Re: BB Food for Thought (155 Views)
Posted by: TGJB (IP Logged)
Date: May 22, 2008 01:51PM
Coupla things. First of all, no, I do not think it would be good for the game if we have the first TC winner in 30 years, and it\'s trained by Dutrow.
Second of all, I agree that nobody can tell with 80% certainty what BB (or any horse) will do-- that\'s why he\'s a bet against at 3-10 or whatever, as So Cal says. As you said (in effect) when going through your Derby analysis, it\'s about percentages, not picking winners.
Third of all, not specific to you, but to this discussion in general:
THE LAST ELEVEN OF THESE HAVE GONE DOWN. Not one, not two, eleven in a row. There are reasons for that (fkach, leave it alone). Sure, this could be the one, and maybe he has a better chance than most of putting in another one just because of Winstrol, etc. But it can\'t be wrong to take a shot against him, given the odds vs. the history alone-- even if you don\'t look at our data.
Jerry,
You make a good point about Dutrow. But the average person out there doesn\'t know diddle about Tricky. They only know the horse and what the media tells them. With all of the recent fallout and scrutiny from the breakdown in the derby, references to Barbaro, etc., I think a win by a Dutrow trained horse, coming after an admission of Winstrol use, may actually turn up the heat and bring even more media attention to issues like steroids, other drugs, move up trainers, 2 year old racing, breeding for speed, industry oversight, regulatory boards, etc. These are all important issues that need to be addressed. Perhaps the industry will finally feel compelled to change. After all, it\'s only yours, mine and the public\'s money that is at stake...
I also agree that there is no easy way to play BB to win in the Belmont. I don\'t care how much Japanese money pours in on Casino Drive, this sucka is going to be 1/5 or thereabouts and probably on 85% + of all the exotic tickets. That being said, playing against 1/5 simply because of the odds is a quick way to lose a good chunk of your bankroll if that 1/5 turns out to be legit. Also, in my opinion what has happened in the last 11 Triple Crown tries has no bearing whatsoever on this year\'s Belmont. It is as irrelevant a point as it was to say that no horse has won the derby from the 20 post since 1919 or whatever, etc. To me, playing against BB for simply historical reasons is the same as betting the Green Bay Packers to win the Super Bowl this year because they have won more NFL championships than anyone else. It just doesn\'t make sense.
I also don\'t think it makes sense to play against BB simply because of his pattern. I am not convinced this deserves to be the dominant handicapping factor for this particular race. To me the horse just hasn\'t run hard enough and there is no clear cut indicator, not even on paper, that he is more-than likely to go off form. I am not trying to knock pattern handicapping. It just happens to be my opinion that in this case BB\'s pattern is irrelevant because we can\'t make an accurate assessment of his Preakness. So I think anyone that wants to play against him because of his pattern is hoping and crossing their fingers. To each his own if someone wants to play that way, but not for my money.
Believe me, I want to play against this guy as much as anyone out there. But before I do that I am going to look for one or more, horseflesh based reasons to do so. I want to see him have a poor gallop out after a work, or blow like a bus, or run erratically on the track as if something may be bothering him. For all I know BB may get the 10 post and there could turn out to be a strong speed on the rail bias on Belmont Day, or the track could come up muddy, or he washes out and acts nuts in the paddock, or he winds up wearing a bar shoe at the last minute. I think any of these reasons would be FAR better reasons to take a position against BB, and believe me I will then be all-in and in more than one betting pool.
Got to love this game. Nothing else compares.
