Re: Geroux's Comments (956 Views)
Posted by:
moosepalm (IP Logged)
Date: June 12, 2018 05:11PM
Dana666 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aren't those factors we need to consider as
> bettors? What is the intention here--why is this
> particular horse in the race? Is it that any
> different than a trainer dropping a horse in a
> claiming race who either runs last or runs off the
> screen? Can anyone fault you for taking a stand on
> a long-shot in a race where long shots (often very
> improbable ones) have often panned out very well?
> I certainly couldn't fault that logic because if
> you win, you're gonna get paid, but did you
> honestly think Baffert was going to try and beat
> his triple crown chance with his other horse?
> That's the only thing I don't really follow. But
> again, no one should fault the stand. I certainly
> don't. It's better than a jackass like myself
> betting Hoffburg, I also used Justify in
> multi-race exotics (but Hoffburg was throwing away
> money at terrible odds, respectively, like he had
> any chance to win--I'll bet a Mott horse again
> when Saratoga gets polytrack-and a Tapit no less,
> the most overrated sire in racing history).
A few things:
- Yes, trying to crystal ball trainer intent is a part of the game. Like gauging pace in the race, or numerous other factors, it's assumption-based. In this instance, let's forget the 20-20 hindsight we seem to have, and look at it from the front end. Big Day Bob has an astounding record shipping into Belmont in prime time. The Belmont itself is a race in which horses frequently make a big forward move and then disappear, but they have it on their resume for the breeding shed. Most importantly, a 37-1 horse doesn't have to win for you to make money. There was an $88 exacta with a horse who had as many question marks as Restored Hope, and he was 24-1. So IF the horse was not well meant, and you didn't have x-ray vision into trainer intent, your money was flushed down the crapper.
- Obviously, wagering in this game is a "to each his own" stratagem. Personally, I couldn't be happier to see bettors dismiss Bill Mott or other trainers who don't get a 38% hit rate at some, but not all, meets, or who don't have an armada of three year olds ready for the Derby each year. My disregard for Mott in the 2011 Breeders Cup Classic cost me what still would have been the biggest payday of my sad wagering life. When he gets hot, as he frequently does at Saratoga, even with Todd and Chad lurking in the weeds, I won't ignore him simply because he's old school.
- Re:Tapit -- see Richiebee somewhere else on the board.