Commentator is back

[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.

[blackthroatedwind]

Then why was your previous smart ass response necessary? Perhaps you would do better to give your actual point and not snide remarks that don't reflect well on you.

In response to this last post, I would say if the odds are accurate over time, then any random snapshot rates to be accurate. Obviously, as horsepleyers, we attempt to exploit inaccuracies in just this. On the other hand, do you honestly believe that in any random race we are always going to be correct in OUR assumptions of relative chances of winning?

Personally, by the way, if you lined Commentator up against the four horses you mentioned, assuming all were in their primes, at 6F, I believe Commentator should be 4:5. I suppose should Henny Hughes demonstrate his debut this year was legit he could be a threat, but based on all of their career races, Commentator is a superior animal...at least on his best day versus their best days.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Then why was your previous smart ass response necessary? Perhaps you would do better to give your actual point and not snide remarks that don't reflect well on you.

In response to this last post, I would say if the odds are accurate over time, then any random snapshot rates to be accurate. Obviously, as horsepleyers, we attempt to exploit inaccuracies in just this. On the other hand, do you honestly believe that in any random race we are always going to be correct in OUR assumptions of relative chances of winning?

Personally, by the way, if you lined Commentator up against the four horses you mentioned, assuming all were in their primes, at 6F, I believe Commentator should be 4:5. I suppose should Henny Hughes demonstrate his debut this year was legit he could be a threat, but based on all of their career races, Commentator is a superior animal...at least on his best day versus their best days.

You may not realize it, but you have a habit of talking down to people on here, and it gets pretty irritating. And I have a habit of being a smartass. I think we'll get along just fine.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree on Commentator, but I still say the point you made about his odds is still completely irrelevant and I think most would agree.

[Gander]

I dont think a 6F win is out of the question for Commentator. But a 6F win in the BC Sprint against real nice horses who undoubtedly find 6F as their best distances like Lost in the Fog, Bordonaro, Anew, Kellys Landing, Henny Hughes and Proud Tower Too seems a bit unlikely.

I think his better chance for glory comes in longer races he can steal away on the front end and I think a win in the BC Classic would be more likely than a win in the BC Sprint.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

You may not realize it, but you have a habit of talking down to people on here, and it gets pretty irritating. And I have a habit of being a smartass. I think we'll get along just fine.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree on Commentator, but I still say the point you made about his odds is still completely irrelevant and I think most would agree.

I guess I need to talk down to more people here if they agree with you on the odds issue.

I'm open to any intelligent defense of your side. I certainly haven't heard one.

By the way, that wasn't talking down, that was honesty.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I guess I need to talk down to more people here if they agree with you on the odds issue.

I'm open to any intelligent defense of your side. I certainly haven't heard one.

By the way, that wasn't talking down, that was honesty.

I'm the one that needs an intelligent defense?

Your "point" is that because Commentator would be "no worse than second choice" in the BC Sprint, that somehow makes him more likely to win to win the race than if he were third or fourth choice, and I have no intelligent defense?

Guess the horses learned how to read odds, because you seem to think how the races are bet affect how the horses run.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I'm the one that needs an intelligent defense?

Your "point" is that because Commentator would be "no worse than second choice" in the BC Sprint, that somehow makes him more likely to win to win the race than if he were third or fourth choice, and I have no intelligent defense?

Guess the horses learned how to read odds, because you seem to think how the races are bet affect how the horses run.

So as not to appear to be talking down to you I will be as succinct as possible...

That response was your stupidest and least thought out yet. The only thing you are demonstrating is that you don't have a clue as to what I am talking about. Sorry, you are also demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of probability.

At the risk of talking down to you, as you don't seem to be leaving me much choice, statistically speaking the second choice has a better chance of winning ( this means he WILL win more often ) than the third or fourth choice.

We need some BC Futures now. Why doesn't horse racing put up some BC Futures up this time of year? I know some people here have some pull, how about suggesting it to somebody.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

So as not to appear to be talking down to you I will be as succinct as possible...

That response was your stupidest and least thought out yet. The only thing you are demonstrating is that you don't have a clue as to what I am talking about. Sorry, you are also demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of probability.

At the risk of talking down to you, as you don't seem to be leaving me much choice, statistically speaking the second choice has a better chance of winning ( this means he WILL win more often ) than the third or fourth choice.

As will I (be succinct)..

I made the point that I don't believe Commentator can keep up with Henny Hughes, Anew, Too Much Bling, Lost in the Fog, etc. at six furlongs.

Your response, essentially was:

"Well, out of those four, probably only Lost in the Fog will take more money!"

Kudos.

Your point is ridiculous. Using your logic, I can pick out any race I want at any track in America and say, because Horse X is the second choice in a race, that this horse has the second best chance to win said race.