NYC:
As the self annointed serial poster emeritus, I note with alarm that half or more
than half of the last ten posts belong to you. I guess being a professional
horseplayer affords you a lot of leisure time. May I also note that responding to
your own post should only be done when making a correction, withdrawal or apology.
Responding to one\'s own post when said post chose a short priced winner (I agreed
with your analysis there as to who the most likely winner was, by the way) is a
bit overbearing.
While I am in a critical mode, let me point out that if I see the words \"show
wager\" in any post, I am inclined to move along. I can honestly say that in the
last 35 years or so, my only show wagers have been in races with huge fields, and
that these wagers have been recreational. My personal opinion, but I do not think
that much conversation will arise over the nuances of wagering in the show spot.
Just a non scientific observation.
I kind of look at show wagering as being akin to riding a Moped and undertaking
another activity which I will not mention in an attempt to remain politically
correct.
Having presented a rather long and rambling preface, as I am wont to do, let me
respond to your comment regarding purses at Fair Grounds. First of all I learned
long ago that there is usually no upside in disagreeing with my Tar- heeled Jesuit
friend, Don Antonio. Secondly, you are certainly aware that Fair Grounds is owned
by Churchill Downs. Churchill Downs also owns Calder, Arlington and oh yeah
Churchill Downs, and that purses are likely to be chopped at all of these
facilities at one point or another.
As NCT stated so succinctly: Lower purses = shorter fields = fewer wagering
opportunities. If I was a \"professional horseplayer\" rather than a contented
weekend warrior, this would be of great concern to me, and has absolutely nothing
to do with how colts who prepped at FG have historically fared in the Derby.
Further affiant saith naught.
