Why was the "Andy versus Scuds" thread closed?

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by philcski

Hossy is right though, Cosmonaut hurdled Mending Fences and still finished 2nd. Off that effort he was sent off at 7/2 against Better Talk Now, English Channel, and Shakis in the Manhattan... and finished 4th after leading midstretch.

Considering the quality of that field and that he couldn't really go 9 furlongs let alone 10, I thought he ran a terrific race in the Manhattan.

I also foolishly bet him in the BC Mile and got really excited at the top of the stretch.

NT

[Bobby Fischer]

you guys remember better than I do , i had to look him up again. I remember Einstein being in that race but forgot it was Mending Fences on the spill. That race (Dixie on preakness day) was wild. Can't remember If that breakdown really hurt cosmonaut as much as it was dramatic looking, not sure if it helped him by wiping others out without seeing the head on again. Not sure if the following race really fit my point with all that going on.

the citation, the hollywood turf cup , the Manhattan (following the spill), the bernard baruch, even the river city all underlays altthough the river city was totally different as he was underlayed against a weak field he still should have been moderately favored in.

The point had nothing really to do with Cosmonaut or Giant Oak or Pay in Kind as individuals. I used Cosmonaut and Giant Oak as symbols to represent the type of horse who gets bad trips because he is in over his head and is apt to find trouble and will either find trouble once again or really isn't all that good with a good trip. More importantly these types get into obvious trouble that puts them on everyone's watch list "he had to go wide" etc... the public bets them enough that there is no value.

Pay in Kind is a symbol of the kind of horse that actually could capitalize on a better trip and isn't necessarily as prone to a bad one. (the real world PIK won back, but he was unbettable at even money).
I haven't been playing Aqueduct, but I was watching the youtube Trips & Traps and he was a featured trip horse. That's actually a good show. Everybody thinks they are the best handicapper, but it is nice to hear someone's opinion about a trip. It's hard to have that conversation with a lot of people. Most people I talk to about horses offline DON'T WANT to hear about the higher level aspects of the game. They aren't in it to make a little extra money, and they aren't in it for the mental challenge. They're in it for a gambling addiction and an adrenalin rush.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Considering the quality of that field and that he couldn't really go 9 furlongs let alone 10, I thought he ran a terrific race in the Manhattan.

I also foolishly bet him in the BC Mile and got really excited at the top of the stretch.

NT

He did run well in the Manhattan, I had taken a stand against him and midstretch was pretty much resigned to losing. Thankfully my old buddy Better Talk Now had one more G1 left in him. That pick 4 ended up paying pretty well.

That BC Mile, with the turf as soft as it was, there really wasn't a "foolish" bet. Turns out the best horse won, after all.

[blackthroatedwind]

By the way, just because horses get less than ideal trips doesn't mean you automatically bet them back the next time they run....just as perfect trip winners aren't automatic bet againsts. It's just part of the equation. The better judge you are at analyzing how well any given horse ran the better job you will do handicapping any race.

This is obvious stuff....right?

It seems to me that one of the biggest problems people seem to have is that they cloud their minds with so much useless, and incorrect, information that they can't see the obvious.

[freddymo]

It seems to me that one of the biggest problems people seem to have is that they cloud their minds with so much useless, and incorrect, information that they can't see the obvious.

In a word DrugS