After losing more than I had planned on Derby day May 1st 2004 I have decided
that the pick 3 is much cheaper and easier to hit than most exotic wagers I
narrowly missed a pick three that would have netted me over 2 grand. So I took
my program of the Kentucky Derby and did some homework. What did I find a
system that would hit every pick 3 and pick 4 on derby day. Not rocket science
and not an expensive bet either. HOW you might ask simple bet the first two of
the morning line totally ignore the other 3 and 4 picks they wont win. There
are upsets though and pick under 10-1 morning line needs to be included in your
2 picks per race (if any left that low) also reasonable odds next to a heavy
favorite should be included example race 7 morning line 3-6-4-8 and 2 was
adjacent to the 6-5 Etoile Montante at 15-1 include this one ignore the 4 as it
was handicapped by the experts. The result was a win in not one but all 12
races and if bet would have netted $59,517.20 winning all 10 pick 3\'s all 4 pick 4\'s and the single pick 6 giving someone a clean sweep on derby day.
But alas hindsight is 20/20 and I walked away from the track with only lose
change in my pockets after a long day of betting and reinvesting my winnings in
more close calls than a day is worth.
The old crows here are gonna laugh at me, but I actually took the time to try and understand what you were saying John and I have to admit, it wasn\'t easy...lol
Apparently you are an advocate of a formula to win these \"pick consecutive race winners\" bets. From what I gather the gist of your theory is to pick two winners per race based upon \"morning line\" odds. It sounded like you intially restricted the selections to the two lowest odds \"morning line\" horses. However, later you seemed to indicate that the selection was to pick two horses from the four lowest odds \"morning line\" entries. Additionally, it seemed to me you were saying don\'t include as a selection any horse whose morning line is 10-1 or higher.
The most alarming tenet of your theory was to pick a horse \"adjacent\" to a heavy favorite. I couldn\'t figure out what you meant. I didn\'t think you meant \"next to in post position\". Apparently, in your example, the highest odd entry for the top 4 morning line animals was 10-1 and the fifth (or next/adjacent)lowest morning line animal had odds of 15-1. In this case being the 2 horse \"Shaconage\".
John it seems to me your advocacy was to select Shaconage because at 15-1 he was \"close to\" falling into the top 4 morning line animals and therefore he was a prime selection. John this violates your stated principle not to select a horse in excess of 10-1 morning line.
I once read a theory about how to cash winners. You go by which 3 horses are the Post Time favorites and of those 3 you pick your winner. Its based on a study that the top 3 post time horses win the great majority of races. Thats clearly true but if you bet that strategy you\'re not gonna come up with many big balloons.
John there is no formula. Its not easy. Theres no simple way to bet the horses. You can\'t look at a program and see the four numbers on the bottom and think theres anything to those numbers other than ink and paper. If there is a formula you\'re gonna need a house full of computers to figure it out and you\'re probably gonna have to bet on a scale that few can afford and no one can physically accomplish.
One last insight. If you have a 10 horse field you only have to find the 2 best horses to hit a perfecta. The better you become at winning perfectas the easier it is to hit the Trifectas and Superfectas. The Superfectas are hard to hit. If you have 3, 10 horse fields thats 30 horses as compared to 10 horses in a single field, do really think those bets are easier to hit?
Theres no easy money here and if you\'re trying to mine it you\'re in for a rough road. Start watching races and not betting. Make your selections with monopoly money and don\'t even think about betting your own money until you can bet for a month with monopoly money and win MOST days and turn a profit for a month. Be Careful and if your married take your wife with you...lol
Here\'s a 20/20 hindsight formula for betting the 2004 Derby:
Find the horses that have run 3 Beyers of 100 or more: Smarty Jones, Lion Heart, and Imperialism.
Then add the horse that has run 2 Beyers of 100 or more and has run a 99 to boot: Limehouse.
Box all trifectas and superfectas.
However, I am a T-Graph user so I doubt I will ever use this formula for future Derbies. Just thought it was a cool coincidence or was it?
My point was only that the handicappers that set the morning lines are vastly
superior to an apprentice wannabe handicapper like myself and I am sure their
abilities will vary from track to track if not from race to race. I cut my
teeth on and soon gave up on handicapping dogs for personal benefits and went to
the easier horses (right). No, the comment about the adjacent to was talking
about post position and the affect if not profound effect it has on its
neighbors in dog racing and less profound but existing in horses. Whether its a
faster pace, a chase scene which is a bit more common behind a fast filly and a
non gelding but happens still, or just kismet who knows. Didn\'t say it works
every time just did for this race. The first and second lowest odds won all the
races except for the Shaconage race when the post postion ruled and the races
where there were several odds lower than ten to one. In plainer language there
is no heavy favorite only a horse that would win the race 40 or even 50 times
out of 100 races. Even when the odds are lower like Smarty Jones the second
lowest odds is usually the winner, Smarty Jones being the perfect example being
a 9/2 morning line compared to The Cliffs Edge 4-1 who was the favorite.
Also, the name is James Gilliam and not quite like but extremely similar to the
broker that The Cliffs Edge was named for, speaking of money and throwing it
away have you ever played the stock marker 300 is chump change in volatile
stocks and they have monopoly money games too called stock simulations. Any Dog
or Horse simulations for betting not running a gimmick race. I played those
for months making 30% or more a quarter but still lost my arse on a smaller
scale with my own real dough.
Also one of the contributors to your site said that Tapit would win this race 30
times out of 100. Mathematically you would need three and a bit of horses as
good as or better than Tapit to expect a 100 percent certainty of winning and
significantly lower your risk adversity.
My formula requires only two bets per race unless there are exceptions then
three to five on one race only. Good advice is to pick another Pick 3 if thats
too pricey. My 12 dollar ticket would have netted me over two grand if 7 had
won race 9 if I had went with the two favorites and the 7 my ticket would have
only cost 36 dollars. Gas to the track is more than that or soon will be, whats
a working man to do.
PS - Divorced not only due to the track but other things. There are certainly
more risks in life than the measurable ones in Dollars and Cents.
One day at Monmouth, I was upstairs watching them come through the tunnel. The jock on #5
tugged his right ear lobe and some guy below me ran toward the windows. I bet the horse.
He won.
Another time at Naragansett, some swell in a caddy whispered in the ear of the old geezer
parking guy. The old guy ran for the windows. I followed him and bet the horse.
He won.
I always look for geezer parking guys running and jocks tugging their ear lobes, but for insurance I use thorograph.
That could end up on the home page.
Thats funny stuff jeffbonds lol