Bridge Jumpers get nailed at Aqueduct

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by jman5581

You guys should pay attention to my show parlay thread

Look at some of the show payouts on favorites from today... Basically, 6 consecutive show picks on small fields over the past couple days has resulted in over 250% return. I know, I know, you can just bet a 5/2 to win....

Would we laugh at the guy if he bet to show on 5 horse fields 6 consecutive times and tripled his money?

How do you know he's not a horseplayer who just won the powerball and decided to make a "bridge jumper" bet just for the hell of it?

The problem Jman with the Show Parlay Thread = Bridge Jumping comparison is that it doesn't really work. Bridge jumpers don't regularly get back over $3 on their bets like some of yours do. Your bets take into account the favorites you think will show, without the 50K show wager attached to it.

So when we're talking about bridge jumping, we're talking about people who pound show pools so hard that the only possible result is either 1.) $2.10 payoffs or 2.) Losing their money.

Your thread is informative insofar as it shows that possibility of potentially making money on show wagers -- but it's not on the same level as laughing at a bridge jumper similar to the one at Aqueduct today. They're in the same realm, but not the same thing.

-- on a sidenote, I'm enjoying that thread lots!

[jman5581]

It was intended to inject a bit of humor....

[jman5581]

Originally Posted by BOMBTHREAT

Anyone who wants to defend that kind of action is either a) a moron or b) the sucker that made the bet. Which is it?

B..... it was me.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by jman5581

B..... it was me.

lol, sorry if my amusement at your misfortune hurt your feelings.

i'll buy you a beer at FP sometime to make up for the wounds I've inflicted today

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

well that was a good one for character judgments: "you are probably one of those people that when their horse is obviously going to lose, will route against his friends horse from winning."

I'm sure personal judgments are your forté, as illustrated here, but you're way way off. Of course, the fact that you're totally wrong means nothing when you just want to take a jab, so I'll give you that one.

Why is it severe misfortune, if someone was willing to pony up 50K or so on a bet that relied on an animal, that even if successful paid five cents on the dollar? That has nothing to do with me being a bad person for laughing at misfortune, that has to do with people making shitty sucker bets and losing. They get what they deserve. Someone bridge jumping has to win in the vicinity of 19 out of 20 of their ridiculous wagers in order to just break even. Please find me one bet on an animal that is a good bet at 1-20 odds to come through 19 out of 20 times. Really, please do, since I'm sure it would go a long way in proving your point that I'm a worthless human being who is only out to goad others for their misfortune.

Nope, you're pretty much without a case here, other than trying to prove your point that you don't like me. Well done there, bucko.

And your analogy still sucks, fyi. Misfortune that one brings on themself (wagering thousands of dollars on a 1-20 proposition involving an animal) vs. one they don't bring on themself (getting hit by a car) are in two totally different ballparks on two totally different planets and still, several posts later, have nothing to do with one another.

But all the same -- thinking a bridge-jumper gets what they deserve = I'm a bad person.

You got it. You can have that one if you want to.

Now you are playing the role of the martyr! Because I disagree with you, I don't like you?

Come to think of it, I'll have to concede that one to you. Good point.

Now, to address your other points. I pretty much leave people alone and try not to make judgments about them. That includes determining what in their eyes should or should not be a sucker bet, or should or should not be a severe misfortune.

I guess what I've been trying to illustrate to you, quite poorly apparently, is that maybe it is not your place to determine what does or does not make up a severe misfortune for other people. You do not know the first thing about the person who lost that bet, so to assume it didn't hurt him/her is in my eyes a wild assumption.

And you say I'm the one who's judgmental?

The question I really want to know, and might explain things, is why do you even care one way or the other that a bridgejumper won or lost his/her bet?

Honestly, can you tell me why you would take any glee in anyone losing any sized bet? The whole concept is utterly ridiculous to me.

Believe me, I do understand that it's a 'sucker' bet. However, since just about the minimum takeout on any horse racing bet is 19% or so (last I checked anyways), a solid argument could be made that anyone who bets horses is a sucker.

I guess that makes it okay then for me to laugh at you when you lose.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by BOMBTHREAT

The point is.....they get what they deserve. If they had that much money then they probably don't need it. My point was it probably wasn't the best spot to put that in play. Since I had $10 across the board on the 3 in that race I was one happy camper.

PS - I prebet it and checked the pick from work, I wish I could have seen the pool totals - I could have just loaded up to show.

Anyone who wants to defend that kind of action is either a) a moron or b) the sucker that made the bet. Which is it?

a bit off topic BOMBTHREAT, but you dont have your Private Message option turned on.

Next time you swing in the Hampton OTB...tell Julie (bartender) that Kevin says hello. Thanks.

[jman5581]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

lol, sorry if my amusement at your misfortune hurt your feelings.

i'll buy you a beer at FP sometime to make up for the wounds I've inflicted today

After today, I can't even afford the drive over to FP anymore... can you give me a ride AND buy a beer?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Now you are playing the role of the martyr! Because I disagree with you, I don't like you?

Come to think of it, I'll have to concede that one to you. Good point.

Now, to address your other points. I pretty much leave people alone and try not to make judgments about them. That includes determining what in their eyes should or should not be a sucker bet, or should or should not be a severe misfortune.

I guess what I've been trying to illustrate to you, quite poorly apparently, is that maybe it is not your place to determine what does or does not make up a severe misfortune for other people. You do not know the first thing about the person who lost that bet, so to assume it didn't hurt him/her is in my eyes a wild assumption.

And you say I'm the one who's judgmental?

The question I really want to know, and might explain things, is why do you even care one way or the other that a bridgejumper won or lost his/her bet?

Honestly, can you tell me why you would take any glee in anyone losing any sized bet? The whole concept is utterly ridiculous to me.

Believe me, I do understand that it's a 'sucker' bet. However, since just about the minimum takeout on any horse racing bet is 19% or so (last I checked anyways), a solid argument could be made that anyone who bets horses is a sucker.

I guess that makes it okay then for me to laugh at you when you lose.

You can absolutely laugh at me when I lose -- there are threads in the Selection room from playing Hawthorne that will have some good opportunities that you can pull up if you'd like. I'm not getting bent out of shape with people disagreeing with my wagering strategy. I wasn't aware that other people would take my opinion of their wagering strategy so seriously.

I never said anything of the kind along the lines that this bet would or would not hurt the person playing it, however, the less money this person had and the more financial hurt it inflicted on them -- the more the sucker-factor increases.

If PG1985 were still here and were going to "bet" $1000 to win on Teuflesburg to win the Derby, everyone would try to talk him out of it. Granted, that bet would pay off about $100 on the dollar, but that's neither here nor there. It would be a sucker bet regardless of the amount bet and the potential return. So when we increase the amount wagered and decrease the potential return, the bet just becomes more of a sucker bet.

I could personally not care less about who the person is who bet the idiotic show wager -- if it was a single mother trying to make $2500 for her kids or a multi-billionaire who considered it pocket change, it doesn't decrease the stupidity of the wager nor my glee in watching someone with such an absolutely foolhardy wagering strategy fall flat on their face. If that makes me mean, again, so be it. If that makes you like me even less, so be it. No skin off my back for being reviled for calling out what is potentially the dumbest/riskiest wager in horse racing.

We horseplayers who take the game seriously cherish "dead" money in the pools and yearn for the days when there was more, yet I'm the bad guy for calling out dead money in the pools and finding amusement and joy in JUST HOW DEAD that money was (and just how dead that money can be in every bridge-jumping situation)?

Backwards logic, buddy.

Too bad it's late and I don't have time tonight to digest anymore of this insanity.

[skippy3481]

I mean honestly of all the times to bridgejump. You would think that someone betting that kind of money could find the time to find a better race.

[pmacdaddy]

Only wish I capitalized on it.

To put that much stock in any one animal is nuts in my opinion. Sh*t happens...

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

If PG1985 were still here and were going to "bet" $1000 to win on Teuflesburg to win the Derby, everyone would try to talk him out of it.

BTW (by the way), what happened to PG1985?

Did BTW (the poster) succeed in chasing him away?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

BTW (by the way), what happened to PG1985?

Did BTW (the poster) succeed in chasing him away?

I see you're full of clever retorts tonight.

To answer your question.....no. However, I am still considered a suspect in the Tsunami.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I see you're full of clever retorts tonight.

To answer your question.....no. However, I am still considered a suspect in the Tsunami.

i must be the most misunderstood person here!

that wasnt a retort! i was going to send you flowers if responsible. jesus man.


as to the retorts with spencer, i thought it seemed out of character (or hypocritical) for someone who likes to portray himself the way he does, to laugh at someone who drops 50k.

man, i gotta stop taking these sensitivity classes. they are killing me!

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I'm with Spencer.....

Sorry dude, no self-respecting person can feel even a morsel of sympathy for the bridgejumper.

It's not like he was the victim of some bad DQ---he tried to weasel a $2,500 profit---and he paid the price for it.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I'm with Spencer.....

Sorry dude, no self-respecting person can feel even a morsel of sympathy for the bridgejumper.

It's not like he was the victim of some bad DQ---he tried to weasel a $2,500 profit---and he paid the price for it.

oh brother. i thought i explained this to you already. i have no sympathy for that person either. maybe it's a fine point to people, but there is a difference between no sympathy and laughing at someone.

besides, as i said above, i found spencers position to be hypocritical, or at the very least, out of character for how he portrays himself.

i have trouble understanding people sometimes, i guess.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

besides, as i said above, i found spencers position to be hypocritical, or at the very least, out of character for how he portrays himself.

You're obviously just jealous of his looks.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

oh brother. i thought i explained this to you already. i have no sympathy for that person either. maybe it's a fine point to people, but there is a difference between no sympathy and laughing at someone.

besides, as i said above, i found spencers position to be hypocritical, or at the very least, out of character for how he portrays himself.

i have trouble understanding people sometimes, i guess.

It may be a tad out of character for my normal self -- though I'm not sure what you're referencing about how I portray myself. Never said I was perfect, and I don't laugh at other people's misfortunes. This however, doesn't qualify under random misfortune. That kind I don't find funny. I just see a big difference between random misfortune and terrible terrible long-term betting strategy that brings financial misfortune on someone. Maybe it's weird that I find it funny. I'll have to re-evaluate my morals this afternoon.

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I'm with Spencer.....

I can rest easy knowing that was the first, and last time that sentence will ever be written.