But are you rating a horse to find the winner, or to find a horses chances in the race.
Every horse has a chance of winning the race, that is why you rate them...

In my example, horse A) has been rated as a $4 horse. This does not mean it will win because it is rated higher than the other horses. It means that you believe it has a 25% (or greater) chance of winning the race.

In 100 races, this selection would win 25 times. If you take $2 about it, then I stand by my original argument, and you are mad. You pay out $100 and get back $50.

Horse B) you have rated as having a 20% chance of winning the race. In 100 races, it will win 20 of them. At odds of $100, you only need 1 to win to get your money back.
Bet $100, get back $2000.

It is all about what you are rating horses for. I believe you are trying to find a horses chance of winning a race, not the most likely.



Will change my example:
Horse A) is still rated as a $4 horse and still $2 on the books.
Horse B) is now rated as a $4.05 horse and showing $100 on the books.

Same scenario. Which one do you bet?

Your smack on the mark with your whole post there BJ. Well done.

$100 offered for $4 shots. If only !!

Could I ask, as a side issue, if anyone has a link to barrier stats for the major metro tracks. I used to know where one was but can't find it. Thanks if you do.

__________________
pipped at the post

Obviously a very extreme example, but was merely using such extremities to prove a point....

About the other issue of odds on favourites. I have no figures to back me up. But I would presume the average price of odds on favourites would be closer to $1.7, meaning that you can have a strike rate closer to 60% and still lose.

On an average, if you group together certain priced horses, they will always average a strike rate just short of odds available when using one tab. All favourites return about 90% of your money using the tote.

When I say that odds on favourites win more than 50% of the time, that does not mean that they provide any better value than anything else. Maybe I am wrong, as I say it is just a presumption and don't have recorded stats on all odds on runners..

BJ, I also don't have the exact figures but I have read many times that the lower the price range the lesser the loss (if you backed em all) that's why with odds on favs you are getting close to a profitable idea. But as Crash says you need to be ruthless, and specialising in this type of betting.
Another idea worth waiting for is to watch the 3 tabs for odds on favs for the place, there was a case at hawksbury the other day odds on paying $1.50 for the win, ran a place and paid $1.40 on one of the Tabs. This does come up fairly often and sometimes actually pays more for the place than it does for the win.

I find that happens very often for the greyhounds. Well at least I remember noticing it often. Maybe I just don't notice it when it doesn't happen....

'Luck'? Never met the lady. Sounds like one of those beautifull siren dames who stand on [rocky] shores beckoning sailors to their doom !

Ah but the thing is about this "Lady" is that she could have touched you and you'll never know!