Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill V.
Why the 3 was picked I can't understand ?
|
Bill V did a great job laying out this race, so I'm not going to try and improve on that good job.
I will however, attempt to provide an answer to his question.
Before I get started, let me stress, I would NOT encourage the type of reasoning I am about to offer. I really don't even know if the person that made this pick used the reasoning I am about to set forth. This is simply an attempt on my part to offer a reasoning. So here goes.
I have posted the PP's for both the winner (#1) and the #3.
Take note of the Adj SR I have marked. This contestant used line 2 for the winner and line 2 for the #3 horse.
Notice that both horses have an Adj SR of "81". So are these horses equal??
If you are only handicapping by "speed rating, final time or total energy", then I suppose this makes sense. (I guess)
For those of you who do not bother with things such as "lifetime records" and such, notice where I have marked the lifetime record for each horse.
The winner is 2 for 9 lifetime going into the race, whereas...
the #3 horse is 2 for 32 lifetime. A horse with 32 lifetime starts and only 2 wins is a pretty bad horse!
Now let's look at each horses PP's.
The winner is the early horse in this race as Bill V pointed out. And it is the early horse every time out. In other words, it shows "form" every time out.
On the other side of the coin, the #3 hasn't "smelled" anything in its' last 5 starts. Where is the evidence that this horse is a contender today?
If you believe that speed rating, final time or total energy is the
ONLY yardstick by which to measure, then the #3 is your horse!
Persoanlly, however, I wouldn't suggest it.
Neither have I ever seen anything in the follow ups that would suggest betting such a horse.
Here are the horses.
I think it would be in everyone's best interest to read the follow ups, starting with follow up #1, as well as the Paceline Manual.
I know this doesn't represent the "modern methodology", but I am from the old school where you learn from the ground up. I have posted in another thread in the teaching section, a snippet from the follow ups that clearly says,
"LEARN THE BASICS FIRST". That's a good suggestion.
The last follow up was #88. As currently as follow up #87, Doc still talks about the original methodology. In this particular example, it was with regard to "betting", where Doc said the original betting guideline are as true as of the writing of follow up #87 and they were at the beginning.