Anyone taking a shot at Derby Futures Pool 1?

[fouroneone]

http://www.kentuckyderby.com/2007/future-wager/realtime

[NoDayJob]

Playing a future book on the horses is like grabbing a 440 volt live wire and expecting to live through the experience. Save your money and handicap the race when you know who the starters are. The books love futures. A high percentage of the horses will never get to the Derby and your money will probably disappear quicker than an ice cube on a hot stove. Good luck!

[rrbauer]

Every year I hear (and read) about all of those "great" bets that people made in future books. After the event I NEVER hear about anyone who cashed any of those "great" bets. Wonder why?

[NY BRED]

you've now met one


funny cide at 35-1!!!!


ps rumour has it vegas took a major hit on this horse,most
likely from captain Jack K

[rrbauer]

you've now met one


funny cide at 35-1!!!!


ps rumour has it vegas took a major hit on this horse,most
likely from captain Jack K

That's one. And, from what, three years ago?

[rastajenk]

I don't think anyone seriously suggests it's a smart bet. It's a fun bet. What's wrong with that?

I had Monarchos in Pool One. So there's two. :)

[Zaf]

I had Monarchos in pool 1 also :)

Z

[fmhealth]

Here's another one. My friend had $20.00 to win on Barbaro at 19-1 in one of the first two pools. He actually bet $100.00 into pool one yesterday. His prime bet was NOBIZ...

Obviously a poor bet statistically, but a lot of 'cappers have fun with it. I personally don't find it a compelling proposition.

[cnollfan]

The future book Derby bet would be a lot more fun and potentially more lucrative if there were odds on every horse nominated instead of a mere 23 plus a field -- that's only four more numbers than are in the Derby if it's a full field. If there were a couple hundred horses to chooose from, that would be great.

Any argument that the tote system can't handle that many numbers is bogus. There are 720 trifecta combos in a 10-horse race etc.

[ponyplayer]

I don't think anyone seriously suggests it's a smart bet. It's a fun bet. What's wrong with that?
:)


Have to agree with that. I don't bet horses for a living, for me its a hobby. I was in Vegas for Superbowl weekend and I took a flyer on about 4 long prices...no major money...but just for the fun of it.

I've never done this, and have read lots and lots of posts on this...just wanted to be in the game...If they don't even make it to the gate, I lose $8 bucks...but in the mean time I will probably follow Derby doings a little more closely... ;)

[rrbauer]

So we have 3 winners and a friend, in what, 10 years?

Players who recognize that they're taking a flyer have it right...players who huff anf puff about this and that; and, want people to believe what a great bet it is have it wrong....IMHO.

[Zaf]

Since the Monarchos Wager , I have placed one futures wager since. I have learned that in most cases these wagers are underlays.

Z

[SMOO]

Anyone that has bet "the field" all 8 years has shown a profit, hitting 3 of 8 at an average odds of around 3-1. Anything over 8/5 this year would be a decent price vs the sucess rate.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Anyone that has bet "the field" all 8 years has shown a profit, hitting 3 of 8 at an average odds of around 3-1. Anything over 8/5 this year would be a decent price vs the sucess rate.
_______
I always like the field early. Like before March.

[Perlnalysis]

Steven Crist had an excellent article on how the derby future wager has gone stale. The lower handle this year proves him to be correct. Crist argues that you should be able to wager on every triple crown nominated three year old. That way you would get better prices on all the top contenders, plus you'd have a chance to buy a horse in February at 500-1 or even 1000-1 that makes it to the starting gate on derby day. It's about time they overhaul this wager. I haven't put a dime into this pool in five years. Judging from the handle I'm not alone.

[fouroneone]

yes, i did find it fishy that Churchill was still accepting wagers on 3 horses that had already retired this year, wonder if people will get refunds? (probably not)

[SMOO]

yes, i did find it fishy that Churchill was still accepting wagers on 3 horses that had already retired this year, wonder if people will get refunds? (probably not)
Mike Watchbreaker of DRF lists retired horses in his top current horses lists, why not take bets on them too?

[Murph]

Steven Crist had an excellent article on how the derby future wager has gone stale. The lower handle this year proves him to be correct. Crist argues that you should be able to wager on every triple crown nominated three year old. That way you would get better prices on all the top contenders, plus you'd have a chance to buy a horse in February at 500-1 or even 1000-1 that makes it to the starting gate on derby day. It's about time they overhaul this wager. I haven't put a dime into this pool in five years. Judging from the handle I'm not alone.
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070213/BUSINESS/702130380/1002/SPORTS

Wagering in the initial pool was $520,688, down from $552,627 in last year's first pool and the record $620,362 in 2004. It was the fifth-highest total for the first pool in the nine years Churchill has offered the wager.

[Perlnalysis]

If they opened this thing up to all the triple crown nominees I would not be shocked to see that $500,000 February pool climb to $10 million.