|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
08-08-2012, 01:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Weird arguments at the track
I got into an argument with someone who thinks it it is easier to pick 10 straight winning horses -- than it is to pick 1,000 straight losing horses.
I explained to him that you can single out at least 5 to 10 horses every single day who have a 0.00% chance of winning. Picking 1,000 straight to not win would be an odds-on task for a good handicapper. Picking 10 straight winning horses would be MUCH tougher and take much more patience. 
|
|
#2
08-08-2012, 02:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Depends on if you get to pick which races you are wagering on. I assume you are.
A six horse field of 5k claimers would be tougher to pick a loser in, as opposed to a 12 horse stake or ALW race. Picking losers is a lot easier than picking winners.
|
|
#3
08-08-2012, 02:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I got into an argument on whether Mike Smith was legend.
__________________
Felix Unger talking to Oscar Madison: "Your horse could finish third by 20 lengths and they still pay you? And you have been losing money for all these years?!"
|
|
#5
08-08-2012, 02:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I will set up a thread in the contest section to try it out.
I'm pretty sure, picking a minimum of 3 horses a day (some days 20 or 30) I can find 1,000 straight horses who don't win. It will be interesting to see how many of them are able to have top 3 finishes.
|
|
#7
08-08-2012, 02:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
purely as a math problem, you'd have to think 1000 straight would be harder than 10 straight. realistically, i don't think either would be doable.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#8
08-08-2012, 06:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47847 I think it is very much doable.
|
Hybrid Mode
