[philman_36]

You took what I said wrong. I equate both as gambling.
You look into the horse, check out it's win/loss record, see who the owner and trainer are, bloodlines, etc., etc.
Some pony players go to great depths before placing their bet.
And some horses still never even show, much less place or win, yet folks put good money down on a horse they believe has a chance to win.
IMO, not much difference between the two.
Just my POV.

[bimbo]

And some horses still never even show, much less place or win, yet folks put good money down on a horse they believe has a chance to win.

Good horse players do not gamble good money only on a horse's "chance to win." There is another important factor that is ignored at the gambler's peril - "the expected payoff."

If the expected payoff exceeds the the horses chance to win, it is worth a bet. This is comparabe to an investors assessing a Risk / Reward ratio before investing. (You do that, don't you?) If one evaluates things that way, you can say that "Every horse in every race is worth a bet - if the payoff will be great enough; and every marketable stock is worth buying if the price is low enough."

In the stock market, I can see the possible rewards out there, but I am waiting for lower prices to reduce my risk before committing hard earned money.

[cynicom]

philman...

Lot of similarities to the track...

First, all of the players are "experts", whether they pick the nag or someone else does.

Second, No one ever admits to losing, everyone always wins or comes out even.

Third, the money players control the race from the gate to the finish line.

Fourth, it is always the little guy that goes home shirtless, sooner or later.