Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ateamstupid
You are so unbelievably biased, it's laughable. What the hell difference does it make if the public overbet him as to whether this horse is a star or not? So stars never get beaten at short odds? He was overbet. You already stated this. He shouldn't have been 8/5. What the **** does that have to do with the horse's talent?
|
Plenty actually. People bet him down to that level based on perceived "talent" up to and not including his pedigree, trainer, works, races, who he raced, etc. Based on that, people set this talent level of this horse at 8-5 over a horse who has more talent overall in Scat Daddy.
No Biz will probably be a decent horse, I dont think many people dispute that notion. Stars do get beaten at 8-5. Stars win at 5-2 as well. Fact of the matter is, we are dealing with babies and as soon as they are "stars" they are long forgotten sometimes. Not saying this will happen to either of them, but who the hell knows?
Also, the wagering level settled on by the public DOES represent the star quality of a horse. In fact, it makes a great point. We are WAY too quick to appoint stardom on these animals. For weeks now, since No Biz won his maiden, he has been the next star...well as is the situation many teams, the hype doesnt match up, at least right now. Who knows, maybe it will (personally, I say no). Looking at the facts, No Biz beat a horse from Pletcher's barn, maybe D Wayne, not 100% sure (and its too late to look up) who will probably be toiling in the fall mid level claimers at Churchill. That doesnt present star to me.
But, it does to some...and hell, I hope it does more often, and then my horse sits at 5-2 and is the clear class of the race. *Cash register sound*
Good arguments though.