Commentator is back

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

First of all, if the Commentator of last year was lining up against the four horses you just named the only one who MIGHT be a shorter price is Lost in the Fog. I suggest you take a serious look at his pps as from what you are posting it doesn't feel like you have really looked at them.

He didn't run in the BC Sprint in 2004 because he had just started racing and he didn't race in it last year because he was hurt. They do not " keep trying to stretch him out ". They stretched him out for the Donn for the first time and he subsequently came up with an injury. When Nick asked me my opinion about whether or not he should run him in the Whitney last year ( I only mention this because he thanked me in the winner's circle after the race both to the press and ESPN ) I pointed out that they didn't know if he could stretch effectively because it wasn't clear if he was injured in the Donn and he didn't exactly embarrass himself that day in light of the lightning fast pace he set. Therefore, it seemed like as good a time as any to find out, especially because there was really only one genuinely good horse to beat.

Pretty funny that you say that, because I've had his past performances open in Acrobat since last night and have been glancing at them a lot the last 12 hours.

What I see is a horse who's never been shorter than seven furlongs and has only run one race (The N3X win last year) that suggests he's got six-furlong speed. I see a horse who has started the year sprinting twice, and stretched out to nine furlongs both times. I see a horse who has never passed another horse in any of his wins and would UNDOUBTEDLY need to do that to win the Sprint.

Your point about LITF being the only one potentially shorter priced seems pretty irrelevant. So because people would bet on him (mostly just because he has high figures), that means he'd have a shot in the BC Sprint?

[blackthroatedwind]

The odds actually are pretty much a perfect ( less takeout of course ) interpretation of horses' actual chances of winning over time.

He actually had only one start last year before trying the Whitney.

I think you need to not only take a good look at his speed figures but also look at them relative to the horses you have mentioned. This horse is in a different league than some you mentioned.

I understand 6F is a question, but considering his running style and raw talent it is FAR from out of the question. One thing I would liketo see, and you brought this up, would be a win while rating. If he can successfully sit a couple lengths off horses, and he is as good this year as last, he won't just win the BC Sprint...he will drown them.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

The odds actually are pretty much a perfect ( less takeout of course ) interpretation of horses' actual chances of winning over time.

Did I just read that right?

[blackthroatedwind]

I don't know. If you think it is wrong then perhaps you didn't.

How extensive a study of this have you done?

[blackthroatedwind]

I think he's a better sprinter as well. That does not, however, preclude stretching him in the right situation. It seems the most important thing is finding a way to keep him sound. If he's sound he has all the ability in the world.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I think he's a better sprinter as well. That does not, however, preclude stretching him in the right situation. It seems the most important thing is finding a way to keep him sound. If he's sound he has all the ability in the world.

I agree...he is a talented little devil

I would like to see him tune up with a nice 6 furlong race. I would then like to see him go long in his final BC prep. Then enter him in the BC Sprint--boy that turn back in distance angle will be HUGE for me in handicapping the sprint this year.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I don't know. If you think it is wrong then perhaps you didn't.

How extensive a study of this have you done?

I guess it must be hard to find false favorites then, considering the odds of a horse are the perfect indicator as to what that horse's chances of winning are..

As a matter of fact, why even run the race? Let's just see how the public bets, then divide the purse accordingly!

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I guess it must be hard to find false favorites then, considering the odds of a horse are the perfect indicator as to what that horse's chances of winning are..

As a matter of fact, why even run the race? Let's just see how the public bets, then divide the purse accordingly!

You should think about both the post you are responding to and your response before making snide answers.

Maybe you should REALLY reread what I wrote. What I said was " The odds actually are pretty much a perfect ( less takeout of course ) interpretation of horses' actual chances of winning OVER TIME.

I could be snide, and nasty, as well, and my response would make a lot more sense. But I won't be....yet. I will simply say that you are wrong and learning and understanding this will help you as a horseplayer.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You should think about both the post you are responding to and your response before making snide answers.

Maybe you should REALLY reread what I wrote. What I said was " The odds actually are pretty much a perfect ( less takeout of course ) interpretation of horses' actual chances of winning OVER TIME.

I could be snide, and nasty, as well, and my response would make a lot more sense. But I won't be....yet. I will simply say that you are wrong and learning and understanding this will help you as a horseplayer.

I understood your point. What you overlooked is the fact that we aren't talking about the accuracy of odds OVER TIME. We're talking about the Breeders' Cup Sprint, and you made the "point" that, if Commentator lined up against the horses I mentioned earlier, he would be "no worse than second choice", as if that has any bearing on how he would run against them.

I never said anything about odds being inaccurate over time. I said that just because Commentator would be "no worse than second choice" doesn't make him any more likely to win the BCS than if he were fifth choice.