134th Preakness Field Close to Set

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Kasept

There are worse riders, but overall, she's a bit of hazard out there. She rode the horse OK at Woodbine. Her ride in the Breeders' Cup Juvenile though was dreadful. The kid in New Mexico rode him lousy too and further darkened any form/potential anyone could possibly have uncovered as a result. He looked like a horse that hadn't progressed a step from 2 to 3.

Had any of us covering the race bothered to ask Borel or Woolley their strategy beforehand, it might have come out that they were changing their approach with him by planning to take back and come with one run. And even knowing that there was still little to go on to bet him as anything more than a super/high five filler.

They sought out Borel as his jock for a reason, as Woolley and Calvin told ATR this week. And I talked extensively with Jerry Hissam, Borel's agent, Monday, and he had some interesting background to add as well. As Baffert said, they had a plan and they got the racetrack and path they needed to execute it and the horse was ready and willing. Amazing really.

Steve - you bring up a good point here , things like this happens a lot in racing , the trainer knows he has the goods sometimes and doesn't want to show them off until a later race (this is not cheating imo, some others may disagree), what's more perfect than the KY Derby (big pools)

As people pointed out the horse should have been 200/1 or more , yet he was only 50/1 (this should have set off alarm bells as the tote-board don't lie)

[TheSpyder]

At 50/1 does anyone know just how much was $ was on the horse to win?

[gales0678]

the pool are huge , who knows the actual $ amount , the point is if a horse was 50/1 and in theory he should have been 200/1 maybe 300/1 maybe 500/1 based on his form - poeple who make their own internal odds should have seen this as a red flag

its no different than say if a horse is even money on the board and his form suggests he s/b 4/1 or higher

it all can't be explained by someone picking a favorite # like 8 or picking a favorite jockey like Borel - those types wagers would be small , by hunch players , i mean is someone going to really bet 50k to win on a horse if 8 is there favorite number or borel is their favorite jockey - that i can't believe , this stable had to make a big score - and good for them nothing wrong with that

[blackthroatedwind]

The bettors on the Derby understand the pps as well as you understand the mathematics.

[gales0678]

what is wrong with the math

if a horse is 50/1 , and the form suggests he s/b 200/1 - why wouldn't an alarm go off in your head saying something is not right here

Originally Posted by gales0678

what is wrong with the math

if a horse is 50/1 , and the form suggests he s/b 200/1 - why wouldn't an alarm go off in your head saying something is not right here

Because it's the derby and there is a ton of dumb money in the pools.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Because it's the derby and there is a ton of dumb money in the pools.

dumb $ can account for some it , not all of it , certainly not the majority of it

[robfla]

Originally Posted by gales0678

what is wrong with the math

if a horse is 50/1 , and the form suggests he s/b 200/1 - why wouldn't an alarm go off in your head saying something is not right here

ever since Giacomo no horse will go off more than 50-60:1

it has nothing to do with alarms going off.

Have you ever been to a Derby and see who bets on this race?

[CSC]

Originally Posted by robfla

ever since Giacomo no horse will go off more than 50-60:1

it has nothing to do with alarms going off.

Have you ever been to a Derby and see who bets on this race?

Interesting you mention Giacomo, I wouldn't touch Giacomo after his derby win because you know he was benefitting from a pace meltdown, he was a very ordinary horse. In essence the race fell into his lap, now on the otherhand MTB had a lot of factors go his way, Join The Dance setting a good pace, the off track but and despite these factors I am more inclined to give him much more credit for earning his derby more than Giacomo did.

[Gander]

Originally Posted by gales0678

the pool are huge , who knows the actual $ amount , the point is if a horse was 50/1 and in theory he should have been 200/1 maybe 300/1 maybe 500/1 based on his form - poeple who make their own internal odds should have seen this as a red flag

its no different than say if a horse is even money on the board and his form suggests he s/b 4/1 or higher

it all can't be explained by someone picking a favorite # like 8 or picking a favorite jockey like Borel - those types wagers would be small , by hunch players , i mean is someone going to really bet 50k to win on a horse if 8 is there favorite number or borel is their favorite jockey - that i can't believe , this stable had to make a big score - and good for them nothing wrong with that

The problem with this is the winner's odds werent the only odds that were "too low" and should have signaled alarms in your head.

What about General Quarters (8/1), Hold Me Back (12/1) and Chocolate Candy (9/1)? All huge underlays and justifiably low enough for you to say, someone has a lot of money bet on that horse. I dont think any of these ran particularly good.

How, as a bettor, can you use this theory to your advantage in a race like the Derby? I dont think you can.

Two horses whose odds were pretty decent, if not overlays, ran 2nd and 3rd (PON and Musket Man).

It may have worked in the 7th at Belmont that same day with Top it (6/1 screamed bet me), but I dont think this theory ever works in a race like the Derby. Too many horses and too many people who bet only once a year are involved.

[slotdirt]

Somebody poured a ton of dough on Chocolate Candy early to bring him down from his morning line odds to that 9-1 number. He was trading at 9-1 by the time the 5th race on Friday was run.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Gander

The problem with this is the winner's odds werent the only odds that were "too low" and should have signaled alarms in your head.

What about General Quarters (8/1), Hold Me Back (12/1) and Chocolate Candy (9/1)? All huge underlays and justifiably low enough for you to say, someone has a lot of money bet on that horse. I dont think any of these ran particularly good.

How, as a bettor, can you use this theory to your advantage in a race like the Derby? I dont think you can.

Two horses whose odds were pretty decent, if not overlays, ran 2nd and 3rd (PON and Musket Man).

It may have worked in the 7th at Belmont that same day with Top it (6/1 screamed bet me), but I dont think this theory ever works in a race like the Derby. Too many horses and too many people who bet only once a year are involved.

the real dumb $ went on gen qtr's - that's all nbc and espn showed all week outside of the top contenders was the fariy tale story

Cho candy - was a wiseguy horse - steve and others top cappers used him on top - he may have hit the board if smith got him onto the rail

Hold me back - i can't give you a reason

but - steve's comment about the kid in new mexico giving a bad ride on MTB which made it harder to see any form on this horse is exactly what happens across tracks all the time - surely you don't think they always try do you?

[Gander]

My point is there was a lot of horses bet down to lower odds than most people (even those who liked that particular horse) thought. I liked Hold Me Back but thought 12/1 was ridiculously low but being the Derby I bet him anways. I didnt like him anymore because he was 12/1 instead of 25/1, which I thought would have been fair.

My question is how do you decipher which money bet on a horse is "smart money" versus "dumb money" before the race? It means nothing now that the race has been run. Anybody can go back and find reasons to bet a horse after the race. Theres not a horse in the field you couldnt have made a case for after the race. But that and $2 gets you a coffee at Starbucks.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Gander

My point is there was a lot of horses bet down to lower odds than most people (even those who liked that particular horse) thought. I liked Hold Me Back but thought 12/1 was ridiculously low but being the Derby I bet him anways. I didnt like him anymore because he was 12/1 instead of 25/1, which I thought would have been fair.

My question is how do you decipher which money bet on a horse is "smart money" versus "dumb money" before the race? It means nothing now that the race has been run. Anybody can go back and find reasons to bet a horse after the race. Theres not a horse in the field you couldnt have made a case for after the race. But that and $2 gets you a coffee at Starbucks.

well let me ask you this ,would you have been as eager or bet as much on hold me back if the trainer was Wooley instead of Mott?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by gales0678

the pool are huge , who knows the actual $ amount , the point is if a horse was 50/1 and in theory he should have been 200/1 maybe 300/1 maybe 500/1 based on his form - poeple who make their own internal odds should have seen this as a red flag

its no different than say if a horse is even money on the board and his form suggests he s/b 4/1 or higher

it all can't be explained by someone picking a favorite # like 8 or picking a favorite jockey like Borel - those types wagers would be small , by hunch players , i mean is someone going to really bet 50k to win on a horse if 8 is there favorite number or borel is their favorite jockey - that i can't believe , this stable had to make a big score - and good for them nothing wrong with that

ummmm... didnt the trainer say he bet on another horse so he'd have the gas money to drive back to NM.

You are becoming worse than michael Moore, Marty.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by gales0678

Steve - you bring up a good point here , things like this happens a lot in racing , the trainer knows he has the goods sometimes and doesn't want to show them off until a later race (this is not cheating imo, some others may disagree), what's more perfect than the KY Derby (big pools)

As people pointed out the horse should have been 200/1 or more , yet he was only 50/1 (this should have set off alarm bells as the tote-board don't lie)

I 100% disagree with this though... Its crazy to think they were hiding his potential to get in the Derby.

Wooley to jock in NM "Hey make sure you stiff this ride because we're going to pay 100 bucks in the Derby... eventhough there is a good chance he wont get in the derby with his earnings.. lots of horses have to drop out... still.. make sure you ride for 4th at best."

[Gander]

I also think its very possible the connections had a good amount of money on their $100 horse, but my guess is to make this horse 51/1 required more money than they bet. You dont honestly think these guys accounted for more than 2 or 3 percent of the win pool do you?

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I 100% disagree with this though... Its crazy to think they were hiding his potential to get in the Derby.

Wooley to jock in NM "Hey make sure you stiff this ride because we're going to pay 100 bucks in the Derby... eventhough there is a good chance he wont get in the derby with his earnings.. lots of horses have to drop out... still.. make sure you ride for 4th at best."

didn't he have the $ already because of the 2 yr old races?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by gales0678

didn't he have the $ already because of the 2 yr old races?

hell no he didnt.

you really should give up the "didnt try in New Mexico" angle. Its pretty crazy, even for you lately Marty..

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

He actually did have the earnings based on his win in the Grey at Woodbine. After all of the defections he was like 15th or 16th in earnings. Not to mention he wouldn't have gotten any graded earnings for the Sunland races anyway, as they aren't graded...yet.

Doesn't make the ridiculous theory any more believable, but he had the earnings.

I thought he was like 24th or 25th on the list before like 10 horses dropped out or skipped...

Edit: I realize the only earnings he had to get in were from his 2 year old year... but a few weeks ago it really didnt look like he was going to race correct?? I mean I was worried about Dunkirk and he had like 40k more earnings or something than Mine That Bird. Then horses started getting injured or passing on the race... it went from being a really exciting race to being an okay Derby... not even more impressive than the horses in it last year IMO.