*** An observation regarding your odds model , the ranking of the odds it produces (from most likely to least likely winner ) is perhaps more important than the actual odds line it produces .
Your model had Transcendental as the most likely winner , the public had her as the fourth choice - this clear divergence points her out as an obvious overlay .
Her performance yesterday certainly proved the validity of that ranking .
The actual odds however were a bit troubling . Tke odds line of almost 5-1 on Raging Fever seems out of line . I believe a good question every handicapper who uses an odds line , however derived , should ask themselves is - would i stand on the other side of the counter and lay that price on a horse ?
I hope this doesn't appear as nit picking Chris , again it is just my observation of yesterday's and other races you have posted with your model . You are obviously an intelligent and articulate person who happens to be a highly skilled handicapper .
The mathematics involved in your odds model is well beyond my scope .
I use a rudimentary spread sheet analysis to project a race day TG number based upon recent TG numbers at today's surface and distance - adjusting for today's weight and projected ground loss . It keeps me from overlooking fast horses .
I thought your observations on Happily Unbridled were very insightful.
Ironically i think sheet players themselves are "conditioned" to sometimes outmoded thinking in term of condition analysis .
How else did Charismatic and War Emblen get away at the prices they did ?
According to the NY Times interview , Ernie Dahlman doesn't believe in the "bounce" , and
he says he is the master of the obvious . Well you don't get much more of an obvious play then the last out fastest TG number at the same surface and distance .
I look forward to your future posts . bj