Seattle,
I'm not even going to comment on the stupidity of playing 1-5 shots to WIN.
But I was on my way down to Belmont and was on the phone with Randall Scott on Saturday. I explicity told him that I thought he might be a seconditis type horse and was going to make two bets on the race. A larger one with Jagerman on top of Most Distinguished. And a saver bet with the winner on top of Most Distinguished.
I wish I had liked the winner more than Jagerman, who broke slowly and rushed up a dead rail to make the lead, but i didn't.
After the race was over noone I was near was asking your question of how could he lose. Just about everyone was unanimous that we may have another "My Friend Bernie" on our hands. You could see the horse ease himself up after making the lead and wait on horses. Blaming Zito or Edgar is quite foolish. Nick obviously had the horse ready for a nice effort, and Edgar gave a perfect ride. The thing you will apparently never understand is that they are animals with personalities. They are not machines. This horse is obviously a "hanger" or "cheater" type who wants to run in company with other horses.
Now that Nick and Edgar realize this without a shadow of a doubt, I imagine different tactics or equipment will be used in the future.
Betting 1-5 shots to win is insane. You could have bet place or show and gotten near the same payoff, which is still insane, but slightly less so than betting a 1-5 shot to win.
If you have an idea or ideas in other parts of a "pik" bet, then singling one can be justified. But did you actually blow a paycheck on a win bet?