Faster than others? It's a cool Andy diatribe, but it works a lot better with the Preakness than the Belmont. There have been 29 Belmonts since the last T.C. Winner's Belmont. There have been 6 favorite winners of those Belmonts. During that time there's been 11 favorites win the Preakness. Even if you were to say that the public did not pick "the fastest" horse as the favorite, then we can go up to say 7/2 odds. Surely "the fastest" horse would usually be 7/2 or less. Well ,the Preakness was won 19 out of the 29 times by a horse 7/2 or less. That race is being won, the majority of the time, by a horse most of the public considers "one of the fast ones." The Belmont has been won 12 out of the last 29 times by one of these 7/2 (or less) type horses. The majority of the last 29 Belmonts have been won by horses that have been 4/1 or higher. In the last twenty-nine runnings of the Belmont, there were 17 horses winning at 4/1 or better. So, in this race, I don't think the majority of the winners are being considered "the fastest" horses by bettors, and you just said the money being bet in pools is usually bet more wisely than you would like. So, in the majority of the Belmonts, they are betting the "fastest horses," and getting beat regularly by horses who are 4/1 or higher. Like I said, this race will be won by the horse who likes the track,and the 12f distance. Maybe it's gunna be won by one we think is the fastest, and maybe it won't be. Only 12 out of 29 have been 7/2 or less. Obviously, in recent history, those considered "fastest" aren't winning the majority of the Belmonts.

While usually true, a 12f race is often a jockey's race.

Ya think?

Prado-Sarava-big price

Prado-Bird Droppings-big price

Fans were disgusted by them even showing up.

I don't know, I've done pretty well betting the Belmont over the years, but I probably just lucked into betting the great jockeys ( I never even know who the hell is riding the horses I bet on ) and the horses that loved the dirt at Belmont.

Look, there are a lot of ways to look at the game, and just because I, or anyone, pays one aspect no mind doesn't make it necessarily irrelevent. I just read way too much excuse making on message boards, and superfluous excuse making at that, that I have come to feel, with good reason, that most people seem to spend way too much of their time worrying about inconsequential factors....or worse yet completely misunderstanding what has gone on. As a general rule, I believe in making decisions based on what I have seen in the past, rather than worrying about what I can't know in the future.

FTFY.

Well it is a good thing people use different criteria or everyone would be betting the same horse.

You have Allen Jerkens on your side, but I am amazed at how trainers work with trainers agents so much considering many think jockeys don't matter.

Personally I think the exercise riders in the morning are more valuable than jockeys.

You get no argument from me on that.

Plus, I would always love to have Allen Jerkens on my side....though, frankly, he already is.

If I am down to two horses and I like them equally, I will then look at the jockey and that will be my determing factor. However, it rarely gets to that point. I don't look at jock or m/l odds unless I am at a complete loss. And if I am at a loss, then I usually sit the race out.

Did you read the story?

WSJ is a fine paper. I prefer the IBD and WSJ to any other publication. But the story is good. It isn't a commentary on the economy. Just a story of women living in their cars.

owners still think they matter

Jesus Christ you cant be this ignorant.

I have already given you plenty of examples of why we are in a bad economy.

I feel like I am trying to explain this to a 6 yr old.

We're in a bad economy, but now is the time to buy ...

History shows that every time we've been in a recession, the market comes back at a record high. Here's to hoping ... :)

I read a nasty report about the revenues from the LV Casinos. While they are making money, their profits are down big across the board.

But this is also probably a positive according to Justindew Bernanke.

You have given me zero examples showing that we are in a bad economy. What you have given me are examples showing that the economy is not as good as it once was. You're inability to understand this important distinction is why you are a moron.

Also, you're an idiot.

In my nightmare's there is always a discussion on the strength of the economy between Peter, Cajun, and JustinDew.

My dreams mainly just consist of me being eaten alive by a pack of lions.

Well, let's see here. Geedubbya gave the o.k. to send many people on Social Security an extra $300 check. I think it must be pretty fkd up.

If we didn't have the media to tell us when things are wrong, no one would be complaining.

Americans aren't capable of thinking for themselves, by and large.