6/8 (BEL): 151st Belmont Stakes Day ~ 8 G1's

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

You admitted you haven’t watched every race over the three days...so why would I waste my time giving you examples of something you don’t believe in because as you admit, spotting a rail bias is too difficult for you to see?

Nitrous was on the inside for much of the first 4 furlongs. I gave you an example of a race that perfectly shows the rail bias, you ignored it. H Man on Friday. He spent the whole race on the rail and runner up (dead closer) was glued to the rail until very late when he was going by the chasers. How many more should I give you? Will you at least watch all the races first? Seems only fair to actually watch the races before declaring something, no?

A closer won the Belmont. He was glued to rail. The pacesetter who spent the entire race on the rail was 3rd.

As for suicide fractions, they went 43 and change in the longer Acorn. The Woody Stephens fractions weren’t that fast.

I just watched the H Man race. I actually bet that race. My horse ran up the track. I bet $100 to win on Empire Line and $50 to place on him. I was looking for a price and I thought he was an overlay. I thought that H Man was probably the horse to beat. So I saved with a little $10 exacta with him on top and Empire Line on the bottom. I lost $160 on the race. But I still ended up having a good day.

With regards to the horse (Sicilia Mike) who finished 2nd to H Man, how could you point to him as proof or a rail bias? Watch the head on. Sicilia Mike was about 4 wide practically the whole race. He got down to the 2 path for a little over a quarter of a mile. The jockey actually did do a good job with him. That horse could have easily been much wider. The jock saved as much ground as he could (considering the post) and it made the difference of him getting second place. The good ride definitely was what got him 2nd place, but not because of a rail bias, but because he would have lost a lot of ground had he gone any wider.

And like I said before, Sicilia Mike was only on the inside of the track for maybe a quarter of a mile in a 6 1/2 furlong race. He was in about the 4 path for at least 65-70% of the race. A horse who was 4 wide for over 2/3rds of the race, does not make a good argument for a rail bias. If you don't believe me, watch the head-on and you will see that he was in the 4 path or even further out for most of the race. It was from just past the 3/8th pole to just past the 1/8th pole that he was inside.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I just watched the H Man race. I actually bet that race. My horse ran up the track. I bet $100 to win on Empire Line and $50 to place on him. I was looking for a price and I thought he was an overlay. I thought that H Man was probably the horse to beat. So I saved with a little $10 exacta with him on top and Empire Line on the bottom. I lost $160 on the race. But I still ended up having a good day.

With regards to the horse (Sicilia Mike) who finished 2nd to H Man, how could you point to him as proof or a rail bias? Watch the head on. Sicilia Mike was about 4 wide practically the whole race. He got down to the 2 path for a little over a quarter of a mile. The jockey actually did do a good job with him. That horse could have easily been much wider. The jock saved as much ground as he could (considering the post) and it made the difference of him getting second place. The good ride definitely was what got him 2nd place, but not because of a rail bias, but because he would have lost a lot of ground had he gone any wider.

And like I said before, Sicilia Mike was only on the inside of the track for maybe a quarter of a mile in a 6 1/2 furlong race. He was in about the 4 path for at least 65-70% of the race. A horse who was 4 wide for over 2/3rds of the race, does not make a good argument for a rail bias. If you don't believe me, watch the head-on and you will see that he was in the 4 path or even further out for most of the race. It was from just past the 3/8th pole to just past the 1/8th pole that he was inside.

You’re literally the only person I’ve seen who denies the inside was golden for 3 days. You also admit you’re not a good enough handicapper to detect an inside bias. Meanwhile I paid my bills for two years in 2007 and 2008 betting horses back on the Aqueduct Inner who were against the track in their prior race.

I can appreciate a good troll as much as the next person, but this isn’t amusing.

For shits and giggles...you posted an article from Watchmaker as evidence there was a speed bias. In his article he also said there was an inside bias. Do you now disagree with him....or are you just picking and choosing as it suits you?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

You’re literally the only person I’ve seen who denies the inside was golden for 3 days. You also admit you’re not a good enough handicapper to detect an inside bias. Meanwhile I paid my bills for two years in 2007 and 2008 betting horses back on the Aqueduct Inner who were against the track in their prior race.

I can appreciate a good troll as much as the next person, but this isn’t amusing.

For shits and giggles...you posted an article from Watchmaker as evidence there was a speed bias. In his article he also said there was an inside bias. Do you now disagree with him....or are you just picking and choosing as it suits you?

Internet for "I was wrong about Sicilia Mike being on the rail for most of the race. But I still think I'm right."

You missed my point about Watchmaker. I'm not claiming the guy is some type of genius. You were acting like it was totally outlandish for me to claim there was a speed bias. I was simply saying that I'm not the only one. Watchmaker thought there was a speed bias. I was in no way saying that this proves that I'm right or that Watchmaker has a great opinion. I was simply saying it isn't outlandish for me to say that I think there was a speed bias.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Internet for "I was wrong about Sicilia Mike being on the rail for most of the race. But I still think I'm right."

You missed my point about Watchmaker. I'm not claiming the guy is some type of genius. You were acting like it was totally outlandish for me to claim there was a speed bias. I was simply saying that I'm not the only one. Watchmaker thought there was a speed bias. I was in no way saying that this proves that I'm right or that Watchmaker has a great opinion. I was simply saying it isn't outlandish for me to say that I think there was a speed bias.

I was acting like it was outlandish? I disagreed.

Look at where Sicilia Mike was when he started moving really well.

In my opinion there was a strong rail bias Thursday-Sunday. I based it on watching all of the races (unlike you) and seeing what horses did as they were on the rail and how they performed when they were not on the rail. The results seem to back up my opinion.

You disagree, yet admit you don’t think rail biases exist because you’re not a strong enough handicapper to detect one.

Is there anything else to say at this point? You’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.