Sutra

[lemoncrush]

I noticed she had odds around 80-1 in last week's Kentucky Oaks future pool 2.
Has she even ran this year? I haven't heard or seen anything on her in months and they actually listed her as an individual betting interest in pool 2.

I know the Derby futures pool has plenty of critics, but the Oaks pool is even worse.

[jjf1031]

Originally Posted by lemoncrush

I noticed she had odds around 80-1 in last week's Kentucky Oaks future pool 2.
Has she even ran this year? I haven't heard or seen anything on her in months and they actually listed her as an individual betting interest in pool 2.

I know the Derby futures pool has plenty of critics, but the Oaks pool is even worse.

80-1 is a joke. SHould be 800-1

[Many Others]

trust but verify, but believe she ran at Oaklawn several (?) weeks ago and cant remember if off the board but do know was not the winner...

right now she's at FGNO, received last week -

Sutra
Date: March 14, 2007
Track: Fair Grounds
Distance: Four Furlongs
Time: 50:20
Track Condition: Fast
Surface: Dirt
Rank: 15/30

Originally Posted by lemoncrush

I noticed she had odds around 80-1 in last week's Kentucky Oaks future pool 2.
Has she even ran this year? I haven't heard or seen anything on her in months and they actually listed her as an individual betting interest in pool 2.

I know the Derby futures pool has plenty of critics, but the Oaks pool is even worse.

[POINTGIVEN1985]

Originally Posted by jjf1031

80-1 is a joke. SHould be 800-1

i wouldnt put a penny on her at 100000-1

[lemoncrush]

I basically made the point because I don't think the Oaks should have a future pool like the derby.
It doesn't seem to be the ultimate goal for many 3-yo fillies, like it is is for the boys, and they don't have nearly the same number of horses clearly pointing for that race. Otherwise, a horse like Sutra would never be listed.

Plus, what happens if Rags to Riches runs in the derby? She was easily the most wagered on filly in both pool 1 and pool 2. It's a terrible bet.

[POINTGIVEN1985]

Originally Posted by lemoncrush

I basically made the point because I don't think the Oaks should have a future pool like the derby.
It doesn't seem to be the ultimate goal for many 3-yo fillies, like it is is for the boys, and they don't have nearly the same number of horses clearly pointing for that race. Otherwise, a horse like Sutra would never be listed.

Plus, what happens if Rags to Riches runs in the derby? She was easily the most wagered on filly in both pool 1 and pool 2. It's a terrible bet.

definitly agree with that, ppl are giving money away if the run her in the derby, if she goes to the derby it should be like a scratch and you should be refunded in my opinion

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by POINTGIVEN1985

definitly agree with that, ppl are giving money away if the run her in the derby, if she goes to the derby it should be like a scratch and you should be refunded in my opinion

That's impossible. That would defeat the whole point of a future wager, that being taking all of the risk involved with who will make it and who will run where.

If there were provisions for things like that, there would also need to be provisions for things like bonehead rides that cost a horse a Derby victory, or refunds for horses whose trainers just decide that the Derby isn't for their horse, or horses who want to get in the field but can't because of changes in graded earnings between the time the pool opens and Derby day.