i am sick of Tacitus

[1GCFAN]

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

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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)

This is pretty good.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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)

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.

[burnsy]

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

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by burnsy

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.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

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.

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.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

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.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

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

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

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.

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

Pavel while garnering favoritism a few times has hardly been the folly of punters.

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.

Chester House is another that I dont recall taking to much money in his events.

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

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

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

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

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.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

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.

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...

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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.

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.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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.

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.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

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.

Let's call them chronic underlays then...

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

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.

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.

[classhandicapper]

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.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

Let's call them chronic underlays then...

I am good with that!