this topic/question is 'triggering' to me.
i once over-bet my bankroll and happened to win.
Horse called "Dialed In" for Nick Zito in the Florida Derby. In hindsight it was a horse that I would
never bet.
He was about 2/1 in a 7 or 8 horse field. Everyone knew about the horse.
*Posted a bit wide, which isn't usually good, but he was a closer in that race, so the post was not significant.
* He had to make quite a deep close, and overcome a flow that stagnated into a 'merry-go-round' flow.
*However it was a bit unique in that the pace and distance were challenging enough to the rivals in spite of a flow that looks locked into the merry go round fixed positions. There may be small truth in an observation that Dialed In kind of 'ran his own race'. In general, I don't do the 'ran his own race thing'. I consider the flow to be 'the flow'.
The pace setter was 69/1... Pace Advantage has all these Malcolm Gladwell "Blink" scholars...
pa geniuses
So the tendency is to consider how cheap speed affected the situation...
but a closer look frees us from bias of 'commitment and consistency' and 'anchoring bias' to the instant 'blink' impression of noticing the pace setter was a big long shot.
Mildly interesting is that the pace setter ran on for a relatively willing 2nd to Dialed In.
Mildly interesting with garlic butter sauce is that the pace setter was a decent horse named "Shackleford" and (4th in Derby, won Preakness, 2nd Haskell, 2nd Dirt Mile, then at four years old won a mediocre Met as well as winning the Clark)... So in hindsight, Shackleford was significantly overlayed, as he was better than 69/1.
Wanted Alligator shoes because it was the Florida Derby. Could only find Crocodile, so got the dress shoes and the crocodile belt. Twelve years later still break them out occasionally.
I do not recommend risky horse racing bets. For every positive story there are some rough, rough negative (Losing) stories.
I have nine fingers...
