BC Stunner: 2 days, 3 new races..

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

The " zero chance " arguments are not only indefensible but they are in direct contrast to the discussion at hand.

Sorry, but just because George Washington fits into the unknown category that doesn't mean that reasonable arguments that could have been made for at least a few of the horses you mentioned ( whether you, me, or anyone " liked " them ).

ok, so 'zero chance' was a bad way to put it because of course no horse ever had 'zero chance' but i guess i'm trying to say that i don't think that the odds of any of those horses were good in relation to their chance of winning.

so if i can take the discussion a bit off course, maybe i'm not getting what you're saying -- because in handicapping, if i don't like a horse and don't give a horse any chance to win, then their odds are necessarily going to be lower in relation to what i believe is their chance of winning -- so doesn't it always matter when you wager and assess odds in any given race, whether or not you "like" a horse?