Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Valuist
When a similar situation arises in the future and a lightly raced horse is 3-2 off a giant fig earned in the slop and is back on a dry track, I will try to beat them, too.
|
This is also a tough call when it's the other way around and you aren't sure whether to excuse a bad race on a wet track.
IMHO, the best approach is to not have any rules and to instead just try to decipher the situation.
This was the evidence.
1. He won as a FTS on a fast track in a race that was probably a little better than it looked on speed figures.
2. He had a monster work between his first start and second start suggesting that he might move forward (I played him in his second start off that ). I can't recall where I read about the work, but I think the phrase "really turned a lot of heads" was used.
3. The horses coming out of the race more or less confirmed that he had run really well that day on the slop
4. It looked like he was bred to love a wet track.
5. Metz typically doesn't have them totally wound up as either FTS or for sprints (though he won with a few FTS lately).
I suspect that if you looked at a thousand lightly raced horses that won on the mud like this, the preponderance of evidence suggests that this horse would turn out to be mud loving fool WAY LESS OFTEN than is typically the case. Plus I'm not even sure how huge of a negative it is normally even though it's a risk.
I'm not smart enough to know what the fair price was. I just didn't see any compelling reason to bet on him or against him. That's just me though. I am sort of philosophically against the idea of betting against favorites that I think deserve to be the favorite except in clear cut situations. Betting against deserving favorites is mathematically an extremely difficult way to play the game. But that's a different story. Perhaps you found good value against him.
