Rule of Thumb for wagering at Keeneland

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

What was so bad about With a City winning that race? The field was dreadful. Would it have been so much better if Hemingway's Key or Superfly won? Seaside Retreat? Malameeze? More than Regal? Pair of Kings? Sharp Attack? Tahoe Warrior? Laity? Silent Times? Starspangled Gator? In a race full of nags someone has to win.

With A City's form on dirt was absolutely dreadful, and I mean woeful. It wasn't like he had ever been even remotely competitive in anything. He failed in claimers.
Seaside Retreat was just about as bad. When they ran 1-2 I said ok, thats it.
You devils advocate guys are piss poor. You can make that argument in hindsight with any horse.
So how much did you guys have on him? You musta made one hell of a killing because if you can justify him winning that race(of course now its in hindsight, as usual) then you should have had a bundle on him at those odds.
WHo exactly is bull****ting who here?
You guys wanna get on me because I think an impossible horse won and admit it. Then you guys wanna tell me how he figured. Gee, how much did you guys have on him then? If you didn't bet him then its pretty obvious who the bull****ters are.