I think if my life savings depended on the outcome of a horse race, I would have given the 6th at Belmont on Saturday a long look. The race was a nw2x/50k allowance featuring Emcee. Anyone following this horse has to have developed high respect for his talents. He'd run four times previously and always very, very well, including a 3rd in the Tom Fool and a 4th in the Carter. I don't know how those two races would stack up to Breeders' Cup Sprints, Beyer-wise, but I would rate them faster than some Breeders' Cup Sprints. Moreover, Emcee broke horribly in the Carter, was rushed up, and still gave a decent showing. His two races before being thrown to the wolves were open-length wins, including at Gulfstream in 1:20 4/5 when the track didn't even appear to be fast.
This is all leading to the fact that, while no one was going to get rich betting Emcee, his win price of $3.00 (1-2) suggested that the winner of the race was regarded as somewhat in doubt beforehand. I suppose odds could be looked upon a little bit like reasonable doubt court cases: there may have been doubt that Emcee would win, but there wasn't reasonable doubt. One-to-two odds are not "floor" odds. There may not really be a difference between 1-5 shots and 1-9 shots, but 1-2 odds are giving others in the race a chance and are not the floor.
Could a field even be put together for this condition (nw2x, 7f) where Emcee would not be a deserving favorite? Even keeping in mind that 3-year-olds and fillies and mares were eligible for the race, I'm not sure that it could. I don't think there are many sprinters in the land better than Emcee, and those that are have won three races.
I will grant you that a field could be put together where he wouldn't be a deserving 1-2 favorite, but this race at Belmont did not have a field at all on that level. The two main contenders were rated Manteca (4-1) and Simba's Story (5-1). The public goofed on these two, too; Simba's Story is a more attractive horse at this point in his career, and would go on to be 2nd to Emcee (who won by 4 1/2 lengths). But Simba's Story is far from spectacular. While never worse than 4th, he'd only run in one stake in nine starts, and his best Beyer had been 93. Manteca is an old favorite of mine, but was running in an unfamiliar sprint. He could be claimed in the race for $50,000, and believe me, no one is getting Emcee for that. Manteca is 7 years old, and he's only run more than four times in a year once, so he's not at the height of his powers.
I just wonder what people who bet on horses other than Emcee were thinking? Probably something semi-coherent, although exactly what eludes me. I mean, John Velazquez did choose to ride Went the Day Well and the other races at Churchill on Derby day instead of riding Emcee, so that's a strike against him.
Emcee had broken poorly in one of his races besides the Carter. Could people really have had it in their heads, "I'm going to take a shot against Emcee because he might get left at the gate?" That would be quite a cool, detached way to think, and not consistent with the thought processes of most bettors I've listened to.
No comments:
Post a Comment