Congrats, you called that one pretty much right on. I think even to the point of the negative figure.

jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Buck,
>
> Respect your opinion also, and certainly not
> gloating at an 8-5 shot winning. (it takes 8-1 for
> me to gloat).
>
> But you bring up an interesting topic in your
> post. I think we can agree that reading the
> thorographs is about figuring out what a horse CAN
> run that day, not HAS RUN IN THE PAST. The topic
> that you don't specifically mention, but your
> comment reminds me of, is "what odds do you need
> to have on a horse, if you need the horse to run a
> new top to win". The Dwyer was a bad betting race
> because of the 5 horse field, but you can look at
> it. Even though it probably didn't happen based
> on the result, you can make a case that expecting
> a new top out of Sightseeing was reasonable. The
> problem I would have with him is that he starts
> out 2 points slower than another horse in the race
> and gets no weight and was seemingly unlikely to
> get a significant ground loss edge. Unless you
> were betting Any Given Saturday to regress off the
> 8 week freshening, which seemed unlikely given
> Pletcher's stats off this kind of layoff, you are
> hoping for a 2 point new top or better and looking
> for 3-1. Hopefully for you, you were disciplined
> enough to lay off the race when he went off at
> only 5-2.
>
> Betting horses with form (not 2 year olds or early
> spring 3 year olds), I am usually looking for 5-1
> or better when I know I very likely need my horse
> to run a new top to win the race. It isn't an
> ironclad rule for and you have to adjust for small
> fields somewhat, like today, but curious as to
> what other bettors think about this.