Re: Marie Laveau (534 Views)
Posted by:
Chuckles_the_Clown2 (IP Logged)
Date: August 09, 2007 08:33PM
I don't mind being the first onto a topic. Sure you take some heat for the insight, but thats the way the truth is played out with the masses.
First the truth is ridiculed, then arguments are made agaisnt it and excuses are made for it, then at last the truth is considered to be self evident to those that vehemently denied it at the inception.
If you think AGS is a faster horse than either of the two he just beat what you said would make sense. That premise would be wrong however. The two defeated horses were not probable to be at their very best in the Haskell for a number of reasons. If you think 8-5 was sufficient to "send it in" on the winner with some probability the other two would run their A race and the likelihood the Trifecta would pan out just as it did more power to you. Should I post the payouts Again?
Maybe its vast chasms between differing wagering "theories" that is the root of the denial. I'm not going to get into my theory, but that said I don't consider 8-5 a very good wager even in an "omni fig" situation. And obviously that scenario wasn't present in the Haskell. In a blue moon, I will take as low as Even money, but it takes a very special circumstance to go there. I assure you that circumstance was not present in the Haskell despite the fortutious result for those that backed the winner. The proof of that is in the returns.
Maybe this is dispositive: "Do you think the place and show horses came close to their A race?" If you don't think they did and weren't likely to and bet the winner for those reasons congrats. But, I'd point out again the return in relation to the risk. That said, I don't think you scored that Haskell, did you fkach? ;)
Opinions make for horseracing. I'll join you at the windows next one, but I doubt seriously we will be on the same horse...:)
CtMC
fkach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >The fastest horse at the weights, with the rail
> and a recency edge is "unsophisticated
> gambling".<
>
> If the horses that Pletcher has been wining with
> were totally illogical, I could at least
> understand the obsession.