Orb checklist. Humbling game?

[Stillriledup]

1) Last race visually impressive. Check.

2) Elite Jockey. Check.

3) Hall of fame trainer. Check.

4) Looked very nice in the post parade. Check.

5) Last workout looked as good as his previous works. Check.

6) All systems were go. Check.

Ok, now, i could see him not winning....but to be embarrassed and totally off the board without even a whimper? Was THAT predictable?

I know, all the geniuses will come out and say they 'knew' Orb was no good yada yada yada, but to see him not even close to hitting the board?

To me, that makes me question all my lines of thinking about this game. When i watch replays, what am i really looking for? Am i looking to throw out horses who look great on tape and just assume they can't duplicate that effort?

Logic says you want to watch a replay and look for strength, power, horses who are full of run and horses who maybe have more run than the PP lines show and try and get them to win today. Im not sure, maybe when we (you) watch replays, we're looking for something else.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm just surprised nobody is claiming Shug wasn't allowed to use his "good ol' Kentucky boy" juice in Maryland...or some other nonsense like that...

In fact, wouldn't you be the type to claim this?

[BlueChip@DRF]

U.S. bred winning five in a row at two-turns going for six at this day and age?

[RXB]

Pace might not make the race but it can sure influence it.

[pandy]

I didn't like Orb and knocked him several times on this board. Steve Haskin had one of his typically excellent columns on the Preakness. In the article he used the word "brilliance." But he didn't use that word in association with Orb. This is what it was all about. Orb is a good horse but he is not that fast. He has never run that fast even in incremental time, which is very important. If you can't run one fast quarter, how great can you be?

This is an ordinary group of colts, and I expect that the Belmont will be won by someone other than Orb or Oxbow. The horses that have "brilliance" can't get the distance. Itsmyluckyday has that brilliant speed, but he does not want long distances.

And by the way, don't give me any "well Zenyatta didn't run that fast," because incrementally she was extremely fast if you understand that it's much tougher to run fast late than early and final time is relative to the pace of the race. This is basic pace handicapping. I was skeptical of Orb's 104 Beyer because it was obviously aided by the hot pace. I felt that he is really a 97 (like he ran in his two prior starts), and that isn't fast.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by pandy

I didn't like Orb and knocked him several times on this board. Steve Haskin had one of his typically excellent columns on the Preakness. In the article he used the word "brilliance." But he didn't use that word in association with Orb. This is what it was all about. Orb is a good horse but he is not that fast. He has never run that fast even in incremental time, which is very important. If you can't run one fast quarter, how great can you be?

This is an ordinary group of colts, and I expect that the Belmont will be won by someone other than Orb or Oxbow. The horses that have "brilliance" can't get the distance. Itsmyluckyday has that brilliant speed, but he does not want long distances.

And by the way, don't give me any "well Zenyatta didn't run that fast," because incrementally she was extremely fast if you understand that it's much tougher to run fast late than early and final time is relative to the pace of the race. This is basic pace handicapping. I was skeptical of Orb's 104 Beyer because it was obviously aided by the hot pace. I felt that he is really a 97 (like he ran in his two prior starts), and that isn't fast.

sharp post.

I also don't believe Oxbow is likely to win the Belmont. Hell, he may not even race in it. Even Stevens said that he was staggering a little in the final 1/16th in a slow race today. Seems unlikely that would improve with another 3/16th added in just 3 weeks and with a couple fresh horses in the race.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

1) Last race visually impressive. Check.

2) Elite Jockey. Check.

3) Hall of fame trainer. Check.

4) Looked very nice in the post parade. Check.

5) Last workout looked as good as his previous works. Check.

6) All systems were go. Check.

Ok, now, i could see him not winning....but to be embarrassed and totally off the board without even a whimper? Was THAT predictable?

I know, all the geniuses will come out and say they 'knew' Orb was no good yada yada yada, but to see him not even close to hitting the board?

To me, that makes me question all my lines of thinking about this game. When i watch replays, what am i really looking for? Am i looking to throw out horses who look great on tape and just assume they can't duplicate that effort?

Logic says you want to watch a replay and look for strength, power, horses who are full of run and horses who maybe have more run than the PP lines show and try and get them to win today. Im not sure, maybe when we (you) watch replays, we're looking for something else.

No matter how we view this game, and what method of handicapping we've chosen...we are guaranteed to lose many more times than we can win in this game. And we lose as often as we do because these races are not run "on paper"...and this game is not as "predictable" as we would like it to be. That's why the thoughtful player demands a certain price before he puts his money at risk.

To the players who lost by betting on any horse other than Orb in this race...this was just another loss and nothing more.

But those who wagered on Orb at odds of 3/5 have some thinking to do.

You don't have a chance in this game if you believe in "sure things"...

[Shemp Howard]

Orb reminds me of Swale in 1984.

I bet my lungs at Big Sandy then and I may do the same this year.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I'm just surprised nobody is claiming Shug wasn't allowed to use his "good ol' Kentucky boy" juice in Maryland...or some other nonsense like that...

In fact, wouldn't you be the type to claim this?

Um, you must have me confused with someone else.

[Tom]

6) All systems were go. Check.

7) A flesh and blood horse - not a machine

8) 3-5

[JJMartin]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

No matter how we view this game, and what method of handicapping we've chosen...we are guaranteed to lose many more times than we can win in this game. And we lose as often as we do because these races are not run "on paper"...and this game is not as "predictable" as we would like it to be. That's why the thoughtful player demands a certain price before he puts his money at risk.

To the players who lost by betting on any horse other than Orb in this race...this was just another loss and nothing more.

But those who wagered on Orb at odds of 3/5 have some thinking to do.

You don't have a chance in this game if you believe in "sure things"...

All correct

[pondman]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

4) Looked very nice in the post parade. Check.

5) Last workout looked as good as his previous works. Check.
.

Says who? Orb was Peggy, wasn't reaching while walking. Look stiff in the rear. So did Goldencents. Oxbow was on his toes so he looked good for a break.

Works? The rider put to much into him. They knew it.
He recovers like his grandfather. He'll be right about time for the BC.

The only surprise in the race was Itmyluckyday. Thought the Monmouth work was odd. Didn't put him in anything.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by Tom

7) A flesh and blood horse - not a machine

8) 3-5

I agree with you, but would amplify your first point to "a flesh-and-blood late-running horse". That especially (in my view) is what combined with the odds (as you noted) to make Orb an unacceptable risk in this specific race.

[nijinski]

Blame it on the Maserati sponsorship .

[BlueChip@DRF]

When one horse just looks too good.... Is it just "too good" to be true? I mean, one horse was getting all the love that the rest of the field was pretty much being neglected.

It's like zooming in on your favorite horse and not caring to give the rest of the field (or even the race conditions) much of a glance.