i have a question
 

before I ask I realize im asking a question on a 18 to 1 shot
but please tell me why karamouch would take black Stetson to the outside[3 wide] when hes sitting right behind masked @ trhe top of the stretch? you got to be kidding me keep him on rail then see going doen stretch if there is room to swing out crazy see it all the time
and please don't tell me at that point he didn't have some horse left watch the replay

I strongly disagree with you. If you were talking about a guy going 3 wide all the way around the turn, then you would have a point. If you go wide all the way around the turn, you lose a lot of ground. But once you hit the quarter pole, you lose practically nothing by swinging out. Going 3 wide all the way around the turn will cost you a couple of lengths. Swinging out at the top of the stretch will cost you no more than a foot or so. So there is literally no downside to swinging out at the top of the stretch. There is huge downside to not swinging out. If you don't swing out, you may never find room. To me, the perfect ride is to save ground around the turn and then swing out at the top of the stretch. That was what Garret Gomez tried to do every time. And that is one of the main reasons why he was leading rider in the country 4 years in a row.

yeah and that theory
 

lead him to a out of the money finish and he made move b4 the quarter pole you don't leave rail to go three wide at that point to concider it is well I wont say it

I don't understand your rationale. Please explain it to me. You are saying that if a jockey has plenty of horse turning into the stretch, you would rather have the jockey try to either split horses or come through on the rail than swing to the outside? That would be like walking up to your house and climbing through the window when the front door is wide open.

Of all the mistakes jockeys can make, that is my biggest pet peave. At the top of the stretch, a jockey has to be a fool to try to split horses or come through on the rail when he can just as easily swing to the outside. You lose practically no ground by swinging out. Assuming he has a ton of horse (more horse than the jocks in front of him), he will win over 95% of the time by going outside. If he tries to split horses or go through on the rail, he will probably only win 50-70% of the time. It's a no-brainer to go to the outside. They should do it every time. They shouldn't even think about it.

i didnt say anything about splitting horses it was a 5 horse field
 

stay behind pace setter and ease over period you have a 5-2 shot in front of you and a 4-5 shot passing him he isn't splitting anything watch the race this horse was much better where he was he did what you said and he finished last less ground to cover is the name of the game

As I said before, you will lose a ton of ground if you go wide all the way around the turn. But you lose practically no ground if you swing out at the top of the stretch. A mathematician wanted to figure out how much ground it would cost a horse if they drew post #20 in the Kentucky Derby. He was surprised by what the math showed. The horse actually would not lose a ton of ground unless he ended up going wide around the turns. In another words, if the horse could somehow angle over to the rail before they hit the turn, the horse would only lose around 2 lengths. If a horse stayed in the 20 path around the turn they would lose around 20 lengths. Angling out (or in) on a straightaway costs you very little. It is going wide around the turn that will cost you a lot.

With regard to the race you are talking about, the horse's poor finish had nothing to do with him swinging out. The horse was lugging in at the top of the stretch. Then when another horse swung out into his path, the near collision did your horse in. He lost all his momentum It's hard to tell where he would have finished if it weren't for that incident. He would have obviously finished quite a bit better than he did.

we can go on and on
 

you stay with your opinion ill stay with mine I know what I saw

What did you see? What you're saying makes no sense. His swinging out is not what cost him. What cost him was the incident he had with the other horse 1/16th of a mile later in the race. You are right that the incident would not have happened if he hadn't swung out earlier. But how is the jockey going to know that 1/16th of a mile later in the race that his horse is going to lug in and that another horse is going to swing out into his path? That has nothing to do with a decision that was made 1/16th of a mile earlier. In 99% of cases, a jockey would be less likely to have a near collision by going wide than by trying to go through on the rail or split horses. So in the one case out of 100 where the wide move ends up leading to a near collision (a 1/16th of a mile later), you say it was a bad move.

I'll give you an analogy. If you are playing blackjack and you have 16 and the dealer has a 5 showing, you should stand. Even if the next card turns out to be a 5, you still made the right move. You have to play the percentages. It's not going to work every time. That is irrelevant. You can't complain that you should have hit since the next card turned out to be a 5 and you would have had 21. In the long run, you will do 100x better by standing when you have 16 and the dealer is showing a 5.

The longer you stay inside , the bigger chance you’ll get stuck there. The other jocks will try to keep you pinned as long as they can. I think he knew, or thought he had plenty of hoss there and wen5 for clear sailing while he had the chance. The bigger problem with the ride was the foolish right hand stick. If you’re gonna come around like that, angle out further and give yourself some room under left hand urging and get your momentum up with room to lug in a little cause you’re moving so fast. He had to stop riding twice losing all chance.

I agree with everything you said!