Derby/Oaks Future Wager Pool 2

[Kasept]

FINAL POOL 2 ODDS

1 Bears Rocket Reade Baker 50 99
2 Beethoven John Ward, Jr. 30 23
3 Big Drama David Fawkes SCR
4 Chocolate Candy Jerry Hollendorfer 30 29
5 Desert Party Saeed bin Suroor 30 17
6 Dunkirk Todd Pletcher 12 7
7 Flying Pegasus Ralph Nicks 20 65
8 Friesan Fire J. Jones 12 8
9 General Quarters Mark Miller 30 80
10 Giant Oak Chris Block 20 42
11 Hello Broadway Barclay Tagg 30 69
12 I Want Revenge Jeff Mullins 10 10
13 Imperial Council Claude McGaughey III 20 20
14 Old Fashioned J. Jones 8 8
15 Papa Clem Gary Stute 15 65
16 Patena Richard Dutrow Jr. 15 71
17 Pioneerof the Nile Bob Baffert 10 12
18 Quality Road James Jerkens 12 14
19 Silver City W. Calhoun 30 99
20 Take the Points Todd Pletcher 30 77
21 The Pamplemousse Julio Canani 10 9
22 Theregoesjojo Kenneth McPeek 15 19
23 West Side Bernie Kelly Breen 30 43
24 All Other Three Ye 8 9/2

[VOL JACK]

I really dont see a good bet. Alot of Underlays...but NO VALUE.

[justindew]

Take the Points and Patena look like they offered value.

[Scurlogue Champ]

Desert Party looks like value to me.

[lemoncrush]

Originally Posted by justindew

Take the Points and Patena look like they offered value.

Patena offers value if you're not afraid of playing a horse with very little in graded earnings, and only having one prep left which he'll have to come in first or second to even qualify

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Kasept

FINAL POOL 2 ODDS

1 Bears Rocket Reade Baker 50 99
2 Beethoven John Ward, Jr. 30 23
3 Big Drama David Fawkes SCR
4 Chocolate Candy Jerry Hollendorfer 30 29
5 Desert Party Saeed bin Suroor 30 17
6 Dunkirk Todd Pletcher 12 7
7 Flying Pegasus Ralph Nicks 20 65
8 Friesan Fire J. Jones 12 8
9 General Quarters Mark Miller 30 80
10 Giant Oak Chris Block 20 42
11 Hello Broadway Barclay Tagg 30 69
12 I Want Revenge Jeff Mullins 10 10
13 Imperial Council Claude McGaughey III 20 20
14 Old Fashioned J. Jones 8 8
15 Papa Clem Gary Stute 15 65
16 Patena Richard Dutrow Jr. 15 71
17 Pioneerof the Nile Bob Baffert 10 12
18 Quality Road James Jerkens 12 14
19 Silver City W. Calhoun 30 99
20 Take the Points Todd Pletcher 30 77
21 The Pamplemousse Julio Canani 10 9
22 Theregoesjojo Kenneth McPeek 15 19
23 West Side Bernie Kelly Breen 30 43
24 All Other Three Ye 8 9/2

Anyone have the actual will-pays? Big difference between 4.5-1 and 4.9-1. Between 7-1 and 7.9-1.

--Dunbar

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Anyone have the actual will-pays? Big difference between 4.5-1 and 4.9-1. Between 7-1 and 7.9-1.

--Dunbar

Actual willpays are up on the Kentuckyderby.com website. Dunkirk closes as the individual favorite, LOL. Side note, any idea what the hell that guy is talking about money laundering?!?

[brianwspencer]

Wow, my near 30-1 on Flying Pegasus and Silver City from pool 1 look kind of pathetic now.

Oops.

[herkhorse]

I took a stab with Quality Road. Was hoping for better performances by the weekend favorites, but I'll take the 14-1.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by philcski

Actual willpays are up on the Kentuckyderby.com website. Dunkirk closes as the individual favorite, LOL.

Thanks for the heads up on the will-pays, phil. btw, I'm no relation to Dunkirk!

Originally Posted by philcski

Side note, any idea what the hell that guy is talking about money laundering?!?

Not a clue. That's why I said it made as much sense as saying there was a fig newton involved.

--Dunbar

[cassie]

the smallest exactas are over $100GOING UP TOOVER 3000

[Dunbar]

One article I read before Pool 2 said that CD was using the exacta pool as a guage of how much interest there is to expand the pools to more horses. Not sure of that reasoning, but if they adhere to it, there's nothing to suggest they should expand the number of horses.

The 104K exacta pool (nice call on the pool size, Justin!) was hardly inspiring, and it probably contributed to the decline in the win pool by $50K from last year's already low amount. But I don't think there's strong correlation between exacta betting and bettors' interest in betting more horses in the futures.

I think expanding the number of horses is a bad idea for a different reason. In Pool 1, "All Others" attracted more than $134,000 of the $478,721 of bets in the pool. Does anyone really think that the added horses, most of which will be showing odds of 100-1 or more, will attract $134K of action to offset the loss of "All others"? Extremely small chance of that happening, IMO.

--Dunbar

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

One article I read before Pool 2 said that CD was using the exacta pool as a guage of how much interest there is to expand the pools to more horses. Not sure of that reasoning, but if they adhere to it, there's nothing to suggest they should expand the number of horses.

The 104K exacta pool (nice call on the pool size, Justin!) was hardly inspiring, and it probably contributed to the decline in the win pool by $50K from last year's already low amount. But I don't think there's strong correlation between exacta betting and bettors' interest in betting more horses in the futures.

I think expanding the number of horses is a bad idea for a different reason. In Pool 1, "All Others" attracted more than $134,000 of the $478,721 of bets in the pool. Does anyone really think that the added horses, most of which will be showing odds of 100-1 or more, will attract $134K of action to offset the loss of "All others"? Extremely small chance of that happening, IMO.

--Dunbar

Honestly, I totally disagree.

First off, the exacta pool being used as a gauge to whether or not additional horses would be of interest to bettors seems crazy? I see no correlation between an exacta offering insight into potential interest in a 400 horse pool.

Secondly, the appeal of more horses is the prices and diversity. A line-up of 400 horses with some horses at 700-1 will most certainly garner and generate interest.

There is some validity to the thought that the amount of win $ bet on the field and whether or not it would spread to other interests, but in my opinion, it's completely offset by the spark and interest the higher priced horses, larger options and infinite additional options you can generate from it.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

One article I read before Pool 2 said that CD was using the exacta pool as a guage of how much interest there is to expand the pools to more horses. Not sure of that reasoning, but if they adhere to it, there's nothing to suggest they should expand the number of horses.

The 104K exacta pool (nice call on the pool size, Justin!) was hardly inspiring, and it probably contributed to the decline in the win pool by $50K from last year's already low amount. But I don't think there's strong correlation between exacta betting and bettors' interest in betting more horses in the futures.

I think expanding the number of horses is a bad idea for a different reason. In Pool 1, "All Others" attracted more than $134,000 of the $478,721 of bets in the pool. Does anyone really think that the added horses, most of which will be showing odds of 100-1 or more, will attract $134K of action to offset the loss of "All others"? Extremely small chance of that happening, IMO.

--Dunbar

Not sure I agree. Down 15% isn't necessarily a bad number in this economy especially considering the overall gain including the exactas.