ArlJim78 |
06-02-2008 07:37 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
On a slightly more serious note, the 5th race was a very interesting example of bad bettors cashing. The idea of taking even money on that preposterously mediocre horse is beyond ludicrous and anyone that did is a guaranteed loser at the racetrack ( I am not picking on you Jim and would bet you would agree that the odds were absurd ). I made a substantial bet on the 4, who ran 4th, and had that horse been even a scintilla of a racehorse he would have absolutely galloped. Taking even money on proven mediocrities when there are legitimate underexposed horses in the race is a road to disaster.
Today seemed like a day when those horses were winning.
|
no I would not have bet the 9 to win at those odds. I don't have enough confidence on the Belmont turf to take such a low price. my rankings come primarily from a calculation based on PP data, when there is a race like this with several horses having only one or two starts, the result is obviously not as predictable as other races where the field has more established form on display. Also the rankings are not based on betting value, I'm only trying to accurately predict the outcome. How to turn it into value is another task.
As you know for multirace plays you can't just throw out every underlay. In this case the nine completed a pick four sequence that paid I thought fairly well, the value coming from the 2 in the third.
The rating on the nine was much the best because of the established form from the last two races, form which none of the others had.
|