You don't understand what it means because you just made that up.

The correct term is Zenyattard. Notice it's a blending of Zenyatta and tard. As in re-tard.

You simply added the word turd to Zenyatta.

What Zenyattard means is, well, it's a good descriptive of the kool aid drinking retarded fans of Zenyatta who have lost all ability for rational thought when it comes to their queen.

What isn't a straightforward win bet? You asked if Zenyatta's detractors would offer 10-1 on her winning the classic. Of course they wouldn't--even if they thought that was below her fair odds--because they could get away with offering less.

His reasoning for you offering 10/1 would be a good example of a Zenyattard.

Sadly, he has no idea what I mean by that, nor does he know he's one of the all time great Zenyattards.

Remember, CSC1985 thinks that a yielding turf course in Europe is actually firm.

I would classify this more as a prop bet, it was designed for those that are dead set against her in the classic. They don't even have to like who is running against her, though you are getting get Blame, QR, LAL.

Only you would classify a win bet as a prop bet.

I think you try to use confusing responses to hide the fact that your original points are idiotic, but you just make yourself look more stupid.

How is what you're describing different from booking a horse?

Still obsessed I see, why do you bother? It's so tiring and repetitive your posts, It's incredibly difficult to want to respond to you. I get it, you think anyone who believes Zenyatta is a half decent horse is a tard. You can move on now.

At least we now know what is truly amazing about Zenyatta.....


she is the first 5YO Filly. Now, that is special. She is definitely the best 5YO Filly I have ever heard of.

;)

You obviously don't understand, the bet is based on if Zenyatta wins or loses. The taker is betting that she will lose. How does this equate to a win bet for the taker?

I think you nailed it.

There ya go again, completely spinning things well past what I was saying.

What you don't get is that you are a freakin idiot.

You should try brushing up on both your reading skills and your logic skills.

For the last time, I am not a critic of the horse, nor do I think she sucks.

I think her rabid fans suck and have lost their grips on reality.

Uhm, you have it backwards.

Or should I say 'wacktards'?

I don't think he does and neither do you.

I used the example of Betfair - where one person takes the win side of something and the other takes the losing side. They're booking a win bet--or "laying" her odds to win. My point was that nobody would book odds on her to win that are that far away from her tote odds.

You responded by saying that what I was describing was somehow not the same thing. Well, it is the same thing--someone is laying the 10-1 (in your example, I guess, it's the bettor) and someone is backing at 10-1 (the house in your example). There is no difference between the "house" in your example (you never spelled things out this way, but I'm doing my best to decipher your inanities) and the layer in mine.

I think he has and so do you.

This is a good response, I'll give you this as a discussion point, had Betfair layed the action on Rachel Alexandra, same premise, same odds, even though the risk is greater for the taker, I think many would take that action. Now I know they are different horses, different set up, pace scenario. But It is interesting one would be dismissed more likely than the other.

Great, you got it!

I don't think you know what Betfair is. . . sorry for the obscure example.

Anyways, obviously different horses should be offered at different odds. Is this some sort of revelation?

maybe you can edumacate me....us re-tards dont really understand such things