PDA

View Full Version : Grats Vegas



Keller
06-07-2008, 07:36 PM
Big Brown loses triple crown bid.

Why does this happen every year? Congress should investigate!

Nilandia
06-07-2008, 07:53 PM
I'm surprised about Big Brown, but to lose to the horse with the worst odds to win makes it even harder to believe.

Gretchen

Sean of the Thread
06-07-2008, 08:15 PM
Horse betting is a "parimutuel" system. The odds are determined by how much money is bet on which horse. One of the main reasons it's ever been legal.

Keller
06-07-2008, 08:51 PM
Horse betting is a "parimutuel" system. The odds are determined by how much money is bet on which horse. One of the main reasons it's ever been legal.


I know nothing about gambling, to be honest. I just wanted to make a congress joke.

Sean of the Thread
06-07-2008, 09:50 PM
Ah I was responding to Gretchen's post. I took it as she thought there was something fishy in the underdog winning.

Nilandia
06-07-2008, 10:20 PM
Nah, not fishy. Just saying that it might have been easier to take if one of the more favored horses had won, rather than the one that almost no one was betting on.

Gretchen

Sean of the Thread
06-07-2008, 10:23 PM
I always throw like $10 to win/place/chow on the bottom dogs of any triple crown when I have the opportunity.

Skeeter
06-08-2008, 01:59 AM
It would take a shit ton of money to move the line, would be interesting to see if there were some substantial wagers placed at the last second.

Gan
06-08-2008, 03:40 AM
I watched the race. It made me sad.

38:1 for the winning horse. What a day, and that horse had a beautiful run.

Anebriated
06-08-2008, 01:48 PM
I saw the odds before the race started and said to my friend we should have put $10 on every horse except big brown, the worst that happens if brown loses is we get paid $70, a loss of $10. Would have won $310 if I had taken my own advice.

Sean of the Thread
06-08-2008, 02:09 PM
I saw the odds before the race started and said to my friend we should have put $10 on every horse except big brown, the worst that happens if brown loses is we get paid $70, a loss of $10. Would have won $310 if I had taken my own advice.

Always fun to do. I usually go down to the the club suites and watch them with my friends who are into that.

Didn't go this year.

BigWorm
06-08-2008, 05:54 PM
The reason that this happens every year is that the first two races of the Triple Crown are sprints, while the last race is more of a long distance race. If a horse can win the Derby, which is 1.25 miles, it definitely has a good shot of winning the Preakness, which is an eighth mile shorter. The Belmont is 1.50 miles, which isn't much longer than the Derby, but between those two distances is the point which separates the sprinters from the distance runners. So the reason that it never happens is that its rare that a horse is the fastest sprinter and the best long distance runner.

longshot
06-08-2008, 06:20 PM
I saw the odds before the race started and said to my friend we should have put $10 on every horse except big brown, the worst that happens if brown loses is we get paid $70, a loss of $10. Would have won $310 if I had taken my own advice.

NOTE: I misread Anebriated's post... I had to change my reply.

Good work Ms. Cleo. It's very easy to talk about how much you would have won if you did something differently in the past. I so was going to buy Google when the stock listed...

The race time odds I saw were a little different...

There were 9 horses. 8 horses and Big Brown.
The favorites after Big Brown were Dennis of Cork at 5:1, and Tale of Ekati at 10:1.
8 bets gives you $80 in bets.
If Dennis of Cork won, that would put you at 50 - 80 = -$30.
If Tale of Ekati won, that's 100 - 80 = $20.

Why not just take the field? If Big Brown is 1:5, then I'm guessing that you'd be able get the field with the vig included at 4:1 You would need a horse with 10:1 odds or better to win the Belmont in order for you to not lose money... and even if the horse predicted to finish third did win, you'd be effectively getting 1:4 odds on a 10:1 horse.

If only had gone through with my idea of putting money on a 38:1 underdog...

Edited to Add the Following:

This is off topic, but Backlash, you're right. I need to be more satirical, and not so serious. I'll still be serious, like in the econ threads, but I think I need to turn up the part of me that provides enjoyment. Thanks for pointing this out.

This doesn't change the fact that you're an idiot though.