Big Brown was a big bust at the Belmont
Michigan
Posts: 4,942 ✭
in Sports Talk
LAST PLACE!!!!!???
Good grief, after all that hype and hoopla the horse places last.
What an embarassement. I don't really feel that bad about it however, the owner was coming off as an arrogant, full of himself,
trash talking jerk so I kind of think of this as payback of sorts.
Good grief, after all that hype and hoopla the horse places last.
What an embarassement. I don't really feel that bad about it however, the owner was coming off as an arrogant, full of himself,
trash talking jerk so I kind of think of this as payback of sorts.
0
Comments
<< <i>I was so close to having my dad put $2 on everyone BUT Big Brown. The payoff would've been $79 and if I would've lost, it would've only been $16. >>
Yea, join the gambler's shoulduv and woulduv club.
And from SteveK:
"And at Belmont Pack with its wide sweeping turns, losing ground there is horrendous to try to win a race. All Kent had to do was hug the rail, but instead he rushed this horse up, and strangled him when he couldn't get position, and then instead of relaxing the horse and keeping it on the rail to save ground, he swings the horse outside and loses all kinds of ground - that horse was dead tired on the far turn from all the shennanigans Desormeax put him through. A terrible, Terrible ride with a capital T from a jockey who should have known better that all of that was unneccesary."
I agree completely, and it wouldn't surprise me if he pulled him up to make people think there was something wrong with him when in fact it was the jockey's stupidity that sealed his fate.
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
Incidentally, the pick 4 paid $17k and the pick 3 $3,300, which were both very hittable considering the horses that won the three previous races. A 5/2, 5/2, 4/1 and a 40/1 paying 17k? That's absolutely insane. If there weren't crazy idiots betting all sorts of P4 combos with BB singled out, that's a 4k pick 4 at most. I really can't remember a better opportunity in horse racing to score a nice win. Horse racing's so interesting to me because 99% of the time it's a losing bet, but sometimes the race layout, the odds, and other factors conspire to make a winning bet for the astute gambler. It's very rare but it happens. Of course I think betting on horses is almost always not financially prudent and should be considered entertainment and nothing more, but the opportunity to win money sometimes rears its pretty head. What's crazy is that I get more excited hitting a $300 pick three than winning a $2k Pot limit Omaha pot.
Lee
ps- I think there actually is something to what stevek said about compulsive gamblers subconsciously wanting to lose and Dutrow somewhat sabotaging his own chances. Why pull the horse off the juice when he's on a cycle? I can't tell you how many poker players I've seen get beat in a $100 hand, then end up pissing two grand away because they're pissed off about the $100 hand. I'm sure stevek can provide more insight into this phenomenon and the chemistry behind it.
<< <i>I think there actually is something to what stevek said about compulsive gamblers subconsciously wanting to lose >>
Gee, I saw "Two For The Money," too!!!
My condolences.
<< <i>steve, as a former horse bettor, you can't deny that in rare cases when the regular public gets involved, the favorite will get so much money on him to win that the odds are so skewed. As a gambler myself, I like to try and sniff out these opportunities where the favorite is such a big underlay and may not run his best race. All of the factors here pointed to the possibility of this happening, just as it did with Smarty Jones (hit a huge Pick 4 on that race on a ticket that cost me over a grand- yay Birdstone). A true gambler loves a sentimental favorite because the public overbets them, so I don't mind being the jay-hole betting the don't pass line when the odds seem to be in my favor. I'm completely pissed off at myself for not picking up on the Zito horse being the only speed and the likelihood of BB being off his game, which would inevitably leave Da'Tara out on the lead by himself. Completely predictable for anybody that has watched horse racing throughout their life and has seen a huge favorite not run.
Incidentally, the pick 4 paid $17k and the pick 3 $3,300, which were both very hittable considering the horses that won the three previous races. A 5/2, 5/2, 4/1 and a 40/1 paying 17k? That's absolutely insane. If there weren't crazy idiots betting all sorts of P4 combos with BB singled out, that's a 4k pick 4 at most. I really can't remember a better opportunity in horse racing to score a nice win. Horse racing's so interesting to me because 99% of the time it's a losing bet, but sometimes the race layout, the odds, and other factors conspire to make a winning bet for the astute gambler. It's very rare but it happens. Of course I think betting on horses is almost always not financially prudent and should be considered entertainment and nothing more, but the opportunity to win money sometimes rears its pretty head. What's crazy is that I get more excited hitting a $300 pick three than winning a $2k Pot limit Omaha pot.
Lee
ps- I think there actually is something to what stevek said about compulsive gamblers subconsciously wanting to lose and Dutrow somewhat sabotaging his own chances. Why pull the horse off the juice when he's on a cycle? I can't tell you how many poker players I've seen get beat in a $100 hand, then end up pissing two grand away because they're pissed off about the $100 hand. I'm sure stevek can provide more insight into this phenomenon and the chemistry behind it. >>
Impossible to beat a game when they're taking, with the breakage, around 20% out of every pool...and the "exotic" bets are worse. In a nutshell, betting horse racing is basically the same thing as betting random numbers.
It's impossible to know if the odds are skewed until after the race is over. Today's race is a perfect example of a "mortal lock" not winning, but in every race basically that example exists of never really knowing what the true odds are of a horse. If a horse is say 5 - 1, maybe the true odds should be 2 - 1 or maybe the true odds should be 8 - 1...the bottom line is no one knows...it's impossible to know...and the only known fact ahead of time for sure is that the racetrack is going to gobble up 20% of the betting pool on every race...a recipe for bankroll destruction and as any longtime horseplayer knows...the bankroll destruction usually doesn't take that long.
Most people/gamblers don't really understand "tilt" - people only really truly remember the tilt when they lose. I've witnessed numerous gamblers, including myself, go on tilt and win money...sometimes big money..then of course it isn't "tilt" they believe it's good luck or perhaps the addict starts thinking of himself as a gambling genius.
The hold 'em poker gambller on tilt who steps it up and gets lucky with AA, against someone else with say KK, and the AA holds up, and then he randomly starts getting better cards, in his addicted mind suddenly begins believing he's a good poker player again. This is just a small illustration of why raked poker cannot be beat - there's simply way too much luck involved in poker to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake. When you're getting AA versus KK type hands and betting big, you're a lucky genius, when it's the other way around then it's considered "tilt."
The only possible "flaw" in my argument about online poker not be able to be beat, was recently proven true by me. I couldn't quite understand why some so-called pros constantly played at Full Tilt and some other sites. Basically real pros already know that raked poker can't be beat...these are the pros as illustrated in the movie Rounders which although a fictional story, had a lot of truth based in it, in that there are poker pros who play in homes and clubs for a living, and I have known a number of these pros personally.
It was already known that most of the pros seen on TV are "phony" pros - they're mostly broke, and guys such as Barry Greenstein and others have publically stated that. But a guy like Ivey, who plays in the Big Game always puzzled me why he bothered to play there at Full Tilt. Yes, I knew he received endorsements, but I recently found out that Ivey plays "rake-free" because of 100% rakeback and also gets an hourly fee from Full Tilt for his play. What other perks he receives from Full Tilt, I have no idea but the perks must be very good. So Ivey has a nice positive expectation playing at Full Tilt whereby the suckers, oh excuse me customers, of Full Tilt have a negative expectation and in fact if playing long enough and large enough, it results in a negative certainty.
An honest online poker player, playing by the rules, has a zero chance of winning at online poker and frankly it's not even debatable in my view - it's not even close. Could a very clever cheating ring win money in the long-run at online poker? I have never ruled out that possibility.
Lee has stated he makes money at online poker and has for six years and frankly, I'm tired of "arguing" about this, because I've argued it here and in a number of other forums, although I guess I still enjoy expressing my viewpoints somewhat. I'm not going to judge Lee, especially because I think he is a good guy and I'd be sure he doesn't say the same about me privately (LOL) and that's okay - Anyone is free to believe whatever they want to believe...but I'd advise to look at all the facts and decide for yourself - to me the facts are crystal clear but I do understand gambling addiction...the addiction doesn't want to look at the facts...the self-abuse and self-destruction of the addiction wants to grow - it's a tough addiction.
Steve
PS: I expressed my opinion because Lee asked me, so don't anyone start "crying" about stevek preaching again about gambling.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The horse racing rake is truly impossible to overcome overall (just like, say, the lottery) but you can take a well-educated stab at an exotic and go for a big score if the timing is right. The payout for the pick 4 is a prime example: if this were a normal pick 4 with horses of those odds, it doesn't even pay a third of that. Kind of like if the Powerball is up to $500 million and you buy a dozen tickets, but don't play otherwise. Sure you're still not getting correct odds to play, but if you can take shot to nail the big score with minimal investment then it becomes almost worth it.
In gambling, nothing is ever a mortal lock; I was actually surprised when stevek claimed that BB was a mortal lock based on his knowledge of how gambling works. I have never said any sporting or gambling event is a mortal lock (not jokingly anyway) and never will, because I've seen some of the craziest s__t happen. Since there are no mortal locks, then it stands to reason that sometimes it might be fun to take a well-educated shot against something the betting public views as a mortal lock, but in actuality is far from it. Of course, the chase for the big score has ruined many a man financially, so unless you can demonstrate discipline then you probably shouldn't gamble.
<< <i>Good post, Steve...no question you speak from knowledge and experience. >>
Thanks man!
I still obviously enjoy chatting about it - in a way I think it helps others but it's also therapy for me as well...sort of serves as a reminder to myself about this addiction.
Thanks again!
Steve
So very true, and seems to be especially true when it comes to racing as opposed to other sports, as in addition to just getting beat, you also have the consider the possibility that a great horse breaks down (Barbaro).
Though I lost all my bets today, I still wound up well over 3K after hitting the triple in the Derby, a price that confirms Lee's point about inflated payouts in races like these.
I used to bet quite a bit and may have given back almost half of that hit by now in the old days, but I restrict myself to wagering on the "big" races now (Breeders Cup will be next for me), and to $100 a race at most.
I hope they keep OTB open here in NY, as it seems much easier to me atleast to restrain myself when I have to dole out the bucks for my bet as opposed to when I had an internet account. The internet as a means to gamble is flat out Evil, IMO.
Onr thing's for sure...today the bookies made an absolute killing on this race...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Fair enough, but I wasn't trying to steer this into a poker discussion and should have known the second that I mentioned the "P" word that you would go that route.
The horse racing rake is truly impossible to overcome overall (just like, say, the lottery) but you can take a well-educated stab at an exotic and go for a big score if the timing is right. The payout for the pick 4 is a prime example: if this were a normal pick 4 with horses of those odds, it doesn't even pay a third of that. Kind of like if the Powerball is up to $500 million and you buy a dozen tickets, but don't play otherwise. Sure you're still not getting correct odds to play, but if you can take shot to nail the big score with minimal investment then it becomes almost worth it.
In gambling, nothing is ever a mortal lock; I was actually surprised when stevek claimed that BB was a mortal lock based on his knowledge of how gambling works. I have never said any sporting or gambling event is a mortal lock (not jokingly anyway) and never will, because I've seen some of the craziest s__t happen. Since there are no mortal locks, then it stands to reason that sometimes it might be fun to take a well-educated shot against something the betting public views as a mortal lock, but in actuality is far from it. Of course, the chase for the big score has ruined many a man financially, so unless you can demonstrate discipline then you probably shouldn't gamble. >>
Fair enough here Lee as well - Sorry I went that "route" - I guess I'm a little hard-wired now from doing it for so long. That's no accident by the way - this addiction is so tough, that I needed to do that and actually it worked better than I anticipated.
See Lee, I don't want to judge you, but most of my gambling was social in nature, not behind some computer screen at a gambling website. At the track I had numerous friends I sat with, played many hundreds of thousands of hands of poker but all face to face, always with people I knew or were introduced to by friends. There were other types of gambling as well. Gambling was an addiction yes I admit that, but it was also a social activity for me with friends. I can't speak for you or your area of the country, but in Philly we often use the term "mortal lock" and have fun with it as well as other terms. Radio personalities in Philly use that term all the time.
Come on now Lee - You really don't think that I would truly believe that any horse race was truly a mortal lock - I know you're smarter than that - It was smack talk, nothing more, although I admit that I thought there was no way Big Brown could lose this race. I also used to enjoy going to some sports bars in Philly and you'll hear the term "mortal lock" probably once every ten minutes about something. LOL
Bottom line for me - I didn't lose a penny on the race because I don't gamble. So I predicted it wrong in an internet forum - No bigee as far as I am concerned.
If I'm reading your point right, I do understand your "reasoning" behind letting the public buildup a pot and them jumping into it. I do believe it's possible at some point in say a pick-six pool, depending on the circumstances, when there is a carryover for a certain amount of time, then the odds could be in the bettor's favor...and this isn't any big secret. The problem is though it seems that when these pools build up and say someone invests $10,000 to hit one...even if they hit one, the odds often catch up to the pool and a number of tickets get cashed on it, reducing the payout...it just often seems that way. Of course sometimes there is a single ticket.
I used to be a "big player" at the track - bigger than most, not as big as a few, and there was a betting ring there of excellent handicappers and they almost exclusively used to go after the built up pick-six pools. They always wanted me to get into it with them, but I never did for various reasons. To my knowledge, they never made any money in the long-run doing it even though they hit the pick-six a few times, but they wre often putting many thousands of dollars into it without success. Out of six races, there always seems to be that one race that baffles you and screws up your ticket, so technically, I'm still not sure if the odds are in a bettor's favor even with a built up pool because again, the odds seem to catchup with a carryover pool and more tickets are winners, reducing the payout on each ticket.
So tough to get an edge on the lottery because they are taking a monstrous approximately 50% out of each pool. If this didn't answer your question I'd be happy to elaborate further if you're interested.
And your comment about "timing" is oh so right. I've heard many a gambler say they'd rather be lucky than good.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>Good post, Steve...no question you speak from knowledge and experience. >>
Thanks man!
I still obviously enjoy chatting about it - in a way I think it helps others but it's also therapy for me as well...sort of serves as a reminder to myself about this addiction.
Thanks again!
Steve >>
Good posts Steve. Very accurate.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Good post, Steve...no question you speak from knowledge and experience. >>
Thanks man!
I still obviously enjoy chatting about it - in a way I think it helps others but it's also therapy for me as well...sort of serves as a reminder to myself about this addiction.
Thanks again!
Steve >>
Good posts Steve. Very accurate. >>
Agreed, Very knowledgable post. Well done Steve.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
i met a bunch of people who flew in from Ireland to see the race and they didnt even know what an exacta was, they were bettting $300, $400 each on Big Brown to win....i told one chap to place an ALL with ALL bet for $56 and he wouldnt listen....
that was the only bet i hit, ALL with ALL exacta, that was a gift win....
we were just holding our breath when he finally crossed the line that he wouldnt collapse ala Eight Belles....
Just for giggles, I searched for BB win tickets on ebay and found funny stuff like: 2008 Belmont Stakes $2 Uncashed Win Ticket -Big Brown
Um, sir, there's a reason it's uncashed.
<< <i>fandango- The memorabilia aspect certainly was there, but I can't imagine that it really had much of an effect on the odds based on the $6 million or so that was bet on him to win and the scores of people betting several hundred or thousand on him.
Just for giggles, I searched for BB win tickets on ebay and found funny stuff like: 2008 Belmont Stakes $2 Uncashed Win Ticket -Big Brown
Um, sir, there's a reason it's uncashed. >>
And somebody bought the dam thing. LOL