it's not fallacy after the horse wins. i thought that was how we based our logic on this thread.

and why would anyone want to bet a 10-1 shot when they think it's odds of winning are actually 10-1?

OKay, im redboarding Zenyatta showing yesterday. LOL. And im sure you regularly find those 10-1 shots that shold be 3-1.

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.

hey you made the faulty math.

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.

given my premise the math was perfect.

i'd suggest the most likely flaw in my example is finding a horse that could finish itm 99/100.

compared to that, a 3-1 shot going off at 10-1 would be like finding water after falling out of a boat.

terrible value / tempting gamble

say the horse has a 90% chance to show
hit% = 90
payout = $2.10
Value = .95 (lose 5cents on the dollar over infinite # wagers)

a fair 3-1 shot going off at 6.5-1 offers TWICE the value
hit% = 25
payout = $15.00
value = 1.88

Bridge Jumping is a losing long term investment.


However you do have a 90% chance of getting 5% interest on your money.
For some that would be a tempting Gamble.

And i dont disagree with the math at all IF the horse ONLY had a 90% chance to show. See the point?

There are given scenarios where the horse is much better than 90%. Of course, this is subjective.

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.

not really. The most you could even add in Theory is 10 percentage points.:p

In real life you just don't have enough information to assign a horse 100% hit rate. Not to mention the slew of things that can unexpectedly go wrong.

In real life a "lock" to show isn't going to be any higher than 95%


Even a 95% hit% is only a .9975 Value. Still a losing long-term investment.

You would be hard pressed to find a 95% hit rate for a show wager.


A bad investment / a tempting gamble

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.

Worse than an investment in bear stearns? Or a CD at indymac?

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..

I am talking about investment in horseracing, not degenerate gamblers in the stock market.

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.

well said although my stance wouldnt have changed.

Cheers!

BINGO!!!! Bridgejumping (in my point of view) defeats the whole idea of pari-mutual wagering. Instead of laying out a large sum of money and praying for the jockey to ride (your less than even money favorite) hard to the wire in order to save the show pool. You could easily spread less money to win on the 4 or 5 horses in the pool who are 4-1 to 10-1 and probably have a shot at making a decent profit without having to lay out so much cash to start with. That is how I like to play races with short fields (5 to 8 horses). Let the odds work for you instead of lowering your own payoff with an overly large bet. Again, risk vs reward.

:eek: I guess the Tampa Derby is not run at Tampa Downs?? :rolleyes: