I wonder if you are a little superstitious.
Perhaps you don't consider tempting fate and all that jiggery-pokery.
It's funny how you can think you know better. And a race result details that you didn't know best at all.
So what am I talking about?
Take this race for instance:
2:00 Thirsk -
I said: ''Although not significantly entered, Lieutenant Silver has respectable win and place claims. Maybe of interest if available at each-way prices.''
Karl Burke's horse finished 3rd, never really an each-way price. I did actually had a small each-way bet on the exchanges at 11/4.
I said there wasn't a significantly entered juvenile in this race. But that wasn't the truth. The horse in question was the easy run-away winner Five Amarones who won by four-and-a-half lengths.
See the result here
So how come I didn't mention this horse? I did actually write a short paragraph but deleted it. Because I thought I knew better and questioned whether it could win. See, that's what happens when you think you know best.
The horse was originally trained by Tom Dascombe in the ownership of The Famous Five Partnership.
This bay gelding was sold to Mike Smith for £6000 after finishing runner-up in a Selling Stakes race at Ripon. With a rating of just 67 I thought it looked very unlikely. However, when trained by Tom Dascombe he was given a Lily Agnes Stakes entry and Class 2 Stakes. See the entries here for Tom Dascombe.
I imagine the testing conditions were just what this gelding likes and it showed. With win prize money of £6,301 Mike Smith got his money back in one race and owns a horse that's worth a good deal more.
As I have said before, you don't need me to detail every runner. It is better when readers actually familiarise themselves with everything. It may seem like a lot of information but it's not.
Sometimes it pays to look or not think you know best.