Horse Racing

Started by Lee_S, 06/11/2008 04:50PM
Posted 06/11/2008 04:50PM Opening Post
I actually watched the Belmont Stakes the other day and came away with many questions:

1) D'Tara was 38 to 1. Big Brown pulled up short with no obvious ailments. I don't know if there was a crime, but this sport certainly provides lots of motive and opportunity.

2) Is there a way for a math guru or scientist to make real money playing the odds in horse races? The odds are based on where people put their money. But, I'd think that the real odds of a given horse winning based on historical or performance factors are quite different. All the horses other than Big Brown in the Belmont field were 6 to 1, 8 to 1, and the winner was 38 to 1. I've got to think that a math professor or data analyst could get rich playing the horses.

3) Why does a 2-minute horserace require 2+ hours of TV time?

[SIZE="Small"]------------
I have several telescopes, but none are semi-APO, APO, or in anyway valuable.
[/SIZE]
Posted 06/13/2008 02:08PM #1
Lee: In horse racing, you are betting that you are smarter than the next guy. The odds are determined by the betting and the track takes it's cut so the smart money owns the track...

As far as outsmarting the other guy... there are thousands of people who tell you they are and there are thousands who will, for a sum of money, give you the "inside dope" on who is going to win. Of course those guys they are going to win if you give em your money...

Myself, I have bet on two horse races in my life. I won the first one at 10-1 odds and lost the second. I won my $20, lost $2 on the second bet so I am now $18 ahead... Enough to buy a colored filter...

Jon
Posted 06/15/2008 02:53AM #2
Lee,
1) Actually, there were obvious ailments. In fact, my wife, who is the horse race follower in the family, said before the race that Big Brown probably would not win because he 1) was recovered(?) from cracked hooves, and 2) the trainer took him off steroids.

2) It's called pari-mutuel betting, started in France in the late 1800's (you can do a web search for more details). Basically in this system the amount of payback is determined by the amount of money bet on the horse rather than his qualifications or previous record. Yes, you can win at betting this sport, but it is difficult, takes quite a bit of experience and talent and of course, a few pounds of good luck. It's not something you can do from the TV screen, you have to get to the track and look at the horses. You size all the horses up physically, paying attention to things like muscle tone. You look for fractiousness or fatigue. You check his record of course, but also the records of the horses he is running against, especially ones that have beat him before. You check the jocky's record, as well as who trained him. I could go on and on and you must be quick at it as you often have little time to make your decisions. And even with all this of course, anything can go wrong.

3) For major network TV it's this way. Seems to me with all sports really, as TV sports commentators have the mistaken impression that people tune in to watch them instead of the sport. Such vain-gloriousness often ruins the sport for many people. If you want to watch horse racing of all types, with excellent commentators, interviews, and stories, but without all the jibber-jabber of sports casters that think they are the greatest thing since Howard Cosell, try the TVG channel on Direct TV.

David E