SoCal,

You should re-read my thoughts on the subject because you obviously misunderstood them.

This is the gist of what I said:

All else being equal, I would rather back a horse prepped traditionally because I know 100% for sure that that method works. There isn't enough evidence to satisfy me 100% that 1-2 preps is equally as effective. IMO there is at least some evidence that it is not. All of that evidence was rejected here because of the strong belief in speed figures as being able to explain almost everything (the small sampled TG study). No problem with the belief in speed figures, but I like to look at things from a lot of perspectives. (less dogmatic)

If I backed a horse with 1-2 preps I would insist on a slightly higher margin of safety in the price until such time that I am convinced 100% that it is just as effective.

I would be more likely to back a horse with 1 or 2 preps if it was trained by Bobby Frankel or some other equally talented trainer at prepreparing a horse off a layoff to go a distance of ground etc...

I agreed with Beyer's article that they were making a mistake with B&R, but thought he was dramatically overstating the case by saying the horse had no chance etc.... I used the word "silly" to describe his comments. Heck, at the right price I'll back that horse!

My only argument was that IMO bettors should be more conservative when it comes to betting these lightly prepped horses and insist on an extra tick on the board for taking on what could be slightly higher risk.

Others think there is no extra risk at all. That's cool, but I am less convinced. I can't lose anything by not betting unless I get an extra tick.



Post Edited (04-11-05 09:00)