Shirreffs says Zenyatta deserves '10 Horse of the Year

hockey2315 · #1 10-20-2010, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSC

I would classify this more as a prop bet, it was designed for those that are dead set against her in the classic. They don't even have to like who is running against her, though you are getting get Blame, QR, LAL.

I think you try to use confusing responses to hide the fact that your original points are idiotic, but you just make yourself look more stupid.

How is what you're describing different from booking a horse?

CSC · #2 10-20-2010, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockey2315

I think you try to use confusing responses to hide the fact that your original points are idiotic, but you just make yourself look more stupid.

How is what you're describing different from booking a horse?

You obviously don't understand, the bet is based on if Zenyatta wins or loses. The taker is betting that she will lose. How does this equate to a win bet for the taker?

Indian Charlie · #3 10-20-2010, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSC1985

You obviously don't understand, the bet is based on if Zenyatta wins or loses. The taker is betting that she will lose. How does this equate to a win bet for the taker?

Uhm, you have it backwards.

Or should I say 'wacktards'?

hockey2315 · #4 10-20-2010, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSC

You obviously don't understand, the bet is based on if Zenyatta wins or loses. The taker is betting to that she will lose. How does this equate to a win bet for the taker?

I used the example of Betfair - where one person takes the win side of something and the other takes the losing side. They're booking a win bet--or "laying" her odds to win. My point was that nobody would book odds on her to win that are that far away from her tote odds.

You responded by saying that what I was describing was somehow not the same thing. Well, it is the same thing--someone is laying the 10-1 (in your example, I guess, it's the bettor) and someone is backing at 10-1 (the house in your example). There is no difference between the "house" in your example (you never spelled things out this way, but I'm doing my best to decipher your inanities) and the layer in mine.

CSC · #5 10-20-2010, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockey2315

I used the example of Betfair - where one person takes the win side of something and the other takes the losing side. They're booking a win bet--or "laying" her odds to win. My point was that nobody would book odds on her to win that are that far away from her tote odds.

You responded by saying that what I was describing was somehow not the same thing. Well, it is the same thing--someone is laying the 10-1 (in your example, I guess, it's the bettor) and someone is backing at 10-1 (the house in your example). There is no difference between the "house" in your example (you never spelled things out this way, but I'm doing my best to decipher your inanities) and the layer in mine.

This is a good response, I'll give you this as a discussion point, had Betfair layed the action on Rachel Alexandra, same premise, same odds, even though the risk is greater for the taker, I think many would take that action. Now I know they are different horses, different set up, pace scenario. But It is interesting one would be dismissed more likely than the other.

hockey2315 · #6 10-20-2010, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSC

This is a good response, I'll give you this as a discussion point, had Betfair layed the action on Rachel Alexandra, same premise, same odds, even though the risk is greater for the taker, I think many would take that action. Now I know they are different horses, different set up, pace scenario. But It is interesting one would be dismissed more likely than the other.

I don't think you know what Betfair is. . . sorry for the obscure example.

Anyways, obviously different horses should be offered at different odds. Is this some sort of revelation?