- Thread starter
- #1
Chewbaccer
Illustrious Potentate
I'm a casual fan at best, so I'm genuinely asking. I went to place a bet on this morning's race in Austria, and I know enough to know that Lewis Hamilton is the best out there now, so he was who I was gonna bet on anyways, but my bookie had him at -120.
In NASCAR, in the Cup Series at least, even the favorites ate at least +200 most of the time, and the only times I've ever seen a driver be a - in NASCAR is when Kyle Busch is the only Cup driver entering a Truck race.
Never have saw it in the Cup Series. Not when Jimmie Johnson was a virtual lock to win at Dover, not when Kevin Harvick was a virtual lock to win at Phoenix, never.
Is Hamilton so much better than the rest of his competition that you're better off taking him than betting the field? Or does Hamilton just have a history of dominating the Austrian track?
I know Vettel crashed out on the first lap through no fault of his own today, but it wasn't that long ago when he was right there with Hamilton and had a good argument to be the top driver, has he fallen off to the point where he's not even in the same league as Hamilton?
In NASCAR, in the Cup Series at least, even the favorites ate at least +200 most of the time, and the only times I've ever seen a driver be a - in NASCAR is when Kyle Busch is the only Cup driver entering a Truck race.
Never have saw it in the Cup Series. Not when Jimmie Johnson was a virtual lock to win at Dover, not when Kevin Harvick was a virtual lock to win at Phoenix, never.
Is Hamilton so much better than the rest of his competition that you're better off taking him than betting the field? Or does Hamilton just have a history of dominating the Austrian track?
I know Vettel crashed out on the first lap through no fault of his own today, but it wasn't that long ago when he was right there with Hamilton and had a good argument to be the top driver, has he fallen off to the point where he's not even in the same league as Hamilton?