PDA

View Full Version : 1/9 favorite (with $117,000 bet on her to show) runs last


showbet
11-22-2008, 03:24 PM
Oops.

showbet
11-22-2008, 03:32 PM
I just looked at the chart; the horse actually went off at 1/20 (she would have paid $2.10 to win). No such thing as a sure thing, indeed.

DanG
11-22-2008, 03:50 PM
Wow…

A pure ‘need the lead breaking from the rail warrants 6 figures. :bang:

dutchboy
11-22-2008, 05:36 PM
Does anyone know where or who this money comes from?

saratoga guy
11-22-2008, 06:09 PM
Funny, after reading the title and before I even opened the thread, I was already thinking Laurel. I hadn't looked at the Laurel races -- so I had no reason to think this other than it just seems like this happens -- well, not often, but, it happens at Laurel. It seems.

It would be interesting to find out if my inclination on the matter is backed up by the numbers -- in other words, do heavy faves run out of the money more often at Laurel than perhaps at other venues?

098poi
11-22-2008, 06:17 PM
Just goes to show that BIG money doesn't mean SMART money (if there is such a thing). What it does show is that compulsive gambling can affect anyone!

showbet
11-22-2008, 06:32 PM
Does anyone know where or who this money comes from?
It comes from people who must not realize that you must win this particular wager 20 out of 21 times just to break even.

If you're going to "show plunge" (which I would never do or recommend), do so in a race from a West Virginia or Massachusetts track. Those are the only two states I know of that have a minimum payoff of $2.20. You need to be correct "only" 10 times out of 11 to break even with a $2.20 minimum payoff.

PaceAdvantage
11-22-2008, 07:13 PM
I said this a couple of years ago (with no data to back me up), and I'll say it again...it seems (especially this year) that betting AGAINST the bridgejumpers is the most profitable system EVER! :lol:

onefast99
11-22-2008, 07:36 PM
Two schools of thought leave it in the stock market and lose it slowly or bet a horse to show and lose it in 1:12...:bang:

Tape Reader
11-22-2008, 07:42 PM
Two schools of thought leave it in the stock market and lose it slowly or bet a horse to show and lose it in 1:12...:bang:

SLOWLY???

santanajimi
11-22-2008, 10:22 PM
More than likely, it wasnt the guys last 100 k.

cj
11-23-2008, 12:11 AM
More than likely, it wasnt the guys last 100 k.

yeah, but it will be soon if he keeps making poor bets like that.

Tom Barrister
11-23-2008, 12:25 AM
More than likely, it wasnt the guys last 100 k.

It's possible that it was 100k that the guy didn't have, e.g. that he took out a loan, embezzled it, etc., on the premise that he had a sure thing.

MONEY
11-23-2008, 12:45 AM
The horse was 1/9, so it is possible that about 1/2 of the show bet was part of a long show parlay that ended with that loss.

money

broadreach
11-23-2008, 12:57 AM
I wonder if he based his wager on 'inside info' or handicapping.

jotb
11-23-2008, 07:23 AM
Why wager to show on a horse that has been away from the races for 141 days? This filly has shown success throughout her career coming back from similiar layoffs. On April 28 2007 she win by nine coming off a 224 day layoff. Going into that race she worked 7 times from 3-1-2007 to 4-21-07. On July 4th 2008 she came back to run 2nd off a 104 day layoff. Going into this race she worked 5 times from May 29 2008 to June 28 2008. When she ran yesterday coming back off the 141 days she had worked 7 times going into the race. She worked from Sept 20 2008 to Nov 6 2008.

Going into the race yesterday she was scr. twice. She was entered by trainer Trombetta in a 7 horse field at Pha Park. Trombetta also entered and win with another filly by the name of Control System. The scr. brought the field down to 6 and I would say she was only entered (different owners) to make the race fill. Then Trombetta decides to enter the filly for a race that was for Nov 13 2008 at Pen. On Nov 13 2008 at Laurel a horse trained by Howard Wofendale tested positive for equine herpesvirus. When this was announced the other racetracks were not allowing horses to ship in from Laurel. Trombetta was forced to scr. at Pen. The night she was scr. her most recent work was on 11-6-2008 which was 7 days prior to yesterday's race. The 2 previous layoffs the filly worked no more than 7 days from the races. Going into yesterdays race the filly had worked on Nov 6 2008 which was 16 days ago. This person that made the wager overlooked this for sure.

Joe

affirmedny
11-23-2008, 11:42 AM
Isn't it even DUMBER to bet a horse to WIN who's gonna pay $2.10? I can almost see the logic in the show bet, who's putting up all that win money?

showbet
11-23-2008, 04:51 PM
More than likely, it wasnt the guys last 100 k.
Unless he made several wagers throughout the last ten minutes before post, it wasn't one person betting $100,000 to show on this horse. With about 10 minutes to post the horse had around 25G on it to show. At 2-3 minutes to post it had somewhere around 75G. The money came in pretty steadily and evenly throughout the last several minutes before the race started.

This horse was 1/9 in a five horse field, so I'm sure many people had the same idea, thinking a show wager was "easy money". I'd guess several people bet between $1000 and $5000 on this horse, with maybe a few betting $10,000. I doubt any individual bet more than $50,000, but that's just speculation based upon the way I saw the money enter the show pool. Regardless, it's a bad bet for $2 or for $100,000, in my opinion.


Isn't it even DUMBER to bet a horse to WIN who's gonna pay $2.10? I can almost see the logic in the show bet, who's putting up all that win money?
A similar thing happened the other day in Walter Case Jr.'s return to the sulky at Plainridge. The first horse he drove wound up with 77% of the win pool, 87% of the place pool, and 92% of the show pool. It was obvious well before post time that the horse would pay $2.20 across the board if it won, but that didn't stop people from putting more win and place money on it. The amount of place money was really inexplicable. The horse won and paid $2.20, $2.20, $2.20.

Alyblakester
11-23-2008, 08:19 PM
:mad: It must've been the infamous "Lady in Red" with her oversized pocketbook.....Is she still around?