i am sick of Tacitus
 

How much money has that horse burned?

Luckily, we have this thing called betting where you can cash in against him. :)

There was no way I'd play so soon after the ship to the Mideast.

Yup, I said in the other thread. Don’t bet him til he wins one. Then he’s the chalk vs a horse that rarely loses . Go figure :lol:.
Yay Tacitus..... I’m not sick of you. Just what I thought .

I've never wagered Tacitus to win anything. But he shows up, he races, he runs. That's a lot more than you can say about so many other horses, who are whisked away to the breeding shed before they've run 6 career races. He's often good for ITM on an exotics ticket but not today.
So, you're sick of him entering races and running for our entertainment, I guess I don't get it.

I agree Clicknow but betting him is a whole different matter. I’m 2 Mint Julep in now and well whatever. Tacitus seems like I’ve been making money off of him since Dust Commander was a yearling

Objective race analysis is seemingly gone nowadays. If it wasn’t, it would be clear Tacitus actually ran relatively well today. The pace was exceptionally soft in the OP Handicap. It was over a half second slower to the half than the 2nd div of the Ark Derby and nearly a second slower to the half than the 1st division. The 1-2 finishers largely dominated the race on the front end.

Tacitus made, albeit an unthreatening one, the only real off the pace move in the race. He also did this off a 90+ day layoff which included a pit stop in Dubai after racing in Saudi.

Tacitus is a good, but unlucky horse. He also finds himself at the mercy of the race flow too frequently. There’s a major race out there with his name on it in my opinion.

I know, dont get it, love horses who take a ton of money and never win. Isnt that the ideal for a bettor?

I am sure there is, his style is exactly what you want though in terms of horses that are a complete tease.

I would argue he is kind of run of the mill for a grade 1 horse, as you said there is a race that he will probably win with the right trip and setup, but I would argue it wont validate him much more than just the average good horse.

He's had a few races that were better than they looked, but as a result he also developed a reputation that exceeds his actual ability at this stage.

When he's off the pace he has an excuse.

When he's on the pace he has an excuse.

When he's inside he has an excuse.

When he's outside he has an excuse.

When he has no excuse somehow he still has an excuse (and there were a couple of those too).

I didn't cash on the race, but a chance to bet against him was the reason I was in the race. I primarily used Mr Freeze and saved a little with Tax, but imo both the winner and 2nd horse were also both usable.

He'll probably eventually get a perfect trip against a weak group, but he's not going to beat legitimate Grade 1 older horses without getting quite a bit better. He's simply not that good right now despite the rep.

Tacitus always has an excuse.

And at some point, horses that always have an excuse need to be treated as chronic losers and dropped in class.

VIRTUAL SUCKER BET STAKES – 9 FURLONGS DIRT

1) BROTHER DEREK
2) CHAMPS ELYSEES (GB)
3) CHESTER HOUSE
4) DOLLAR BILL
5) GIACOMO
6) GOLDEN MISSILE
7) IRISH WAR CRY
8) KEEN ICE
9) KISSIN KRIS
10) MR. COMMONS
11) PAVEL
12) PUERTO MADERO (CHI)
13) SETSUKO
14) TACITUS
AE
15) POLITICAL FORCE
16) MUBTAAHIJ (IRE)

I often think about the qualities that make certain horses "sucker bets".

Thy are typically horses that got over hyped in the media, overhyped by big name handicappers, or that won a prestigious race that happened to be very weak, but they also seem to lack something as racehorses.

To me it seems like an inability to overcome any real pressure or adversity and still finish well enough at the end to win at their current class level.

To win, you usually have to make a serious move into contention and sustain the run or engage and battle early. If you repeatedly come up empty late when you do that, it usually means you need a drop in class where the demands to get into contention are likely to be lower and you'll have a little more in the tank for the last 1/16th or 1/8th. Most of these horses run a lot of good races. They just can't get the job done without a drop because they lack the reserve racing energy do what it takes to win.

That's a pretty good field full of burnt cash. I'm glad you got Dollar Bill in there. It was in his era that I joined the internet community and could follow racing more closely than in the prior few years, and was immediately stunned at the level of fandom bestowed upon him. Hence, he has been my benchmark for this kind of "honor" ever since.

The only time I ever actually bet Tacitus was the derby. Was only a win bet but knew he wouldn't win the race because either Improbable or Maximum Security was going to win.

I should have done a tri since I had Tacitus and my mom had Code of Honour. Would have been a nice $11,475.30 for a $1 ($5,737.65 for 0.50 cents)

Nice list. On the outside looking in may up and comer Farmington Road! He has got me three times in a row!

This is pretty good.

Some of these horses though never burned that much money as they were hardly favored.

Giacomo was only favored in 2 lifetime races, and after the Derby win he was never favored in the next 8 races. most the time going of >4/1. Pavel while garnering favoritism a few times has hardly been the folly of punters. Chester House is another that I dont recall taking to much money in his events.

Compare that to Tacitus who has been favored 6 times with 2 wins. I would say even that is not too bad.

I think McKinzie has burned a lot more money that many of these, despite a few strong performances.

Improbable is getting close too. He’s a Money burner specialist. Wish he would of ran yesterday too. By My Standards might of been 6-1. For me, it’s not just the record , it’s the “ tout” factor and excuses after the fact

yup, big time. Gate trouble, erratic mentally.

Tacitus has burned a whole bunch of money even in races where he wasn't favored. He almost always seems to take a lot of action.

I think rather than be critical of the horse its a better point that horses with his style are almost always bad bets and backing them require the odds to justify the chance the backer is taking.

I didn't use favoritism as the only criteria. Odds around 5-1 and/or inflated reputation was what I used.

2 wins in 9 starts at 5-1 or less.

1 win in 5 starts at 5-1or less. People were predicting ridiculous things when he ran 4th in the Jim Dandy (5-horse field) in his 2nd career start. Connections did him in as they have countless other horses.

4 wins in 14 starts at 5-1 or less. Favored in 9 of 21 career starts (3 wins).

2 wins in 7 races at 5-1 or less.

6 wins in 12 starts as favorite. One of those he was DQ'd, another he was put up on a DQ. One of those he received one of the worst rides of the decade in the Met Mile.

7 wins in 14 starts at 5-1 or less.

When tracks reopen, I have a vision of you jumping the rail, kicking poor Tacitus in one of his four shins, then sprinting away, figuring he'll hang in the stretch while trying to catch you...

whats this 5/1 criteria, thats a horse with an average chance of winning. How do you burn money with an average chance of winning?

I think of money burners at no worse than 5/2 ish.

several of those horses no one thought was any good, giacomo, pavel, setsuko?? those horses were often double digit favorites in many grade 1's, though you are probably right there is inflated opinions of horses who never did all that much.

Let's call them chronic underlays then...

Pavel had talent, no doubt about it. People with good opinions were touting him after his maiden win. His connections ruined him.

Setsuko, with 3 grade 1 placings, was often bet despite being eligible for allowance conditions. People were hoping he'd draw into the 2010 Kentucky Derby off his suck-up 2nd in the Santa Anita Derby. People thought he was robbed in the 2011 Big Cap won by Game On Dude. Classic sucker horse.

Ken Rudolph ranted and raved about Giacomo on TVG every chance he got. The horse was bet in several starts post-Derby despite never getting closer than 5-lengths to the winner in any of those races save the San Diego against some Grade 3-types.

It's almost always what I said.

If some horse wins a very fast maiden race the articles and Twitter hype will begin almost immediately even if it was an abbreviated sprint, the horse was loose in a moderate pace in a weak field, the track was sloppy, there was a bias (that they may not have noticed) etc..

If some horse wins a very weak edition of a major stake (especially with a bit of a tough trip) the articles and Twitter hype will begin immediately.

It seems like once the hype starts, new evidence doesn't sway the public as quickly as it should. Sometimes the new evidence suggests the horse is not as good as it appeared, but people don't let go easily.

For me, betting against those horses is one of the best chances I'm going to get to find a legitimate overlay. I know once all the wise guys or general public starts falling in love with some horse, it's going to be hard for them to let go. They'll spin more excuses rather than admit to themselves that maybe they were initially wrong. It happens to me too. I was originally on the Tacitus train, but when the facts started changing I eventually got off.

It's not that I think Tacitus is bad. I think he's pretty good and has time to get better. He just eventually got overrated because he had a few less than ideal trips. People started assuming he would have won all those races with a fair trip and was actually very very good but unlucky. But they were disregarding the fact that very very good horses tend to be able to overcome biases, mildly bad trips, a bad pace setup etc... a lot of the time. That's what makes them very very good. They have the reserve energy to get the job done anyway. They also rarely throw in a clunker with a decent trip like he has.

I am good with that!

Giacomo was a grade 3 type, grade 3 types can win grade 1's in the right scenarios. Giacomo would have been a nice horse to own, beyond the Ky Derby and all, he collected paychecks at a pretty good clip in big races.

Looking back on it you wonder how good that third place effort of Pavel really was in his second start, the horses in that race were ok. I think that race is what really elevated the opinion of him.

I do remember Setsucko a little, mostly with it being that he was not very good. I think I bet against him many times.

Hofburg, anyone?

Juddmonte already had 3 other entrants in the Virtual Sucker Bet race.

Kidding aside, Hofburg has been favored 3 times and won 2 of those. He's only been shorter than 5-1 in two other races. He is closing in on Setsuko status, though...especially if they end up gelding him.

I feel like Hofburg was flavor of the week for a very brief spell but never had the support that many on this list did.

And to be fair to this list, this is nitpicking very good horses. I know a few maidens that went 7 or 8 races taking alot of money while they searched for that illusive victory.

Great list! I am still waiting for Kissin Kris...

If Tacitus doesn't break out today against a Grade 2 field at 10F at Belmont with enough speed in the race to keep the pace honest, even the true believers will have to concede he was just another one of those promising 3yos that never developed and eventually was passed up by a lot of horses.

He feels like this is an overwhelming opportunity to get a win. Even with the scratch of Jovia there should be plenty of pace, 10F in a small field should be enough to work out a trip.

You are responding to a completely disingenuous post. He and Mr. Buff are about equally likely to win today and that's pretty obvious to everyone.

Just more BS regarding Tacitus.

IMO, this is what he needed.

He never really broke out the way you'd hope a lightly raced Wood Memorial winner should eventually. He's been a high 90s and low 100 Beyer horse for a long time. That gets you some wins and a piece of some major races early in your 3yo season, but it's not going to get many Grade 1 wins as the other 3yos start breaking out and you eventually have to face older.

At the Grade 2 level the easier competition should make for an easier trip. A low 100 figure could get the job done even if still doesn't break out.

It's not that's he a bad horse. He's a good horse. It's that his reputation and hype have exceeded what he was doing on the track. Very good horses overcome some of the less than ideal trips. Pretty good horses run 2nd, 3rd, or 4th with an excuse. They've been betting him like he's a very good horse, but so far he's just been pretty good. Here's one more chance to break out and hit a big new top, but he's running out of chances.

Andy,

My Buff is a very nice horse.

He's a way above average statebred stakes horse. But no one would confuse him with high level Grade 1 horse at this point. The reason he has a chance against Tacitus is that this a Grade 2 event and because Tacitus is not a legitimate Grade 1 horse at this stage either.

Get it?

That's the point of contention.

The Tacitus fans (and I was one early on) keep making him out to be a very good Grade 1 horse who has just had some bad luck. The problem is that he hasn't developed much and still hasn't broken out to the Grade 1 level. At some point you have to look at reality. He was precocious at 3 winning the Wood, had a few tough trips, but so far he's still not a Grade 1 horse. He just gets bet and hyped like one by some people. That's why he's been such a big money burner (taking some of my money with him early on).

It's not too late for him to break out. Today may be the day. But if he loses this Grade 2, he's simply not the horse people were hoping he could become a year ago. That's all. And if you were honest with yourself you'd admit that rather than arguing with reality because you like the horse.