I've been looking for a long time to find all the results of the Triple Crown races. However, I did not want the results expressed as horse names, but horse numbers as in program numbers. Sometimes, the program numbers coincide with the post positions. The bettors bet on program numbers, not names. For example: The winning trifecta at the 2011 Kentucky Derby was 16 - 19 - 13.
It is extremely difficult to find such data. After serious Internet search, I had some success. I have now the entire history of the Kentucky Derby. I have 109 by-horse-numbers races at the Belmont Stakes. I only have 24 by-horse-numbers races at the Preakness Stakes (2011 - 1988).
The past results or past winning horses are ranked by program numbers or post positions or betting numbers, trifectas. Large databases are also offered for free, one is from the beginning of the race: Kentucky Derby. Read this:
19-6-5 (I'llHave Another - Bodemeister - Dullahan
The trifecta didn't pay at the level I expect from Kentucky Derby: only $1,532.
It is for the first time that #19 wins the Kentucky Derby. #6 had not hit in the 2nd position in the last 21 races.
I had big expectations this year. I waited at home until three hours before the race start. I wanted fresh odds. I apply the exclusions feature in my software (NO 2-of-last-5 exclusions). I also apply the favorites feature in my software (at least 1-of-5 favorites). The key filter was VER3_1_MINIMUM = 50).
All of the above conditions were satisfied. In fact, VER3_1_MINIMUM was over 200! I wanted to implement other filters, especially TOT, ANY, and other VER3. TOT was over 17,000! I wanted to play TOT = 1000. I would have won the Derby trifecta with as few as 48 - 54 straight trifectas.
I created the W and M reports. Then, I wanted to check the strategy. I got one error after another! The W reports were badly formatted because the Kentucky Derby results file is badly biased! There is even a #25 as the winning number! There is a huge fluctuation in the number of horses per race. Some filters get out of whack. The standard deviation is insane!
I still wasn't able to fix the reporting in the software source code. I'll fix it soon. In any event, I got mad and didn't go to an off-track-wagering parlor (OTW). It wasn't a big deal financially, as the trifecta was not big.
The reports in BrightH3 are OK for sane data files. But past results databases for Kentucky Derby and possibly Belmont States are badly lopsided. From races with 3 horses to races with 20 horses! The Kentucky Derby had one race with 22 horses, and another one with #25 as the winner! I limited my software to exactly 20 horses per race. Hence, all those cryptic errors!
But these races can pay gigantic trifectas at times! I care little about winning on favorites (I only bet a little on the top 2).
As I said about Preakness Stakes: It doesn't deserve to be a Crown race. I would remove it and call it THE DOUBLE CROWN.
The trifecta at the 2012 Preakness Stakes paid $35!!!
The race was very competitive, however. I'll Have Another won it again, at the wire (as he did in the Kentucky Derby). The baby-face jockey (also a rookie) has a lot to do with the grand wins. In fact, before the Preakness race, the same jockey had won two more horse races at Pimlico. They should change his name to El Niņo (as the weather phenomenon in the Pacific)!
I emphasize what I said about Preakness Stakes: It doesn't deserve to be a Crown race. I would remove Preakness and call it THE DOUBLE CROWN. Just Kentucky Derby and Belmont Stakes will do.
I'll Have Another, the winner of the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness Stakes, had a health issue (tendonitis). The horse was scratched. Running in all three of these races takes a huge toll on horses nowadays. It is a very demanding business (with lots of money at stakes).
The winner of the 2012 Belmont Stakes (Union Rags) did not even bother to run in the Preakness Stakes. Still, Union Rags barely won (at the wire!) I doubt he would have won without skipping the Preakness Stakes.
The trifecta at the 2012 Belmont Stakes paid another humiliatingly meager amount: $248!!!