Commentator is back

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

The odds actually are pretty much a perfect ( less takeout of course ) interpretation of horses' actual chances of winning over time.

Did I just read that right?

[blackthroatedwind]

I don't know. If you think it is wrong then perhaps you didn't.

How extensive a study of this have you done?

[blackthroatedwind]

I think he's a better sprinter as well. That does not, however, preclude stretching him in the right situation. It seems the most important thing is finding a way to keep him sound. If he's sound he has all the ability in the world.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I think he's a better sprinter as well. That does not, however, preclude stretching him in the right situation. It seems the most important thing is finding a way to keep him sound. If he's sound he has all the ability in the world.

I agree...he is a talented little devil

I would like to see him tune up with a nice 6 furlong race. I would then like to see him go long in his final BC prep. Then enter him in the BC Sprint--boy that turn back in distance angle will be HUGE for me in handicapping the sprint this year.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I don't know. If you think it is wrong then perhaps you didn't.

How extensive a study of this have you done?

I guess it must be hard to find false favorites then, considering the odds of a horse are the perfect indicator as to what that horse's chances of winning are..

As a matter of fact, why even run the race? Let's just see how the public bets, then divide the purse accordingly!

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I guess it must be hard to find false favorites then, considering the odds of a horse are the perfect indicator as to what that horse's chances of winning are..

As a matter of fact, why even run the race? Let's just see how the public bets, then divide the purse accordingly!

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.

[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.