The thing here though is the horses that figured ran relatively close to each other and had a pretty solid history to go by. I'm a little surprised the wide and weight factored out to a neg 1.2

If That accurately represents the actual effort Super may not be sitting on his best one for the coming race. He was dropped about a point or so on his starts after tops and this would be essentially equalling past tops.

Theres reason for optimism though. I'm not sure he's been in as good of hands in the past, though I respect Milton Wolfson. The other guy I didnt' know. On paper, he does recover well from efforts. He did look a little loose on the slop to me and he did seem to wait a bit once he headed Lord. Lastly its possible Tgraph may have gotten a little enthusiastic in calculating the Hawthorne effort. Say they did, by about a point in their enthusiasm for paying for the horse and his entire future daily rate in one race and he may have a real nice one coming up. He'd have to carry the weight of course, but he's a gamer and the real McCoy.



classhandicapper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bigeest problem with making figures on very
> wet tracks is that there's a tendency for the
> margins between horses to be larger than average.
> That leaves you in a bind. You can either give the
> horses that finished up front (often just the
> winner) their usual figure and get stuck giving
> terrible figures to everyone else or you can give
> the winner a huge figure in order to give at least
> some of the rest of the field a figure that makes
> some sense. When it gets very bad and the margins
> are more than 2x average, IMO all the figures are
> gibberish.






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2005 05:53PM by Chuckles_the_Clown2.