Yep, he did it again.
 

Hype is on one of Baff's runners, he wins with the ignored horse. Sneaky boy, that Baffert. I caught on to that trick a while back.
I play in Call to Post contests. I had him picked yesterday.

He used to pop quite a bit in MDN races with the longer price of two runners.

I don't have the numbers handy, but I believe it is a profitable % angle to play on the longer odds of two uncoupled runners.

Apparently with Baffert at least..Doesn't pay to paly em. Per timeform.

In the last 3 years, Baffert has had multiple entrants (uncoupled) in 332 races. He’s won a fairly staggering 150 of those races, or 45%.But keep in mind he ran 669 starters in those races, which is a more typical 22% strike rate.
Let’s break it out further.*There were 301 races where Baffert had precisely 2 starters. He won 134 of those (44%). How did the longer-priced horse do in those races?*By Baffert’s standards, these horses are blatant bet-againsts. They won only 35 times (11%), and their ROI was a mediocre $1.41.
How about the shorter-priced horse, you know, the one with the less memorable odds? Baffert won with 99 of those, or nearly 33%. Their ROI was a robust $1.90 on a flat (meaning blind) $2 bet. Outstanding.
The only mildly sneaky result going against the shortest priced of multiple Baffert runners in a race? In the 31 races where Baffert entered 3 or more runners, Baffert’s 2nd-shortest price horse actually did outperform the shortest-priced entrants. In those 31 races, the second-shortest price Baffert runner won 25% of the starts, with an ROI north of $4. But that sample size sure is small–too small to make much of. Unless, of course, you’re the type who loves the idea of a trainer pulling off betting coups by encouraging the masses to bet the wrong horse.