134th Preakness Field Close to Set

[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

Originally Posted by gales0678

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

It's a conspiracy!!!

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by gales0678

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

um yes. its the derby

[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.