Last time was the time to have him...

[Mc990]

Very surprised to see Exaggerator hovering around even money in the offshore odds. Yes, the horse won the Preakness impressively but circumstances certainly favored him that day (this coming from someone who bet out on him). I hardly see the same scenario here... In fact, I don't think this horse wants any part of 12 furlongs. Break down his internal fractions and you're looking at a horse who's wheelhouse is probably a flat mile.

It's not like this is a weak field lining up to face him either. There are a couple well rested, fast ones who've been waiting in the wings. Throw in the fact that he is 3rd race in 5 weeks, Desormeaux is very much an unknown at this point and he may not get his preferred off track and to me he is the worst kind of favorite.

I'd be curious if others see it differently... Maybe he doesn't take as much money in the more sophisticated pools but he certainly has the look of a massive underlay in the win pool.

[Robert Fischer]

He's gonna be lower value than Stradivari, but he's also a much more likely winner.

If this is a small bet as part of a long-term strategy, great.

But as a fairly big random play, because it's the Belmont, you have to use him.

[TheGarMan]

I tend to agree with the OP.

I also had Exaggerator in The Preakness , and I just love the horse, but this time, I will look hard to find others...

Maybe I am overlooking the obvious, but I am going to take some of that Preakness money that he made me and go looking.

Gar

[tanner12oz]

I dont think he is playable in the Belmont..will use a couple others

[beefas]

Exaggerator and Cherry wine repeat!, $100 exacta!

[Redboard]

Betting the favorite in this race borders on insanity. I’m sure most of you read this history of the Belmont Stakes over the last 25years that Bloodhorse had on their site last week:

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...stakes-history

Here are three bullets from that article that interest me.
1- “The median odds of the winner over the same stretch is 5.80-1.”
2-“Five favorites have won in the last 25 years.” Belmont favorites win at a 20% clip which is below the general average.
3-“Six horses from 1991 to 2015 went off at even-money odds or less. Only American Pharoah prevailed.” We all know what happen with American Pharoah . He wired the field with virtually no one pressuring him on the lead. That’s not going to happen on Saturday with Exaggerator.

Fair odds on Exagerrator would be around 5-1, IMO, which isn’t going to happen.

[bobphilo]

Race specific handicapping flies in the face of all true statistical analysis. Current runnings yield too small a sample to be significant and if you go back too many years you get an out of date sample.
I prefer to look at who is actually running this time. Exaggerator has the speed figures and pedigree to beat these and is versatile enough to adapt to any pace scenario.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by TheGarMan

I tend to agree with the OP.

I also had Exaggerator in The Preakness , and I just love the horse, but this time, I will look hard to find others...

Maybe I am overlooking the obvious, but I am going to take some of that Preakness money that he made me and go looking.

Gar

If you have to look hard to like a horse perhaps you shouldn't bet it.

[PhantomOnTour]

Originally Posted by Redboard

Betting the favorite in this race borders on insanity. I’m sure most of you read this history of the Belmont Stakes over the last 25years that Bloodhorse had on their site last week:

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...stakes-history

Here are three bullets from that article that interest me.
1- “The median odds of the winner over the same stretch is 5.80-1.”
2-“Five favorites have won in the last 25 years.” Belmont favorites win at a 20% clip which is below the general average.
3-“Six horses from 1991 to 2015 went off at even-money odds or less. Only American Pharoah prevailed.” We all know what happen with American Pharoah . He wired the field with virtually no one pressuring him on the lead. That’s not going to happen on Saturday with Exaggerator.

Fair odds on Exagerrator would be around 5-1, IMO, which isn’t going to happen.

Without the stats in front of me I'm going to guess that all six were going for the Triple Crown.
The Triple Crown is not on the line this year, and I'll be surprised if Exaggerator goes off at less than even.

[Mc990]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Race specific handicapping flies in the face of all true statistical analysis. Current runnings yield too small a sample to be significant and if you go back too many years you get an out of date sample.
I prefer to look at who is actually running this time. Exaggerator has the speed figures and pedigree to beat these and is versatile enough to adapt to any pace scenario.

He certainly has figures that CAN beat these... Although he's not the fastest horse in the race (as I'm sure you're well aware). The question then becomes, what are the chances he brings his "A" race. Certainly not what his odds would indicate IMO. He shouldn't be 7/5 even if you could guarantee a pair up of his last 2

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Mc990

He certainly has figures that CAN beat these... Although he's not the fastest horse in the race (as I'm sure you're well aware). The question then becomes, what are the chances he brings his "A" race. Certainly not what his odds would indicate IMO. He shouldn't be 7/5 even if you could guarantee a pair up of his last 2

According to Timeform US he's the fastest horse coming into the race and has beaten his main rivals here.
He's the most likely to adapt to might be an unpredictable pace and has a rider that has won the Belmont and knows how to ride this race. I'd rather take 7/5 rather than lose on some other unlikely horse. If his odds go too low I'll just enjoy the race rather than talk myself into betting against him.

[classhandicapper]

These are the negatives on Exaggerator.

1. He clearly benefited from the setup in both the SA Derby and Preakness. The setup in the Kentucky Derby wasn't bad either.

2. It's very possible that he's better on wet tracks like in the Preakness and SA Derby than he is on fast tracks and he won't get a wet track Saturday.

These are the flip sides.

1. He's not a slow one dimensional plodder. He's been coming from far behind by design because they felt he made a premature move in the fast paced San Raphael and it cost him. So if there is less speed in the Belmont than in his other recent races, he's capable of being a lot closer to the pace. The question is will they do that.

2. He may be a tad better on a wet track, but he has run really well on a fast track also (Derby). So it's not like he's a toss because he's strictly a mudder.

I think it's clearly a value decision. He has some question marks about him that make him tough to take at a short price, but imo he's no toss.

[Mc990]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

These are the negatives on Exaggerator.

1. He clearly benefited from the setup in both the SA Derby and Preakness. The setup in the Kentucky Derby wasn't bad either.

2. It's very possible that he's better on wet tracks like in the Preakness and SA Derby than he is on fast tracks and he won't get a wet track Saturday.

These are the flip sides.

1. He's not a slow one dimensional plodder. He's been coming from far behind by design because they felt he made a premature move in the fast paced San Raphael and it cost him. So if there is less speed in the Belmont than in his other recent races, he's capable of being a lot closer to the pace. The question is will they do that.

2. He may be a tad better on a wet track, but he has run really well on a fast track also (Derby). So it's not like he's a toss because he's strictly a mudder.

I think it's clearly a value decision. He has some question marks about him that make him tough to take at a short price, but imo he's no toss.

If by saying, "he's no toss" you mean he could win then I certainly agree with you. At 7/5 though, I don't want to be lukewarm on a horse. To me, he's the one to leverage a ticket against.

[AirNate012]

I agree...I cashed an exacta on Exag and Cherry Wine in the Preakness, but this time around I'll be playing heavy to beat him with a small saver ticket as backup.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Mc990

If by saying, "he's no toss" you mean he could win then I certainly agree with you. At 7/5 though, I don't want to be lukewarm on a horse. To me, he's the one to leverage a ticket against.

This is what I meant. If I play the race he'll be on some tickets if I find good value somewhere else in the race, but he could never be my key at a short price.