Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gales0678
the pool are huge , who knows the actual $ amount , the point is if a horse was 50/1 and in theory he should have been 200/1 maybe 300/1 maybe 500/1 based on his form - poeple who make their own internal odds should have seen this as a red flag
its no different than say if a horse is even money on the board and his form suggests he s/b 4/1 or higher
it all can't be explained by someone picking a favorite # like 8 or picking a favorite jockey like Borel - those types wagers would be small , by hunch players , i mean is someone going to really bet 50k to win on a horse if 8 is there favorite number or borel is their favorite jockey - that i can't believe , this stable had to make a big score - and good for them nothing wrong with that
|
The problem with this is the winner's odds werent the only odds that were "too low" and should have signaled alarms in your head.
What about General Quarters (8/1), Hold Me Back (12/1) and Chocolate Candy (9/1)? All huge underlays and justifiably low enough for you to say, someone has a lot of money bet on that horse. I dont think any of these ran particularly good.
How, as a bettor, can you use this theory to your advantage in a race like the Derby? I dont think you can.
Two horses whose odds were pretty decent, if not overlays, ran 2nd and 3rd (PON and Musket Man).
It may have worked in the 7th at Belmont that same day with Top it (6/1 screamed bet me), but I dont think this theory ever works in a race like the Derby. Too many horses and too many people who bet only once a year are involved.