Premium Tap to Classic?

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

No, my comments are being made before the race. He is too slow, he is distance challenged, and he is pretty much a need the lead type. Nothing about him suits this race.

He has ZERO chance and is the kind of horse people only pick on the internet and don't back with their wallets. He will be 40-1 or more and should be every bit of that.

The only sentence I agree with is the first. I'm not sure about the last.

One thing I am certain of is that he has more than a "zero" chance. If you don't understand that, then you are not as sharp as I thought you were.

I can assure you I will be backing him with my wallet if I see 40-1. I think he has better than a 2.5% chance to win. I'd also take 10-1 that he finishes in front of Bernardini and 4-1 that he finishes in front of any other individual horse in the race. Those are numbers I'm SURE I'd take. I may be willing to go much lower in the matchups.

--Dunbar

Originally Posted by Dunbar

The only sentence I agree with is the first. I'm not sure about the last.

One thing I am certain of is that he has more than a "zero" chance. If you don't understand that, then you are not as sharp as I thought you were.

I can assure you I will be backing him with my wallet if I see 40-1. I think he has better than a 2.5% chance to win. I'd also take 10-1 that he finishes in front of Bernardini and 4-1 that he finishes in front of any other individual horse in the race. Those are numbers I'm SURE I'd take. I may be willing to go much lower in the matchups.

--Dunbar

I think his only chance would be if the starting gate malfunctions and his gate is the only one that opens. No way Jose.

If he were really a premium tap then he'd definitely be Pabst Blue Ribbon in the Classic.

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

If he were really a premium tap then he'd definitely be Pabst Blue Ribbon in the Classic.

Utica Club I'd say.

[blackthroatedwind]

OK...a number approaching zero which I personally believe is less than 2.5% ( though with takeout I was really saying his actual representative chances would be under 2%...wouldn't want to drop too far down in your esteem ).

I would say he is considerably more than 10-1 to beat Bernardini. I mean even if he's 4%, do you really think Bernardini is under 40% ( yeah, I know, that would theoretically be 9-1 ). And he is probably more than 4-1 to beat Invasor and Lava Man but I can see how it's close.

The problem with a horse like Premium Tap in match-ups ( and I'm sure I don't have to explain this to you ) is that he has a running style for this race that makes even a reasonable finish difficult. He figures to have to fight it out at least reasonably early with some of the top guns and still have enough left to deal with the decent closers.

Truly, the above argument is also why I say he has " no " chance in the race. First of all, while I do think he's improved, and publically said before the Woodward he was the one longshot I would recommend in the race, he does not fit the race dynamics along with being too slow.

[Danzig]

have seen several items now saying premium tap is going, suave as well.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

OK...a number approaching zero which I personally believe is less than 2.5% ( though with takeout I was really saying his actual representative chances would be under 2%...wouldn't want to drop too far down in your esteem ).

I would say he is considerably more than 10-1 to beat Bernardini. I mean even if he's 4%, do you really think Bernardini is under 40% ( yeah, I know, that would theoretically be 9-1 ). And he is probably more than 4-1 to beat Invasor and Lava Man but I can see how it's close.

The problem with a horse like Premium Tap in match-ups ( and I'm sure I don't have to explain this to you ) is that he has a running style for this race that makes even a reasonable finish difficult. He figures to have to fight it out at least reasonably early with some of the top guns and still have enough left to deal with the decent closers.

Truly, the above argument is also why I say he has " no " chance in the race. First of all, while I do think he's improved, and publically said before the Woodward he was the one longshot I would recommend in the race, he does not fit the race dynamics along with being too slow.

Very nice response, BTWind. I'm (seriously!) way happier reading "under 2%" than "zero". When people really think "zero chance", or "only if the starting gate malfunctions", it tells me a lot about their level of betting sophistication.

I loved Premium Tap's Woodward. However, your comments will get me to take an even more critical look at Premium Tap's other PP's, and of course some race replays. I'll be surprised if I don't like him at 40-1, but it's not impossible.

Regarding Bernardini's chances, I don't know if Bernardini has less than a 40% chance to win the race, but I doubt it's much over that figure. It looks to be a big field. I'll make up a line once the entries are known. It's going to involve considerable guesswork with David Junior and George Washington.

--Dunbar

PS-One thing the Premium Tap bashers have in their favor. There's about a 95% chance they will get to say "I told you so". (even if he loses by a head, they will say he had zero chance to win.)

[blackthroatedwind]

Look, there's no upside in telling people not to bet 30-1 shots, but this is more of a theoretical debate. And just as clearly it is easy for people to take " internet shots " with huge priced horses...not to say that YOU are doing this here....but one does see it a lot. Kind of like with Giacomo, every time he runs his confused supporters get indignent with those that suggest he was lucky in the Derby and rightfully declare him overmatched in whatever race he is in. They pick him unsuccessfully, never revisit their bad opinion, and then start the same argument again when he shows up for his next failed attempt.

I think if you take the Woodward field apart you will find it was not particularly strong and when you combine that with the track playing towards speed it is hard to say Premium Tap was too impressive. Remember who was second....and Papa Chullo basically sat on the pace, never did any running, and still wound up fourth. Only Sun King made any kind of move in the race whatsoever.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

second of june...and i had him pretty good....

[zippyneedsawin]

Premium Tap was supplemented for 150K


http://drf.com/news/article/79879.html

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Look, there's no upside in telling people not to bet 30-1 shots, but this is more of a theoretical debate. And just as clearly it is easy for people to take " internet shots " with huge priced horses...not to say that YOU are doing this here....but one does see it a lot. Kind of like with Giacomo, every time he runs his confused supporters get indignent with those that suggest he was lucky in the Derby and rightfully declare him overmatched in whatever race he is in. They pick him unsuccessfully, never revisit their bad opinion, and then start the same argument again when he shows up for his next failed attempt.

I think if you take the Woodward field apart you will find it was not particularly strong and when you combine that with the track playing towards speed it is hard to say Premium Tap was too impressive. Remember who was second....and Papa Chullo basically sat on the pace, never did any running, and still wound up fourth. Only Sun King made any kind of move in the race whatsoever.

I agree that the argument is largely theoretical. It's my opinion that most people do not know how to deal with low probability events. Granted, most horses that go off at 40-1 have an even lower chance of winning the race than their odds imply. But even if they should be 60-1, that 1.5% chance of winning has to be factored into the other horses' chances of winning. Even more so when there are several of those 1.5%-2.5% horses in the race.

Sometimes a horse will go off at 40-1 when it really ought to be around 30-1. Those horses are excellent betting opportunities.

Bettors have a hard time distinguishing between 25-1 horses and 100-1 horses. Once you use "zero chance" or "toss out" or "starting gate malfunction", you fall into that trap.

I'm not sure why you think people are more likely to pick a longshot on the Internet (and not back it up at the window). You are much more likely to look like an idiot when you pick a 40-1 shot. Even if you know what you are doing, you can expect to be "wrong" 25-30 times for every time you are "right". And backing longshot picks with your wallet should not be inhibiting in the least. If you bet sensibly, you bet roughly 1/10th as much on a 40-1 shot as you'd bet on a 4-1 shot. So how scary can that be?

--Dunbar

Hey Oracle Troll here. Your calling another poster "extremely stupid" is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. In just the last few weeks you have posted enough prattle to indicate your knowledge" has more than a few holes.

I know, I know, when I sell a Grade I winner.... prattle on. BBB

Originally Posted by bellsbendboy

Hey Oracle Troll here. Your calling another poster "extremely stupid" is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. In just the last few weeks you have posted enough prattle to indicate your knowledge" has more than a few holes.

I know, I know, when I sell a Grade I winner.... prattle on. BBB

I've seen Premum Tap since he was a pup and am aware of the physical problems hes had and the insipid ride he got last out Troll. Well aware.
The problem he has is his running style, needing the lead or a stalking position. Its going to be nearly impossible for him to work out a trip with that style that can neutralize the other speed and effectively hold off the closers.
I have yet to see you post anything or pertinence or give out any winners, something many of us have done a thousand times.
I look to create value in betting in many different ways. One of my favorite things to do is to take a longshot with a "hanging" running style or "grinding" style and key him or her underneath in the tri. Something I did and posted before the kentucky Derby regarding Steppenwolfer, who I keyed for 2nd and 3rd in the triple.
I'm no chalk lover in the sense that you will NEVER see me make a large win bet(or small one!!) on a favorite to win. And if I key one in a pik-3, pik-4, or pik-6 I am looking to catch value in the other legs of that particular pik bet.
There are many horses in the Classic who may make good keys either on top or underneath who will go off at double digit prices.
But in asessing how the race will be run, I see lava man pushing or making the lead, and bernadini stalking and making a move on the backside or the turn. This is going to hurt any horse who wants the lead or needs to run close to it, because they are going to have to neutralize the speed and tactical speed of both Lava man and Bernadini. The way that I see to attack the race is to find someone with a closing kick who can suck up into what I feel will be a solid and contested pace.

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I agree that the argument is largely theoretical. It's my opinion that most people do not know how to deal with low probability events. Granted, most horses that go off at 40-1 have an even lower chance of winning the race than their odds imply. But even if they should be 60-1, that 1.5% chance of winning has to be factored into the other horses' chances of winning. Even more so when there are several of those 1.5%-2.5% horses in the race.

Sometimes a horse will go off at 40-1 when it really ought to be around 30-1. Those horses are excellent betting opportunities.

Bettors have a hard time distinguishing between 25-1 horses and 100-1 horses. Once you use "zero chance" or "toss out" or "starting gate malfunction", you fall into that trap.

I'm not sure why you think people are more likely to pick a longshot on the Internet (and not back it up at the window). You are much more likely to look like an idiot when you pick a 40-1 shot. Even if you know what you are doing, you can expect to be "wrong" 25-30 times for every time you are "right". And backing longshot picks with your wallet should not be inhibiting in the least. If you bet sensibly, you bet roughly 1/10th as much on a 40-1 shot as you'd bet on a 4-1 shot. So how scary can that be?

--Dunbar

Its not scary at all Dunbar, and every smart player knows that the only way to have a chance to win is to create value and bet against what you perceive to be bad favorites.
The "trap" here is that being able to handicap a race effectively is the first step in this. Simply betting random longshots isn't the way to go. Having a good knowledge of horses ability and running styles is the first step in isolating possible live long shots to either win or complete gimmicks.
If you knew me well enough, you'd know that I make the same statement about certain favorites having no shot as often as I do longshots. In last years BC sprint I said the same thing about Lost in The Fog. I said the wicked pace I predicted would hurt any chance he had.
I think that handicapping is the primary key in finding a live longshot, and the opinion someone has one what kind of chance any horse has, is the key in determining which longshots are live.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Its not scary at all Dunbar, and every smart player knows that the only way to have a chance to win is to create value and bet against what you perceive to be bad favorites.

Just to be clear, when I wrote "how scary can that be?", I was refering to BTWind's comment that people like to pick longshots on the Internet that they'd never bet at the window. I was saying that if you structure your bets reasonably, your bets on longshots should be small enough to not be particularly scary.

Originally Posted by oracle80

The "trap" here is that being able to handicap a race effectively is the first step in this. Simply betting random longshots isn't the way to go. Having a good knowledge of horses ability and running styles is the first step in isolating possible live long shots to either win or complete gimmicks.

No argument here.

Originally Posted by oracle80

If you knew me well enough, you'd know that I make the same statement about certain favorites having no shot as often as I do longshots. In last years BC sprint I said the same thing about Lost in The Fog. I said the wicked pace I predicted would hurt any chance he had.
I think that handicapping is the primary key in finding a live longshot, and the opinion someone has one what kind of chance any horse has, is the key in determining which longshots are live.

Not disputing any of that either, except the approach that a horse has "no shot". It's maybe a matter of semantics. I like to think in terms of every horse having a shot. The key is finding those whose odds are attractive, regardless of whether it is a fav or a longshot.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Slot, in the last decade for a while, "value handicapping" was the rage for a while. Guys weer told to make their own morning line, and only bet horses who were overlaid according to that line.
The problem is that what if you think a horse should be 10-1 and hes 20-1 and you don't think the horse stands a chance in the world? Do you bet him?
**** that!!!

This makes no sense to me. How can you "think the horse should be 10-1", but also "don't think the horse stands a chance in the world"? The whole point of making your own line is to come up with your own estimate of each horse's chance of winning. Once you make a line with a horse at 10-1, you are saying that that horse has a 1/11 chance of winning the race. It makes no sense to then turn around and say the horse has no chance.

I'm not trying to be insulting here, but I think you are confused about what making your own line means. You say something equally confusing with this:

Originally Posted by oracle80

I'm sorry but betting 40-1 shots that you think should be 20-1 who you still feel have no chance, is not the way I prefer to go.

If I think a horse "should be 20-1", it means I think he has a 1/21 chance of winning. That's not "no chance". I don't get your thinking here. You are not looking at making your own line the same way I do.

--Dunbar

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Very nice response, BTWind. I'm (seriously!) way happier reading "under 2%" than "zero". When people really think "zero chance", or "only if the starting gate malfunctions", it tells me a lot about their level of betting sophistication.

I loved Premium Tap's Woodward. However, your comments will get me to take an even more critical look at Premium Tap's other PP's, and of course some race replays. I'll be surprised if I don't like him at 40-1, but it's not impossible.

Regarding Bernardini's chances, I don't know if Bernardini has less than a 40% chance to win the race, but I doubt it's much over that figure. It looks to be a big field. I'll make up a line once the entries are known. It's going to involve considerable guesswork with David Junior and George Washington.

--Dunbar

PS-One thing the Premium Tap bashers have in their favor. There's about a 95% chance they will get to say "I told you so". (even if he loses by a head, they will say he had zero chance to win.)

And a post like this shows me a lot about who is or isn't extremely stupid and doesn't watch any races, not even big ones, and runs his mouth about horses and races that he hasn't even seen.
The fact that I could recite Premium Tap's pp's without looking at a DRF, and that you had to "look them up" tells me that you are masquerading as someone who is actually studious about racing. You'll never have my knowledge of this game, and for every shot you attempt to take at me, expect three back.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

The problem with a horse like Premium Tap in match-ups ( and I'm sure I don't have to explain this to you ) is that he has a running style for this race that makes even a reasonable finish difficult. He figures to have to fight it out at least reasonably early with some of the top guns and still have enough left to deal with the decent closers.

After looking again at his last 3 races, I don't see that Premium Tap's running style is particularly ill-suited to this race. He is clearly a horse that does not need the lead. In the Ky Cup Classic, in particular, he showed he could sit comfortably in 4th until called upon to move up. Yes, he will have plenty of company looking for a good stalking position, but it's also true that the deep closers are going to have to be very lucky to get through that mass of horses near the front without having to go 6-wide.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Truly, the above argument is also why I say he has " no " chance in the race. First of all, while I do think he's improved, and publically said before the Woodward he was the one longshot I would recommend in the race, he does not fit the race dynamics along with being too slow.

In the Woodward he beat 2-3 horses who will race in the Classic. He ran a nearly eye-to-eye race with Second of June for the length of the Woodward. It does concern me that the last furlong of the Woodward was slow. But as far as "fit[ting] the race dynamics", I don't see him hindered any more than the rest of the group that will be forwardly placed, which includes all the serious contenders. Premium Tap, as opposed to some, has had the opportunity to exhibit considerable grit in his last 2 races.

In the Ky Cup Classic, the check/clip cost Premium Tap at least 4 lengths, IMO. Without the incident he is an easy winner.

None of this is to say he has much chance to win the race. But aside from the theoretical debate, we are arguing over the difference between, say, 1.5% and 4%. It's that distinction that determines whether getting 40-1 is a great bet or a lousy bet.

BTWind, if you haven't taken a recent look at the Ky Cup Classic, please do.

--Dunbar

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

OK...a number approaching zero which I personally believe is less than 2.5% ( though with takeout I was really saying his actual representative chances would be under 2%...wouldn't want to drop too far down in your esteem ).

Hey, BTWind, I had to dig up this old post when I noticed Pinnacle offering -4900 that Premium Tap would not win the BC.

"Sat 11/4 Will Premium Tap win he BC Classic?
1021 Yes +3300
1022 No -4900 "

Therefore, anyone totally convinced that Premium Tap has less than a 2% chance to win the BC Classic can make free money on this bet. Don't everyone rush to Pinnacle at once!
;>)

Here's the complete list of Yes/No prices for the Classic:

Sat 11/4 Will Bernardini win the BC Classic? (must start)
02:25 PM 1001 Yes +105
1002 No -121

Sat 11/4 Will Brother Derek win the BC Classic?
02:25 PM 1003 Yes +3600
1004 No -5200

Sat 11/4 Will David Junior win the BC Classic?
02:25 PM 1005 Yes +1386
1006 No -1886

Sat 11/4 Will George Washington win the BC Classic?
02:25 PM 1009 Yes +793
1010 No -1093

Sat 11/4 Will Giacomo win the BC Classic?
02:25 PM 1011 Yes +4000
1012 No -5600

Sat 11/4 Will Invasor win the BC Classic?
02:25 PM 1013 Yes +600
1014 No -680

Sat 11/4 Will Lava Man win the BC Classic?
02:25 PM 1015 Yes +570
1016 No -650

Sat 11/4 Will Lawyer Ron win the BC Classic?
02:25 PM 1017 Yes +3200
1018 No -4800

Sat 11/4 Will Perfect Drift win the BC Classic?
02:25 PM 1019 Yes +5500
1020 No -8000

Sat 11/4 Will Premium Tap win he BC Classic?
02:25 PM 1021 Yes +3300
1022 No -4900

Sat 11/4 Will Suave win the BC Classic?
02:25 PM 1023 Yes +5000
1024 No -7500

Sat 11/4 Will Sun King win the BC Classic?
02:25 PM 1025 Yes +2100
1026 No -2800

Sat 11/4 Will Flower Alley win the BC Classic?
02:25 PM 1027 Yes +5000
1028 No -7500

--Dunbar