So, AP blitzed the Preakness field and wowed a lot of people, while seemingly only ran a pretty good derby.

But it is a 3 point backward move..

This is exactly what I posted about when big brown went "backward" in his preakness.

Maybe an easy read. Horse regressing and a bet against?

I am betting against, but not because the Preakness was a regression. So, what we are saying is that instead winning by 6+ lengths, AP would have had to win by 12+ lengths, to pair up and look good or at least better in the Belmont.

I think this is where some people "mentally adjust figures" because of the way they were earned. Non Kool-aid drinkers? I would argue that the negative 3 was overstated, that ground less tracking two speed horses and sitting in the catbirds seat, is comfortable ground loss and while mathematically correct, overstate the figure. And a blitzkrieg wire to wire score through wicked early fractions gets an understated figure because of the lack of ground loss and no points for setting the wicked pace. And if there was such a thing as a "performance figure" that took the TG figure and adjusted for pace and trip, the derby and preakness were relative pair ups.

A little sheets heresy. I know.

But this board has few lemmings and open thoughts.

Rob