Is Wise Dan The Bridge Jump of the Year?

[raybo]

If your goal is to make a minute ROI on a single race, then go for it. IMO, this kind of reasoning is one example of why there are 98+% losers in this game.

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

So does the $50. That why you shouldn't bet $50. There is a whole branch of math that covers cases like this . It is call Utility Theory. I don't know much about it except to know it exists. A math grad student I used to play poker with wrote his doctoral thesis on it. He let me read it, but it was Greek to me.

It goes like this. If you have 100,000 you are risking it to make 5,000? Doesn't matter the amount.......What? You are going risk 50 to make 5? No matter who the horse is, theres ALWAYS the chance you will lose. Before you bother learning the math the first thing a GOOD gambler realizes is they may LOSE the bet. If you never learn that you are destined to lose your entire life.

This is why if you have 100,000 and you want to make 5,000....its way better to wait for a 5-1 you like and put 1%(1,000) of your bankroll on that.....UTILITY (getting value). Of course, most bridge jumpers have a huge bankroll so the 100,000 is not going to kill them.....they call them bridge jumpers but most are NOT. They are whales. Basically utilization is figuring out the point where the risk is worth the return, win or lose. I don't have 100,000 to lose on a horse race and most don't. People that understand this theory are betting a LOW proportion of their bankroll for the maximum return. Simple, bang for the buck theory. A good gambler does this naturally without even realizing the math or economic theory.

[nat1223]

the point being don't bridge jump! whoever wants to bet that amount of money to make nothing in return then GL

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by burnsy

It goes like this. If you have 100,000 you are risking it to make 5,000? Doesn't matter the amount.......What? You are going risk 50 to make 5? No matter who the horse is, theres ALWAYS the chance you will lose. Before you bother learning the math the first thing a GOOD gambler realizes is they may LOSE the bet. If you never learn that you are destined to lose your entire life.

This is why if you have 100,000 and you want to make 5,000....its way better to wait for a 5-1 you like and put 1%(1,000) of your bankroll on that.....UTILITY (getting value). Of course, most bridge jumpers have a huge bankroll so the 100,000 is not going to kill them.....they call them bridge jumpers but most are NOT. They are whales. Basically utilization is figuring out the point where the risk is worth the return, win or lose. I don't have 100,000 to lose on a horse race and most don't. People that understand this theory are betting a LOW proportion of their bankroll for the maximum return. Simple, bang for the buck theory. A good gambler does this naturally without even realizing the math or economic theory.

I believe you have a mistaken idea of what Utility Theory is about.

[PVDOZ]

Take the 2nd and 3rd horses that you feel have the best chance to be in the money,and bet them to show at $100 each..1/5th of the 1k wager with the potential for a real nice hit,or a small profit..perhaps a couple of Heinekens.
small risk...high reward.
Used to do this at the New England dog tracks back in the 70's..played it 5 times and hit 3..What old timer from New England remembers the name "Ten Grand Teddy"?

[Robert Fischer]

Za Approval

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by burnsy

It goes like this. If you have 100,000 you are risking it to make 5,000? Doesn't matter the amount.......What? You are going risk 50 to make 5? No matter who the horse is, theres ALWAYS the chance you will lose. Before you bother learning the math the first thing a GOOD gambler realizes is they may LOSE the bet. If you never learn that you are destined to lose your entire life.

This is why if you have 100,000 and you want to make 5,000....its way better to wait for a 5-1 you like and put 1%(1,000) of your bankroll on that.....UTILITY (getting value). Of course, most bridge jumpers have a huge bankroll so the 100,000 is not going to kill them.....they call them bridge jumpers but most are NOT. They are whales. Basically utilization is figuring out the point where the risk is worth the return, win or lose. I don't have 100,000 to lose on a horse race and most don't. People that understand this theory are betting a LOW proportion of their bankroll for the maximum return. Simple, bang for the buck theory. A good gambler does this naturally without even realizing the math or economic theory.

People always say that if you have 100, why do you need another 5, but the reality of the situation is that in current society and this economy, you need every penny you can get your hands on. If that person didnt risk the 100k on a wager, they would probably place it in some sort of investment vehicle and hopefully, if their cards fall right, they will have turned that 100 into 105 after 1 calendar year.

So, if you want the 5 right way without having to wait, you "invest" on a show bet.

There are WAY too many horses spread around the country that have big show bets that shouldnt. There might be 1 or 2 situations Per YEAR where taking 5% on your money is good value, but these big show bettors make quite a few mistakes and they plunge on situations where their horse has at least one glaring flaw sprinkled into a lot of positives.

[Race Promoter]

I really appreciate the commentary here. Probably will root on Wise Dan and make five $100 win bets elsewhere on the card and see how I end up. Anyone focusing in on the guaranteed pick 4 which is really a pick 3 with the Mile as part of it?

[moneyandland]

Save your money for West Virginia Breeders Night, You can bet Jax and Jill and Lucys Boy Bob get $2.20 twice and collect make 21% + any rebates

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by moneyandland

Save your money for West Virginia Breeders Night, You can bet Jax and Jill and Lucys Boy Bob get $2.20 twice and collect make 21% + any rebates

that horse usually gets a 500k show punch.

[Phantombridgejumpe]

I don't remember them all, but the only obvious one Wise Dan lacks is a solid entrymate.

[Phantombridgejumpe]

Good Jockey
Good Trainer
Okay Post
Short Field
Experience on the Track
Okay likely pace scenario
Recent quality race (90 days)

[Robert Fischer]

no bridge jump here.


Wise Dan is a very nice horse, but this should be a challenge nonetheless. I don't see a fail-to-fire but still-contend scenario like you would want for over-betting your bankroll to Show.

Woodbine traditionally has a heavy turf course. I haven't been following it to confirm or deny. The Play the King stakes 8/25 was fairly heavy looking although fast.

Za Approval is a good horse. I don't know that he's Woodbine Mile good, but he has been on my radar since Gulfstream. He was able to ship to Hollywood and run well vs. a wire-to-wire speed horse in a similar spacing.

Trade Storm is an unknown to me. 4th in Dubai Duty Free, raced at Ascot, and Goodwood. Ships overseas for this race.

Riding the River is a very good horse. If some of these go for it on the pace at a mile, I fully expect RTR to pick up some pieces.

Excaper and Dimension are not all that great but they are solid enough for one to run a decent enough race.


That said, Go Wise Dan!

[SandyW]

Originally Posted by VeryOldMan

What is the minimum return on a $2 show bet at WO? I don't play it often and don't know whether it is 2.10 or 2.20 - help me out.

The answer to your question is that the minimum return on a $2 show bet at WO is $2.10.
Woodbine just might not have show betting in Wise Dan's race, just like Woodbine did not have show betting in Friday's 3rd race.
They are not afraid to drop show betting at Woodbine.

[Some_One]

Heavy turf course? the backstretch (the old Marshall course) is softer than the new parts (Everywhere else), considering they hit the turn after a couple of f's, I don't think it'll place that much, plus it's been really warm in Toronto this week.