Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gander
I dont see what the morning line odds matter one bit. First thing is that its only one person's opinion and second thing is the amount of money that will be bet on Rachel purely because of her notoriety is insane. If you were to analyze this race strictly on numbers and data, and assigned letters to each horse instead of names and "reputations", she would be a lot higher than the probable 2/5 she will be sent off at. She would probably be in the neighborhood of even money or 6/5 if you took the names away.
Why would a horse be great or not great based on the morning line odds?  Or even the actual odds for that matter? Is it her fault she has this huge following and this race just happens to occur at Saratoga, a place where the pools are already huge and filled with money from people who only bet a couple times per year?
I mean would she be great if she was the more appropriate 6/5 in this spot, beating these same horses? |
It has nothing to do with her "greatness" or any measure of it. It has to do with the fact that she is an overwhelming fav over the field she is facing. Running a overwhelming fav doesnt make you bold in my opinion. It makes you smart. This is a pretty logical spot for her as was the Haskell. The fact that it is against males is interesting and a bit historic but come on, this isnt like taking on Mike Tyson his his prime.