Quote:
Originally Posted by MONEY
An 18 race losing streak is like only 5 days.
I believe that in the last 5 days at Saratoga all of Brown's runners earned a check, even though they failed to win.
Brown will be O.K.
The people that keep betting him or other big name trainers down to odds on are destined to lose.
|
I'm sure that some of the 23 or 21 were disappointing, but a bunch of these were not standouts or had trips against pace dynamics (or both).
I didn't capitalize, but Brown having a bunch of underlays lose is kind of horseplayer friendly, if anything. For the most part these were horses you didn't even have to use in multis. Sistercharlie is the one 'reluctant include' that my awful memory can even recall(which means nothing factually,
).
With actual 'move up' trainers you are forced to reluctantly include their underlay, even when you don't feel they are the best horse.
With Chad via my vague recollection, there were several ml favs/co-favs/top-3orso?/helpmeouthere types which you could just toss if you saw value elsewhere. The public was going to bet down the Chad Brown in those races, but you weren't afraid of the horse defying their ability and flaws and form to overachieve.
Maybe Sistercharlie you took the underlay as a 'free square', and then you tipped your hat and took the loss like a boss. It happens, and a nice rival got brave on a speed-favoring setup.
Drib is entitled to having a really bad opinion.
But it's such a lazy, baseless accusation, that feels like 'sour grapes' from a lazy horseplayer who played a bunch of the recent underlays.
I could be wrong about that. I'm sure there's a bunch of horseplayers who assume that any high percentage barn gets their advantage from 'juicing'. I'm sure Drib is not the first to hurl the accusation at Chad Brown.
Like I said in an earlier post, Brown has so much systemic and quality-based competitive advantage, that even if you work out theories about 'juicing' and 'dry spells', that his success would continue in your imaginary scenarios, regardless...
