Sea the Stars this weekend at the Arc, resulted in a massive loss for bookmakers, who made the horse about an even money chalk. He was in a 19 horse field, he was the best horse. They figured that a 50% chance was warranted. I don't know one person who bet this horse and everyone I spoke to said that he was overbet. But, bingo for the crowd, he won. No doubt after that performance we would hear a lot of "that was an easy play at even money; he was the best horse. It was obvious he would win."
Secondly, US President Barack Obama laid his cards on the line and went to push Chicago's olympic bid in Copenhagen. The mystique of this President, not unlike the mystique of Sea the Stars in the Arc, resulted in a massive amount of cash going on Chicago to win the 2016 Olympic bid. "Could the Obama factor really be America's Trump Card? We'll find out shortly, but the betting action is squarely on Chicago." The 3-5 price on Chicago was a sure thing, right? Well I guess it was, until they came fourth out of four cities. No person was heard saying "this was easy money, how could people bet against Chicago", after that outcome.
For people who went with the "sure thing" they are one for two, and they broke even. But for bettors who based their logic on fair odds, not sure things or mystique, they faded both on-paper overbet events. They also went one for two. I think the latter rather than the former were on the right side of both bets, although the outcome was the same for both parties.
If you run the numbers on short-priced chalk, in a big racing event, in a perfect information public market (tote board, or bookmaker), as a rule the fade side will be better for us than the long side. We see this time and time again, and even as horse racing pools become less and less filled with dumb money, it is still the case 9 times out of 10. Sea the Stars if he heads to Santa Anita will be overbet. I will be fading the horse, no doubt in my mind. And whether I win or lose on that bet is irrelevant to me.