Dear California Chrome,

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I think the real problem is Game on Dude got old. When he was younger he handled speed duels.

Exactly, think SRU must get those PPs that only go back 8 lines or so.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I wonder how many people lost money betting against Zenyatta with this sort of argument.

A lot. But for every Zenyatta, there are plenty who show that promise early on and never pan out....usually getting beat at very short odds as the beginning of their dropoff.

There's only one Z.

[TheEdge07]

Originally Posted by cj

Exactly, think SRU must get those PPs that only go back 8 lines or so.

Cj,,those PPs are down on big days...

[Smarty Cide]

Originally Posted by Rex Phinney

Let's be honest you don't like Shared Belief because you think California Chrome is the second coming of Man O War.

Jim Rome has had several chances to take a shot at the CC connections and remind them that his horse is undefeated and never got a chance in the TC. He hasn't done that. He has kept his comments to his horse only, he has nothing but praise for CC even today on his show. Nof sour grapes about having to miss the TC after his horse was top dog at one point.

That being said, getting back to the point of this thread. Shared belief showed me yesterday he can be very tactical. Couple that with Mike Smith on his back and the stars could be aligning.

na i hated jim rome long before he ever owned a horse...

[timp]

thank you was driving me nuts

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

A lot. But for every Zenyatta, there are plenty who show that promise early on and never pan out....usually getting beat at very short odds as the beginning of their dropoff.

I'm not sure that's such a great betting strategy though. You have to have the right horse, in the right race, at the right odds.

For instance, look at Seattle Slew. There were lots of wiseguys who were saying he would eventually lose. For the Moment was going to beat him the Derby. Cormorant was going to beat him the Preakness. Sanhedrin was going to beat him in the Belmont.

He finally, of course, did lose, on July 3, 1977. To JO Tobin. Who paid 5 to 2.

You can't just blindly say "he's bound to lose". They do all lose eventually. I agree with that. But you still have to pick your spots and you still have to demand value.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Every once in awhile a horse comes long that teaches you a handicapping lesson that becomes a permanent part of your understanding of the game. Creme was one of those for me.

Was Zenyatta another?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I'm not sure that's such a great betting strategy though. You have to have the right horse, in the right race, at the right odds.

For instance, look at Seattle Slew. There were lots of wiseguys who were saying he would eventually lose. For the Moment was going to beat him the Derby. Cormorant was going to beat him the Preakness. Sanhedrin was going to beat him in the Belmont.

He finally, of course, did lose, on July 3, 1977. To JO Tobin. Who paid 5 to 2.

You can't just blindly say "he's bound to lose". They do all lose eventually. I agree with that. But you still have to pick your spots and you still have to demand value.

No doubt.

This makes a ton of sense. There are certain things i look for to point me in the direction to betting against short priced horses and a lot of that betting against stuff has to do with the situation as much as the horse, but there are certain things i look for on tape that might lead me to want to 'try and beat' a hyped up horse.

If the humans "Screw up" and enter the horse in the wrong spot, or enter on the wrong day, or don't use a jockey i think fits the horse or something else that's within the control of the humans and they make a mistake (that i think they made), i might bet against a horse that i otherwise love.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

No doubt.

This makes a ton of sense. There are certain things i look for to point me in the direction to betting against short priced horses and a lot of that betting against stuff has to do with the situation as much as the horse, but there are certain things i look for on tape that might lead me to want to 'try and beat' a hyped up horse.

If the humans "Screw up" and enter the horse in the wrong spot, or enter on the wrong day, or don't use a jockey i think fits the horse or something else that's within the control of the humans and they make a mistake (that i think they made), i might bet against a horse that i otherwise love.

Taking a stand against a hyped-up horse is one thing. Collecting when this hyped-up horse loses is something else altogether.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Taking a stand against a hyped-up horse is one thing. Collecting when this hyped-up horse loses is something else altogether.

That's the trick.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Taking a stand against a hyped-up horse is one thing. Collecting when this hyped-up horse loses is something else altogether.

I'm starting to wonder how wise it is to take a stand against horses I think are the most likely winner even when I think they might be over bet. I seem to be tearing up a lot of tickets that way lately.

In the Pacific Classic, I didn't like GOD because the import was known to be a big speed horse and GOD has a lost a couple of steps. I liked Shared Belief best, but thought he was very over bet stepping way up in class and trying 10F for the first time. So I settled on Toast of NY as the value. So basically my opinion was perfect and somehow I manged to tear up my ticket.

I think it might make more sense to try to beat false favorites instead of legitimate favorites that seem overbet. I'm going to wait until I have a reason to dislike Shared Belief before I try to beat him again.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I wonder how many people lost money betting against Zenyatta with this sort of argument.

People lose money all the time in all kinds of races betting against underlays...but that doesn't mean it's the wrong strategy.

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

People lose money all the time in all kinds of races betting against underlays...but that doesn't mean it's the wrong strategy.

Very true, but some people assume a short price is an underlay when that's not always the case. Zenyatta on synthetic tracks vs. females had to either be sick or injure herself to lose. Her adjusted final 5/16ths were consistently better than males The slower the early pace the better. The only race run in socal where her final 5/16 or 3/8ths was sub par was a race at Hollywood with a blistering pace, where she may have moved prematurely.

[PaceAdvantage]

I wasn't arguing that I thought Zenyatta was an underlay in her races against over-matched fillies. However, that doesn't mean that someone else with a different handicapping mentality (and a winning method...a very important component), COULD have thought she was an underlay in some of those races, still lost, and still be betting the correct strategy.

[GaryG]

I fell into that trap with John Henry. He was always such an underlay with all of the publicity surrounding him. I made a large bet on Perrault in the Big Cap, thought I had him beat at 4-1 but then came the DQ. I did beat him at around 13-1 with Zalataia but that did not make up for all of the others. Looking forward to the BC match if it comes off. I will be solidly behind Shared Belief all things being equal.