i have a question

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ontheoutside

you stay with your opinion ill stay with mine I know what I saw

What did you see? What you're saying makes no sense. His swinging out is not what cost him. What cost him was the incident he had with the other horse 1/16th of a mile later in the race. You are right that the incident would not have happened if he hadn't swung out earlier. But how is the jockey going to know that 1/16th of a mile later in the race that his horse is going to lug in and that another horse is going to swing out into his path? That has nothing to do with a decision that was made 1/16th of a mile earlier. In 99% of cases, a jockey would be less likely to have a near collision by going wide than by trying to go through on the rail or split horses. So in the one case out of 100 where the wide move ends up leading to a near collision (a 1/16th of a mile later), you say it was a bad move.

I'll give you an analogy. If you are playing blackjack and you have 16 and the dealer has a 5 showing, you should stand. Even if the next card turns out to be a 5, you still made the right move. You have to play the percentages. It's not going to work every time. That is irrelevant. You can't complain that you should have hit since the next card turned out to be a 5 and you would have had 21. In the long run, you will do 100x better by standing when you have 16 and the dealer is showing a 5.