Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
I think my posts before the BC are pretty clear.
1. I thought "the wise guys" were underestimating Princess Noor's chances of jumping up a lot (she did not), but I was going to play against her anyway at the price because of the large figure gap.
|
In other words, other people who played against Princess Noor were wrong in their reasoning (the large figure gap) but you were right in playing against Princess Noor (because of the large figure gap).
That's a contrarian who's come full circle.
Quote:
In the same way I thought the "wise guys" were underestimating the probability of PN jumping up a lot in the Juvenile (and I still do even though she did not), I think they are still underestimating her ability to get a lot better now. It's not a YES or NO answer. It's a probability problem that's part of deciding whether to make a bet.
I can't even tell you what the probability is. But when people that bet against her in BC are acting like it was a foregone conclusion that she had little chance going into the BC because she was slower, I disagree.
Those are the same people that whine whenever a slower Baffert or Cox horse jumps up to beat them at a decent price instead of building it into their odds line properly and maybe using some of them.
|
Again, you are cutting things too fine and yet your own assertions are built on a rickety foundation.
Just because other people dismissed Princess Noor definitively before the race doesn't mean they did not consider it a "probability" problem. What if in their view her probability to improve A LOT was 1 out of 1000? Really the difference between the "wise guys" and your own analysis is that the former were able to make a concrete decision whereas you remained indecisive.
So if you're estimate of the probability of Princess Noor jumping up 15-20 points in a single start in her toughest assignment to date was higher than everyone else's, what was the evidence to back it up?
You mentioned that being trained by Bob Baffert or Brad Cox and/or being gushed about by Bob Baffert somehow supports the rather fantastic notion she would improve several lengths. Who are these mythical creatures that have made such jumps in major races? And how do you discern which horses Baffert is really gushing about if he talks up every single horse (as most trainers would)? Cherry-picking a Triple Crown winner and a temporary superhorse using hindsight doesn't cut it.
In the end, you don't believe any of that stuff yourself because you didn't back her in the race.
Vekoma was scratched by the way.
Quote:
|
If PN loses her next start, Baffert makes up an excuse, and retires her, I will still disagree about the probabilities.
|
This thread reminds me of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia:
