***2019 Kentucky Derby***
- Thread starter BigJCy
- Start date
Well, I was right about it being exciting, though definitely not for the reasons I thought it would be.
I had a bet with a friend, and the DQ saved me $100 (it took our bet from a win for him to no action). I was a fan of the decision.
This is my first time seeing this video and the decision totally makes sense now. In auto racing a wreck of cars is expensive but can be fixed in horse racing a wreck of horses meets likely death of the horses. Surprised stuff like this doesn't happen more given how close together they are out there.
A horse getting bumped matters more than you think. You don’t just put your foot back on the gas and get to full speed. That’s not how it works.
It does happen, you just see it more often at places like prairie meadows with less experienced riders, trainers, horses, etc. it’s also not often it’s the leader/winner, many times it’s further back where horses are bunched up that there is interference. You don’t really ever see it in a triple crown race or a high level event with an enormous purse. However, the track conditions were terrible and there was like 18 horses so I suppose that increases the likelihood of guys getting mixed up like what happened.
The biggest disappointment here is that the DQ cost betters over $10M, all of which went back to the race books since very few dollars were placed on the 20 horse and him being up front ruined the majority of box bets.
Would it be smart to bet $50 on Rutgers to win the big ten football conference this upcoming season?
Did you do any research on that horse? Cuz he spent weeks studying. But I’m sure you think it’s the same thing.
People much smarter and more knowledgeable about horse racing than you, me, and your buddy said that that horse was a long shot when they set the odds at 65–1.
He got lucky. Congrats. Or he spent “weeks studying” to bet $50, which is odd. He also a meteorologist and knew the track would be ****? Was he also pretty confident that the horse that went wire to wire would get DQ’d?
Last edited:
Lol it’s called “knowing he had a chance”, especially at a longer track. Thinking a longer track would give him a chance made him think he could win. He took a $50 shot, and won. Call it stupid all you want, he studied and won.
Every horse in the gate on Sunday technically had a chance. You know how I know that? Well, it’s because they were loaded up and when it opened they got to run with the rest of the horses down the track. That’s a horrible take.
Churchill downs is 1 furlong longer than all the previous races that country house failed to win at, and against lesser opponents in those previous races. It isn’t like this was the Belmont that is a significantly longer track. It also isn’t like the field died down the stretch and he ran away either. He won due to a DQ. He likely doesn’t win without that.
Long odds bets aren’t good, that’s why they give you a great return on them. Occasionally they hit, but it isn’t a sustainable way to bet on anything. Play the hard ways all day at the craps table, you may hit a few, but in the end you lose. Betting 65–1 on anything isn’t likely a good play. It’s not taking a shot and getting lucky on long odds that’s rediculous here, it’s your assertion that your buddy is some savant and outsmarted the sharps and the oddsmakers with his “weeks of studying” to place a $50 wager.
Mildly annoyed with a ridiculous assertion.
I did bet the 7 and it sucked when they called for the DQ, but it was the right call to make. That could have been really bad had the leaders stumbled or went down.
Even if the horse finished 2nd it was a great bet. Your friend thought he found an edge and went for it. And he was right.
