Sorry for late reply. I handicapped both Belmont cards in question. As to today's 3rd race, I put up Skip Queen and lost to the other three that figured. As you stated and the odds reflected Skip Queen was the "price" of the fast four and that's the reason I used her. She was just as fast as the others and actually faster than Beautiful Bay. I didn't love her; each top she ran resulted in reactions which took a while for her to overcome. However this year she was given plenty of rest after the big return effort, a different strategy than that employed after prior top efforts, not counting the layoff after the last effort and race last year. Skip Queen came back to her top, a good sign, and the trainer aware that she had performed badly on short turnarounds in the past, gave her rest this time around. In my mind this different tack was a good sign which intent-wise was meant to elicit another good run and since on figures she was competitive and a price, she warranted selection. Beside the other fast ones didn't show particularly explosive lines, common for grass runners, meaning that they if they ran they were most likely to run what they had before. The weight differentials were small, 2 pounds, and the small field made the 6-hole less of a danger. WRONG--but that was the thinking.

As the 3rd race on 7/15, Looking Best showed an 0-3-X pattern, an variation of the 0-2-X pattern discussed numerous times on this site. (Look in past ROTWs or listen to the intro seminar.) Briefly an 0-2-X pattern is three-race sequence starting with a top effort, the 0, followed by an effort slight worse, the 2, and topped off by a non-effort, the X. Looking Best's last three were 8, 11-1/2, turf 23-1/2. That last one, the turf effort, was an obvious non-effort. The preceding 11-1/2 came 8 days after the top, 8. And it should be noted that Looking Best actually ran two 8-1/4s preceding the 8, the second one 6 days before the top.

Now the 0-2-X sequence has a history from the days of written sheets. A handicapper made the observation that horses seemed to move forward off this sequence and because this bounce-back effort came after a particularly bad effort, often these pattern horses went off at good prices. The non-effort afforded the horse more time to recover from prior efforts.

Present day Thoro-Pattern raises irony here. Thoro-Pattern shows the 0-2-X patterns probably produces less new tops and/or pair-ups than was originally thought--demystification.

Nevertheless in this particular race only three of the five had run in the single digits and the top two choices, Crunch The Numbers and Apprentice, entered off 2-3/4 point new tops, fairly big. Apprentice ran back on 11 days rest and Crunch the Numbers was running his third race within 7 weeks. The latter bounced, the former paired up and the Looking Best returned to his top, 8, earning the third best figure in the race. But Looking Best was 7-1, CTN 2-5 and App 3-1. Looking Best was third choice in the morning line and was my selection with an exacta under CTN.