Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
It's probably a little of both....though I tend to side with you. I like the increased possibility of chaos. It probably lends itself better to the Monmouth situation where the amount of work necessary to really handicap the card is so burdensome that a more scattered approach probably increases your chances of getting lucky per se.
The shorter priced horses are probably a little less likely to win and the tails are a little fatter.
|
Agree with this 100%. Variance is definitely higher- and some races aren't a whole lot of fun, like the Jersey Bred races which have a large majority of the field coming in off a layoff, but say a $10k claimer is a LOT more fun when you have shippers from all over. It's a lot more work, but generally worth the effort. Some may feel different, and I get that approach too (knowing the population inside and out.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_fat_man
Let's make a mental note to observe how many AQU inner trackers are successful on this track. I know there were at least 2 that won yesterday --- one wire to wire. Then we'll revisit your FAIR track theory about MTH.
Seriously, you can't be this CLUELESS. If I thought that MTH was a fair track, I wouldn't play the game.
|
OK, sure. But you didn't answer my riddle, which as I knew already you don't listen to anyone so it's not worth trying anyways. For what it's worth, the correct answer was the supposed "fair" track you brought up, Calder, had 7 dirt races on Saturday- 4 were won by the leader at the 1/2 mile call, 2 by the 2nd place horse, and 1 from 7th. 83% speed. How AQU inner runners perform have NO relevance on the track. There were winners shipping from PHA, MTH, GP, MED, KEE, TAM, AQU, AQUI, SAR, CD, DEL, and BEL on the opening weekend.
Despite what the FAT CHARTS wish for- a track "favoring" closers doesn't exist on a regular basis. End of story.