Arrogance or cofidence ?

If you price something up and you appear to come up with a price that is materially out of line with what the market is showing, then you can either proceed on the basis that you are right and all others are wrong, or vice versa.
Arrogance or confidence would push you to proceed to make a seemingly " value" wager, whilst humility or lack of confidence would presumably make you hesitate and reconsider making the wager.
After all, there must be reasons for the price discrepancy, and who is to say you have thought of all the important contributing factors.
Many people come on here and say well the important thing is that you made a " value" bet, not that it won or lost.
Well is that really correct ?
It's no good making lots of what you deem to be quality " value" bets, if your strike rate on those bets is not correpondingly adequate.
As far as the Kelly stakers are concerned, this arrogance/confidence is seemingly taken even one step further, in that they then quantify their stake amount in relation to their perceived edge. That is the more they are confident their value calculation is correct and to their favour, the more they will push things with their Kelly calculations ( eg  many seem to swing between 1/4, 1/2 kelly systems etc ).
Now to be sure I'm playing devil's advocate here just a bit, but I am curious ( being a non-value driven, non Kelly staking type punter myself ) as to how the proponents of the pure " value "  betting approach to any and all events, reconcile the above points within themselves.
Or do they even bother with them ?

Well is that really correct ?

Yes

It's no good making lots of what you deem to be quality " value" bets, if your strike rate on those bets is not correpondingly adequate.

If you use Kelly, it's fine.

how the proponents of the pure " value "  betting approach to any and all events, reconcile the above points within themselves.

Luckily "Confidence" is a statistically measurable concept and not just a **** swinging contest. I've linked you to confidence calculators before.

Billy Walters wannabe would be better I think!

In fairness, his genius is (even) more in his organisational skills than his gambling skills, so I've no chance of that one.

Warren Buffet has been quoted as saying that there are the three I's of new Ideas.
First there are the Innovators, then come the Imitators, and then follows the mass of Idiots.
BF is apparently a honey pot of new gambling ideas.
Now I'm pretty sure that I'm unfortunately in the last mass of Idiots, at least currently.
But apparently it seems that most of you on here think that, though you are not probably in the first group of Innovators, you are atleast in the second group of Imitators.
Now statistically that just cannot be true, or can it be ?. What the heck- I'm not a statistician either.
How can you all be so apparently confident in your abilities to quantify value better or as well as your peers, to the point that you virtually expect, not hope, to make money day in day out over a very long period of time.
The proof is in the pudding ?
Maybe for some. But not all of you have been doing it successfully for all that long a period, have you ?
Please tell me that I'm not all alone on here,
That is, there are a few others out there who, whilst they think they might just have found a long term successful way to gamble, the jury is still well and truly out, and will be for quite a long time to come.
Btw as you might have guessed, I'm going through a truly horrible losing streak at the moment. Turning a good year fast into a annus horribilis.

Was that when you became of age ?
Or just when you gave up on " normal" ways of making a living ?.