Preakness 2012 Payouts: Bettors Must Hope for Less Predictable Finish at Belmont
There's something in the American consciousness that loves the underdog, thrives on an upset, loathes a dynasty and hates a tournament that finishes all chalk.
And it doesn't help that the favorites never pay out well, does it?
Such was the case at the Preakness, when three of the race favorites—I'll Have Another at 3-1, Bodemeister at 2-1 and Creative Cause at 6-1—finished one, two and three.
The only way the race could have been more chalk would have been if Bodemeister held on for first over I'll Have Another in second, and Went the Day Well—at 9-2 odds—ran third.
In other words, pretty boring for those bettors looking to cash in on a longshot. And overall, not a terribly lucrative race to throw down on, unless you nailed the $1 superfecta ($424.30).
So sure, we all want I'll Have Another to set history and win the Triple Crown. Well, at least those of us not connected to a rival horse at the Belmont Stakes, that is, or those that will be betting heavily against I'll Have Another accomplishing the feat.
But certainly, those looking to cash in on the race will be hoping there are a few more surprises than we saw at the Belmont.
The Belmont Stakes will have more surprises than the Preakness.
Hell, the Kentucky Derby was far more lucrative than this—remember, I'll Have Another came in at 15-1. The Belmont should be closer to that outcome, with several serious contenders likely returning, such as Union Rags and Dullahan, and a probable field slightly larger than at Pimlico.
The Preakness always figured to be a two-horse race, what with an 11-horse field that didn't offer many legitimate contenders outside of Bodemeister and I'll Have Another. The Belmont will be a bit more of a crapshoot after I'll Have Another, and the longer track makes the race difficult to predict.
Bettors will be hoping for a potentially deeper field, and the more challenging track will unearth a longshot or two in the money. If not, it will be another paltry showing for bettors at the Belmont.
Hit me up on Twitter—my tweets will gladly have another as well.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?