Pegasus Changes

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by cj

I agree, though I'm pretty sure Maximum Security would whip him.

equal amount of chemicals applied to each horse?

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by cj

I agree, though I'm pretty sure Maximum Security would whip him.

I think he would win too. I'm begrudgingly having to admit he's pretty good:-)

[classhandicapper]

The lesson of Maximum Security was that sometimes good horses get favorable trips or face weak fields. That doesn't make them any less good. It just sometimes makes you less sure how good they are until they are tested in a tougher spot.

I was against him in the Derby, but imo he was good that day.

I didn't care much about anything that came after that in terms of easy spots/trips since imo he had already shown he was good. The only question after that was whether he would develop like the typical 3yo. You sort of never know the answer to that beyond how lightly raced the horse is or if the pedigree is known to be early or late developing.

It still would have been nice to see him against Omaha Beach because I don't think the latter is done moving forward and we aren't going to get to see his best if the next race is his last.

[cj]

Originally Posted by the little guy

I think he would win too. I'm begrudgingly having to admit he's pretty good:-)

Ditto.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The lesson of Maximum Security was that sometimes good horses get favorable trips or face weak fields. That doesn't make them any less good. It just sometimes makes you less sure how good they are until they are tested in a tougher spot.

I think most people realize that. The dilemma comes to how do you bet them. Do you bet against them, pass, or bet on them? In most cases I would still argue that betting against them is the right play.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by cj

I think most people realize that. The dilemma comes to how do you bet them. Do you bet against them, pass, or bet on them? In most cases I would still argue that betting against them is the right play.

story of my betting life.........

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

I think most people realize that. The dilemma comes to how do you bet them. Do you bet against them, pass, or bet on them? In most cases I would still argue that betting against them is the right play.

This may be one area where betting expertise can interfere with one's ability to appreciate a horse's quality.

When Affirmed died, Andy Beyer wrote a great column about him. Beyer basically admitted never liking Affirmed during his racing career, because as a handicapper, he couldn't get past the fact that he was doing much of what he was doing with slow paces and easy trips.

But, he said, two decades later, looking back, he realized that part of the horse's greatness was getting himself those easy trips. A horse like his rival Alydar had to overcome difficulty to win his races, because he wasn't as tractable. But Affirmed's speed and ratability allowed his riders to put him in the perfect spot much of the time.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

I think most people realize that. The dilemma comes to how do you bet them. Do you bet against them, pass, or bet on them? In most cases I would still argue that betting against them is the right play.

The problem with betting against them is that that's the default position of virtually every wise guy on earth.

Most horses are not too tough to figure out because there's a full record to examine.

It's the lightly raced ones that are tougher.

I have a profile for a bet against vs a pass. IMO, what you are really trying to figure out is how much stamina (or reserve racing energy) a horse has to deal with adversity and still keep running through it instead of wilting under pressure.

I still get beat by too many horses I (and everyone else) thinks are vulnerable. Maximum Security in the Derby being one. But I learn quickly.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The problem with betting against them is that that's the default position of virtually every wise guy on earth.

Most horses are not too tough to figure out because there's a full record to examine.

It's the lightly raced ones that are tougher.

I have a profile for a bet against vs a pass. IMO, what you are really trying to figure out is how much stamina (or class by another name) a horse has to deal with adversity and still keep running through it instead of wilting under pressure.

I still get beat by too many horses I (and everyone else) thinks are vulnerable. Maximum Security in the Derby being one. But I learn quickly.

The problem with that logic is that if everyone was betting against them, they wouldn't be favorites. I assume we are talking about horses being bet heavily here.

[classhandicapper]

I'd say Affirmed was a great horse any way you slice it. His speed was part of his advantage over Alydar, but it wasn't the only reason he was beating him or was able to close down Sensitive Prince etc.. He was damn good.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'd say Affirmed was a great horse any way you slice it. His speed was part of his advantage over Alydar, but it wasn't the only reason he was beating him or was able to close down Sensitive Prince etc.. He was damn good.

Oh he was. When I was a kid, I saw him unload on a good field (including Exceller and Tiller) in the Santa Anita Handicap. He won by something like 7 lengths and ran 1:58 and change (the stakes record until Game on Dude broke it), carrying 127 pounds or something.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

The problem with that logic is that if everyone was betting against them, they wouldn't be favorites. I assume we are talking about horses being bet heavily here.

Well sure, but sometimes a horse that would otherwise be 1-1 or 6/5 is 2-1 or 5/2 because none of the wise guys want any part of it.

And then if you tossed it, it duplicates that last race, and you lost money, you probably shouldn't be so sure you did the right thing.

What you did on some occasions is toss a really good horse you weren't smart to recognize as such before the race. The idea being, we have to get better at separating them. I know I want to. I think there are ways to know, but insiders are in a better position than we are.

[taxicab]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'd say Affirmed was a great horse any way you slice it. His speed was part of his advantage over Alydar, but it wasn't the only reason he was beating him or was able to close down Sensitive Prince etc.. He was damn good.

It was his eyesight.
Best ever.
The second he caught a glimpse of another horse getting near him........he wouldn't let him pass.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by cj

I think most people realize that. The dilemma comes to how do you bet them. Do you bet against them, pass, or bet on them? In most cases I would still argue that betting against them is the right play.

There were some 'trade-offs'
(a good trainer, a lack of sprinters on the pace,...),

but the unknown quality was great enough,

and the probability of that unknown quality being vulnerable great enough,...

and the situation/returns great enough, in the Kentucky Derby, that I can't bash anyone who was betting against them.