Some interesting stats...

[Lord Greystoke]

Estimated stats as of 2014 ...

There are 3m* regular bettors in Australia and their predominant method - system - style for placing bets is as follows:

1. logical = 600k (20%)
2. naive = 2m (69%)
3. superstitious = 330k (11%)

* At least 21% of the adult population

In other words: 80% use something other than logic to pick winners. I wonder how this split would play out on here.

Any suggestions gentlemen?


Cheers LG


Source: provided on request

[aussielongboat]

hopefully a bit more on the logical section
in any case i disagree with those statistics.
if 80% were either naive or superstitious - why is it so hard to win.

IMHO i regard the average punter as quite astute in their judgement as reflected in the fact that there is only a slight loss on favourite backing.

if there were 80% no idea then i expect that the winning ratio of favourites would be much lower.

what do you reckon

[norisk]

the majority of naive punters are probably sheep, so simply follow the market & back favoured runners helping to suck value out of final tote prices.

the superstitious figure sounds high to me, although I am guilty of it on occasion.

[aussielongboat]

the majority of naive punters are probably sheep, so simply follow the market & back favoured runners helping to suck value out of final tote prices.

the superstitious figure sounds high to me, although I am guilty of it on occasion.

i agree - but 70% sounds a bit heavy.
in any case where do they get this stuff from - no one asked me - so i wasn't included in the stats.

probably walked into a pub tab near Frankston at 3.30PM on Melbourne cup day and did a survey and extrapolated it across the population.

[Lord Greystoke]

i agree - but 70% sounds a bit heavy.
in any case where do they get this stuff from - no one asked me - so i wasn't included in the stats.

probably walked into a pub tab near Frankston at 3.30PM on Melbourne cup day and did a survey and extrapolated it across the population.My guess is that 'Naive' means that they are using a number of methods but these are based on flawed logic or inefficient in picking winners on a consistent basis (or both? = large slice of all punters I reckon)

With respect to the stats themselves, they are part of a thesis completed by the head man at NSW TAB during the 90s who passed on boxing day just gone (was completed after he retired).

LG

[darkydog2002]

1 + 3 for me