Summary of pro's and con's for BB in the Belmont

[covelj70]

ok, I am going to attempt to objectively summarize the pro\'s and con\'s of BB\'s Belmont prospects as I see it based on everything I remember from the board posts this week. Please, everyone, chime in on what I may be missing.  I am trying to make sure I am not being too one sided in my analysis on his Belmont prospects.  That\'s the purpose of the post.

Pro\'s

1) Horse is a total freak, broke all the rules of handicapping the Derby, number of races heading into the Derby, post, etc and then proceeded to run the best TG number in Derby history destroying the field in the process.  It was a freaky performance

2) He didn\'t have to exert himself in the stretch run at the Preakness

3) He isn\'t likely facing any Empire Maker type horses in the Belmont

4) By all accounts, whatever foot issues he has seem to be under control

5) His trainer is, at the least, liberal with the legal drugs

6) He has an experienced jockey who has been in this situation before

7) He is bred very well on the bottom side to handle the classic distances

did I miss anything on the pro\'s?

Cons

1) The huge number in the Derby caused a reaction in the Preakness.  We can debate how much of a reaction (i.e would he have gotten a 2 negative, etc had he been asked) but he reacted anyway you cut it.  The preakness just wasn\'t that fast of a race on any figure numbers, TG\'s, beyers, etc. even if you adjust for the \"he wasn\'t asked factor\" he didn\'t run anywhere near as well in the preakness as he did in the Derby.

2) He will be running his 3rd race in five weeks

3) According to previous posts, no horse than ran a negative number in the Derby has won the Belmont

4) According to previous posts, 5 out of the 8 horses that went backwards in the Preakness after making a new top in the Derby continued to move backward in the Belmont, including 2 that didn\'t finish the race.

5) If we take his Preakness number at face value, then he doesn\'t have alot of room to move back any further and win the race like he did in the Preakness.  He could and did bounce and win the Preakness, he doesn\'t have that luxury in the Belmont given a) the slower Preakness figs and b) the relatively faster competition that he will face in the Belmont, as per TGs.

am I missing any cons?

[P-Dub]

covelj70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cons
>
> 1) The huge number in the Derby caused a reaction
> in the Preakness.  We can debate how much of a
> reaction (i.e would he have gotten a 2 negative,
> etc had he been asked) but he reacted anyway you
> cut it.  The preakness just wasn\'t that fast of a
> race on any figure numbers, TG\'s, beyers, etc.
> even if you adjust for the \"he wasn\'t asked
> factor\" he didn\'t run anywhere near as well in the
> preakness as he did in the Derby.

Wasn\'t that fast?? He ran a negative number.  Thats pretty fast.

 
> 2) He will be running his 3rd race in five weeks

Fair enough.
 
> 3) According to previous posts, no horse than ran
> a negative number in the Derby has won the
> Belmont

Extremely small sample.  How many have run negative numbers in the Derby?? Horses are running faster, this may not be as relevant as you hope it to be.

 
> 4) According to previous posts, 5 out of the 8
> horses that went backwards in the Preakness after
> making a new top in the Derby continued to move
> backward in the Belmont, including 2 that didn\'t
> finish the race.

Of the 5 that went backwards:
2 DNF due to injury
1 had a poor break that severely compromised his chances (War Pass - a need the lead horse)
1 had a 2 pt regression (Hard Spun)
1 had a 1 pt regression (Sea Hero)

So if he doesn\'t get hurt or break poorly, he can regress slightly and still win.
>
> 5) If we take his Preakness number at face value,
> then he doesn\'t have alot of room to move back any
> further and win the race like he did in the
> Preakness.  He could and did bounce and win the
> Preakness, he doesn\'t have that luxury in the
> Belmont given a) the slower Preakness figs and b)
> the relatively faster competition that he will
> face in the Belmont, as per TGs.

Which horses will run a 0 at the minimum and possibly a negative number?? Haven\'t seen numbers for Belmont starters,  but I would guess very few.
>
> am I missing any cons?

[covelj70]

P Dub, thanks for the responses.  Much appreciated.

On the point about not running fast in the PReakness, it was not RELATIVELY fast compared to how he ran in the Derby.  He was obviously fast in an absolutle sense.

On the point about the other Belmont starters, Dennis of Cork, Tale of Ekati, and Casino Drive and Macho Again all have 0\'s to run back to.  Now, much has been said on the board about the likelihood that any of them will run back to that number but as a point of fact, they all have numbers to run back to that would beat BB IF (and I say again IF) he takes another step backward in the Belmont.

Thanks again.

[P-Dub]

Cov,

DOC and TOE would be the logical ones to beat him (off the top of my head). I think CD will be around 4-1 and regarding Macho Again....aren\'t we asking him to do pretty much what we are asking BB to do??  He ran big in the Derby Trial, 3 weeks later another big race in the Preakness, another 3 weeks to the Belmont.  

I\'m all for beating 1/5 shots, and I like the fact you\'re looking for reasons to beat him. If you can beat him, the challenge is constructing a wager.

-Do you completely toss him??
-Key him underneath with logical contenders
-Where do you use the all button? (Yes Clown, the all button can be used)

If he hits the board, what payoff will you get?? The PK 3/4 will pay huge if he doesn\'t win.  Those may be the pools to go after if tris and supers get too costly to construct a ticket with a genuine chance to win, and not be underlayed if BB finishes top 3.

Interesting post, good luck...