CJ, in most cases I would agree with you about closers, but in this case I think Z was the best horse. I agree with Mike Smith that he did not give her the best chance of winning. The only objective way I know of proving my point that Z was the best horse is showing that Z was decelerating at slower rate at the wire than Blame. Smith almost got the win. If Z would have nipped Blame by a nose at the wire rather than losing by 1/2 a head we might not be having this conversation.
As to her being an overbet favorite, that is a matter of opinion. That's why they put them on the track.
She won the BC Classic last year. She almost won this year. She won 19 in a row. She deserves to be called a champion.
I didn't bet the race and I probably would not have bet her at short odds. I don't think the risk of betting her justified the potential reward. However, I look at it from a purely financial point of view.
Others don't mind taking the risk because holding a winning ticket on a champion like Zenyatta trumps the risk. For many people, value is not measured in dollars.
The one thing I like about big racings days with big name horses is that a lot of people make a popular horse a sentimental favorite. I think a lot of $2 bettors made Zenyatta the sentimental favorite. For these sentimental ticket holders, seeing her lose was much more painful than the $2 win bet they lost.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cj
The only point I'm trying to make is this. If you keep thinking closers that don't quite get up after a very fast pace and a pretty clean trip were best, or even worse should be bet back, you are really making a Stretch Armstrong type reach. I think you know this as well. If the horse in question was named anything but Zenyatta, we'd all just say she had a perfect setup and didn't get it done. She was just another overbet favorite.
|
