the recent trends where the field size is almost always 19 or 20 horses and horses in the 1 and 2 post are often compromised by such an unlucky draw.
When they used to have the old way of having the trainers select post positions from two draws: First the draw to see who selects post position first, second, third, etc and then another draw when they actually selected their post position which post was always selected LAST?. That old nemesis , the most dreaded post of all, NUMERO UNO, post 1. It's the worst place to be.
Let's hope that none of our favorite horses in this Derby gets number 1 or 2. If so, its back to the drawing board for me.
In 2013 Revolutionary, the second choice at 6-1 went from the 2 post and was bumped at the start. Now horses can be bumped from anywhere but when at the rail or 2 post your in tight to begin with and that is a disadvantage. Revolutionary was shuffled back to 17th position in the first quarter mile and rallied to be third but could not menace the winner. Here is an interesting point: Either you go to the lead from the 1 or 2 post which is a disadvantage in the Derby to begin with or you get shuffled way back which is also a disadvantage in the Derby. Derby winners are often runners from slightly off the pace, not stone closers or Bodemeister need the lead types.
In 2011 Archarcharch from the 1 post was steadied early, pulled up lame and never raced again.
In 2010 Lookin at Lucky drew the 1 post and was bumped severely by Stately Victor at the break and then was roughed again in the first furlong. I remember Baffert with the look of defeat at the post position draw. He knew he was up against it with the dreaded 1 hole. With a better post he might have been the Derby winner and two weeks later he validated that hypothesis with a win in the Preakness.
Also in 2010 Ice Box was in the 2 post and was steadied early in traffic, fell back to 19th at the quarter and rallied for second. He might have won that Derby with a better post position. Now don't get me wrong--- a horse can get smacked from any post - its just that its more likely to run into trouble from the inside posts 1 and 2 in a big Derby field which tends to squeeze horses on the inside.
In 2007 Curlin raced from the 2 post and was steadied at the start and fell back to 13th at the quarter. He then rallied somewhat to finish 3rd. It might have been different with a better post and he validated that hypothesis with a win over Street Sense in the Preakness two weeks later.
In 2006 Jazil from the 1 post swerved at the start and fell back to 20th. He did rally to finish fourth. With a better post he probably would have finished second to Barbaro. Jazil validated that hypothesis with a win in the Belmont stakes 5 weeks later.
You can use the whole history of the Derby to validate your idea that post position is not important in the Derby but I would rather look at the recent trends where the field size is almost always 19 or 20 horses and horses in the 1 and 2 post are often compromised by such an unlucky draw.
When they used to have the old way of having the trainers select post positions from two draws: First the draw to see who selects post position first, second, third, etc and then another draw when they actually selected their post position which post was always selected LAST?. That old nemesis , the most dreaded post of all, NUMERO UNO, post 1. It's the worst place to be.
Let's hope that none of our favorite horses in this Derby gets number 1 or 2. If so, its back to the drawing board for me.
Re: post positions 1 and 2
Hi Stan,
I guess you're right, they must have fudged the Derby post position numbers showing which posts had the most wins:>) TJ
I guess you're right, they must have fudged the Derby post position numbers showing which posts had the most wins:>) TJ
Re: post positions 1 and 2
TJ: What is bothering you? I stated the evidence of recent trends over the last 50 years. If you want to use the stats for the last 83 years, go ahead. That certainly is your prerogative.
Just look at the faces of the trainer and owner of a horse that happens to get stuck with the 1 post on Derby Day draw this coming Wednesday. How come they always selected number 1 post last in the years when they had a choice? Its a dreaded post.
What happened in the 1930s is irrelevant as to what is happening today with 20 horse fields.
Just look at the faces of the trainer and owner of a horse that happens to get stuck with the 1 post on Derby Day draw this coming Wednesday. How come they always selected number 1 post last in the years when they had a choice? Its a dreaded post.
What happened in the 1930s is irrelevant as to what is happening today with 20 horse fields.
Re: post positions 1 and 2
stancaris wrote:TJ: What is bothering you? I stated the evidence of recent trends over the last 50 years. If you want to use the stats for the last 83 years, go ahead. That certainly is your prerogative.
Just look at the faces of the trainer and owner of a horse that happens to get stuck with the 1 post on Derby Day draw this coming Wednesday. How come they always selected number 1 post last in the years when they had a choice? Its a dreaded post.
What happened in the 1930s is irrelevant as to what is happening today with 20 horse fields.
Hi Stan,
There's nothing bothering me....seems like I must agree with you or I have something bothering me? I actually agree the inside posts hurt, but a good horse can overcome it. It's all about running style and catching the break. I disagree when it comes to stating partial facts....I simply prefer looking at Derby history so others that may tune in, can decide for themselves what may or may not be irrelevant in their eyes. That's the fun of cipherin' y'all Derby horse:>) So just relax and enjoy our discussion, didn't mean to upset you. People disagree on methods and theories all the time, yet manage to come up with the same exact winning horse in a race. I do it my way and you do it your way...live and let live I always say. Now I hope California Chrome doesn't draw an inside post:>) TJ
Re: post positions 1 and 2
TJ: Just a side note to this discussion: Who was the last horse to win the Derby from post position 1 when the field size was 18 or higher? You have to go all the way back to 1937 to find Triple Crown Winner War Admiral who won wire to wire from the dreaded 1 hole.
Do you know agree that the 1 post in the Derby is a definite disadvantage?
Do you know agree that the 1 post in the Derby is a definite disadvantage?
Re: post positions 1 and 2
stancaris wrote:TJ: Just a side note to this discussion: Who was the last horse to win the Derby from post position 1 when the field size was 18 or higher? You have to go all the way back to 1937 to find Triple Crown Winner War Admiral who won wire to wire from the dreaded 1 hole.
Do you (k)now agree that the 1 post in the Derby is a definite disadvantage?
Hi Stan,
In case you skimmed over my last post....which seems to be the case as you asked me a question I all ready answered. I'll just put it up again for you to read it. Take note of the emboldened underlined passage. Thanks, TJ
Hi Stan,
There's nothing bothering me....seems like I must agree with you or I have something bothering me? I actually agree the inside posts hurt, but a good horse can overcome it. It's all about running style and catching the break. I disagree when it comes to stating partial facts....I simply prefer looking at Derby history so others that may tune in, can decide for themselves what may or may not be irrelevant in their eyes. That's the fun of cipherin' y'all Derby horse:>) So just relax and enjoy our discussion, didn't mean to upset you. People disagree on methods and theories all the time, yet manage to come up with the same exact winning horse in a race. I do it my way and you do it your way...live and let live I always say. Now I hope California Chrome doesn't draw an inside post:>) TJ
Re: post positions 1 and 2
There are a great many people that would argue with you about your contention that I have only stated partial facts when in fact I looked over the last 50 years of Derbies.
Dean Keppler wrote a book--Betting the Kentucky Derby-which was published by the Daily Racing Form Press in 2008. In it he lists the winning post positions and percentages over a 38 year period. Is that also, only a partial analysis. Jim Mazur wrote the Triple Crown Handicapper and lists the last 20 Derbies and post position analysis. Is that only a partial analysis.
So, according to you these above handicappers are like me, misleading the public because they did not do a full analysis of the entire history of the Derby. If one is to use Derby data, one must certainly use all the data back to Aristides in 1875.
That is ridiculous.
Dean Keppler wrote a book--Betting the Kentucky Derby-which was published by the Daily Racing Form Press in 2008. In it he lists the winning post positions and percentages over a 38 year period. Is that also, only a partial analysis. Jim Mazur wrote the Triple Crown Handicapper and lists the last 20 Derbies and post position analysis. Is that only a partial analysis.
So, according to you these above handicappers are like me, misleading the public because they did not do a full analysis of the entire history of the Derby. If one is to use Derby data, one must certainly use all the data back to Aristides in 1875.
That is ridiculous.
Re: post positions 1 and 2
stancaris wrote:There are a great many people that would argue with you about your contention that I have only stated partial facts when in fact I looked over the last 50 years of Derbies.
Dean Keppler wrote a book--Betting the Kentucky Derby-which was published by the Daily Racing Form Press in 2008. In it he lists the winning post positions and percentages over a 38 year period. Is that also, only a partial analysis. Jim Mazur wrote the Triple Crown Handicapper and lists the last 20 Derbies and post position analysis. Is that only a partial analysis.
So, according to you these above handicappers are like me, misleading the public because they did not do a full analysis of the entire history of the Derby. If one is to use Derby data, one must certainly use all the data back to Aristides in 1875.
That is ridiculous.
Hi Stan,
Okay we switched gears to misleading now? I never said you misled anyone. I said put all the facts out there since they started using the Pruett Starting gate in 1930. Let those who like to see all the stats decide for themselves. That's all, never said you misled anyone. That was my first post on the subject. Read it below...I didn't think it was in any way offensive to you....just though it would be of interest to you and the overall subject? TJ
Hi Stan,
Since the advent of the starting gate and since its first use in the 1930 KY Derby....as of 83 years. The top 5 % post positions according to % starters to winners are as follows:
#10, (11.8%) winners
#16 & 8, (9.8%) tied
#1 & 5, (9.6%) tied
#2, (8.4%)
#7, (7.3%)