What are they waiting for? Nominate her to the Matriarch

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

They can't fool you Rupert.

I have an honest question for you. I heard your analysis of the BC Classic. You obviously watched the first 10 races of the day before the
BC Classic and saw how the track was playing, not only in terms of any possible biases but also in terms of exactly how fast the track was. Five minutes before the BC Classic, if I would have told you that they're going to run the half in :47, would you have said, "In that case, no horse within 5 lengths of the lead will have any chance".?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I have an honest question for you. I heard your analysis of the BC Classic. You obviously watched the first 10 races of the day before the
BC Classic and saw how the track was playing, not only in terms of any possible biases but also in terms of exactly how fast the track was. Five minutes before the BC Classic, if I would have told you that they're going to run the half in :47, would you have said, "In that case, no horse within 5 lengths of the lead will have any chance".?

I made my analysis of the BC Classic no later than 6 hours before the race....and I took closers ( Blame and Fly Down, with a little Lookin at Lucky and Musket Man ).

I don't know what your post means.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I made my analysis of the BC Classic no later than 6 hours before the race....and I took closers ( Blame and Fly Down, with a little Lookin at Lucky and Musket Man ).

I don't know what your post means.

I was talking about your post-race analysis. In you post-race analysis, you basically said that there was a speed-duel and it favored the come-from-behinders. So I'm asking you whether 5 minutes before the race, you would have predcited it would be death to be within 5 lengths of a :47 half.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I was talking about your post-race analysis. In you post-race analysis, you basically said that there was a speed-duel and it favored the come-from-behinders. So I'm asking you whether 5 minutes before the race, you would have predcited it would be death to be within 5 lengths of a :47 half.

Why don't you just ask what you really want to know. I don't really have the patience for silly internet games.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Why don't you just ask what you really want to know. I don't really have the patience for silly internet games.

I think my question is clear. I will word it differently. If you were told right before the race that the half will go in :47. First Dude will have the lead by a length. He will be followed by Quality Road, Espoir City, and Haynesfield who will be laying 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. If you were told that right before the race, I highly doubt that you would have said that those fractions are way too fast and all of the front-runners will collapse badly.

Yet in your post race analysis, you basically say that the pace was way too fast and it favored the come-from-behinders. That is a circular argument. You are basically saying that "they must have gone way too fast since the come-from-behinders won. It must have been a good thing to be 20 lengths back." Unless you would have said that before the race, then I think it's a circular argument. That is why I asked you to honestly answer whether you would have predicted the front-runners would have collapsed if you knew exactly what the fractions were going to be (:47) right before the race.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think my question is clear. I will word it differently. If you were told right before the race that the half will go in :47. First Dude will have the lead by a length. He will be followed by Quality Road, Espoir City, and Haynesfield who will be laying 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. If you were told that right before the race, I highly doubt that you would have said that those fractions are way too fast and all of the front-runners will collapse badly.

Yet in your post race analysis, you basically say that the pace was way too fast and it favored the come-from-behinders. That is a circular argument. You are basically saying that "they must have gone way too fast since the come-from-behinders won. It must have been a good thing to be 20 lengths back." Unless you would have said that before the race, then I think it's a circular argument. That is why I asked you to honestly answer whether you would have predicted the front-runners would have collapsed if you knew exactly what the fractions were going to be (:47) right before the race.

Did you read what he wrote? He bet closers, which obviously means he anticipated a strong pace that would favor late runners.

Is the crusade you're embarking on to get BTW or any other "hater" to admit that Zenyatta ran a better race than we might believe?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Did you read what he wrote? He bet closers, which obviously means he anticipated a strong pace that would favor late runners.

Is the crusade you're embarking on to get BTW or any other "hater" to admit that Zenyatta ran a better race than we might believe?

You have some people acting like the :47 half was some kind of suicide pace and that suicide pace is one of the main reasons that Zenyatta almost won. Yet right before the race, if I would have told these people that the half will go in :47, I doubt any of thse people would have said, "Wow, they're going to run the half in :47! That is death for the front-runners. That will greatly favor Zenyatta. If she's 20 lengths back, she will be in the garden spot."

But after the race, these people claim that :47 was a suicide pace and Zenyata was in the "garden spot" being 20 lengths back. It's ridiculous.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Did you read what he wrote? He bet closers, which obviously means he anticipated a strong pace that would favor late runners.

Is the crusade you're embarking on to get BTW or any other "hater" to admit that Zenyatta ran a better race than we might believe?

Of course that's what he's doing.

He is only making himself look more foolish. Not easy....but he's succeeding.

It's good stuff for sure.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Did you read what he wrote? He bet closers, which obviously means he anticipated a strong pace that would favor late runners.

Is the crusade you're embarking on to get BTW or any other "hater" to admit that Zenyatta ran a better race than we might believe?

How exactly does one bet 'closers' in that race and leave Z out? I thought Fly Down would run a huge race. (I even suspected he'd change leads. ) I also thought that Blame was suspect going 10F and would get run down late by a 10F horse. I certainly didn't think that any of the speed would hold on OR that Looking at Lucky qualified as a 10F 'closer'.
Which doesn't really leave much else for the tri.

I ask the question again: how does one bet 'closers' and not include Z? Would that 'hater' thing come into play here?

I know one thing, BRO. If I'd have shot my mouth off for 6 months and it came down to my horse getting it done by a HEAD, I'd STFU. A HEAD, the (fortuitous) difference between SITTING on a DUNCE CAP or continuing on that Napoleonic path.

I'll be back tomorrow, maybe, for the 'coherent' reply. And I thought it couldn't get any worse than the POTN Derby SPIN.

ha ha ha