Gomez To Announce His Mount

[justindew]

Originally Posted by stonegossard

It's pretty simple Justin. One horse who is proven on dirt and faster will be at higher odds than a horse who has never ran on dirt and is slower. I think it's pretty clear cut where the "value" is.

So I guess a genius like yourself doesn't take into account odds/returns when considering "value".

Keep burying yourself.

Let's see. I asked you to define value, and you proceeded to tell me where the value was in the Dunkirk/POTN debate.

I'll ask again.

What is your definition of value?

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by justindew

Let's see. I asked you to define value, and you proceeded to tell me where the value was in the Dunkirk/POTN debate.

I'll ask again.

What is your definition of value?

We are debating Dunkirk vs POTN and where there will be value. Crazy how I sticked to the topic huh.

My definiton of value ? Hopefully you can follow along. I look at risk vs reward and which scenario has a better return based on the risk I am taking. That scenario with better return vs risk offers the value. In determining "value" the return is the most important thing.

Capiche?

[HaloWishingwell]

Originally Posted by stonegossard

It's pretty simple Justin. One horse who is proven on dirt and faster will be at higher odds than a horse who has never ran on dirt and is slower. I think it's pretty clear cut where the "value" is.

So I guess a genius like yourself doesn't take into account odds/returns when considering "value".

Keep burying yourself.

Just curious, the POTN backer has seen him as the betting favorite in his last three races. Just the fact that he won't be close to those odds make him worth the bet to his followers?

[justindew]

Originally Posted by stonegossard

We are debating Dunkirk vs POTN and where there will be value. Crazy how I sticked to the topic huh.

My definiton of value ? Hopefully you can follow along. I look at risk vs reward and which scenario has a better return based on the risk I am taking. That scenario with better return vs risk offers the value.

Capiche?

This is why you are a moron. You still have no idea what the discussion is about. Here's the sequence of events:

1. You said POTN had beaten horrendous horses.
2. I pointed out that this was a ridiculous statement.
3. You rescinded your original statement.
4. Feeling defeated, you tried to turn the discussion to value.
5. I asked you to define value.
6. Instead of defining value, you told me where you felt the value was, then claimed victory.
7. I reminded you to define value.
8. You changed the topic and then claimed to be the one sticking to the topic.

I actually agree somewhat with your definition of value. But since I like POTN more than Dunkirk and I suspect they will be similar odds, I think POTN offers better value.

I think it's pretty clear here that you are at a higher level intellectually than I am. It's probably in my best interest to quit now, and retreat into hiding.

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by justindew

This is why you are a moron. You still have no idea what the discussion is about. Here's the sequence of events:

1. You said POTN had beaten horrendous horses.
2. I pointed out that this was a ridiculous statement.
3. You rescinded your original statement.
4. Feeling defeated, you tried to turn the discussion to value.
5. I asked you to define value.
6. Instead of defining value, you told me where you felt the value was, then claimed victory.
7. I reminded you to define value.
8. You changed the topic and then claimed to be the one sticking to the topic.

I actually agree somewhat with your definition of value. But since I like POTN more than Dunkirk and I suspect they will be similar odds, I think POTN offers better value.

I think it's pretty clear here that you are at a higher level intellectually than I am. It's probably in my best interest to quit now, and retreat into hiding.

His last two races he did beat horrendous horses. I guess I should have been more specific. I have never felt defeated. Not sure where you are getting that from.

Points 3-8 in your little list are absolutely not true. You really are an idiot Justin. Typical you. When you are wrong you just try and turn things around. I answered every thing you threw at me. I am sorry if you couldn't follow along.

Dunkirk and POTN will not be similar odds. I think you are nuts.

As far as intelligence, I am far from a genius, but when having a conversation on here with you I feel like one. This is a repeat of our little spat last year. You take things I say and try and turn them around, fail, and then give up.


This is classic Justindew.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by stonegossard

His last two races he did beat horrendous horses. I guess I should have been more specific. I have never felt defeated. Not sure where you are getting that from.

Points 3-8 in your little list are absolutely not true. You really are an idiot Justin. Typical you. When you are wrong you just try and turn things around. I answered every thing you threw at me. I am sorry if you couldn't follow along.

Dunkirk and POTN will not be similar odds. I think you are nuts.

As far as intelligence, I am far from a genius, but when having a conversation on here with you I feel like one. This is a repeat of our little spat last year. You take things I say and try and turn them around, fail, and then give up.


This is classic Justindew.

The fact that you rescinded your original comment, the retroactive claim of sarcasm, and your mischaracterization of the topic of this debate are where I'm getting it from.

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by justindew

The fact that you rescinded your original comment, the retroactive claim of sarcasm, and your mischaracterization of the topic of this debate are where I'm getting it from.

Never rescinded it. When I made the comment I was referring to his last 2 races. I cleared it up. Big difference between that and rescinding something. Again, must I spell everything out for you?

If you didn't catch on to the Pletcher comment being sarcastic then you really are beyond stupid. Anyone on this board who has been following racing knows that his record in the derby sucks. Sorry if this was over your head.

Stay down for the count like you did last time Justin.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by stonegossard

Never rescinded it. When I made the comment I was referring to his last 2 races. I cleared it up. Big difference between that and rescinding something. Again, must I spell everything out for you?

If you didn't catch on to the Pletcher comment being sarcastic then you really are beyond stupid. Anyone on this board who has been following racing knows that his record in the derby sucks. Sorry if this was over your head.

Stay down for the count like you did last time Justin.

So I assume you aren't disagreeing that you mischaracterized the topic of this debate, since you failed to make even a feeble attempt to respond to that accusation.

[santana]

Originally Posted by ezgoerbaby

Basically because he's a hyped horse. He may win...but I'd bet that he doesn't...I think he probably has a hell of a shot in the Preakness...I don't like his lack of foundation...they rushed this horse in, and yes, he will need everything to go perfectly, if he gets stopped in the middle of a run, I don't think he will be able to recover as well as some of the other horses...he's not frigging Alysheba.

Now there is a name i have not seen in a loooong time.
How have you been?

[ezgoerbaby]

Originally Posted by santana

Now there is a name i have not seen in a loooong time.
How have you been?

Peachy....how bout you? My old cell phone's screen crapped out so I lost all my numbers...I've moved...all kinds of stuff has happened...

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by justindew

So I assume you aren't disagreeing that you mischaracterized the topic of this debate, since you failed to make even a feeble attempt to respond to that accusation.

You are a trip man. Coming from the king of changing the topic/ducking questions.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the topic of the debate is which horse was chosen by Gomez. I claimed that I feel that Dunkirk is a much better choice because I believe he is a better horse. I explained my reasons in detail, which you couldn't follow. We then went into "value" which again I explained, but this time I think you caught on after I had to word things to you like a child.

This is a repeat of last years economy discussion. Everytime you were wrong you changed topics. I then answered them.

In all honesty you are really not a bright guy.

[stonegossard]

By the way Justin this was my original post : I dont believe I said they all were horrendous.

stonegossard
Monmouth Park Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 779



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gomez made a big mistake here. Pioneer of the Nile has too many question marks. Will he take to dirt ? Can he rate/get the 1 1/4 ? His last two races he sure as hell looked like he wanted to be up close early. Plus POTN has beaten some horrendous fields. Hopefully Pletcher gives the mount to anybody but Ramon D. Hopefully Orlando Mojica isn't taken yet.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by stonegossard

You are a trip man. Coming from the king of changing the topic/ducking questions.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the topic of the debate is which horse was chosen by Gomez. I claimed that I feel that Dunkirk is a much better choice because I believe he is a better horse. I explained my reasons in detail, which you couldn't follow. We then went into "value" which again I explained, but this time I think you caught on after I had to word things to you like a child.

This is a repeat of last years economy discussion. Everytime you were wrong you changed topics. I then answered them.

In all honesty you are really not a bright guy.

1. You're wrong. The only thing I was debating was your comment that Gomez should not have chosen POTN because POTN had beaten some horrendous fields. The clear implication being he has not faced good horses in his victories.

2. I followed them. They just had nothing to do with this discussion.

3. You may be right. But you have a difficult time with logic, and you have proven this in this thread.

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by justindew

1. You're wrong. The only thing I was debating was your comment that Gomez should not have chosen POTN because POTN had beaten some horrendous fields. The clear implication being he has not faced good horses in his victories.

2. I followed them. They just had nothing to do with this discussion.

3. You may be right. But you have a difficult time with logic, and you have proven this in this thread.

1- Not wrong. Please learn to read. Also please look at the last 2 fields he beat, then get back to me.

2- My points were replies to all of your comments.

3- I have a problem with logic? That's hysterical. I think you have problem with basic reading comprehension. Go back and read this thread. You come off beyond embarassing.


Anyways...back to the value thing. You claimed that Dunkirk and POTN will be similar odds. But then on your blog you say this:

. No word yet on where Garrett Gomez will land. As a supporter of Pioneerof The Nile, I guess I want him to ride my horse. But then again, if he were to choose Dunkirk, the odds on POTN would become a lot juicier.


So which is it? In this statement you clearly believe that the horse that Gomez doesn't take will be much higher odds.

This should be good.


By the way, your blog on your Derby dream was cute.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by stonegossard

1- Not wrong. Please learn to read. Also please look at the last 2 fields he beat, then get back to me.

2- My points were replies to all of your comments.

3- I have a problem with logic? That's hysterical. I think you have problem with basic reading comprehension. Go back and read this thread. You come off beyond embarassing.


Anyways...back to the value thing. You claimed that Dunkirk and POTN will be similar odds. But then on your blog you say this:

. No word yet on where Garrett Gomez will land. As a supporter of Pioneerof The Nile, I guess I want him to ride my horse. But then again, if he were to choose Dunkirk, the odds on POTN would become a lot juicier.


So which is it? In this statement you clearly believe that the horse that Gomez doesn't take will be much higher odds.

This should be good.


By the way, your blog on your Derby dream was cute.

I think I have pinpointed the problem. Here is your M.O.....

-You develop an opinion.
-You post that opinion, sometimes along with other thoughts, sometimes without other supporting thoughts that you failed to articulate in your post.
-Someone else responds to your post, and takes issue with one or more of your points.
-You then assume that the person is responding to and disagreeing with your entire argument, including the thoughts that you didn't even post.

This is why debates with you often dissolve into nonsensical back-and-forth lunacy. And it's the only possible explanation for why you have created this imaginary debate about value and the correctness of Gomez's decision.

I made one point this entire time: That the fields POTN has beaten have not been "horrendous". That is the only point I made. Period. Yet your small brain has somehow turned this into a debate as to not only whether or not Gomez made the right choice, but also which horses will offer better value.

And I'm not sure what point you think you were making with the quote from my blog. Yes, I think the horse that Gomez rides will be bet more heavily than if Gomez was not riding that horse. So what? Show me where I have said anything in this thread that contradicts this position. (Your implication that I "clearly believe that the horse that Gomez doesn't take will be much higher odds" is insane. I only said POTN's odds will be higher without Gomez.

In fact, show me anything I have stated in this thread other than that I believe your comment about POTN's horrendous opponents was ridicuolous, and that I believe their odds will be similar.

(Also, similar does not mean "identical.")

[justindew]

I think this is the point in the thread where your logic took a detour...


justindew
I think if you had been able to make this argument to Anderson and Gomez, they likely would have landed on Dunkirk. I doubt they considered any of the above.

stonegossard:
Ok genius. Where does Gomez plan on riding most of the year? If you can figure that out then the next question. Who has a bigger presence in that area ?

Ya think that had something to do with his decision ?

Prior to this point, I had never entered the debate regarding the intelligence of Gomez's choice or the reasons for it. All I had done was take issue with your comment that the fields he had beaten were horrendous.

Yes or no: Do you understand this fact?

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by justindew

I think I have pinpointed the problem. Here is your M.O.....

-You develop an opinion.
-You post that opinion, sometimes along with other thoughts, sometimes without other supporting thoughts that you failed to articulate in your post.
-Someone else responds to your post, and takes issue with one or more of your points.
-You then assume that the person is responding to and disagreeing with your entire argument, including the thoughts that you didn't even post.

This is why debates with you often dissolve into nonsensical back-and-forth lunacy. And it's the only possible explanation for why you have created this imaginary debate about value and the correctness of Gomez's decision.

I made one point this entire time: That the fields POTN has beaten have not been "horrendous". That is the only point I made. Period. Yet your small brain has somehow turned this into a debate as to not only whether or not Gomez made the right choice, but also which horses will offer better value.

And I'm not sure what point you think you were making with the quote from my blog. Yes, I think the horse that Gomez rides will be bet more heavily than if Gomez was not riding that horse. So what? Show me where I have said anything in this thread that contradicts this position. (Your implication that I "clearly believe that the horse that Gomez doesn't take will be much higher odds" is insane. I only said POTN's odds will be higher without Gomez.

In fact, show me anything I have stated in this thread other than that I believe your comment about POTN's horrendous opponents was ridicuolous, and that I believe their odds will be similar.

(Also, similar does not mean "identical.")

Actually outside of some sarcastic/wise ass back and forths with others, you are the only person I really seem to have long winded arguments with. Probably because you have a tough time following along with what I say. Then when I reply you change topics/duck, I then respond to your new claims, then you claim I changed the topic. It's the same script from last time with you.

This is great. Classic Justin:

And I'm not sure what point you think you were making with the quote from my blog. Yes, I think the horse that Gomez rides will be bet more heavily than if Gomez was not riding that horse. So what? Show me where I have said anything in this thread that contradicts this position. (Your implication that I "clearly believe that the horse that Gomez doesn't take will be much higher odds" is insane. I only said POTN's odds will be higher without Gomez.


So let's do some basic math.

POTN will be much lower odds because of Gomez.

Dunkirk will be higher odds because of no gomez. (Juicier = much higher....your words)


So POTN and Dunkirk will be the same odds ?


I was gonna mention something about your SAT math score, but then saw where you attended college and held back.

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by justindew

I think this is the point in the thread where your logic took a detour...


justindew
I think if you had been able to make this argument to Anderson and Gomez, they likely would have landed on Dunkirk. I doubt they considered any of the above.

stonegossard:
Ok genius. Where does Gomez plan on riding most of the year? If you can figure that out then the next question. Who has a bigger presence in that area ?

Ya think that had something to do with his decision ?

Prior to this point, I had never entered the debate regarding the intelligence of Gomez's choice or the reasons for it. All I had done was take issue with your comment that the fields he had beaten were horrendous.

Yes or no: Do you understand this fact?

Yes. I undersand that you change the topic all the time , and then blame me once I give you valid answers.

What we are having on here is a debate. Although it is one sided and you are getting clobbered, it is still a debate. Debates do have times when new points are brought up (ie....value) and these points are addressed. It's funny how you start whining that "I didn't say this, I didn't debate about that", but go back, you hit me with all different points and I answered them.

[justindew]