11/4 - My Budget - Your Suggestions

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

You are simply assuming there is a bias. The times the BC are at Bel and CD, I see many fewer biases. To simply layoff the first couple of races is ridiculous. Biases, even they are there, can change throughout the day. Many times you trick yourself into a bias and suddenly you've missed a haveable horse b/c you convinced yourself they couldn't win.

I didn't say to lay off. I said I'd rather go heavier on the later races once I get a feel for the day, rather than put myself in a hole early making blind bets.

I'm not just talking about biases. There are some days where you're nailing everything and some days where you're ice cold. I like to get a feel for what kind of day it is before I drop anything heavy.

Dropping too much on the early races also makes you change the way you bet later on in the day. If you lose $100-$150 on the first four races, you tend to bet scared the rest of the time and invest too much money just trying to get even.. Whereas if you use the first few races (I'd say two) as more of a feeler, then you're more sure of what you wanna do.

I'm not saying if you have a stone cold lock, to not bet it.. But if there's nothing that screams "BET ME" in the first few races, I'd go minor and wait until I feel like I know what's going on.

There is no doubt in my mind that the way the first few races go, the wagering follows. At Arlington the first two races were won by fairly heavy favorites. The 3rd race was the mile and none other than the Rock of Gibraltor, the heaviest pre BC favorite was up next. If those first two races had not been won by favorites, there is no doubt in my mind that the money laid on the Rock would not have been as heavy. So the call goes out, who do you like cause you are gonna get a price. Well I have no idea about the turf so I dont go near it. But there were people that really liked Domedriver. And they got the horse at a better price imo because the first two races had the favorites winning and winning easily (Azeri).

[TheSpyder]

I disagree PGARDN. I've enever heard of an "odds bias" and don't think it exists. In fact, mathmatically if two favorites come in, odds are against the next race being a favorite, but that's neither here nor there.

I may be wrong but I know of no one who follows odds. Horses, jockeys, trainers, track bias, but not odds.

Anyone else want to weigh in?

Originally Posted by TheSpyder

I disagree PGARDN. I've enever heard of an "odds bias" and don't think it exists. In fact, mathmatically if two favorites come in, odds are against the next race being a favorite, but that's neither here nor there.

I may be wrong but I know of no one who follows odds. Horses, jockeys, trainers, track bias, but not odds.

Anyone else want to weigh in?

In fact, mathmatically if two favorites come in, odds are against the next race being a favorite, but that's neither here nor there.

This is more than wrong. Each race is a single event in itself.

Its not odds bias. Its not following odds. Its looking at prior races and seeing favorites win. The BC races are as bet as heavily by the general public as the Kentucky Derby (and I would argue any race(s) in the US). In fact a board I was on at the time people were claiming it was "favorites day" 2002 in Arlington. And if you dont think the general public is swayed by favorites winning, you are wrong.
My point is each race is a single event. But it is not bet as such.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

fire.....fire....fire..dumb luck can be passed off for great cappin...lol

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

fire.....fire....fire..dumb luck can be passed off for great cappin...lol

This should be the motto of your life you mother****er.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

This should be the motto of your life you mother****er.

son your "mad" crazy yo...put em on the bench..