Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dunbar
I'm not sure that's a good idea. Having 400+ entries would mean chaos in the odds. There will be so little money bet on 90% of the horses that you'll have to hope no one else is betting at the last minute like you are.
I also disagree that the current structure can't offer value. In fact, I'm quite certain it can and regularly does offer value.
--Dunbar
|
I can assure you handle would be MUCH higher if 400 entries were available. For example... what if you liked Big Brown back in January? Too bad- you're stuck with "all others" at 4-1. Or in 2004, what if you liked Smarty Jones? Too bad, again, you're stuck punching the "all others" at 4-1.
I'd like to see one time where someone actually got the value they were looking for out of the future pool. Funny Cide... MAYBE.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lemoncrush
I agree with this, and think their might be a happy medium somewhere along the lines of maybe 80-100 horses, at least in the first pool. I think the 3rd pool overall is kind of a bad idea. Maybe just have one pool in early March that would make it more of an event?
Plus, anyone who has access to a Vegas sportsbook can usually get a great price on derby hopefuls they like anytime between October and March
|
Not anymore you can't. Any horse that shows a HINT of ability instantly drops to 25-1... which isn't value in a future wager.