Wow did not see that one.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."

I feel like such a dumb ass.....I didn't put any money down and a horse with a 50-1 odd just won...wow....

_________________

what in the hell was that? Fucking Bo-Rail

The only thing that even looks 'appealing' is the Birdstone breeding which tends to like the mud, but even then - he had no chance.

I'm a Horse Betting novice, so can someone tell me if this is right?

If I would have put a $5 bet on the 50-1 horse to win, I would have won $250? (50*5)??

_________________

Yes, I dont know exactly what he paid but you would have won 50 for every dollar you bet plus your original bet. So the worst you would have got back for a 5 dollar bet is 255. Typically after 50-1 they don't show odds again until 55-1 he could pay anywhere from 102.00 to 111.80 for a 2 dollar bet.

I hate not winning but that was fun to watch.

_________________
"I honestly don't see a good bet on the board here."

Yeah it was a 103.20 on a $2 bet....I'm very sick right now...I would have put at least 10, if not 20 on that horse...

_________________

Why didn't you?

_________________
"I honestly don't see a good bet on the board here."

I was being a lazy ass...I've been at home sitting on my ass watching Cubs/Marlins, and then NBA TV and their 3 1/2 hour recap/replay of the Bulls/Celtics series.

_________________

I cannot help but notice that you have made 7 posts today since 9am. Surely you could have worked in an on-line wager or two during a commercial if you felt that strongly about this 50-1? WYC? And while you were at it you should have bet the exacta (1-2 finish). It paid $2,074.80.

_________________
"I honestly don't see a good bet on the board here."

I didn't realize I could...I think you are just putting more salt on my wound....oh well...maybe 2 weeks from now (right?) another 20 or up odd will win...

_________________

Didn't mean to salt your wound. I have plenty of my own. Here is info on on-line horse wagering: http://www.twinspires.com/content/benefits. I cannot say I have ever tried it however. I live six blocks from Arlington so I just run over there.

_________________
"I honestly don't see a good bet on the board here."

Fuck the world.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

Congrats, buddy. At least someone I know won some money. It's an easy game sometimes, right.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

Wager Type Winning Numbers Payoff
$2 Daily Double OAKS/DERBY 6-8 $248.40
$2 Pick 3 OAKS/WOOD/DERBY 6-6-8 $831.60
I would like to thank the traffic yesterday for getting me locked out on over a grand!

_________________
I'm going to bounce from the spot for awhile but I will be back at some point to argue with you about this hoops stuff again. Playoffs have been great this season. See ya up the road.

I'm out.

That's rough. I apologize for trying to talk you out of hitting the ALL button on the Derby too. In my defense I did pretty OK handicapping the Woodford.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

Ended up down for the day, but positive on the Derby with a show bet on Musket Man. I thought he was a pretty nice overlay bet. This should make the Preakness interesting -- do you think MTB will go off the favorite? Still driving at the finish and everything... will they take Rachel and run her against the boys?

_________________
"All crowds boycotting football games shouldn't care who sings or takes a knee because they aren't watching." - Nas

Not in the Preakness. The owner or trainer (not sure which) of RA made some asinine comment after the Oaks like "stallions should race stallions and fillies should race fillies". They'd also have to pony up (pun!) $200,000 in supplemental nomination money. They won't do that.

I don't think MTB goes off as favorite in the Preakness, especially if the track is dry and especially especially if I Want Revenge shows up. I'll have to see the field though; if the 18 other starters skip and he's facing the dregs of the 3 year old campaign, he may be favorite by default.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

Part of the explanation for the poor effort from Friesan Fire:

http://www.drf.com/news/article/103480.html

The field needs to be restricted to 15 or so. The massive cavalry charge is just asking for trouble.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

I agree the field is way, way too large. I wouldn't mind shaving it down to about 12. As always, some early speed horses get caught in duels and get eliminated, and some closers find themselves with no holes through which to make a move... you never really find the best horse in the Derby. FWIW, I tossed out MTB as being remotely qualified to land in the money.

IB, one of the children at the KD party I was at asked me what horse I "voted" for... after explaining that I "voted" a lot for #2, but had some other "votes," an idea hit me... I'm wondering if it has been done before. You would get a field of say 14 horses and run them in a single elimination match format, run it the second Saturday of every month. Start the first race as a 50k, you eliminate one horse. Next race is 75k, another elimination. Then 100k, 125k, 150k, 175k, 200k, 300k, 400k, 500k and close with a 750k race. If a horse scratches then he is out for the remainder of the races... the last race would be a head to head race. They would have to probably change this around a little bit for it to work, but it might be an interesting thing especially if done at a cheaper track. You'd also want to have a futures pool throughout for who will win the final race.

_________________
"All crowds boycotting football games shouldn't care who sings or takes a knee because they aren't watching." - Nas

I think it's a neat idea, especially if done with claimers at a Hawthorne-level track a la the claiming crown. The problems I see with that:

1.) It would have to be one track, because there's no way in the world that separate tracks would coordinate this sort of thing or that trainers would commit to shipments ahead of time.

2.) The purses would have to be substantial enough that trainers would prefer entering their (probably) high-level claimers into those races rather than regular claiming races or low allowances.

3.) The track would have to be large enough that it has a substantial number of horses in the $25,000-$50,000 claimer range. I'm not sure how many tracks could pull this off. Aqueduct or Belmont might be able to. Maybe Tampa Bay in the winter. Arlington perhaps could as well.

4.) I wouldn't make the final race head to head, but just have the entire thing be olympics style like how they do the heats, where the top three from a series of races qualify. For example, if there were 81 entries, you would have 9 first round races, 3 second round matches and a final match with 3 horses going on from each one. That's a lot of entries, so you'll need shippers, but if the purses are high enough you might get interest from owners, and you might recoup some of those losses in purses from futures wagering.

5.) Distance might be an issue. Do you make all the races a specific distance, like 1m? Maybe start with a 1m race, make the second round a sprint, and then the final race at classic distance, so that the winner of the tournament will have had to be in the money at three distances?

6.) Scratches are still going to be an issue, and they're unavoidable. I don't know what you do about that.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

Yes, I could see this being a big problem. If they did it with a single elimination, and one horse wins the first three or four races, they are going to want to ship him off to some stakes racing. You'd need there to be a pretty big incentive for the horses to stick around... do you find some sponsor to put up say a 5 million bonus for sweeping the series or something? Not sure. Maybe you do 12 horses, but eliminate 2 every week?


Well the more I think about it, the head-to-head thing is a bad idea from just the point of view that tracks can't offer any sort of exotics-- hell even with 4 horses you aren't going to be able to offer a lot. A head-to-head is probably more interesting if you get some of these better quality horses... not sure people would really make a rush to the windows with two 20k claimers running against each other.

My guess is that I'd make them all the same distance. My concern would be that a trainer would jump ship if he thinks that a horse won't be able to stretch... again, that could be somewhat rectified by the size of the purse for the race, but if you set something up where it is 6F in all races (or go 5.5, 6, 6.5 if you want a little variation), you're probably going to get more trainers buying in.

I don't know either -- your system helps with this though, I think... if you start 9 in each field and eliminate 6, then say even 4 of the 9 horses scratch, you would still just let the top 3 in. This would be something I would really work on getting a sponsor for and then make the final race the feature race of that day... looking at the racing form would be pretty cool on the final race -- all 9 horses having been in the money in the last two races -- would make handicapping a challenge for sure.

_________________
"All crowds boycotting football games shouldn't care who sings or takes a knee because they aren't watching." - Nas

I think that's why if you make it three rounds of races, with rising purses, you'll get a substantial amount of horses sticking around. Where else are you going to run your $35,000 claimer for a $100,000 or $250,000 purse? If you make it past the first race, no trainer is going to say "no, I see a soft n1x up at Canterbury I'd rather be a part of".

That reminds me of another stipulation you'd have to write in: the horses would have to be limited to something like "non-winners of two other than maiden, claiming, or starter". If some Grade III type could just some in and sweep it all, you won't get involvement from enough horses.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

I understand all that you have said, but 'THE BIRD' was flying at the end and the Jockey did a superb job of sliding in and out of holes. I am going to say the Slop didn't help any of the othersrun their best races, but this is why I was on Desert Party who did well in the slop.

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

The last big price was Giacomo a few years back and he certainly wasn't the favorite in the Preakness. Afleet Alex went on to capture the Preakness and Belmont. My expectation is that he will be in the 8 to 10 -1 range on preakness day because his running style does not suit the Preakness with tight turns.

The thing to watch for in Maryland is always the horse that didn't run in the Derby making his first run of the Triple Crown there.

im just sayin

His wife says the same thing.

Had to bump this one, IB....sorry.
I'm broke as hell but I'm still going to drop a few dollars on a 50-1 Horse.

_________________