First of all, the decision making was simple- I made the play, and just sold pieces. Watching the race I was rooting for WE to get second also, since I had a pretty good exacta. As it turned out I was better off(luckier)this way.
As far as the sub 6 numbers go, I think yes and no. I tried to get HH and RFP bought after their 3yo debuts(and PD later), and I told the client(and Elliot)that as fast as they were, if you raced them conventionally through the preps they would be going the wrong way by the Derby. My plan was to stop then, and not run until the Bluegrass or Ill. Derby, and I think we would have gotten the top in the Derby. Another advantage to this plan is that if they are short you get the number in the Preakness, and have a relatively fresh horse when others are cooked coming into the Belmont.
I think pace matters in EXTREME cases, like last year, or if they had gone 49. 47 in a mile and a quarter race is not that slow. I would also point out that Spend A Buck went 45 and change.
Finally, I want to say that I think WE vindicates me for Balto Star last year, and not because of the pace differential. As you pointed out, these are ultimately odds plays. The two horses were almost identical, and if they fired were very strong. One ran, one didn't, at prices- big net profit. The bottom line is the bottom line.
Oh, one other unrelated item. I loved Friedman saying on his site that if he had hit the super he would have kept his mouth shut. This from a guy who has posted crowing about hitting an exacta of the favorite over the second choice(which his own fans took him to task about), to say nothing of the claims in Ragozin's book of Friedman giving out a "cold trifecta" in the '86 Belmont.



TGJB