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?

Originally Posted by Sightseek

This year's Kentucky Derby was like going through the 7 stages of grief:

1. shock & denial - self explanitory
2. pain & guilt - subjecting yourself to some of the posts here, that is pain!
3. anger & bargaining - blame it on Beyer!
4. depression, relection, lonliness - we all now know more about some people than we should
5. the upward turn - no one has started a new Derby thread in hours!
6. reconstruction & working through - onto the Preakness!
7. acceptance & hope - now we have people saying it wasn't a fluke and Mine That Bird is going to be a good horse dammit!

Well yeah he's a decent horse.

What I'm having a problem with is the rest of the runners in the derby. They were horrendous...track condition or not.

[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

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's not an opinion, it's a definition of the word fluke-which is what describes saturday to a tee. no matter how much people want to go back and try to find rhyme or reason for what he did....there is no explanation other than to say it's unexplainable.

no one had that horse. not one handicapper in the media gave this horse anything other than 'no chance'.
now, if you want to think his performance is the start of a great thing, i can't argue with that. maybe he's an emerging three year old. or maybe he's not. i'm thinking at this point he's not. we shall see.

Hindsight is 20/20? Yeah I know. I know absolutely no one paid attention to him before the race, and why should they? His last 3 races he was a victim of peculiar rides nicely stated...Regardless, I am not saying this may be the start of something great...I am of the view that the derby which featured a final sub 24 last split is more real than fluke or atleast I am not going to summarily dismiss him this time around.

Originally Posted by gales0678

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

It's a conspiracy!!!

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

This year's Kentucky Derby was like going through the 7 stages of grief:

1. shock & denial - self explanitory
2. pain & guilt - subjecting yourself to some of the posts here, that is pain!
3. anger & bargaining - blame it on Beyer!
4. depression, relection, lonliness - we all now know more about some people than we should
5. the upward turn - no one has started a new Derby thread in hours!
6. reconstruction & working through - onto the Preakness!
7. acceptance & hope - now we have people saying it wasn't a fluke and Mine That Bird is going to be a good horse dammit!

I have reached stage 6.

Originally Posted by TheSpyder

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

Just under a million.

[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.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

It's a conspiracy!!!

coach surely you don't think every horse is trying every time they run - do you really think that?

trainers send horses out to run in a race just for a run thye don't try, then wham bam , they come back the next time or the time after that and the horse wins and outruns his form and they get a better price to win

fig's people scratch their head at this thinking this horse was an underlay and shoudn't be bet, but , it can't always be explained away by saying it was dumb $ in the pools , dumb $ don't last forever

[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.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by gales0678

coach surely you don't think every horse is trying every time they run - do you really think that?

trainers send horses out to run in a race just for a run thye don't try, then wham bam , they come back the next time or the time after that and the horse wins and outruns his form and they get a better price on the win

fig's people scratch their head at this thinking this horse was an underlay and shoudn't be bet, but , it can't always be explained away by saying it was dumb $ in the polls , dumb $ don't last forever

I think horses "don"t try" a lot less than you, or others may think. And you are giving trainers (and owners) too much credit for manipulating a race so there is a better "price ( not sure what you mean by that?? odds??) next time out. Just getting a horse to a race is a bigger challenge than actually winning sometimes so wasting a start as a set up is very risky. There may be a low expectation, but to not try and win a race or have the horse go all out is asking for trouble most of the time.

[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?

[CSC]

Originally Posted by philcski

I have reached stage 6.



Just under a million.

Gee your slow...I reached all 7 stages sometime between Saturday night to Sunday morning.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I think horses "don"t try" a lot less than you, or others may think. And you are giving trainers (and owners) too much credit for manipulating a race so there is a better "price ( not sure what you mean by that?? odds??) next time out. Just getting a horse to a race is a bigger challenge than actually winning sometimes so wasting a start as a set up is very risky. There may be a low expectation, but to not try and win a race or have the horse go all out is asking for trouble most of the time.

bob - i don't disagree with you on that , maybe i think it goes on more than it really does

but - to think that it doesn't go on ever at all is not right either

[Antitrust32]

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.

100% agreed. It was impossible to pick Mine That Bird in the derby. I couldnt have even picked that horse out of a hat. No one in their right mind could have wagered hard on this horse unless their favorite number is 8 of course!

The change in running style and jockey really made a huge difference. Not at all saying this to you Steve, cause you've never said anything of the sort, but everyone already seems to be writing him off in the future and saying this was a fluke... and I just believe Mine that Bird deserves a few more chances on the big stage with his new jock and running style before he gets written off... what do you think??

[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.