How good is Lava Man?

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Racing is supposed to be about taking a stand. No " I don't like his chances BUT " opinions do anybody any good. Like a horse....hate a horse...be right....be wrong....but have a f'n position!

Says who? Racing is about many things. If you are talking about handicapping successfully, then it most certainly is NOT about taking the kind of position that says a horse has no chance or says a horse is a lock. Those are the kind of "stands" that complete amateurs would take. Every horse has a chance. The successful capper is one who can tell that the odds he or she is getting on a bet is better than "fair" odds.

I'm sure Rupert will have a "position" when it counts, which is on race day. A reasonable position at that point is NOT "I'm going to bet Lava Man." A reasonable position would be "I'll bet Lava Man if it looks like I'm going to get 6-1", or some other number that Rupert thinks is higher than "fair" odds.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I will be stunned if Lava Man hits the board in the BC Classic.

Is this your idea of "taking a position"? What does "I will be stunned" mean exactly? Would you give me 50-1 on LM hitting the board? Do you think Lava Man has less than a 10% chance of hitting the board? Without even capping the race carefully, I'll take all the action at 9-1 that you want to give. That's a good bet for you if you think Lava Man has less than a 10% chance to hit the board. But I'm pretty sure that that bet is not appealing to you. So what is "stunned" exactly?

Let me shift gears a minute. What if I say that Invasor is a great bet at 7-1 in the JCGC? Well, if he wins, am I a genius? If he loses, am I a dope?

If I like Invasor at 7-1 and he loses, so what? If I win 20% of my 7-1 bets, I would be the envy of every sports bettor and handicapper in the world. But winning 20% of the time means losing 80% of the time. (I know you knew that, ;>), but I'm stressing the downside!) So Invasor losing doesn't say much about my capping, does it?

In a similar vein, Invasor winning wouldn't make me a genius either. Maybe Invasor winning is the only 7-1 shot I'll pick in my next 20 bets in that odds range.

Over the course of time if accurate records were being kept, which they certainly aren't here, statements like "I like Invasor at 7-1" would add up and either show the person knows how to cap or doesn't know squat. But tossing out an opinion, or worse, a "stand", here and there doesn't prove anything.

And insisting that someone "take a stand" rather than voice a hedged opinion is ludicrous.

--Dunbar

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Says who? Racing is about many things. If you are talking about handicapping successfully, then it most certainly is NOT about taking the kind of position that says a horse has no chance or says a horse is a lock. Those are the kind of "stands" that complete amateurs would take. Every horse has a chance. The successful capper is one who can tell that the odds he or she is getting on a bet is better than "fair" odds.

I'm sure Rupert will have a "position" when it counts, which is on race day. A reasonable position at that point is NOT "I'm going to bet Lava Man." A reasonable position would be "I'll bet Lava Man if it looks like I'm going to get 6-1", or some other number that Rupert thinks is higher than "fair" odds.



Is this your idea of "taking a position"? What does "I will be stunned" mean exactly? Would you give me 50-1 on LM hitting the board? Do you think Lava Man has less than a 10% chance of hitting the board? Without even capping the race carefully, I'll take all the action at 9-1 that you want to give. That's a good bet for you if you think Lava Man has less than a 10% chance to hit the board. But I'm pretty sure that that bet is not appealing to you. So what is "stunned" exactly?

Let me shift gears a minute. What if I say that Invasor is a great bet at 7-1 in the JCGC? Well, if he wins, am I a genius? If he loses, am I a dope?

If I like Invasor at 7-1 and he loses, so what? If I win 20% of my 7-1 bets, I would be the envy of every sports bettor and handicapper in the world. But winning 20% of the time means losing 80% of the time. (I know you knew that, ;>), but I'm stressing the downside!) So Invasor losing doesn't say much about my capping, does it?

In a similar vein, Invasor winning wouldn't make me a genius either. Maybe Invasor winning is the only 7-1 shot I'll pick in my next 20 bets in that odds range.

Over the course of time if accurate records were being kept, which they certainly aren't here, statements like "I like Invasor at 7-1" would add up and either show the person knows how to cap or doesn't know squat. But tossing out an opinion, or worse, a "stand", here and there doesn't prove anything.

And insisting that someone "take a stand" rather than voice a hedged opinion is ludicrous.

--Dunbar

I really don't need your obvious dissertation on value wagering. Thanks for the effort but I actually understood it going in.

On the other hand, while believe it or not, I probably have a better resume of successful wagering than you, I think when discussing horses on this board it gives a poster more credibility if he or she has stronger opinions and doesn't hedge what they say constantly. That was the point I was making.

All I said was I would be shocked if Lava Man hits the board. I never said I was taking a stand though I am quite sure that come race day I will take a stand that at least somewhat hinges on that opinion ( where it counts...at the betting windows ). The fact that you have chosen to assault me as though I made some outrageous claims about that opinion is what is actually, to steal a word from your post, ludicrous.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I really don't need your obvious dissertation on value wagering. Thanks for the effort but I actually understood it going in.

On the other hand, while believe it or not, I probably have a better resume of successful wagering than you, I think when discussing horses on this board it gives a poster more credibility if he or she has stronger opinions and doesn't hedge what they say constantly. That was the point I was making.

All I said was I would be shocked if Lava Man hits the board. I never said I was taking a stand though I am quite sure that come race day I will take a stand that at least somewhat hinges on that opinion ( where it counts...at the betting windows ). The fact that you have chosen to assault me as though I made some outrageous claims about that opinion is what is actually, to steal a word from your post, ludicrous.

I know a little bit about Dunbar and I can tell that I would be extremely surprised if you have made more money gambling than he has. I'm not saying you haven't because I don't know anything about you. I'm saying that you would have had to have made some serious money over the years gambling because Dunbar has been successful at it for a long time. He's not afraid to step up to the plate either.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I know a little bit about Dunbar and I can tell that I would be extremely surprised if you have made more money gambling than he has. I'm not saying you haven't because I don't know anything about you. I'm saying that you would have had to have made some serious money over the years gambling because Dunbar has been successful at it for a long time. He's not afraid to step up to the plate either.

Certainly giving me a ridiculously simple ( and wholly unnecessary ) lecture on " any horse is playable at the right price " does not encourage me to believe he is a big winner at the racetrack. Anything is possible but his opening salvo hardly made me a believer. Now seeing that you two have some kind of relationship makes his unnecessary interuption even less interesting.

Regardless, it's all just an exchange of thoughts, nothing more. I enjoyed it.

[SentToStud]

What's the big deal about all this?

Lava Man has knocks. Great year, but can he travel, etc...?

Bernidini's just a 3 yo. Great year, but can he beat older?

Invasor's not all that thrilling. Great year, but beating Sun King by a nose?

Wouldn't be surprised to see any or all of them lose or run out of the exacta. Hopefully that will be my opinion on BC Day.

I appreciate peoples' opinions and there's nothing wrong having one.

But all the salty comments are kind of silly, still seven weeks out.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I really don't need your obvious dissertation on value wagering. Thanks for the effort but I actually understood it going in.

On the other hand, while believe it or not, I probably have a better resume of successful wagering than you, I think when discussing horses on this board it gives a poster more credibility if he or she has stronger opinions and doesn't hedge what they say constantly. That was the point I was making.

And that's the point I was trying to attack. I'm sorry if it came across as personal.

IMO, the whole (handicapping) game is about having carefully formulated opinions. My impression from your posts in this thread was that you equate a "strong" opinion with an extreme opinion. I thought you wanted people to say "A horse is going to win" or "isn't going to win". Those are the kind of statements that I think have little value, and I don't think they give a poster credibility. Quite the contrary.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

All I said was I would be shocked if Lava Man hits the board. I never said I was taking a stand though I am quite sure that come race day I will take a stand that at least somewhat hinges on that opinion ( where it counts...at the betting windows ).

I'm not sure how that differs from what Rupert was doing, which you seemed critical of.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

The fact that you have chosen to assault me as though I made some outrageous claims about that opinion is what is actually, to steal a word from your post, ludicrous.

I'm honestly sorry if it came across as an assault on you. I was indeed ticked at the idea that a strong (unhedged?) opinion brings credibility, but I did not mean to make it personal. I could have chosen much better wording.

--Dunbar

[blackthroatedwind]

No problem. To be honest I realized when I was posting the " take a stand " diatribe that it was, in essense, contrary to successful wagering. I was just somewhere between having fun and making a point.

I guess I just feel like in the fairy tale world of the internet it's a little more fun if we have stronger opinions of specific horses and races. It makes the arguments more entertaining. I think the depth of opinions will identify the ones worth paying attention to anyway.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

No problem. To be honest I realized when I was posting the " take a stand " diatribe that it was, in essense, contrary to successful wagering. I was just somewhere between having fun and making a point.

I guess I just feel like in the fairy tale world of the internet it's a little more fun if we have stronger opinions of specific horses and races. It makes the arguments more entertaining. I think the depth of opinions will identify the ones worth paying attention to anyway.

That's totally reasonable. I'm confident we'll have no shortage of strong opinions as we head to the BC. In fact, I'm going to take a stand that there will be more strong opinions voiced than either of us want to read! Man, talk about going out on a limb. ;>)

--Dunbar

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Says who? Racing is about many things. If you are talking about handicapping successfully, then it most certainly is NOT about taking the kind of position that says a horse has no chance or says a horse is a lock. Those are the kind of "stands" that complete amateurs would take. Every horse has a chance. The successful capper is one who can tell that the odds he or she is getting on a bet is better than "fair" odds.

I'm sure Rupert will have a "position" when it counts, which is on race day. A reasonable position at that point is NOT "I'm going to bet Lava Man." A reasonable position would be "I'll bet Lava Man if it looks like I'm going to get 6-1", or some other number that Rupert thinks is higher than "fair" odds.



Is this your idea of "taking a position"? What does "I will be stunned" mean exactly? Would you give me 50-1 on LM hitting the board? Do you think Lava Man has less than a 10% chance of hitting the board? Without even capping the race carefully, I'll take all the action at 9-1 that you want to give. That's a good bet for you if you think Lava Man has less than a 10% chance to hit the board. But I'm pretty sure that that bet is not appealing to you. So what is "stunned" exactly?

Let me shift gears a minute. What if I say that Invasor is a great bet at 7-1 in the JCGC? Well, if he wins, am I a genius? If he loses, am I a dope?

If I like Invasor at 7-1 and he loses, so what? If I win 20% of my 7-1 bets, I would be the envy of every sports bettor and handicapper in the world. But winning 20% of the time means losing 80% of the time. (I know you knew that, ;>), but I'm stressing the downside!) So Invasor losing doesn't say much about my capping, does it?

In a similar vein, Invasor winning wouldn't make me a genius either. Maybe Invasor winning is the only 7-1 shot I'll pick in my next 20 bets in that odds range.

Over the course of time if accurate records were being kept, which they certainly aren't here, statements like "I like Invasor at 7-1" would add up and either show the person knows how to cap or doesn't know squat. But tossing out an opinion, or worse, a "stand", here and there doesn't prove anything.

And insisting that someone "take a stand" rather than voice a hedged opinion is ludicrous.

--Dunbar

Yes, I agree with pretty much everything you said. When it comes to taking a stand in general whether you're talking about a stock, a sports team, or a horse, I have always found that the really successful people are more conservative with their prdictions than the people who are not successful. It's fuuny how the biggest losing players are the ones who will "guarantee" you that a certain team is going to win or they are "positive" that a stock will go up. The guys who are the most successful will rarely make bold predictions, they will tell you their opinion but they will usually throw in a disclaimer as to why they might be wrong. I've got a frined who is a really successful money manager who is woth over $100 million. he doesn't give me stock picks too often but when he does his record has been incredible. He gave me one stock at $14 and it went to $70 within a year. He gave me another one at $16 that went to $80 in less than a year. As good as this guy is, he never acts like any of these stocks are "sure things".

There is another guy who was a childhood friend of mine that I hadn't spoken to in a long time. I heard he was a stock broker so I gave him a call to see what his thoughts were. He was a relatively bright guy as a kid but I had no idea whether he was a good stock broker or not. It took me about 3 minutes on the phone with him to figure out that he was not a very good broker. He told me that some $50 stock would go to $100 within 6 months. I said, "Wow, you think so?" He said, "I know so!" Right when he said that, I thought to myself "This guy is a schmuck." Who would say, "I know so!" He actually said "I know so!" about each predition that he gave me. By the way, it was no surprise to me when I heard that he was broke a couple of years later.