[Ted Craven]

Charles,

I certainly had no intention to humiliate! It's a fascinating match up, and not the least issue is: how much do you bend the rules, or get 'creative' when such a price is available. For example, given the following observations, would one be justified in making a $2.00 bet across the board on the winner:

The #9 and the #1 (the heavy favourite) are the legitimate EP horses and will likely have to vie for the lead today. Use a Projected Pace of 21.7 45.5 off the #1's best Turf line and observe that the #9 runs well against a faster pace than that last while well placed, so at least some credit for early ability in sprints.

If we say that its consistent up close positioning in its recent sprints is indicative of its spirit (at least on Dirt), and the line #4 route shows that the sprint portion of that race blows away the field (if you accept the route to sprint extraction and track equalization formulae), my question is (and perhaps what I was wondering if you were proposing), at 33-1, do you say that line #4 represents its best ability and give it a shot? It's not a proven loser on Turf, so the risk/reward ratio could be worth it.

That said, I am always cautious (having been plenty burned) about zigging and zagging, and consistent application of a paceline selection method is paramount in my view. It's just that part of a consistent methodology might be (for example) that when the offered odds rise above a certain price, and enough of, say, the above noted observations kick in, is that when the 'side-bet' wager button gets pressed?

You stimulated some interesting thoughts, Charles. Thank you!

yours,

Ted