Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
I won't necessarily make an excuse if TTM loses to Cacique. I usually don't have an excuse when a horse I bet loses. Once in a while there may be a legitimate excuse but not very often, maybe 10% of the time or so.
When I bet a speed horse and they get passed and run 4th or 5th, it is very rare that I will say that they would have won the race if the winner wasn't in the race. Here is a situation where I may say that my horse who ran 3rd would have won the race if the winner was not in the race. Let's suppose that I bet a 2 year old first-timer in a sprint race and he goes head and head in :21 3/5 and they have a 5 length lead on the rest of the field. So he is hooked with some monster going head and head and the monster puts him away and draws off to win the race by 5 lengths. My horse fades to 3rd about 50 yards before the wire and gets beat for 2nd by less than a length and my horse's stride looked good. He was on his right lead and was moving well. In a case like that, where my horse would have had a 3 length lead under a tight hold, if the monster wasn't in the race, I may say that my horse would have probably won the race if the winner wasn't in there. I wouldn't automatically say this. It would depend on how my horse was moving coming down the stretch, etc. If he was on his left lead and was taking short strides, I probably wouldn't say that he would have won if the winner wasn't in there. There are no set rules. I watch every race on a case by case basis.
|
Lose the necessarily...unless the rider falls off.
I'm having fun with you, but trying to make a point, which I think you understand. I understand everything you said in your second paragraph and pretty much completely agree. I also understand sometimes we like a horse and we know after the race that for whatever reason our horse just didn't show up. However, in this specific argument, I feel like it's either I think the Tin Man will finish in front of Cacique.....or he won't. I am ready to be either right or wrong. The problem with your side of the argument, IMO, is that there are many more scenerios where The Tin Man runs a better race than Cacique and loses to him than the opposite. The Tin Man will most likely be doing some work early and Cacique is more likely to be sucking up. Sort of the opposite of the Arlington Million.