Pool 1 - 141st KY Derby Future Wager (Closed 11/30/2014):
#1 American Pharoah - ~12/1 - $2 payoff = $27.60
$2 Exacta #1+#24(Field) = $58.00
Pool 2 - 141st KY Derby Future Wager (Closed 2/8/2015):
#1 American Pharoah - ~10/1 - $2 payoff = $23.00
$2 Exacta #1+#8 (Firing Line) = $658.80
Pool 3 - 141st KY Derby Future Wager (Closed 3/1/2015):
#1 American Pharoah - ~8/1 - $2 payoff = $18.20
$2 Exacta #1+#10 (Firing Line) = $508.00
KY Oaks Future Wager (Closed 3/1/2015):
#13 Lovely Maria - ~39/1 - $2 payoff = $81.60
$2 Exacta #13+#20 (Shook Up) = $8060.60
Pool 4 - 141st KY Derby Future Wager (Closed 3/29/2015):
#1 American Pharoah - ~5/1 - $2 payoff = $13.00
$2 Exacta #1+#12 (Firing Line) = $109.80
CDI Reports Record $194.3M in Derby Day Bets
Read more on BloodHorse.com: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/91773/cdi-reports-record-1943m-in-derby-day-bets#ixzz3Z3J1haQX
Your quote should be in Ontario not in Canada. Pretty much every casino and a few bars in BC have offsite track betting. Online you can also bet other sports.
this says otherwise
this says otherwise
I stand corrected. BC Lotteries doesn't advertise the HPI name anywhere and only brand everything with BCLC and the "Racebook" logo in the casinos.
I'm stupid for being too stubborn to bet more than $10 on Pharoah at 8-1 8 weeks ago. I told my friend we'd split $100 on him if he was 9-1 (So we'd get $1000 total). My friend is not too happy with me today.
After totaling all my Derby bets, I pretty much broke even. The Oaks / Woodford / Derby Pick-3 is what killed me. I really thought there'd be an upset in the Oaks or Woodford. So I actually lost money on that winning bet.
Pharoah was the best horse, and the best horse won. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. I actually think the Preakness will be harder for him to win than the Derby. But I will say right now, if he wins the Preakness, he's winning the Triple Crown. Although Pletcher's duo will provide his biggest challengers.
This was rambling, I know, but it was an exciting race and I am real excited about the chances for a triple crown.
As for the Derby, the winner is either based out of Cali, or is going to be a big surprise. I'm really anticipating American Pharoah's debut. If I had to pick a winner right now it's him, but just because no one else has impressed me.
This one is from March 1. This is the good one. Cali ran 1-2-3!
The Derby has been nice and easy to hit the last two years. I think this year is going to be much much more unpredictable. None of those horses in the future wager impressed me at all. The Derby winner has probably won, and someone I'm sure has some money on him, but he's not someone a lot of people are talking about. We'll check back in 4 months and see if I'm right.
This one is from January 2nd. Not so good. In all fairness, Pharoah was having foot problems and no one was sure if he'd be ok.
I think he has a better chance of competing there as he is a smaller, less muscled type who could move well over the surface but I'm just an interested bystander this time!
This event has changed recently and I have to consider the growing probability that the changes might be long lasting. Some methods of evaluating the likely ability of a colt to stay the distance based on some intrinsic characteristics of the horse may no longer be as effective.
The new points qualifying system invented by Churchill Downs, Inc. may have had the side-effect of taking much of the pace out of the race. This year the slow final time of 2:03.02 came after a modest 3/4 mile fractional time of 1:11.29. Last year they also dwaddled around in 1:11.80 and 2:03.66. Other Derbys in this decade have been out to 6 furlongs in 1:09.80,1:09.80, and 1:10.58. If run at something closer to 1:12 than 1:10 it is a different race. This year the final time got a BSF of 105, which is not great but not awful either. Last year was awful.
And there is the major but difficult to quantify effect of some trainers known among those following closely to be making a career of running a step and a half ahead of anti-doping tests with the use of cobalt type substances and synthetic hormones, imparting artificial stamina to speed horses that naturally have none, which is particularly significant among some trainers based in some racing jurisdictions, especially California.
The William Hill line on Triple Crown yes/no is currently at +190/-220. I may check the line on that at Wynn and/or Westgate next week. Each year at this time my choice on that is to bet "no" or to pass on it, and to re-evaluate again after the Preakness. I have ended up buying the "no" about 60% of the time, and have not yet ever seriously considered the "yes" side as a reasonable option.
In order to play that proposition now I would need to study a lot more about the durability of the effects of certain substances and the specifics of the differences in current detection methods among racing jurisdictions, especially New York. I'm not going to do that, so I don't expect it is likely that I will play the prop this time. But if the "yes" did come in this year, I would feel sad about that, just from the personal point of view of one who appreciates the animals and enjoys the sport. On the other hand, there are some sponsorship tie-ins that would be natural if that is what this is to become: "The Triple Crown, brought to you by Pfizer, Eli-Lilly, Merk, Novartis, and Astra-Zenica!"
Good luck to whatever others want to do about that, with the luxury of saying it sincerely since I probably won't have anything on that.
I think Frosted, Danzig Moon, and Mubtaahij each may have some reason for optimism in other races, with continued development. Maybe also Materiality, but I'm not yet sure what I think of his trip. As far as I can tell, Carpe Diem just didn't have it. After the race, Baffert got around to mentioning that Dortmund had what was descirbed as a "minor" bout of colic between the Santa Anita Derby and this race.