Take a look at The Cradle Stakes (13th RD) when the RBR has it tomorrow. And yes, I pointed out it was a good betting race before the fact. You ain\'t gonna have a tough time figuring out why.
I\'ll bite. I looked. The top two finishers had clearly shown more speed than the favorite. Of course, there were no patterns to read. You said that you pointed out that it was a good betting race before the fact. Was that in a post that I missed or one of the products? What would you have said about this race if you had done an analysis before hand? What would have made it a good betting race with so little pattern information (other than the obvious two fast figures)?
I look at the trainer patterns in races like this. Not much to go on.
There was an even money favorite that was more than 7 points slower than 2 other horses going in. That\'s what made it a good betting race. However you played it-- win bet on the most likely winner, box of the two fast horses (I did both) you cashed. Yes, the favorite figured to improve (and since he lost a photo for second, did), but you started out with a tremendous edge, patterns or no patterns.
I posted here that it was one of three races I loved-- the other two being ROTW and DMR Derby. It was the only one I hit, but that\'s not the point-- you give me Scipion, Tapit and Blackdoun to bet against at those prices 3 times a day and I\'ll be a happy guy.
This goes to a point Chris and others made over the weekend, about worrying about whether a horse is \"too long\"-- the first thing I look for (and you will see it more often than not in ROTW), is a bad favorite. Those horses will be on an extremely high percentage of the exotic tickets-- if I can throw them out, I know I have a huge edge in the race, just for starters.
Thanks. I concur with the \"bad favorite\" approach. I handicap every race from that perspective. I start with the horses that are most likely to be the favorites and then I look for something with odds that can beat the favorites. If one or two jump out, it\'s a good betting race. BTW, I find this occurs frequently in Maiden races. I find some of my best bets in those races. In the Cradle, it was obvious that there were two horses that were faster than the favorite by a wide margin. So I think it was an \"easy\" race to bet. However, I\'m not sure that I would agree that it was a \"good\" betting race. Because there were two fast horses and the odds were so low on both of them.
The overhyped well bred first time starter, love playing against. Anyone remember shark twice at saratoga this meet!
I have been waiting to bet against Scipion ever since his \"good-looking/slow-going\" maiden win.
Visually, that race was all anyone talked about, but once you looked at the come home times - it was a sheets and pace player\'s bonanza...as you proved with the 2 fastest horses!
>Tapit <
That was a horrible favorite. He was slower than the competition, coming off a layoff, and running from a far outside post in a 2 turn race.
I can see why people might think he could improve off his figures earned late in his 2yo season and in the Grade 1 Wood, but he had to improve a lot just to catch up (no guarantee) and still overcome the other disadvantages.
I didn\'t play the race, but if I did, that was an easy underlay to throw out. I would not have cashed though. Not sure who I would have bet.