Why bet the Preakness?

[Aerocraft67]

I really want to bet the Preakness, but I find it really discouraging. Maybe I'm scarred by the Derby where they ran in rank order of win odds 1-2-3-4. I'm no pedigree handicapper, but I couldn't find a standout mud runner to mix things up (one forecast calls for half an inch of rain Saturday, much of that before the race).

Normally it's outrageous to bet them vertically in win odds rank but I'm having a hard time coming up with a more clever idea. Nyquist has beaten Exaggerator four times. Stradivari is the most lightly raced, so maybe there's your upside, but tough to see him prevail against the top two. Lino is an OK idea but I'm not seeing the catalyst to prevail against the favorites. Maybe Cherry Wine has marginally the best mud prospect, but not enough to construct a wager around.

I need to get to the place position to find any real uncertainty. Chalk 1 with Chalk 2 with Chalk 3 + Chalk 4 in a trifecta "part wheel?" Get crazy and throw Cherry Wine in the place spot? Sheesh.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Aerocraft67

I really want to bet the Preakness, but I find it really discouraging. Maybe I'm scarred by the Derby where they ran in rank order of win odds 1-2-3-4. I'm no pedigree handicapper, but I couldn't find a standout mud runner to mix things up (one forecast calls for half an inch of rain Saturday, much of that before the race).

Normally it's outrageous to bet them vertically in win odds rank but I'm having a hard time coming up with a more clever idea. Nyquist has beaten Exaggerator four times. Stradivari is the most lightly raced, so maybe there's your upside, but tough to see him prevail against the top two. Lino is an OK idea but I'm not seeing the catalyst to prevail against the favorites. Maybe Cherry Wine has marginally the best mud prospect, but not enough to construct a wager around.

I need to get to the place position to find any real uncertainty. Chalk 1 with Chalk 2 with Chalk 3 + Chalk 4 in a trifecta "part wheel?" Get crazy and throw Cherry Wine in the place spot? Sheesh.

Bear in mind that 1-2-3-4 super in the Derby paid over $500.

But seriously, this is a good post for me to go off on something I have been meaning to for a long time.

And that is:

NO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BET A RACE JUST BECAUSE IT'S A BIG RACE. Not only do you not have to be the Preakness, you don't even have to bet the Derby. Not every big horse race presents a good betting opportunity. Many times the favorites are solid, and the prices are too low to justify a chalk play.

And honestly, a lot of times, bettors who know that the favorites are solid just try to come up with some silly longshot to put underneath without there being any real handicapping logic for it. And then they get burned when the super runs 1st choice-2nd choice-3rd choice-4th choice like it did in the Derby.

Handicapping starts from having real opinions. Either opinions that a favorite is vulnerable, or opinions that a favorite is likely to be decent enough odds to be a legitimate value play, or opinions that a short price horse is likely to run out of the exotics. (In other words, if you like Nyquist on Saturday, you need to actually feel that Exaggerator is going to run out, not simply that the price of that exacta is going to be too short, before you start betting exactas and trifectas using longshots in the 2nd hole.)

I am not passing the Preakness because I like a bet on Exaggerator. But if you like Nyquist, and especially if you like Nyquist and expect Exaggerator to finish second, this really looks like a pass. Find some other race to bet on Saturday that offers more betting value, and watch this one.

[Aerocraft67]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Bear in mind that 1-2-3-4 super in the Derby paid over $500.

NO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BET A RACE JUST BECAUSE IT'S A BIG RACE.

Both good points of course, but I'm on record about that 541-1 proposition, too. Sure, maybe I can find an overlay at Delaware Park Saturday if I look hard enough, but COME ON, it's the second leg of the Triple Crown! Let's have a punt!

[Andrick]

"Get crazy and throw Cherry Wine in the place spot?"

That's the way I'm likely to play the race. I'll try to get Cherry Wine home in 2nd or 3rd to go along with the two logicals.

[Mc990]

You don't need to hit a race like this every year... IMO the goal is to find the "black swan". The way these types of favorites get bet, all you need to do is leverage up and be patient.

[depalma113]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

NO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BET A RACE JUST BECAUSE IT'S A BIG RACE. .

Actually, you do. The pools are over inflated and the payoffs are always higher than the norm.

If you do not take advantage of your knowledge when 90% of the bettors are novice, you are making a big mistake.

For example, the Derby exacta should have paid $12 for a buck. It paid $15.

If your handicapping says those two horses were going to run one/two, you would be giving away 25% in extra profit.

Nyquist paid $3.40 for the show. Where do you find a 2-1 favorite paying that on a regular day?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by depalma113

Actually, you do. The pools are over inflated and the payoffs are always higher than the norm.

If you do not take advantage of your knowledge when 90% of the bettors are novice, you are making a big mistake.

For example, the Derby exacta should have paid $12 for a buck. It paid $15.

If your handicapping says those two horses were going to run one/two, you would be giving away 25% in extra profit.

Nyquist paid $3.40 for the show. Where do you find a 2-1 favorite paying that on a regular day?

1. You are way overstating the betting value of the Derby exacta. It was a 20 horse field! Things can go wrong (and almost did with Exaggerator).

2. It is possible for a race to have large pools and no overlays whatsoever.

3. Always be careful of fun in gambling. Humans are great at justifying what we want to do anyway. It is fun to bet big races.

4. Other races on these big days also have big pools and may have dumb money, and can offer better value.

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by depalma113

Actually, you do. The pools are over inflated and the payoffs are always higher than the norm.

If you do not take advantage of your knowledge when 90% of the bettors are novice, you are making a big mistake.

This is why I do it. A.) the good horses run to form and B) a good portion of people playing don't have a clue.

Its the same with why I love Saratoga. I've been doing this for over 35 years, so I would hope that I'm better and know more than the average Joe, let alone the people that don't know squat. Face it, they are pumping a lot of goofy money in and I disagree with people that say the big days are not any different. There are days at Belmont and Aqueduct where you are against mostly hardened horse players. Its Pari-mutuel wagering, the people in the pool make a difference when that kind of money gets flowing.

As Burnsy has posted so many times on here....zone in on the undercard.....gems a PLENTY........with the mud....its almost a guarantee. If you have to, use the chalk, but these days are usually "opportunities" for people like us if you focus and don't get caught up in the "Why's" , "What ifs" and crap that people worry about. There will be bountiful "dumb money" in those pools........think and get it.

[bisket]

There's some money to be made in this race. Nyquest is a legit 1to1 or lower, and he has a really strong case to win this race. Track plays to his strength and he looks good coming into this race. Plus he's the fastest horse. This is horse racing and shit happens.... I need to get the right odds on a horse to make the risk worth the reward. There's an outside shot a bomb could cross the line first. I'm waiting to see the condition of the track and the odds I get on this runner.

[Hoops McCann]

because Nyquist has an off day and Lani shocks em?

who knows, it's racing...anything can happen

[PaceAdvantage]

Because I can bet the best speed and the best closer in the race and get maybe 20 to 30-1 on each?

That's a good enough reason for me...especially on an off track.

[boys at tosconova]

all you need is a long shot to finish 2nd/3rd and the triple will be solid, even if nyquist wins.

only trips that won't pay is nye/exaag/collect-strat

however,... i'm not sure if collect/strat fnish 2nd and exaag 3rd what they will be..still prolly not as much as they should

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by boys at tosconova

all you need is a long shot to finish 2nd/3rd and the triple will be solid, even if nyquist wins.

only trips that won't pay is nye/exaag/collect-strat

however,... i'm not sure if collect/strat fnish 2nd and exaag 3rd what they will be..still prolly not as much as they should

Betting a tri with longshots just because it will pay better and not because you think a favorite is vulnerable is pure gambling.

[boys at tosconova]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Betting a tri with longshots just because it will pay better and not because you think a favorite is vulnerable is pure gambling.

not advocating to use "any" long shot horses..i happen to like my long shot a great deal...but the fact is there is $$ to be made on the preakness,.....even if it's w/ the figure horses..obv any jackass can box or play nye-exxagg-strat straight...

only the 2 dollar bettor isn't going to make any money in the preakness..this is a race to pound multiple dollars on same/similar number..not try and beat the top 5 itm

[RXB]

In my view, this year's Preakness is pretty much the epitome of a "pass" race.