Derby Picks

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Clark's values are probably correct however, why would you not just bet them seperatly then, rather than better this prop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the prop gives you +360 or whatever and the parlay will likely pay +240 or less.

[rush66]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clark's values are probably correct however, why would you not just bet them seperatly then, rather than better this prop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the prop gives you +360 or whatever and the parlay will likely pay +240 or less.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I see where my regards to this bet having 'value' is incorrect. I am also wondering something about this. In horse racing the odds are set completely by the bettors is that not correct? So saying that +360 has value may be correct in regards to the wagers you could make on the races themselves, however thinking the wager is the correct wager would not be correct because the horse's chances of winning the next two races (as history has shown us) will be overvalued. Just because all the bettors think that the odds are 6/5 or 2/5 does not mean those are the 'correct' odds on that horse.

If this is the case, then I am betting this at -400 because I think it is the correct wager.

[Clarkmeister]

Since you like history, here's something to consider. 2yo champs who also won the Derby since 1950.

1955 - Needles
1971 - Riva Ridge
1972 - Secretariat
1974 - Foolish Pleasure
1976 - Seattle Slew
1977 - Affirmed
1978 - Spectacular Bid
2006 - Street Sense

Also, you should live in Vegas. At Wynn, the line is +270/-320.

[New001]

Didn't someone also say that if he loses the Preakness, he might not race at Belmont? Further value for "yes" if true.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't someone also say that if he loses the Preakness, he might not race at Belmont? Further value for "yes" if true.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its not.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Didn't someone also say that if he loses the Preakness, he might not race at Belmont? Further value for "yes" if true.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? The original terms of the bet said he has to race in both.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Didn't someone also say that if he loses the Preakness, he might not race at Belmont? Further value for "yes" if true.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? The original terms of the bet said he has to race in both.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not where I bet.

[rush66]

New, I dont think it would further value the 'yes' by losing, and if it does it a moot point because the yes loses. In all seriousness I want to know if my thinking from the above question about horseracing not having a "linesmaker" has any merit. Clark, you have made some good points in this thread honestly but I feel strongly about my wager and if Im wrong Im wrong and Ive learned my lesson to listen to the people who know more. I bet the yes last year on barbaro and got screwed when he got hurt a lot of things can happen outside of just running the race that have an effect on the value IMO.

BTW, sorry I dont live in Vegas Im not as lucky as you I guess.

[rush66]

Where I bet this wager it says just "must race in the preakness"

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
Since you like history, here's something to consider. 2yo champs who also won the Derby since 1950.

1955 - Needles
1971 - Riva Ridge
1972 - Secretariat
1974 - Foolish Pleasure
1977 - Seattle Slew
1978 - Affirmed
1979 - Spectacular Bid
2006 - Street Sense


[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon Clark, don't eff up your newfound equine cred. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

SBid won Preakness in record time [or close] then stepped on a safety pin morning of Belmont and came in 3rd.

This is awesome:
'He began the race as the odds-on favorite. His trainer Bud Delp was so confident of victory that as the horse paraded in front of the fans, he called out to them "Go bet! Go bet!".
Spectacular Bid went on to win by 2 3/4 lengths over General Assembly, a very well bred son of Secretariat. '

Right up there with 'Yeah, I got a question.

You got any excuses tonite Roy?'