Bridge jumper on Zenyatta

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

War Pass in the Tampa Derby?

I'm sure this putz will redboard a case as to why he was likely to not hit the board.

Besides, unless i missed something, War Pass had never raced at Tampa Downs...putz.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Go play in traffic you tard.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Go play in traffic you tard.

Unfortunate. I had higher opinion of you. I really did. Oh well.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Besides, unless i missed something, War Pass had never raced at Tampa Downs...putz.

Look, no offense, but you're just an ass.

Think about what might be if you put half the energy into finding bridgejumped horses that DO NOT meet your laundry list of requirements and making plays AGAINST them.

I didn't care that War Pass didn't meet your "criteria" and in fact that's EXACTLY why I brought that race up.

See instead of looking for a decent way to take advantage of a situation you have obviously given copious amounts of thought to, you just bare your teeth and dare people to show you statistics on why you are wrong.

And THAT is what makes you an ass.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Look, no offense, but you're just an ass.

Think about what might be if you put half the energy into finding bridgejumped horses that DO NOT meet your laundry list of requirements and making plays AGAINST them.

I didn't care that War Pass didn't meet your "criteria" and in fact that's EXACTLY why I brought that race up.

See instead of looking for a decent way to take advantage of a situation you have obviously given copious amounts of thought to, you just bare your teeth and dare people to show you statistics on why you are wrong.

And THAT is what makes you an ass.

I defended a point that bridgejumping is not a bad move all of the time. So you make statements that show your genius like "good horses break down 10% of the time".

You want to call me an ass fine. But you chose to engage...as weak as your attempt was.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Think about what might be if you put half the energy into finding bridgejumped horses that DO NOT meet your laundry list of requirements and making plays AGAINST them.

I find it amusing that he didn't restrict the bets to tracks in places like Arkansas and West Virgina that pay a $2.20 minimum to show.

In the most rare of cases - bridge jumps in those states aren't always terrible bets.

That is - unless the stewards resort to phantom DQ's like in the case of Nicole's Dream.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I find it amusing that he didn't restrict the bets to tracks in places like Arkansas and West Virgina that pay a $2.20 minimum to show.

In the most rare of cases - bridge jumps in those states aren't always terrible bets.

That is - unless the stewards resort to phantom DQ's like in the case of Nicole's Dream.

Thats not the point and perhaps you are not trying to understand the point. But thats okay...

The point is, if a graded stake horse races a month before and dominates and the conditions are almost exactly the same the next month, why would said horse not at least show especially when the field is 6 deep? Especially a horse that is undefeated, in form and not shipping and the weather is fine.

Phantom DQ's happen but really how many do you see? There is less chance of that than catastrophic injury.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Thats not the point and perhaps you are not trying to understand the point. But thats okay...

The point is, if a graded stake horse races a month before and dominates and the conditions are almost exactly the same the next month, why would said horse not at least show especially when the field is 6 deep? Especially a horse that is undefeated, in form and not shipping and the weather is fine.

Phantom DQ's happen but really how many do you see? There is less chance of that than catastrophic injury.

Really?

Serious injury, minor injury, jockey mistake, stumble and lose rider, break terribly, too hot for the horse, horse regresses.. There are a million reasons a horse can run way worse than it did recently. I seem to remember a horse running out of the money in a big race recently for NO APPARENT REASON. Tip of the tongue..

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Really?

Serious injury, minor injury, jockey mistake, stumble and lose rider, break terribly, too hot for the horse, horse regresses.. There are a million reasons a horse can run way worse than it did recently. I seem to remember a horse running out of the money in a big race recently for NO APPARENT REASON. Tip of the tongue..

The horse which i think you are referring wouldnt have been a good bridge jumping bet in my opinion. Again, i will get accused of redboarding (for the record I thought that Big Brown would win) but we had a three year old with injury concerns running his third race in a little over a month and trying a distance of 1.5 miles on a track he had never run on. That is not a good opportunity in my opinion.

Curlin at the Stephen Foster was not a great one either. Dubai jinx on a track he had never run on? Too many questions and history would suggest betting against these types.

This is basically a risk v. reward discussion.

Since people seem to assess risk in very different ways
as already demonstrated in this thread, we are at a dead end.

For me personally the risk far outweighs the reward in
the example given to an extent it makes no sense at all.
I doubt this thread would have gone more than 3 posts
had the horse lost its rider, etc...

For others who need a quick grand...I hope you dont need
a quick grand too many times.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Besides, unless i missed something, War Pass had never raced at Tampa Downs...putz.

I guess the Tampa Derby is not run at Tampa Downs??

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I guess the Tampa Derby is not run at Tampa Downs??

Obviously you feel the need to pipe in without reading all of what was written.

My point was that War Pass had not had a race at Tampa downs prior to the Tampa Derby.

[Dunbar]

wow, the heat of this thread. The negative comments remind me of people who, knowing little other than the track take, claim that horseracing itself cannot be beaten.

For the record, I agree with dalakhani. Bridge-jumping can be a good bet. If Zenyatta had been in a 6-horse race instead of 7, I would have bet at least $25K on her to show.

--Dunbar

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

wow, the heat of this thread. The negative comments remind me of people who, knowing little other than the track take, claim that horseracing itself cannot be beaten.

For the record, I agree with dalakhani. Bridge-jumping can be a good bet. If Zenyatta had been in a 6-horse race instead of 7, I would have bet at least $25K on her to show.

--Dunbar

you disappoint me dun..

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

you disappoint me dun..

But you still automatically dismiss Ateam? You are disappointing me (as if you care LOL) because I Know you have a more open mind than that.

Its one thing when you completely dismiss someone with no cred on here like me. But Dunbar? If I were YOU, instead of being disappointed in Dunbar, I would be asking him why he sees things this way. I think it is obvious to anyone that has read anything that he has posted that Dunbar is a pretty darn good gambler.

Perhaps in getting that take, you continue to dismiss it. But maybe, just maybe, you learn something that will help to make you more money.

Just my take though and take it for what it is worth. No offense intended so you dont have to flame me.

[ateamstupid]

Man, I'm tired as hell of this conversation. I was just messing with Dunbar.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

wow, the heat of this thread. The negative comments remind me of people who, knowing little other than the track take, claim that horseracing itself cannot be beaten.

For the record, I agree with dalakhani. Bridge-jumping can be a good bet. If Zenyatta had been in a 6-horse race instead of 7, I would have bet at least $25K on her to show.

--Dunbar

Dunbar, I always respect your opinion but I don't think I can agree with you here. I agree with you that in theory, a horse at any odds could be a good bet. If you are getting higher odds than what the true odds are, then your bet will have a positive ROI over time. I'm not big on betting favorites, but I realize that if you have a 3-5 shot that has a 75% chance of winning, that is a good bet.

That being said, I would have an extremely hard time finding a bridge-jumping bet that is a good bet. If it was at a track where the minimum pay-off was $2.20, then it might be possible to find some value. But if you are only getting $2.10, I don't see it. If you are getting $2.10 to show, you have to win that bet 95% of the time, just to break even. Even when I see some of these 1-5 shots and 1-9 that look unbeatable, I don't think that I would make their chances of hitting the board higher than 95%. I have seen these horses run out of the money too often. I think it is more often than 5% of the time that these horses run off the board.

If you could find a horse that you thought had a 96% chance of hitting the board, then you would have a 1% edge betting that horse to show if you were getting $2.10. I think you would be very hard pressed to find a horse that has a 96% chance of hitting the board.

In the previous example, my math was slightly off. The edge would be even less than 1%. It would actually be 0.8%. So even if you could find a horse that you thought would hit the board 96% of the time, which I don't think you could find, your edge would be less than 1%. It would be 0.8%.

[hockey2315]

I think bridge jumping is pretty stupid but Zenyatta was a relatively safe bet to show. . .

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Dunbar, I always respect your opinion but I don't think I can agree with you here. I agree with you that in theory, a horse at any odds could be a good bet. If you are getting higher odds than what the true odds are, then your bet will have a positive ROI over time. I'm not big on betting favorites, but I realize that if you have a 3-5 shot that has a 75% chance of winning, that is a good bet.

That being said, I would have an extremely hard time finding a bridge-jumping bet that is a good bet. If it was at a track where the minimum pay-off was $2.20, then it might be possible to find some value. But if you are only getting $2.10, I don't see it. If you are getting $2.10 to show, you have to win that bet 95% of the time, just to break even. Even when I see some of these 1-5 shots and 1-9 that look unbeatable, I don't think that I would make their chances of hitting the board higher than 95%. I have seen these horses run out of the money too often. I think it is more often than 5% of the time that these horses run off the board.

If you could find a horse that you thought had a 96% chance of hitting the board, then you would have a 1% edge betting that horse to show if you were getting $2.10. I think you would be very hard pressed to find a horse that has a 96% chance of hitting the board.

In the previous example, my math was slightly off. The edge would be even less than 1%. It would actually be 0.8%. So even if you could find a horse that you thought would hit the board 96% of the time, which I don't think you could find, your edge would be less than 1%. It would be 0.8%.

Hello Rupert-

if you dont mind me asking, what would you have placed Zenyatta's chances of hitting the board at on saturday?

What if the field shrunk to 6? How about to 5?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Hello Rupert-

if you dont mind me asking, what would you have placed Zenyatta's chances of hitting the board at on saturday?

What if the field shrunk to 6? How about to 5?

I would say her chances were probably somewhere in the 90-95% range. It would be hard to be any more precise than that. Actually her chances were probably better than 90%. I don't think she had a 1 in 10 chance of running out of the money. She probably had somwhere between a 1 in 15 and a 1 in 20 chance of running out of the money. So that would mean her chances of hitting the board were probably somewhere in the 92-95% range.

If there would have been one scratch, I don't think it would have improved her chances all that much. The mostly likely way that she was going to run out of the money was if she just didn't fire. It is conceivable that if she didn't fire, that one less horse in the race could make the difference of her running 3rd instead of 4th. But that seems like a real long-shot. I don't think one less horse would improve her chances by more than 1-2%. So with 6 horses in the field, maybe her chances of hitting the board would have been somewhere between 93-96% or something like that.

The problem is there is no way to be so precise that you can say exactly what the chances are. But if you are betting a horse to show that is going to only pay $2.10, you have to be extremely precise because there is no room for error. If your estimation is off by only a couple of percentage points, you may be inadvertently making a bet that has a negative ROI.

I don't think you could ever find a horse in a 5 horse field that only has 1 chance in 50 of running out of the money. Maybe it would be possible to find a horse that has only 1 chance in 25 or 1 chance in 30 of running out of the money. So that would mean that the horse has a 96-97% chance of hitting the board. If that were the case, you would have somewhere between a 0.8-1.85% edge. So that would probably be the best case scenario. But if you were even 2% off in your estimation, then you would have a negative expectation.

If there is anybody out there that is so good that they can estimate a horse's chances of hitting the board almost perfectly and not be off by more than a percent, then that person would not be wasting their time making show bets on horses paying $2.10. If you were that good so that you could say exactly what a horse's true odds were, you would have a huge edge. You'd probably have a 10-20% edge. You wouldn't be wasting your time looking for show bets paying $2.10. That would only give you a 1% edge or so.