[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I'm in no way suggesting there is no validity to what you are saying, and certainly specific instances you give can be helpful, but in order for it to be at all helpful you have to know how good the opinions are that you are getting.

As DrugS pointed out earlier, the connections you describe are too close to their horses, and their opinions are stilted. A good handicapper, while he may not have specific information, knows how to make reasonable judgements, at least generally, about the information you are referring to. And, as he will have an even and unbiased view of the ENTIRE field, he can weigh everything together. Will he make mistakes? Of course, but over time he will have a far fairer and more balanced judgement of the races.

Believe me, I have had MANY people of the categories you describe give me poor and inaccurate insights. I have been successful trusting my judgement in the past and I will continue to do so. I will be wrong more often than I am right....but it seems to work out in the end.

Fair enough. But I'm afraid that what I'm saying is being misinterpreted as "bet every horse you hear something about".. And that's not what I'm saying. I'm just making the point that if you take someone who handicaps the race versus someone who personally KNOWS connections in the race AND handicaps the race.. I think the latter has the former beaten far more often than not.