$103 dollar underlay - Page 2 - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Watcher · 05-05-2009, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lamboguy

i ran 2nd 3rd and 4th to the race.

Same, on a trifecta ticket. We were screaming and yelling mid-stretch, before I finally jumped up yelling, "Who the hell is that on the inside? Who's 8?!" Haha.

lamboguy · 05-05-2009, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Watcher

Same, on a trifecta ticket. We were screaming and yelling mid-stretch, before I finally jumped up yelling, "Who the hell is that on the inside? Who's 8?!" Haha.

i just looked at your site, its a good one.

i lost $160 chasing the kentucky derby, i would pay $1600 to see mine that bird with triple crown. it actually might be what the doctor ordered for the racing game.

Radar · 05-05-2009, 09:58 AM

I think the judge has got it just right. A lot of folks at big races like the KD tend to have a little fun by buying win "lottery" tickets on 4 , 5 or 6 long shots in the race in the hope of one of these coming in, so the odds never tend to be too highly skewed.

justin13892002 · 05-05-2009, 10:09 AM

I actually had $10 To win on Mine That Bird.

Why may you ask? Well it wasn't as big an upset as many believe.

A: The horse has shown tremendous speed early and ruined it by running wide.

B: Borel rides, after winning by the length of the stretch with Rachel Alexandra in the Oaks.

C: The horse had a good 2 Yr old year.

D: 3rd race as a 3 yr old, and 3rd off a layoff.

E: All in all, the horse needed to save energy from the wide trips. Borel ran Rachel Alexandra on the inside of the track, as he did ALL DAY at Churchill on the 2nd. Every one of Borel's trips were on the inside. The style he was running his horses fit Mine That Birds needs. Add that to the mix of a muddy track where closers couldn't come close. It leaves Pioneer of the Nile, Mine That Bird, and Papa Clem that have a legitimate shot. So I put $10 on each to win and boxed the 3 in an Exacta.

But it is a quite questionable he had $300,000 in the win pool though!

David-LV · 05-05-2009, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lamboguy

if mine that bird was 50-1, dunkirk should have been 500-1. dunkirk had no chance to win before the race, mine that bird did.

Your 100% right.

Dunkirk did not race as a two year old.

It has been 127 years that an unraced two year old has won the Kentucky Derby.

Apollo (born 1879) was an American Thoroughbred racehorse. He won 24 races in his career, including the 1882 Kentucky Derby.[1]

As of 2009, Apollo is the only horse to win the Kentucky Derby without having raced as a 2-year-old.[

It is pretty tough to go against history.

I think 500-1 is an underlay.

_______
David-LV

rrbauer · 05-05-2009, 10:19 AM

Horse wins looking like it should've been 8/5 and everyone bitches because it was "only" 50-1. Because all of their handicapping "systems" failed to produce the winner there's something wrong in Mudville?

Yet, going in, there was a lot of talk about the absence of horses that had broken the 100-Beyer mark. That suggested that a 3YO improving at the right time could claim center stage. There were a number of posts in a variety of threads on this board that pointed out that the rail was good when it was wet at Churchill and that Calvin was the rail-riding man. The original ML fav left the scene earlier in the day which created additional bettors' confusion. It's "coulda woulda shoulda" to the max, with attempts to backfit the result to some set of statistics. Maybe, in spite of boatloads of data and atom-splitting computer horsepower, we still have work to do; or, maybe there's just enough randomness left in the game to keep it interesting until the next time they go around.

LemonSoupKid · 05-05-2009, 11:04 AM

Tapit was just like Dunkirk, except more raced, and what else? The race was sloppy that day. Closers in the slop have a tougher time (especially if they lack foundation) ... but for Dunkirk (don't think he would have won on a fast track either) the key was more that the track was off rather than the 2 year old thing.

It's hard to imagine many horses better than Curlin. He was an absolute superstar, lightly raced at three, but he also won the Arkansas Derby. And yet Dunkirk was the next Curlin (who didn't win?)? Like I said, it was different for Dunkirk and we'll never know.

The only hard and fast rule I've made from the last few years is this: I will never bet a horse to win the Belmont after the first two UNLESS he has solid 2 year old foundation --- even if he romps in the Derby and Preakness. I just won't do it.

Dahoss9698 · 05-05-2009, 11:11 AM

I love everyone that says Mine That Bird had a better shot in the Derby than Dunkirk....now. Where were you guys before the race? It's one thing to think Dunkirk wasn't going to win. But Mine That Bird had a better shot to win than Dunkirk? That's laughable.

DALLIEDOG · 05-05-2009, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valupix

I would have to say so. Even in retrospect, I can't find reasons why this horse did not pay at least twice that. Maybe even more.

The last I saw there was about 17 million bet into the win pool. That would mean over $300,000 dollars were bet on Mine That Bird to win. There just aren't enough anything-can-happen players, hunch players and I-always-play-the-8 guys combined to add up to that amount.

Unfortunately this will likely become a conspiracy and cheat thread, but he wasn't the only horse that far exceeded any kind of figure it had ever earned.

My point is, if I would have had a ticket to cash, I would have been incredibly disappointed by what I got back for the enormous risk I took to get it.

Maybe the most amazing underlay I have ever witnessed.

NICELY SAID !

David-LV · 05-05-2009, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

I love everyone that says Mine That Bird had a better shot in the Derby than Dunkirk....now. Where were you guys before the race? It's one thing to think Dunkirk wasn't going to win. But Mine That Bird had a better shot to win than Dunkirk? That's laughable.

Mind That Bird

He had at the very least a 2 year old foundation.

Not so laughable for me as I did have $8.00 to win and a $3.00 exacta on the winner of derby 135. I also had another $64.00 in losing tickets on the race.

I did get lucky when POTN hung on for second, because if he didn't I would not have had the exacta.

________
David-LV

Dahoss9698 · 05-05-2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David-LV

Mind That Bird

He had at the very least a 2 year old foundation.

Not so laughable for me as I did have $8.00 to win and a $3.00 exacta on the winner of derby 135. I also had another $64.00 in losing tickets on the race.

I did get lucky when POTN hung on for second, because if he didn't I would not have had the exacta.

________
David-LV

You are still avoiding my point. It's VERY easy to come here after the race and explain why you thought an impossible horse had a chance. Where were you before hand? I have yet to read one person on this site or any others that gave Mine That Bird a chance.

But, a lot of people are very smart after the fact. It's cool and I've come to expect it. But it doesn't change that anyone that thought Mine That Bird was more likely than Dunkirk didn't say it beforehand. It's just seems odd to say it now.

And he did have a 2 year old foundation....but he ran dead last in the Breeders Cup.

Relwob Owner · 05-05-2009, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

I love everyone that says Mine That Bird had a better shot in the Derby than Dunkirk....now. Where were you guys before the race? It's one thing to think Dunkirk wasn't going to win. But Mine That Bird had a better shot to win than Dunkirk? That's laughable.

No kidding...I think I read that 6 to 1 was an underlay on him???? I didnt personally like him but he did have some things going for him and the highest last race Beyer and judging by the amount of support he had on here, I was surprised he wasnt lower than 6 to 1 after IWR scratched....

What I also find interesting is the amount of people posting that they bet on MTB and liked him....I find it interesting that I didnt see any posts whatsoever(maybe I missed them?) from MTB supporters before the Derby...

Relwob Owner · 05-05-2009, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David-LV

Mind That Bird

He had at the very least a 2 year old foundation.

Not so laughable for me as I did have $8.00 to win and a $3.00 exacta on the winner of derby 135. I also had another $64.00 in losing tickets on the race.

I did get lucky when POTN hung on for second, because if he didn't I would not have had the exacta.

________
David-LV

If you loved him so much and won over 2K on him, it would probably be a good idea to learn his name so that when you are posting your big win after the Derby, you give the horse his proper respect....

Dahoss9698 · 05-05-2009, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relwob Owner

What I also find interesting is the amount of people posting that they bet on MTB and liked him....I find it interesting that I didnt see any posts whatsoever(maybe I missed them?) from MTB supporters before the Derby...

It's because no one liked him before the race. How could you? Of the people I have seen that hit the race, 99% of the stories have been they hit the all button either in the double, exacta, triple, etc and fell into Mine That Bird or their wife or girlfriend liked the name and bet that way. I also saw someone here hit the wrong number when punching the ticket and fell into the pick 3. That's awesome. That's all great and I'm happy for anyone that scored out on an impossible race like that.

But to come here after the race and claim he was not only playable, but had a better shot than Dunkirk? Come on....

Relwob Owner · 05-05-2009, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

It's because no one liked him before the race. How could you? Of the people I have seen that hit the race, 99% of the stories have been they hit the all button either in the double, exacta, triple, etc and fell into Mine That Bird or their wife or girlfriend liked the name and bet that way. I also saw someone here hit the wrong number when punching the ticket and fell into the pick 3. That's awesome. That's all great and I'm happy for anyone that scored out on an impossible race like that.

But to come here after the race and claim he was not only playable, but had a better shot than Dunkirk? Come on....

No kidding....It is like the perfect storm....you get everyone's takes before the race and then hear nothing from them after and then you hear people claiming victory after who you never heard from before....I posted a lot about Pioneer of the Nile before the Derby and I will be the first to say that while I he did get second and run well, I was wrong because he didnt improve much at all and got an awesome trip....

My personal favorite is people coming up with angles that fit and explain MTB but not realizing those angles could have fit 10 other horses......

As far as MTB goes, nothing will convince me you could handicap him into the top 3....explanation wise, I think the fact that this was his first race to relax and make one run could be the culprit or the sloppy track or both!