Derby Trail Forums
Page 6 of 17 « First < 45 6 7816 > Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Paddock (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   134th Preakness Field Close to Set (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29491)

Antitrust32 05-06-2009 10:46 AM
Quote:
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 05-06-2009 10:48 AM
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.

Antitrust32 05-06-2009 10:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gales0678
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)

I 100% disagree with this though... Its crazy to think they were hiding his potential to get in the Derby.

Wooley to jock in NM "Hey make sure you stiff this ride because we're going to pay 100 bucks in the Derby... eventhough there is a good chance he wont get in the derby with his earnings.. lots of horses have to drop out... still.. make sure you ride for 4th at best."

gales0678 05-06-2009 10:50 AM
Quote:
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?

GBBob 05-06-2009 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHoss9698
Just so I'm clear, Gales are saying that maybe the connections weren't trying in the Sunland races, so they could cash in big in the Derby?
There is more than one Gales?


:wf

Regarding his point, if indeed there are horses/connections out there "not trying", I can pretty much guarantee they are not on the Derby trail doing it.

Antitrust32 05-06-2009 10:51 AM
Quote:
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.

Gander 05-06-2009 10:51 AM
I also think its very possible the connections had a good amount of money on their $100 horse, but my guess is to make this horse 51/1 required more money than they bet. You dont honestly think these guys accounted for more than 2 or 3 percent of the win pool do you?

gales0678 05-06-2009 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antitrust32
I 100% disagree with this though... Its crazy to think they were hiding his potential to get in the Derby.

Wooley to jock in NM "Hey make sure you stiff this ride because we're going to pay 100 bucks in the Derby... eventhough there is a good chance he wont get in the derby with his earnings.. lots of horses have to drop out... still.. make sure you ride for 4th at best."
didn't he have the $ already because of the 2 yr old races?

Antitrust32 05-06-2009 10:52 AM
Quote:
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 :zz: :zz: :zz:

robfla 05-06-2009 10:52 AM
Quote:
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?

Antitrust32 05-06-2009 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gales0678
didn't he have the $ already because of the 2 yr old races?

hell no he didnt.

you really should give up the "didnt try in New Mexico" angle. Its pretty crazy, even for you lately Marty.. :p

gales0678 05-06-2009 10:58 AM
perhaps steve can get a breakdown of how much was bet on the horse in Canada in particular at Woodbine , this would be interesting to see

perhpas some of the sharp players at Woodbine knew this horse had talent - they saw a big time jockey switch as the green light to bet this horse

JerseyJ 05-06-2009 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by letswastemoney
"Flying Private, the last-place finisher in the Derby, will run back in the Preakness, trainer D. Wayne Lukas told Pimlico officials Tuesday.

"We didn't get what we expected to get in the Derby," said Lukas, a five-time winner of the Preakness."

lol
Yeah, like the guy who's won the Preakness 5 times has no clue how to train a race horse. Yeah, the horse didn't run a step in the Derby. But he didn't run a step in his previous encounter on a sloppy track. He had some trouble in Arkansas, and it's not like there is a stable full of Secretariat's waiting for him in the Preakness. I mean going into the Derby, this horse looked better on form than Mine That Bird. At least he had ran an 87 and 91 Beyer Speed Figures on dirt. Plus, accounting for the fact that he didn't care for a sloppy track and he had the 19 post when the outside was bad, and I can see why he's running back. Like I said, a guy who has won double digit Triple Crown races has no idea how to train or spot a horse. Why shouldn't he toss out the Derby and take a shot?

JerseyJ 05-06-2009 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gales0678
perhaps steve can get a breakdown of how much was bet on the horse in Canada in particular at Woodbine , this would be interesting to see

perhpas some of the sharp players at Woodbine knew this horse had talent - they saw a big time jockey switch as the green light to bet this horse
It doesn't really matter where people were betting on him from...the mutuel pool for the Derby was $43,434,837...every horse is going to get some money on them in that pool. It has no difference, especially when there are a number of longshot/50-1 ML horses.

Antitrust32 05-06-2009 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gales0678
perhaps steve can get a breakdown of how much was bet on the horse in Canada in particular at Woodbine , this would be interesting to see

perhpas some of the sharp players at Woodbine knew this horse had talent - they saw a big time jockey switch as the green light to bet this horse

perhaps there is no freaking way to explain it. Even if the horse had won the Freaking Sunland Park derby he would have been 40-1 at best. And we all would have tossed his ass out still. He showed grit as a two year old but he showed nothing as a three year old Marty. Nothing we come up with after the race would justify betting him in the race. Nothing

the only thing i disagree with is writing this horse off after he just won the Derby by 7 with a 105 Beyer. I'd like to see him run a few more times before writing him off... Am I going to use him him the Preakness?? most likely not unless somehow he's high odds (15-1 or higher) which is very unlikely. I'm probably not going to bet the Preakness at all... I'm still pissed at my piss poor opinion of the Derby.

I also agree with Coach that the Derby made a lot of horses look really bad... and I dont think the 2nd, 3rd or 4th finishers were impressive at all...

Antitrust32 05-06-2009 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHoss9698
He actually did have the earnings based on his win in the Grey at Woodbine. After all of the defections he was like 15th or 16th in earnings. Not to mention he wouldn't have gotten any graded earnings for the Sunland races anyway, as they aren't graded...yet.

Doesn't make the ridiculous theory any more believable, but he had the earnings.

I thought he was like 24th or 25th on the list before like 10 horses dropped out or skipped...

Edit: I realize the only earnings he had to get in were from his 2 year old year... but a few weeks ago it really didnt look like he was going to race correct?? I mean I was worried about Dunkirk and he had like 40k more earnings or something than Mine That Bird. Then horses started getting injured or passing on the race... it went from being a really exciting race to being an okay Derby... not even more impressive than the horses in it last year IMO.

gales0678 05-06-2009 11:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antitrust32
perhaps there is no freaking way to explain it. Even if the horse had won the Freaking Sunland Park derby he would have been 40-1 at best. And we all would have tossed his ass out still. He showed grit as a two year old but he showed nothing as a three year old Marty. Nothing we come up with after the race would justify betting him in the race. Nothing

the only thing i disagree with is writing this horse off after he just won the Derby by 7 with a 105 Beyer. I'd like to see him run a few more times before writing him off... Am I going to use him him the Preakness?? most likely not unless somehow he's high odds (15-1 or higher) which is very unlikely. I'm probably not going to bet the Preakness at all... I'm still pissed at my piss poor opinion of the Derby.

I also agree with Coach that the Derby made a lot of horses look really bad... and I dont think the 2nd, 3rd or 4th finishers were impressive at all...

he listed at 5/1 for the Preakness


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:39 PM.
Page 6 of 17 « First < 45 6 7816 > Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.