Shirreffs says Zenyatta deserves '10 Horse of the Year

CSC · #1 10-20-2010, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockey2315

Even if you hated Zenyatta, why offer higher odds than you would have to to get action? People aren't offering 10-1 on even money shots on Betfair, they're offering 3/2 or 2-1.

This is not straight fwd win bet, I think I articulated the conditions pretty clearly.

hockey2315 · #2 10-20-2010, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSC

This is not straight fwd win bet, I think I articulated the conditions pretty clearly.

What isn't a straightforward win bet? You asked if Zenyatta's detractors would offer 10-1 on her winning the classic. Of course they wouldn't--even if they thought that was below her fair odds--because they could get away with offering less.

CSC · #3 10-20-2010, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockey2315

What isn't a straightforward win bet? You asked if Zenyatta's detractors would offer 10-1 on her winning the classic. Of course they wouldn't--even if they thought that was below her fair odds--because they could get away with offering less.

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.

Indian Charlie · #4 10-20-2010, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSC1985

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.

Only you would classify a win bet as a prop bet.

hockey2315 · #5 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 · #6 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 · #7 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 · #8 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 · #9 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.

Dahoss · #10 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.

I think you nailed it.

CSC · #11 10-20-2010, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I think you nailed it.

I don't think he does and neither do you.

Dahoss · #12 10-20-2010, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSC

I don't think he has and neither do you.

I think he has and so do you.

blackthroatedwind · #13 10-20-2010, 04:31 PM

At least we now know what is truly amazing about Zenyatta.....

she is the first 5YO Filly. Now, that is special. She is definitely the best 5YO Filly I have ever heard of.

jms62 · #14 10-20-2010, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

At least we now know what is truly amazing about Zenyatta.....

she is the first 5YO Filly. Now, that is special. She is definitely the best 5YO Filly I have ever heard of.