Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
I really don't need your obvious dissertation on value wagering. Thanks for the effort but I actually understood it going in.
On the other hand, while believe it or not, I probably have a better resume of successful wagering than you, I think when discussing horses on this board it gives a poster more credibility if he or she has stronger opinions and doesn't hedge what they say constantly. That was the point I was making.
|
And that's the point I was trying to attack. I'm sorry if it came across as personal.
IMO, the whole (handicapping) game is about having carefully formulated opinions. My impression from your posts in this thread was that you equate a "strong" opinion with an extreme opinion. I thought you wanted people to say "A horse is going to win" or "isn't going to win". Those are the kind of statements that I think have little value, and I don't think they give a poster credibility. Quite the contrary.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
All I said was I would be shocked if Lava Man hits the board. I never said I was taking a stand though I am quite sure that come race day I will take a stand that at least somewhat hinges on that opinion ( where it counts...at the betting windows ).
|
I'm not sure how that differs from what Rupert was doing, which you seemed critical of.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
The fact that you have chosen to assault me as though I made some outrageous claims about that opinion is what is actually, to steal a word from your post, ludicrous.
|
I'm honestly sorry if it came across as an assault on you. I was indeed ticked at the idea that a strong (unhedged?) opinion brings credibility, but I did not mean to make it personal. I could have chosen much better wording.
--Dunbar