Jim et al, a point about ROTW, to illustrate an issue:

This week, for various reasons, the choice came down to the Futurity or the Starlet. I had to make the decision several days out (DRF ad deadline), and I didn't really have anything positive to say about any of the big 3 colts-- I thought individually they were vulnerable, but on balance one would win. I did know there was at least one point I could make about Sharp Lisa, that she had run the second best figure in the BC and it was concealed due to ground loss, which is factored into what we do. So I chose that, and when it turned out she was a strong second choice, we had a boring ROTW.

But let's say I had chosen the colt race. As you know from my post here, I liked Giacomo, and hit the race. If I did it as ROTW, I would have called him a live longshot, and value, but I would have also called DM a contender, yet vulnerable at a short price, and an underlay. Would I have been wrong?

"Underlay"and value are functions of how the public bets, RELATIVE to the ability of the horse. If you decide a horse is 40% t o win, and the public makes him 3/5, he's a bet against. If he's 5/2, he's a great bet. Since you give him almost the same of winning as losing, neither result proves you were right, or wrong, no matter the odds-- you can make him the most likely winner, but still more likely to lose than win.

The question is whether you correctly assess each horse's chances of winning in the long run, relative to the tote board.



TGJB