Change of Plans for Lava Man

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Cacique only has one chance to beat TTM in the BC Turf. His only chance will be if Hurricane Run or one of the other great European horses blows by TTM and then TTM gives up. That does happen sometimes. Sometimes when a horse is running his hardest and he gets blown by, he can get discouraged and give up. That would be the only scenario that I could see that would allow Cacique to beat TTM. If Hurricane Run and/or Schirocco blow by TTM at the 1/4 pole or 1/8th pole, I could see Cacique making a late run and getting by TTM right at the end of the race. Other than that scenario, Cacique will not beat TTM.

That's sort of the scenerio that rates to happen over 75% of the time.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

That's sort of the scenerio that rates to happen over 75% of the time.

I don't know where you came up with that number. If I bet a horse that is the 2nd best horse in the race, they usually run 2nd. Once in a while, they may fade to 3rd or 4th because they get passed and get discouraged, but that probably only happens 10-20% of the time at the most.

[randallscott35]

Richi, be happy to take Cacique over TTM. Name the amount.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Richi, be happy to take Cacique over TTM. Name the amount.

Randall, I have no reason to bet with a stranger over the internet. It's not exactly practicle for me, especially considering that I want to remain anonymous. I'm sure that Pinnacle will have plenty of horse match-ups for me if I desire to bet any of the match-ups. If they do offer a TTM vs Cacique match-up, I'm sure I will bet on TTM.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Randall, I have no reason to bet with a stranger over the internet. It's not exactly practicle for me, especially considering that I want to remain anonymous. I'm sure that Pinnacle will have plenty of horse match-ups for me if I desire to bet any of the match-ups. If they do offer a TTM vs Cacique match-up, I'm sure I will bet on TTM.

Fair enough, I already have a small bet with Kev on Cacique and EC. Not really a stranger here, though, I'm far from anonymous.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't know where you came up with that number. If I bet a horse that is the 2nd best horse in the race, they usually run 2nd. Once in a while, they may fade to 3rd or 4th because they get passed and get discouraged, but that probably only happens 10-20% of the time at the most.

The number may be a little random but in the case of a speed horse like The Tin Man he does rate to get collared and passed by the likely better Europeans and thus the scenerio you proposed sort of absolves both the horse and you for a poor performance or opinion when and if the Tin Man fails.

I understand you feel that in the unlikely event that Cacique and the Tin Man hook up for all the money that the Tin Man will prevail but the simple fact is that such a scenerio is extremely remote and thus you are proposing you can only be wrong in a fairly illogical variation.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your logic that the Tin Man will get disheartened and fall apart when engulfed by the real talent in the BC Turf, as that is a situation that happens quite often. The hardest exacta to get home involves a longshot second to a very tough and strong favorite when the longshot also happens to be a speed and you know he will be confronted by the favorite early in the running. Such a horse is likely to be disheartened from attempting to fight off the favorite and losing the battle. However, the caveat you offered, in light of the situation, tilts the scale of the argument dramatically in your favor.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

The number may be a little random but in the case of a speed horse like The Tin Man he does rate to get collared and passed by the likely better Europeans and thus the scenerio you proposed sort of absolves both the horse and you for a poor performance or opinion when and if the Tin Man fails.

I understand you feel that in the unlikely event that Cacique and the Tin Man hook up for all the money that the Tin Man will prevail but the simple fact is that such a scenerio is extremely remote and thus you are proposing you can only be wrong in a fairly illogical variation.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your logic that the Tin Man will get disheartened and fall apart when engulfed by the real talent in the BC Turf, as that is a situation that happens quite often. The hardest exacta to get home involves a longshot second to a very tough and strong favorite when the longshot also happens to be a speed and you know he will be confronted by the favorite early in the running. Such a horse is likely to be disheartened from attempting to fight off the favorite and losing the battle. However, the caveat you offered, in light of the situation, tilts the scale of the argument dramatically in your favor.

I didn't say that I think it is likely to happen. I said that it is possible. Horses usually do not fall apart when they get passed. They usually keep trying. When they do get discouraged, it usually only costs them a length or so. It's not as if it usually costs them 5 lengths. The earlier a horse gets passed, the more it will hurt him. If he gets blown by at the 3/8 pole, it's going to cost him more than if get passed at the 1/8th pole. But the truth of the matter is if a horse gets blown by at the 3/8 pole, I doubt he was going to do much any way. The only exception would be if there was some absolute super-horse that blows by your horse at the 3/8 pole. That happens once in a while but not very often.

[blackthroatedwind]

You can't offer caveats in this argument...either you think the Tin Man will beat Cacique in the BC Turf or you don't ( at least in this particular argument ). Surely you can wait until the pps are drawn and give your opinion but you basically can't be excused from being wrong should a certain scenerio develop...save perhaps the rider falling off. At least considering the opinions you shared earlier in this thread.

There's no shame in being wrong, and I'm the weasel that has very little opinion on the subject because I am not a fan of either horse, though I would gladly take even money that Cacique finishes ahead of the Tin Man in the BC. Like you, I feel the Tin Man will lose steam late in the race after at least trying to win a race he can't win, while the unmighty Cacique will suck up for some irrelevent piece while doing next to no running.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You can't offer caveats in this argument...either you think the Tin Man will beat Cacique in the BC Turf or you don't ( at least in this particular argument ). Surely you can wait until the pps are drawn and give your opinion but you basically can't be excused from being wrong should a certain scenerio develop...save perhaps the rider falling off. At least considering the opinions you shared earlier in this thread.

There's no shame in being wrong, and I'm the weasel that has very little opinion on the subject because I am not a fan of either horse, though I would gladly take even money that Cacique finishes ahead of the Tin Man in the BC. Like you, I feel the Tin Man will lose steam late in the race after at least trying to win a race he can't win, while the unmighty Cacique will suck up for some irrelevent piece while doing next to no running.

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.

[blackthroatedwind]

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.