If the likes of Stormy Antarctic, Massaat, Marcel, Galileo Gold and Blue De Vega were trained by Stoute, Bolger, D Weld or Gosden AFB would be odds against eg 7/4 rather than odds-on (4/5) and will probably start shorter (1/2) in my opinion if good ground; AFB is no certainty like Frankel, Zafonic, Nashwan, Dancing Brave and Shadeed despite its very short price.

I agree, I said at the time it was refreshing to see a connection being publicly bullish before the event rather than afterwards and he was proved correct. However, I still haven't seen anything to say AFB is ahead of their past Guineas contenders and if choosing to back him it would be more in the hope that the opposition remains as poor as it appears on paper rather than any belief that AFB is already an exceptional miler. Some horses actually regress over the winter, even some past runners that Coolmore have been confident about on Guineas day, so I don't see his current price as any value at all.

What does odds on for a reason actually mean? Are all odds on horses odds on for a reason? If so, is this the same reason? More to the point, whether odds on or not, do the odds available represent value? Or is this another 'a winner is a winner' argument?

As you're talking in terms of what is going to win the Guineas instead of what perceived chance each runner has then you've already answered the question.

if AFB was 10-1 at Ladbrokes for the next 10 minutes, you would be running down the high street irrespective of "your ratings

Just the opposite, I would be running down the high street because of my ratings, as they put him in with the best chance of winning. The point under discussion is that in my view him having the best chance of winning still does not make him a bet at current odds.

Ive never disputed that AFB is not an attractive price ...i just said it will win....if i was looking for "value" i would bet buratino for a place, his racecourse gallop was impressive, far more so than emotionless.

I agree that Blue De Vega appears the only obvious dark horse. It's difficult to put a ceiling on what he was capable of last year, although the bare form of his races leaves him with a fair amount to find so it's whether or not you think the price is worth taking a punt in the dark on potential.

Buratino had 8 races last year and for me it's highly likely he's fully exposed. I don't think the Coventry form was great, by my reckoning Air Force Blue improved by 15lbs later in the year and even if the fav runs below par at Newmarket Buratino would need to improve quite a bit to figure even in a weakish year. Even though he might get the mile on pedigree it's unusual that he was kept to no further than 6f in all 8 races so I'd also have to wonder if he'll be as effective at the mile. I suppose his price might allow for those factors though and it wouldn't be the biggest surprise to see him placed.

After the Lowther I posted on here that Lumiere appeared to be more hype than substance, followed by me doing a complete about-turn after her Cheveley Park win, where their confidence from day one was fully justified. It's not impossible that a fairly lightly raced runner that still seemed quite exposed last year could improve much more than expected, as Cockney Rebel did a few years ago with not many giving him a chance. It's also possible AFB won't run up to expectations on the day, I remember yard confidence being sky high when St Nicholas Abbey ran. If this was a month after AFB's last race then I'd probably be stepping in even at 4/5, but more than 6 months later, no thanks.

impressive at Naas then ran like a dog at Ascot...what price u get mate?

A voice of reason.

If you think he wins, back it. If you think he wins but price is too short, leave the race alone. It's really that simple.

Do seasoned punters still actually think in terms of "he wins"? Most I know think in terms of how likely the horse is to win. In a two horse race where I thought one has a 4/6 chance, the other 6/4, yet the prices are showing 4/9 and 9/4 I obviously still think the 4/6 chance is the most likely winner but I'd back the 9/4 price every single time. I'm baffled anyone can't understand that logic. Bookmakers don't try to avoid races where they think a horse is a likely winner, they try to get it backed under what they think is its true price. They don't give a sh1t if it's the most likely winner as long as they can get it in the book at what they think is poor value, just as punters try to back horses over their true odds, which is all I've seen people on here try to do regarding the Guineas.

Im with Figgis .The price you take about your selection is more improtant than your selection.
A difficult concept to grasp.

On the day I would rather have a 4/5 winner than a forced 20/1 value seeking loser but each to their own.

Many punters would be looking at how their 20/1 pokes performed over a season (or more) and if they showed a profit, whereas it seems others are wholly concerned with backing the winner on the day regardless of value. Nail on the head to some, another nail in a punter's coffin to others 

what u think will win

So for you all runners simply fall into two brackets of "think will win" and "don't think it's going to win" (which would have to include every other runner in the race), their relative chances aren't even considered?

Their relative chances are obviously taken into account when you make your selection, admittingly value as to whether you bet or not comes into it. Im on AFB at decent odds and got it in a 50 quid treble (first leg won at 5-1)

I once took a friend to the greyhounds (ive owned about 15 over the years) a trainer told me to bet his dog in the next race as it was one of the best hed ever had and it was a bad race. The dog was 6-4 and i had 400 on..my friend said he wouldnt bet it as it wasnt value ....AOB has virtually said the same.

AOB has virtually said the same

He said the same about Australia.

He cant be right all the time although i think Australia turned out ok

what price are you prepared to lay it?

As I said before, I was at Newmarket for the Dewhurst and backed Emotionless, shame it chipped a bone although I don't think it would have won anyway in retrospect. When Ryan Moore came into the winners enclosure, he had a face like a Cheshire Cat and was shaking his head as if in disbelief, I was stood close to this and the first thing he said when he saw AOB was wow. On the basis of that its a 1-2 shot in my eyes and I'm luckily enough to have it in a juicy treble and I doubled it with 4 winners at the Cheltenham Festival, I've never seen a jockey look so surprised (apart from Geraghty after his hearing)