I'd hate to have to write more than two or three sentences about this race.

I'm using Curlin and R2R in multi-win exotics (twice as much to Curlin) and I will toss Hard Spun in on a ticket with mostly my singles in the surrounding races...just so he doesn't beat me out of anything if my top picks win all the surrounding races.

I will only bet the race if people get carried away, and really overbet each of the four least likely winners.

I filmed a half hour show about it tonight.....and have to film another one tomorrow.

Actually, to be honest, it's a fairly interesting race to talk about. Moreso, to me at least, than the Preakness. Unfortunately it all revolves around a 4:5 shot who will probably win.

Curlin should win the race, and that's why he'll be such a short price. Part of me is concerned that he really only ran well the last 3/8's in the Preakness. Certainly he learned a lot, but now with 12 furlongs, that's a long time to goof around before getting serious, and by time he does, it might be over.

If Street Sense does not back-up in the Preakness and wins the race, but is still not in the Belmont, does Curlin go off at the same price Saturday? I think that's a legitimate question and angle if you want to try and reason to beat him.

I kind of think that the fact Curlin has had three workouts since the preakness means he's rearing to go. Haskin reported he "bounced" off the van and bounced all the way to the barn yesterday. Just makes me key him on top of tri's even more. The only other horse I'll put on top in exotics is Rags.

Was he listening to Jay-Z on the way to Elmont?

i am so pissed they aren't running any maidens.

you guys can't stop discussing the bounce theory, can ya?
Seriously, might it be fair to say that this "theory" comes from analyzing thousands of races, and time after time seeing horses coming off big efforts running worse in their next start? Not every time, certainly, but a large enough percentage of the time to feel the need to create a theory about it. The beauty of the bounce theory is you don't need a concrete reason why it may happen, you just need it to happen, and there can be any number of "logical" reasons for a horse to run poorly. The important thing is to predict it, then bet accordingly. You can predict it due to a horse running a big top fig in his last race, or due to logical reasons such as an anticipated speed duel on the front, etc..
Now Curlin has, from a fig standpoint, done something very few horses have ever done; start off extremely fast, repeat that 3 more times, then explode in the Preakness. There is a possibility that he won't run as well in the Belmont. If he doesn't regress, he will stamp himself as one great horse.

I'm sure Stevie A. gave him a tonic water with a slice of lime that just refreshed him good as new.

This is not a great betting race (relative to others on the card) unless you can make a case for some price horse joining into the tri. Even then a Curlin/HS/whomever tri is still not going to pay much.

I am going to play against R2R--I see her being seriously underlayed here. Pletcher has had the reverse Midas touch in the TC recently, and I'm going to roll with that until it changes.

I'd honestly be pretty surprised if she misses the tri.

In her Ky Oaks win...she ran an identical figure to that earned by Wanderin Boy (in winning a modest Graded Stake for older males) earlier on in the card...and did so with the tougher trip of the two...and was most impressive through the late stages.

Wanderin Boy is a pretty darn nice horse--and was 2nd to horses like Invasor and Bernardini in big Grade 1's last year...although, the subsequent performances by Half Ours and Perfect Drift haven't exactly flattered that race.

I'm always concerned about big stretch-outs with Pletcher runners...but, being an A. P. Indy out of stamina laden female family....she really projects for some improvement.

I've entertained the idea of backwheeling her in an exacta---with Curlin and HS on top (Curlin for at twice as much) --- thinking that R2R will mop up the loser of that match-up through the stretch, but not be good enough to win. However, there's not much advantage there either.

Like you say though---not a great betting race.

Oh.....well in that case I have to go from defending you, to questioning your sanity.
You think Curlin is the most likely winner.....and you are going to bet exactas and trifectas.......and not use him at all? That makes no sense to me whatsoever. I think Curlin might be a bit vulnerable, but I would be SHOCKED if he doesn't hit the board here.
If you like the three you mentioned, why not take a shot at using them on top of the horse you consider the most likely winner?

Wanderin Boy won the Alysheba, which I believe is ungraded. Semantics, of course.

For one, I don't play trifectas. I am a win bettor, and I also play Pick 3s and Pick 4s. Occasionally, I play exactas. My goal in all races, especailly races where the pools are inflated, is to find value and cash a big ticket. I like to bet a little to try and win a lot. If Curlin wins, I don't see any of the exotics paying much. That, combined with my opinion that he MIGHT regress, dictates that I leave him off my tickets. However, I like your idea of playing my two "prices", Tiago and CP West, over Curlin. I may end up doing that.

The one strong opinion that I have is that Rags To Riches has a legit chance to win. So I'm trying to come up with a way to make a respectable score off of that opinion. Playing her over Curlin is not worth it, in my opinion.

I WILL say that Curlin will probably be on my Pick 4 ticket. So I'm not totally insane.

'Twas graded for the first time this year.

I agree with you completely on that one. I really like her chances.

I was worried you were going to leave him off completely.

I think what may be being misunderstood is that just because a horse is the " most likely winner " ( every race has one ) doesn't mean you ( or one ) is betting that horse. The likeliest winner might be 30% to win ( not to say that is easily definable ) but is therefore worth betting against at 8:5 or less. However, it is important as a handicapper, and especially as one who handicaps publicly, to both understand and define the most likely winner. Many races effectively go through one horse. However, how the player deals with that horse will decide how well he ( or she ) does betting said race.

When publicly discussing a race it is irresponsible to not discuss how you are dealing with the " most likely winner. "

I feel like it's more confusing than irresponsible. Maybe that actaully makes it irresponsible. I have found that I need to go a step or two beyond a normal explanation when not using a big favorite. Some people don't seem to understand the idea of seeking value elsewhere, especially in big races. Of course, most serious racing fans understand completely.

I think R2R is going to be the second betting choice (or possibly very close to it), and I just don't see the value there. Any other day, there is not much chance I'm going to chase the exacta in a 7 horse field that requires me to punch the heavy favorite over the second betting choice. I am not going to change that just because the race is called "The Belmont".

Given the freakish field size, and the price on the favorites, the Derby offers all kinds of betting opportunities not present in most races. The same is often not true in the Preakness, and it is almost never true in the Belmont. From a betting perspective, the Belmont is JAR (just another race).

And perhaps I'm dreaming, but I just have the sense that Pletcher's record with calling "audibles" leaves something to be desired--and that is how I perceive this move.

Come to the dark side Scavs...

You're right about the last part....serious racing fans understand seeking value elsewhere implicitely.

I was speaking more in general about not discussing the main contender as being irresponsible. When I do the DRF/Siro's shows in Saratoga I think the most important thing to do is lay out the race logically and try to explain how I intend to attack it ( if at all ). I am eternally frustrated when I see other handicapping shows and people do not do this. It's really all about leading people in the right direction. Nobody will ever find their way if they are left out in the wilderness. Wrong or right, you have to have the right starting point to have a real chance to get where you want to go ( winning ).

The Alysheba was graded this year?