pgardn: I usually agree w/ most of what you say, you sound very knowledgeable and your posts are well thought out. All I would offer to say is that, nearly every time I make a mistake handicapping it is because I assume something will happen w/o having any logical/objective reason for it to happen. Then I ask myself: "Why did I do that? What the hell was I thinking?"

You quote the odds on Curlin. I think you are letting the odds dictate how you will treat this horse. Your strategy is to beat Curlin with the rationale that: if I can beat Curlin I can take out maybe 20% of the money in the pool. Sure it would be nice to beat Curlin and to assume that he will not win, or not place or whatever. It would be great to know that there is 20% of the pool that I do not have to worry about. It's not really an objective strategy to say "I will beat the favorite because..."

It's the low odds on Curlin that is driving your decision or rationalizing it. At least that is what I am suggesting. It is true he hasnt faced this level, but we dont really know how he will react. I played against him last time out, for no real good reason.

But an objective look would also tell you that over the long haul the parimutual pool does a great job of predicting the actual horses odds (assuming such "actual odds" is a real thing). Perhaps Curlin does not have the best chance but objectively he probably has a decent chance here. So the upshoot is that unless you have a real objective reason as to why he cant win, then all you're doing is taking a real horse w/ a real shot at winning and hoping that he doesnt come in. He might not come in, but if you continue to play that way, over the long haul it will not work. You may toss 2 or 3other horses, with real shots, sooner or later one of them will come in.

So the argument about Curlins odds is interesting but ultimately all it proves is that he might have a good chance if the public hasnt totally lost it's mind.