Tahitian Warrior joins Godolphin

[cj]

Originally Posted by gm10

That's nonsense and you (should) know it. I made LAT 2/1 and RA 3/1. So guess what, LAT goes off at 2/1 and RA at 1/2.

In other words ... the rest of the field gets about 42% chance of winning, and yet based on official odds (after take out) the public think they have about 0% chance of winning. That is a (theoretical) edge of 42% which is quite large in my experience. Whether you then lay RA or back the rest of the field is irrelevant. They are completely equivalent bets.

They are not equivalent because you left out Life at Ten, the horse that was obviously the second most likely winner. They are not even close to the same. The only reason you (ridiculously) had Rachel at 3 to 1 is because of LAT.

[cj]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

the implication is obvious. if there is that much confusion, of course one lists more


Although being a trifecta wagerer one always has to consider various scenarios altered by the random factors that are UN-HANDICAPPABLE..

Janeane Garofalo and I do not agree on a lot of things but she has an apropos response to your continual BS

You are so easy. You must be a blast at parties. Mission accomplished.

[Charlie D]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

Maybe they knew something you didn't.

Not sure what you mean by this. Rachel was fav on my line, LAT 2nd, Persistently 3rd and any price you like the rest.


Rachel and Lat ended up being underlays, Persistently was a massive overlay.

Race as has been explained eslewhere fell into the 3rd favs lap.

[Charlie D]

Here is my BACK book for the PE

Rachel 2.8
LaT 3.74
Per 4.32


Her is the Lay book

2.05
2.74
3.17



(You can do your own conversions.)


Now, explain what you mean by this Robert please

Maybe they knew something you didn't.

[Charlie D]

And btw, if anyone had asked i would have told them the above Pre- race.


Dean asked WHY i were oppoing Rachel, i told him and anyone else who reads this board.

[gm10]

Originally Posted by cj

They are not equivalent because you left out Life at Ten, the horse that was obviously the second most likely winner. They are not even close to the same. The only reason you (ridiculously) had Rachel at 3 to 1 is because of LAT.

The bets are equivalent, they are different expressions of one and the same personal opinion: RA is too short, LAT is correctly priced, and as a consequence the 'rest of the field' have to be an overlay as a whole. Whether you then choose to lay RA, or back the outsiders, the sentiment is the same. RA is overpriced, and you are going to take her on with what you consider to be value.

I simply do not understand your issue with this. I doesn't matter what odds I had this or that horse at. It doesn't matter whether you personally find those odds ridiculous or not. That is the whole point of betting.

[OTM Al]

I figured maybe if I rearranged the letters of the thread title it may spell something about Rachel or Zenyatta, but I guess not.....

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

I figured maybe if I rearranged the letters of the thread title it may spell something about Rachel or Zenyatta, but I guess not.....

I get "John was a dolphin in air. Oar it, Ringo."

[OTM Al]

I think now we are supposed to say no to California racing or some such. I hope it doesn't apply to the mules though. It is funny to watch them run

[Charlie D]

Anyone know if Tahitian Warriors next start will be in Germany???

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by Charlie D

Anyone know if Tahitian Warriors next start will be in Germany???

I didn't bet the race and wouldn't have bet against him anyway....but that was a pretty uninspiring effort. Considering there are 4 graded stakes for 3 year olds in the next 2 weekends, all with very lucrative purses, this was an interesting spot. Almost like they knew what was coming.

[Charlie D]

uninspiring effort

An appropriate description and as you state Dahoss, maybe they knew.

[Headbanger]

with Tahitian Warrior? Gonna take him a long time to earn back that $2 Million at this rate. But hey, that $5,000 bucks from the Bold Ruler will go along way to pay back for the $2 million dollar gelding. Nice purchase Godolphin.

[andtheyreoff]

The hilarious part is that, instead of running in stakes (i.e. King's Bishop, Jersey Shore, Vosburgh) to try and get that money back quicker, they kept running him in allowance races.

With a proper campaign, we could be talking about him being the BC Sprint favorite. Instead, he's just another one whose talents were flushed down the drain by Godolphin.

[PaceAdvantage]

I've merged a newly created TW thread with this one...