Quote:
|
Originally Posted by oracle80
I just wanna get this out in the open now Point.
Redboarders are the equivalent of pond scum in the racing world. People who hang it out there before a race with thoughts and statements and picks, even if completely wrong, always get more credit than a redboarder who attempts to act oh so intellectual and knowledgable after the race with big words and oh so well written posts smacking of condescension.
We've been invaded with a hoard of redboarders lately who never once post thoughts or selections before races, yet have "all the answers" afterwards.
Just yesterday a few guys attempted to ridicule my contention that With A City was an impossible horse to bet on earlier this year. They made cases for how he could be played. I then asked them how much money they made on him and I heard crickets chirping. Thing is the ones they ridiculed were themselves, because if I ever could make any kind of case for a horse who is 50-1 or higher, you can damn well bet I'm gonna get some money down on the horse if I have to walk 10 miles to do so.
I, like you, feel he lays over the field by ten lengths. Yet I have zero confidence that he will win. What I'm trying to do is have one of these redboarders tell me who they think will beat him if he does lose, and if they think he will win or lose and why or why not.
Anyone who posts today and ignores this thread and then tries to redboard after the race, will be put into the "you are officially a cowardly redboarding scum" category and deemed a complete bull****ter and useless.  |
Looking at a race afterwards and seeing how someone could have picked a horse is not redboarding, that is just good handicapping, see what you missed and learn from your mistakes. If I came on here and said I picked With a City and had no post to back it up then that would be redboarding.
I post my picks on another forum all the time out there for everyone to see and judge me on, not my fault you don't read it. I'll start posting them more often on here as well if that will make you feel better but I hate double posting since I know a lot of people read both forums.
I don't know where you got crickets chirping since I told you I bet Silent Times in that race. As far as my not betting With a City I capped the race in the morning so I could watch the NCAA Tournament which is a million times more important to me than some second rate Derby prep over a surface that was totally unknown at the time. I thought the whole field sucked but that at 5-1 Silent Times had the best chance of actually being a quality horse. Had I known Silent Times would have gone from 5-1 to 7-2 and With a City from 30-1 to 49-1 then maybe I would have looked harder at With a City. Fact is I totally missed the fact that it was his second race off the layoff and tossed him on his form in his first race back. Unlike you though I can go back and look at it and see what I missed rather than swearing off the surface for life and making all sorts of unfounded claims that dirt horses won't be able to run on it.