[Mitch44]

I myself would have considered the # 8 as a contender stugots119, whether I would have played it or not I can't honestly say after the fact.


This #8 would have been a contender for the master "Jim Bradshaw" and if it would be a contender than it would be for me. Coincidentally while helping a Canadian friend I specifically made this point.


According to Bradshaw (the match up expert) anytime you have a race of all S type horses the advantage goes to early horses. In this race that's the # 1 & # 8. The master wins another with the # 1 , just another reason not to throw out the # 8. Additionally the 8 is highly ranked on RX 1, 2,& 3. Ranked high on EPR which meets Bradshaw's criteria.

Another recent race similar to this was the 1st race on Belmont day 9 Jun 18 made up of all late horses or OTE , same outcome which I brought this to the attention as a teaching point to my Canadian friend.


As far as contenders each individual has to find what works for them and has the winner in the top 4 at least 85% of the time. I can do that in less than a minute or two and than proceed from there.


The # 8 in this race definitely would have been a contender for me. I don't have all the information to make a decision to bet it or not. I do see he was recently claimed and perhaps that's the reason for his last race declined or had a problem during the race but he definitely was and would be a contender for me.



I might add that just by the nature of the game when it comes to payoffs both to the player and the connections many horses have to have so called zero races, after all these races aren't limited to 4 starters etc. Zero races can be caused by many factors besides form itself.


Mitch44