Quote:
Originally Posted by shanej974
Another gem from the board genious. Every time you post, this should be the response.  |
Ugh. Another freakin tard.
Do I really need to spell out everything I say so that idiots don't misconstrue my meaning?
Here goes.
I was not saying Line of David had a better chance of winning the race than Super Saver. What I was saying, in admittedly far too few words, was that hey, Line of David just beat Super Saver while Super Saver had EVERY possible chance to pass him in the stretch, and he could not get by him.
If you are going to place a bet for $100k on one horse, why not take it on a horse that just outgamed your horse AND is also what, 2-3 times the price?
Obviously Super Saver was the more likely winner, but was he really more than three times likely to win?
The way I see it, there were three possible approaches to playing that $100k bet.
1. Play the most likely winner.
2. Play the longest shot in the race (which would have worked beautifully in the Bluegrass 10k contest).
3. Play the horse with the best possible payout that has the most likely chance of winning.
I believe most people would go with the first approach. The second approach would be reasonable for a race that is a complete clusterfugg, like the Bluegrass was.
The third approach is going to usually be the most sensible one, and I personally didn't think Super Saver was some sort of mortal lock that could not lose. Hence, why not take a flyer on Line of David?