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.
|