Will I get 2-1?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

The most likely winner by far is Big Brown.

I read a really hilarious post the other day. Someone said, "Now its a matter of whether or not (Big Brown) can handle Casino Drive."

Ha. It's more of a, "Can Casino Drive handle Big Brown?"

It's neither. It's who likes the surface,and 12f. That's the only that matters. If they both like it,then you can worry about who the better horse is. Usually, there is one horse in the race who likes both of those two things. People usually make fun of him(if he wasn't the favorite.) Not that many horses like this race. If Brown likes the surface, and 12f, then we will have a T.C. Winner. If he doesn't like it, then whoever does like it will get by. They don't have to be that good, either. They just have to like it.

[blackthroatedwind]

I wish the mutual pools were filled with people who actually concerned themselves with whether or not different horses liked different dirt surfaces.

Of course, I wish the mutual pools were filled with a lot of the thoughts I read around here. Sadly, they aren't.

Believe it or not, the vast majority of races are won by horses that are faster than others. Jockeys, thankfully, play next to no role in the results ultimately. Horse racing is about the horses in virtually every way.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I wish the mutual pools were filled with people who actually concerned themselves with whether or not different horses liked different dirt surfaces.

Of course, I wish the mutual pools were filled with a lot of the thoughts I read around here. Sadly, they aren't.

Believe it or not, the vast majority of races are won by horses that are faster than others. Jockeys, thankfully, play next to no role in the results ultimately. Horse racing is about the horses in virtually every way.

jerk!!! In the middle of this fine economic think tank of posts above above I have to read this crap about racing..With all the wonderful stuff above enlightening me I should be able to retire soon.

BTW Greenspanites do you want Mad Money(Cramer) Hats so you can dress up like a real Market GURUS?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I wish the mutual pools were filled with people who actually concerned themselves with whether or not different horses liked different dirt surfaces.

Of course, I wish the mutual pools were filled with a lot of the thoughts I read around here. Sadly, they aren't.

Believe it or not, the vast majority of races are won by horses that are faster than others. Jockeys, thankfully, play next to no role in the results ultimately. Horse racing is about the horses in virtually every way.

Faster than others? It's a cool Andy diatribe, but it works a lot better with the Preakness than the Belmont. There have been 29 Belmonts since the last T.C. Winner's Belmont. There have been 6 favorite winners of those Belmonts. During that time there's been 11 favorites win the Preakness. Even if you were to say that the public did not pick "the fastest" horse as the favorite, then we can go up to say 7/2 odds. Surely "the fastest" horse would usually be 7/2 or less. Well ,the Preakness was won 19 out of the 29 times by a horse 7/2 or less. That race is being won, the majority of the time, by a horse most of the public considers "one of the fast ones." The Belmont has been won 12 out of the last 29 times by one of these 7/2 (or less) type horses. The majority of the last 29 Belmonts have been won by horses that have been 4/1 or higher. In the last twenty-nine runnings of the Belmont, there were 17 horses winning at 4/1 or better. So, in this race, I don't think the majority of the winners are being considered "the fastest" horses by bettors, and you just said the money being bet in pools is usually bet more wisely than you would like. So, in the majority of the Belmonts, they are betting the "fastest horses," and getting beat regularly by horses who are 4/1 or higher. Like I said, this race will be won by the horse who likes the track,and the 12f distance. Maybe it's gunna be won by one we think is the fastest, and maybe it won't be. Only 12 out of 29 have been 7/2 or less. Obviously, in recent history, those considered "fastest" aren't winning the majority of the Belmonts.

[blackthroatedwind]

I don't know, I've done pretty well betting the Belmont over the years, but I probably just lucked into betting the great jockeys ( I never even know who the hell is riding the horses I bet on ) and the horses that loved the dirt at Belmont.

Look, there are a lot of ways to look at the game, and just because I, or anyone, pays one aspect no mind doesn't make it necessarily irrelevent. I just read way too much excuse making on message boards, and superfluous excuse making at that, that I have come to feel, with good reason, that most people seem to spend way too much of their time worrying about inconsequential factors....or worse yet completely misunderstanding what has gone on. As a general rule, I believe in making decisions based on what I have seen in the past, rather than worrying about what I can't know in the future.

[Strategic Mission]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I don't know, I've done pretty well betting the Belmont over the years, but I probably just lucked into betting the great jockeys ( I never even know who the hell is riding the horses I bet on ) and the horses that loved the dirt at Belmont.

Look, there are a lot of ways to look at the game, and just because I, or anyone, pays one aspect no mind doesn't make it necessarily irrelevent. I just read way too much excuse making on message boards, and superfluous excuse making at that, that I have come to feel, with good reason, that most people seem to spend way too much of their time worrying about inconsequential factors....or worse yet completely misunderstanding what has gone on. As a general rule, I believe in making decisions based on what I have seen in the past, rather than worrying about what I can't know in the future.

Well it is a good thing people use different criteria or everyone would be betting the same horse.

You have Allen Jerkens on your side, but I am amazed at how trainers work with trainers agents so much considering many think jockeys don't matter.

Personally I think the exercise riders in the morning are more valuable than jockeys.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Strategic Mission

Personally I think the exercise riders in the morning are more valuable than jockeys.

You get no argument from me on that.

Plus, I would always love to have Allen Jerkens on my side....though, frankly, he already is.

[DogsUp]

If I am down to two horses and I like them equally, I will then look at the jockey and that will be my determing factor. However, it rarely gets to that point. I don't look at jock or m/l odds unless I am at a complete loss. And if I am at a loss, then I usually sit the race out.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Strategic Mission

but I am amazed at how trainers work with trainers agents so much considering many think jockeys don't matter.

owners still think they matter

[Strategic Mission]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Jockeys, thankfully, play next to no role in the results ultimately. Horse racing is about the horses in virtually every way.

While usually true, a 12f race is often a jockey's race.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Strategic Mission

While usually true, a 12f race is often a jockey's race.

Ya think?

Prado-Sarava-big price

Prado-Bird Droppings-big price

Fans were disgusted by them even showing up.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Huh? Your broad generalizations are great.

Hey leave him alone...at least he is using the space bar and using commas and periods now.