Actually, I think this thread should be about
“CONTENDER SELECTION” rather than line selection, but since Bill posted it, I’ll respond, since
BOTH issues are in play here.
First, this horse
IS NOT A CONTENDER! It has one race back after a layoff of 393 days and that certainly
WAS NOT a good race. That race provides
NO EVIDENCE that going back for a line would be the correct thing to do.
The horse is a
NON-CONTENDER!! NO LINE should be selected.
Second, why was the line selected in this case used?
Let me be clear, I
AM NOT a fan of the “best of last three, comparable” method of line selection.
Also, I
am not a fan of the idea that “there are no rules”.
See, the phrase “there are no rules” is the most
ABUSED phrase in the methodology. It is the
ONE RULE,
and it is a rule, that everyone remembers if they don’t remember anything else.
Under the guise of “there are no rules”, why pay attention to the guideline “best of last three, comparable”? Just eliminate the word “comparable” .
For many, the “best of last three, comparable” becomes the “best of last three,
REGARDLESS!!!”
Let’s use this horse as an example.
It doesn’t matter where you look at the SR, the route line shows as “the best of last three”, but it is
NOT COMPARABLE! Why is it being used?
WHY is any race that is well over a year old being used?
If the last line, the recent line, was that good that it would make you consider going back for a line, then why not just use the last line?
There are a lot of races to choose from every day. If the race you are looking at doesn't have solid contenders with solid lines to choose from,
move on to another race.
Using horses like this and using lines like this serve no other purpose than to cloud the issue. Horse racing is hard enough, why cloud it further?