Hi Becareful
Regarding Mr Magic- I see what you/him are saying, only I still say that there is a better than even chance for a next win given a losing streak- BASED ON PAST PERFORMANCE. That is the thing about racing- it is not an open-ended system like coin tossing. It is a closed system- a champion jockey does not, at the end of a long career, break even with the "mean" winning average of all jockeys... He has his own average at a relatively higher than average level- otherwise he would retire as a mediocre jockey! So the average should be over a closed range, and thus MUST achieve higher than "chance" scores throughout! Three out of ten stuff, not three thousand out of ten thousand...

Quote:
"As for your loss analysis can I just ask how you get 50 2-unit losses when we have stated there are only 44 2-unit bets? The total number of losses in my example is 74.5 which is roughly 44%."

You have me stumped! LOL! I think my logic left me there- I have no idea how I got there in the first instance... I might have got mixed up with units lost? I was convinced then, though your stats makes sense now. Apologies all over...

Supersoul,

I agree that different jockeys will have different strike rates and therefore the chances of a particular jockey winning the next race is based on their strike rate (not the overall strike rate for all jockeys). So Beadman's chance of riding a placegetter is say 60% while an apprentice may have only a 10% chance. Of course in reality it is more complex than that and the chances for a particular race are not going to be the same (eg. Beadman riding a favourite has a better chance than Beadman riding a long-shot).

What I was saying was that if Beadman has had 5 misses in a row then the chances on the sixth horse are still say 60% - they do not go up to 80 or 90% just so he can maintain his average for the week. My point is that whether a jockey wins/places in a race can be treated as a "chance" outcome with a probability determined by THEIR skill level (which you should be able to work out from THEIR past strike rate).

Hope this clears it up.

becareful,
You have explained my reasoning well.
A jockey may achieve a seasonal strike rate of 50% by riding 100 placers from 100 rides and then missing with his next 100. This is an extreme example but it makes a point.
I know Equine Investor drops jocks who are out of form but the subjectivity mixed with the mechanical system is messy. Surely the reasoning of the progressive stakers is that the jockeys will come good sooner or later and that is why the bets are increased accordingly. So why drop Munce for example because he has ridden poorly for a couple of meetings? He was selected in the first place because he is a leading jockey with an excellent strike rate. Bets slide upwards on the basis that the longer he goes without a hit the closer he is getting. So why drop him in the first place? Doesn't the placegetters theory mean he is about to gave a great day?
I think the real problem I have with the whole concept is that the Progressive staker would be secretly hoping that Oliver's first 3 mounts that are paying $1.10 a place all miss so that his 4th mount which is paying $5 a place will lob with his $1800 on board.
If the first 3 lobbed and he picked up $100 x 1.10 he wins $30. The other way he drops $1200 on the first 3 (100,300,800) then cleans up with a $7200 win on bet 4. If you secretly hope the horse you are on loses then there is something wrong.