Premium Tap to Classic?

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Look, there's no upside in telling people not to bet 30-1 shots, but this is more of a theoretical debate. And just as clearly it is easy for people to take " internet shots " with huge priced horses...not to say that YOU are doing this here....but one does see it a lot. Kind of like with Giacomo, every time he runs his confused supporters get indignent with those that suggest he was lucky in the Derby and rightfully declare him overmatched in whatever race he is in. They pick him unsuccessfully, never revisit their bad opinion, and then start the same argument again when he shows up for his next failed attempt.

I think if you take the Woodward field apart you will find it was not particularly strong and when you combine that with the track playing towards speed it is hard to say Premium Tap was too impressive. Remember who was second....and Papa Chullo basically sat on the pace, never did any running, and still wound up fourth. Only Sun King made any kind of move in the race whatsoever.

I agree that the argument is largely theoretical. It's my opinion that most people do not know how to deal with low probability events. Granted, most horses that go off at 40-1 have an even lower chance of winning the race than their odds imply. But even if they should be 60-1, that 1.5% chance of winning has to be factored into the other horses' chances of winning. Even more so when there are several of those 1.5%-2.5% horses in the race.

Sometimes a horse will go off at 40-1 when it really ought to be around 30-1. Those horses are excellent betting opportunities.

Bettors have a hard time distinguishing between 25-1 horses and 100-1 horses. Once you use "zero chance" or "toss out" or "starting gate malfunction", you fall into that trap.

I'm not sure why you think people are more likely to pick a longshot on the Internet (and not back it up at the window). You are much more likely to look like an idiot when you pick a 40-1 shot. Even if you know what you are doing, you can expect to be "wrong" 25-30 times for every time you are "right". And backing longshot picks with your wallet should not be inhibiting in the least. If you bet sensibly, you bet roughly 1/10th as much on a 40-1 shot as you'd bet on a 4-1 shot. So how scary can that be?

--Dunbar

Hey Oracle Troll here. Your calling another poster "extremely stupid" is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. In just the last few weeks you have posted enough prattle to indicate your knowledge" has more than a few holes.

I know, I know, when I sell a Grade I winner.... prattle on. BBB

Originally Posted by bellsbendboy

Hey Oracle Troll here. Your calling another poster "extremely stupid" is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. In just the last few weeks you have posted enough prattle to indicate your knowledge" has more than a few holes.

I know, I know, when I sell a Grade I winner.... prattle on. BBB

I've seen Premum Tap since he was a pup and am aware of the physical problems hes had and the insipid ride he got last out Troll. Well aware.
The problem he has is his running style, needing the lead or a stalking position. Its going to be nearly impossible for him to work out a trip with that style that can neutralize the other speed and effectively hold off the closers.
I have yet to see you post anything or pertinence or give out any winners, something many of us have done a thousand times.
I look to create value in betting in many different ways. One of my favorite things to do is to take a longshot with a "hanging" running style or "grinding" style and key him or her underneath in the tri. Something I did and posted before the kentucky Derby regarding Steppenwolfer, who I keyed for 2nd and 3rd in the triple.
I'm no chalk lover in the sense that you will NEVER see me make a large win bet(or small one!!) on a favorite to win. And if I key one in a pik-3, pik-4, or pik-6 I am looking to catch value in the other legs of that particular pik bet.
There are many horses in the Classic who may make good keys either on top or underneath who will go off at double digit prices.
But in asessing how the race will be run, I see lava man pushing or making the lead, and bernadini stalking and making a move on the backside or the turn. This is going to hurt any horse who wants the lead or needs to run close to it, because they are going to have to neutralize the speed and tactical speed of both Lava man and Bernadini. The way that I see to attack the race is to find someone with a closing kick who can suck up into what I feel will be a solid and contested pace.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by oracle80

The way that I see to attack the race is to find someone with a closing kick who can suck up into what I feel will be a solid and contested pace.

A.K.A... Sun King.. or even GIACOMO?

Originally Posted by zippyneedsawin

A.K.A... Sun King.. or even GIACOMO?

Sun King is definitely the key bet here in all three positions of the Trifecta in my opinion. He will be double digit odds and has several things working for him.
1) He will be double digit odds.
2) Has shown that he, above all other double digit odds horses that are projected, can run very fast numbers on the sheets.
3) His closing style is best aided by the projected solid and throughly contested pace that I personally expect.
4) Hes been rested and primed for this race since the Woodward.

I'm not trying to invent the wheel here. hes going to be my key in the gimmicks, at what I feel should be an overlaid price. Invasor beat him a short nose in the Whitney with a less than blistering pace and he will take much more money than Sun King will, with the caveat that he missed what was supposed to be his key prep race, and will not be going into the race with a DESIGNED layoff, as Sun King will.

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Sun King is definitely the key bet here in all three positions of the Trifecta in my opinion. He will be double digit odds and has several things working for him.
1) He will be double digit odds.
2) Has shown that he, above all other double digit odds horses that are projected, can run very fast numbers on the sheets.
3) His closing style is best aided by the projected solid and throughly contested pace that I personally expect.
4) Hes been rested and primed for this race since the Woodward.

I'm not trying to invent the wheel here. hes going to be my key in the gimmicks, at what I feel should be an overlaid price. Invasor beat him a short nose in the Whitney with a less than blistering pace and he will take much more money than Sun King will, with the caveat that he missed what was supposed to be his key prep race, and will not be going into the race with a DESIGNED layoff, as Sun King will.

All excellent points....

Originally Posted by slotdirt

All excellent points....

Hey its always a gamble, but I obviously don't know a thing according to Dunbar and bellbendsboy. So don't listen to me!!!!

[alysheba4]

so, sun king, all, all.......plus all, sun king,all....ect.

Originally Posted by zippyneedsawin

A.K.A... Sun King.. or even GIACOMO?

Zippy any bet is a calculated risk based upon what you feel the scenario will be.
I think that the presence of some talented horses who consistently show speed or strong tactical speed and turn moves will insure a hot pace.
Therefore I see an optimum chance that a closer, or closers, will make up part or all of the trifecta.
The fastest of those closers on the sheets is consistently Sun King.
I'm not trying to overthink the race just because its worth 4 million bucks.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by oracle80

The fastest of those closers on the sheets is consistently Sun King.
I'm not trying to overthink the race just because its worth 4 million bucks.

I'm in total agreement that Sun King is the best choice to key for the tri.. My only concern is paying too much into the Trifecta bet v. the payout. If Bernardini and/or Invasor are in the top two slots, I don't think the price will be too high... now if Bernie or Invasor.. or both were to miss the board, that would make things real juicy! And by the way, it's a $5 million dollar race now!!

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I agree that the argument is largely theoretical. It's my opinion that most people do not know how to deal with low probability events. Granted, most horses that go off at 40-1 have an even lower chance of winning the race than their odds imply. But even if they should be 60-1, that 1.5% chance of winning has to be factored into the other horses' chances of winning. Even more so when there are several of those 1.5%-2.5% horses in the race.

Sometimes a horse will go off at 40-1 when it really ought to be around 30-1. Those horses are excellent betting opportunities.

Bettors have a hard time distinguishing between 25-1 horses and 100-1 horses. Once you use "zero chance" or "toss out" or "starting gate malfunction", you fall into that trap.

I'm not sure why you think people are more likely to pick a longshot on the Internet (and not back it up at the window). You are much more likely to look like an idiot when you pick a 40-1 shot. Even if you know what you are doing, you can expect to be "wrong" 25-30 times for every time you are "right". And backing longshot picks with your wallet should not be inhibiting in the least. If you bet sensibly, you bet roughly 1/10th as much on a 40-1 shot as you'd bet on a 4-1 shot. So how scary can that be?

--Dunbar

Its not scary at all Dunbar, and every smart player knows that the only way to have a chance to win is to create value and bet against what you perceive to be bad favorites.
The "trap" here is that being able to handicap a race effectively is the first step in this. Simply betting random longshots isn't the way to go. Having a good knowledge of horses ability and running styles is the first step in isolating possible live long shots to either win or complete gimmicks.
If you knew me well enough, you'd know that I make the same statement about certain favorites having no shot as often as I do longshots. In last years BC sprint I said the same thing about Lost in The Fog. I said the wicked pace I predicted would hurt any chance he had.
I think that handicapping is the primary key in finding a live longshot, and the opinion someone has one what kind of chance any horse has, is the key in determining which longshots are live.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Its not scary at all Dunbar, and every smart player knows that the only way to have a chance to win is to create value and bet against what you perceive to be bad favorites.

Just to be clear, when I wrote "how scary can that be?", I was refering to BTWind's comment that people like to pick longshots on the Internet that they'd never bet at the window. I was saying that if you structure your bets reasonably, your bets on longshots should be small enough to not be particularly scary.

Originally Posted by oracle80

The "trap" here is that being able to handicap a race effectively is the first step in this. Simply betting random longshots isn't the way to go. Having a good knowledge of horses ability and running styles is the first step in isolating possible live long shots to either win or complete gimmicks.

No argument here.

Originally Posted by oracle80

If you knew me well enough, you'd know that I make the same statement about certain favorites having no shot as often as I do longshots. In last years BC sprint I said the same thing about Lost in The Fog. I said the wicked pace I predicted would hurt any chance he had.
I think that handicapping is the primary key in finding a live longshot, and the opinion someone has one what kind of chance any horse has, is the key in determining which longshots are live.

Not disputing any of that either, except the approach that a horse has "no shot". It's maybe a matter of semantics. I like to think in terms of every horse having a shot. The key is finding those whose odds are attractive, regardless of whether it is a fav or a longshot.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Slot, in the last decade for a while, "value handicapping" was the rage for a while. Guys weer told to make their own morning line, and only bet horses who were overlaid according to that line.
The problem is that what if you think a horse should be 10-1 and hes 20-1 and you don't think the horse stands a chance in the world? Do you bet him?
**** that!!!

This makes no sense to me. How can you "think the horse should be 10-1", but also "don't think the horse stands a chance in the world"? The whole point of making your own line is to come up with your own estimate of each horse's chance of winning. Once you make a line with a horse at 10-1, you are saying that that horse has a 1/11 chance of winning the race. It makes no sense to then turn around and say the horse has no chance.

I'm not trying to be insulting here, but I think you are confused about what making your own line means. You say something equally confusing with this:

Originally Posted by oracle80

I'm sorry but betting 40-1 shots that you think should be 20-1 who you still feel have no chance, is not the way I prefer to go.

If I think a horse "should be 20-1", it means I think he has a 1/21 chance of winning. That's not "no chance". I don't get your thinking here. You are not looking at making your own line the same way I do.

--Dunbar