Actually, I wasn't.

They both seemed like improbable winners based on running style, so why not take a flyer on the higher priced one that just beat the shorter priced one.

Next time though, I'm going to blink myself charts for the Derby before the race is run.

In the interview immediately after the race the $900,000 guy mentioned he noted Calvin Borel already had winners on the day when he placed the $100,000 on Super Saver.

There's no doubt Super Saver was an underlay yesterday, 100K into the win pool, plus the Borel effect, and the publicity the bet generated on this pick no doubt lowered SS's odds. Overall I don't know if I approve of these gimmick plays; however you have to say good on that guy for picking the winner, that's 2 for 2 with last year's Goldikova win bet.

exactly the irs will be there with both hands out
now all he needs to do is get programs and losing tickets that total 900k and its tax free

don't you mean thier fair share :rolleyes:

Haha, well, I wouldn't call it fair.

$0.60 according to Steve Crist: http://cristblog.drf.com/crist/2010/05/sixty-cents.html

Quote:

The $100,000 increased Super Saver's share of the win pool from 8.97 % to 9.27 %, dropping his odds from 8.36-1 to 8.06-1 (after breakage, from 8.30-1 to 8.00-1.) So it appears that Super Saver would have paid $18.60 rather than $18.00 to win had the bet not been part of the pool. Conversely, had Ice Box finished first rather than 2nd, he would have paid $25.40, but without the bet he would have paid $25.20.