Hi Dale.

Quote:
"Would you agree that every favorite has the same percentage chance as the one before it?
ie; if the favorite has not got up for 5 races it is no more likely than its every day percentage to get up in the next".

No I certainly wouldn't agree with that. You are talking about an equation that has never belonged on a race track. Random chance odds that are always present in the racing game make that an impossible axiom. Anything is possible. The fav. might win the next and the next and the next.

No it ain't. Your analogy argues that to bet on lots of horses in the same race would be bad but that to bet on one horse in lots of different races is good. Crash isn't that clear in what he's on about but I think his (original) argument was about one horse per race. Of course the thrust of what he (meant to say) said may change as he works his way around his original blunder.

KV

Ah.... something I can agree with.

So Crash, using your logic:

There is a greater chance that you are right, because you are the only one that agrees with what you are saying.
Because there are many of us that disagree with your logic, we are probably wrong.

Well whatever makes you happy.

Maybe I can simplify this a bit,as I can understand where Crash is coming from where it looks like nobody else can.

Example Mathematically.

Punter Pete likes plenty of action so has 20 bets per day.

Cool Hand Luke is more conservative and only has 5 per day.

They are both betting level stakes @ $1 per selection.

No matter how many winners Pete backs out of his 20 bets,the total odds of the winners backed must total 20 just to break even.

No matter winners Luke backs out of his 5 bets,the odds need only total 5 for him to achieve the same break even result.

Assuming they are both betting in the 3/1-5/1 range Pete needs 7 winners @ 3/1 ,5 winners @ 4/1,or 4 winners @ 5/1 just to break even!!

Luke only needs 1 winner @ 3/1(for a small loss)1 winner @ 4/1(to break even)1 winner @ 5/1 for profit.

If neither backs a winner Pete loses $20 bucks and Luke loses $5.

Which one would you rather be????

cheers

ps

Feel free to tear me down,everyone does

So you are saying that a $3 favorite's chance of winning the next is not the same as it was the last $3 favorite.

I am saying it has and i think you agree and as such the important part of my post that you conviently left out

Dale wrote-"If so then your logic is flawed because you assume that a group of 3 bets has less chance than a group of 7 bets to fall victim to the 2/3rds random chance theory.

In actuality EACH RACE has the same % chance as the one before and after it of falling victim to your random chance theory."

proves your theory WRONG.

P.S. if you come back at me with another post designed to create confusion dont expect a reply.

The favourite has the same chance of winning regardless of the previous outcome as random chance has no memory. However, when we are talking "punters" backing different horses based on their own selection method and the odds are against them, then the more bets he has,the more likely the true loss will be revealed.

There is also the scenario, that horses are not coins, therefore the next favourite might have a better chance of winning as all favourites are not true even money chances either. There are field size, fitness, class issues etc.

For example: One might know that favourites have a 30% loss on turnover.

50% of favourites won races at Caulfield on a particular day - the last four races.

Punter A bet all 8 races and showed a small loss even with a 50% strike rate.
Punter B bet the last 4 races only and showed a good profit.

If Punter B stops for the day, he is in front with less bets than Punter A, but no, he caught the redeye to Belmont and backed the favourite in every race.
He lost half his bank as only two favourites were successful.

Punter B was in front with less bets originally.
Punter A was behind because he had more bets.

Then punter B got silly and had a lot more bets than punter A and ended up worse off. The odds got him in the end.

I think this is what Crash was getting at.

Let's not even get into the magnification of profit or loss on incremental staking. The more money - the bigger loss on a negative game.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 399,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/03/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

Quote,

"The above is the very simple reason why most Pro punters [who bet for profit] have very few bets. Most punters here and elsewhere do the exact opposite."

Does this statement have hard statistical evidence to back it up or do you in fact claim to know "most" pro-punters or "most" other punters ????

I doubt that either is true,which makes the whole argument irrelevant.

These blanket bomb statements dragged from god-knows-where and used to underline spurious arguments simply indicate a dogmatic determination to be right.

"Facts" can be verified."Opinion" is simply that.

They both have the exact same ability to pick winners, meaning their strike rate is exactly the same...

The whole point is whether they have a strike rate greater than the odds they get, or less than.

Of course the less money you bet the less is your exposure to loss. But it also decreases your exposure to win.

Lets say that they continue this for 20 weeks. They each pick 30% winners and their average dividend is $4.

I can guarantee you that I would rather be Pete.... They both have the same POT, yet Pete has 4 times the profit of Luke.


What you are forgetting Angel, is that in the initial post, he stated that Pro punters win because they make less bets.
His scenario was 2 punters, both with the same ability to pick a winner. The one that placed less bets won, and the other lost.

This is flawed logic any way you look at it.

There is a moral to be gained from all this nonsense. If less bets is better into a negative market (and I INSIST it's only a negative market if you consistently lose) then 0 bets is the best you can do. SO, if you are a loser stop betting.

KV