Will I get 2-1?

[justindew]

Originally Posted by stonegossard

I'll take an econ class when you take your head out of your A##. Yes over a ten year period the dow has gone up genius. What does that have to do with the economy in 2008. You do know there have been periods over the last 10 yrs when it has gone down within that 10 yr period. The restaurant example was ONE thing. I can give you a ton more. All the retailers are reporting horrible results. CPI/PPI are coming in very high (Your beloved dow is down 190 points today based on disappointment from Home Depot and a hot PPI number...oil now past 129). Take a look at recession proof businesses like Las Vegas/Casinos...they are reporting the worst numbers in years. Their businesses are getting hammered because the economy is not in good shape.

We feed the world? LOL....nice try. Please explain to me how the cost of a weekly trip to the supermarket for the average family has gone up 60%. How is this good ? Here is an article form a month ago...when oil was 15 bucks a barrel cheeper/commodities were cheaper than today.....things have gotten much worse since

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04162008...ock_106752.htm

Do you think the current housing situation is good for the economy? Would love to hear that explanation Einstein. I suppose the whole CDO debacle was great for the big investment banks also?


Go back to making posts about horses you think who are a lock but really cant win.

So, in your world, the economy being worse than it was last year or even 5 years ago equals a bad economy?

NO PERSPECTIVE.

[MisterB]

Originally Posted by stonegossard

Take a look at recession proof businesses like Las Vegas/Casinos...they are reporting the worst numbers in years. Their businesses are getting hammered because the economy is not in good shape.

Last report I got was the casino's where 99% booked, and the casino's are the only thing making money in this economy.



Why, because our dollar is weak, and vacationers from all over the world are getting great deals.

[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.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by stonegossard

I'll take an econ class when you take your head out of your A##. Yes over a ten year period the dow has gone up genius. What does that have to do with the economy in 2008. You do know there have been periods over the last 10 yrs when it has gone down within that 10 yr period. The restaurant example was ONE thing. I can give you a ton more. All the retailers are reporting horrible results. CPI/PPI are coming in very high (Your beloved dow is down 190 points today based on disappointment from Home Depot and a hot PPI number...oil now past 129). Take a look at recession proof businesses like Las Vegas/Casinos...they are reporting the worst numbers in years. Their businesses are getting hammered because the economy is not in good shape.

We feed the world? LOL....nice try. Please explain to me how the cost of a weekly trip to the supermarket for the average family has gone up 60%. How is this good ? Here is an article form a month ago...when oil was 15 bucks a barrel cheeper/commodities were cheaper than today.....things have gotten much worse since

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04162008...ock_106752.htm

Do you think the current housing situation is good for the economy? Would love to hear that explanation Einstein. I suppose the whole CDO debacle was great for the big investment banks also?


Go back to making posts about horses you think who are a lock but really cant win.

Also, the media has been scaring people into thinking we are in a recession for over a year, and we have yet to have a single quarter with negative growth. We need two in a row to have a recession.

[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?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by justindew

Also, the media has been scaring people into thinking we are in a recession for over a year, and we have yet to have a single quarter with negative growth. We need two in a row to have a recession.

The only reason we haven't had negative growth is because of the influx of Viagra

[DogsUp]

Yes, the economy is in great shape

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayof...mom/index.html

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by DogsUp

Yes, the economy is in great shape

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayof...mom/index.html

I want to adopt the dogs..Or I will buy them from her eitherway a car is no place for a dog to live.

[DogsUp]

Originally Posted by freddymo

I want to adopt the dogs..Or I will buy them from her eitherway a car is no place for a dog to live.

The dogs are gorgeous. Such a sad situation. The woman living with the cats turned to her family for help and all of them turned her down - so sad.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by justindew

Also, the media has been scaring people into thinking we are in a recession for over a year, and we have yet to have a single quarter with negative growth. We need two in a row to have a recession.

Keynes would be proud. Bravo!

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by DogsUp

The dogs are gorgeous. Such a sad situation. The woman living with the cats turned to her family for help and all of them turned her down - so sad.

I want the dogs will pay top dollar

[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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by DogsUp

Yes, the economy is in great shape

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayof...mom/index.html

Not for nothing but when you pay 3/4's of your income for housing you are asking for trouble.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Cardus

When I read a comment about anything and see a link to CNN, I run the other way.

FTFY.

[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.