Since you mention two races that were a lot more interesting to me than the big one, here's my possibly idiosyncratic take on what happened. I went in believing that one or more of the undercard races would be a putovers, & I think Simon's winner in the 5th & Roman's winner in the 11th fit the bill. With the win Sat, Simon has shipped 5 horses to Ky over the last month or so & won with 3, & Battle's price Sat was the lowest. I think the only way you could bet the horse was to close your eyes & hope he was the one, although I do know some who bet the horse based on a comparison of what the pk3 will pays should have been paying vs what they were actually paying.

ME is a much more interesting case, since she appeared extremely vulnerable from a lot of different standpoints(one big race off a long layoff & surgery, very weak fr3, very little if any number power, etc) & with all the "experts" touting her as a pk4 & pk6 single, the race shaped up as a terrific betting opportunity. The question was how. Do you play all or almost all of the field in pk3s or pk4s, or do you invest in exotics in the race itself, & hope she runs out. The problem with the former approach, of course, is the possibility that the result of at least one race in the sequence was impossible to predict. The problem with the latter is that a horse which was pretty close to impossible to find runs 3rd, which is what I'm guessing happened to JB, since I have to believe that "all" is the only option for the 4th slot for anyone betting against ME in supers. Although neither approach was profitable Sat., the race is nonetheless a good example of why the "how" is often every bit as important as the "who."