I'll address your points separately.

1. It was my view that Texcess had indeed improved recently, but it was not reflected in his final time speed figures. It's obviously a moot point because he ran so horribly there is no evidence one way or the other if I was right. Had he run right back to his recent speed figures, it would have been some strong evidence I was wrong. Running as badly as he did demonstrates that something else was at work other than his recent speed figures or my opinion that he had been improving in a more hidden way.

2. The "california horses" thing is strictly a quality issue. Given 2 horses with similar figures and all else being equal, I'd bet the horse earning his figures against better quality all day long. Qaulity is not measured strictly by the title of the race or the speed figures earned.

3. The plenty of speed issue is obviously related to whether or not you think competitive paces in fast fractions impact the results. For me, it's an absolute no brainer that they do. You many not agree, but that's why we all go to the windows. :-) The key issue is whether you can use that insight to profit by predicting pace scenarios better than the general public. "I" think the answer to that is that it's very difficult. So much so, it's probably overrated. However, "YES" at times. I always try to evaluate the probabilities of various pace scenarios. If I think it's likely a horse is going to get a good/bad pace trip it changes my perception of "fair value" by a bit one way or the other. It never puts me on or off horse though.

In this case, I couldn't see any way this was going to be anything less than an honest pace. There were plenty of speed/pressers. The blinkers being removed from Texcess was an indication to me that they might try to rate off SC - which I thought would be the right move. Dueling would certainly be idiotic. Texcess had also shown some rateabilty. Feeling comfortable that you can get a good trip is certainly a plus when deciding when and if to pull the trigger. Had he not shown that ability, I would have been much less likely to bet him at the same price I got. I would have needed more.

4. When I say a horse is better than he looks, that generally means I think his form is better that the "general public" would think based on a casual glance of his PPs. So I expect his odds to be longer than they would be if everyone knew what I knew.

Some of that kind of thing is captured by TG because of wide trips (buried) and other notes. Sometimes (rarely) my opinion is related to a bias I believe worked for/against the horse and subsequent evidence from that day. Most often it's a pace/visual thing where I think a horse was either negatively or positively impacted by the pace of his recent races or had more in reserve than he showed.

I always have a mental list of horses that I think are better or worse than they look for "whatever" reason and I try to focus on them when looking for bets because I think they are a prime source for overlays.



Post Edited (03-28-05 13:07)