Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chrome Prince
One might have a horse rated at 2/1 on top and get 5/2 odds, and might have the second top rated at 6/1, but get 12/1 odds.
Why bet the top rated, when the overs clearly are with the 6/1 shot, just for the sake of snaring a winner. Longterm the profits are with the greater overlay.
Again, IF the ratings are accurate.
One bet is always a wasted bet and money down the gurgler!
|
Hi Chrome,
I'm interested to know what your attitude would be to your two horses in consecutive races. IF your ratings are accurate I imagine you would bet them both. Now IF your ratings are accurate I see no long term difference in betting the two bets in consecutive races or in the one race - IF your ratings are accurate.
Take your example horses.
Betting them in consecutive races we'll take a set of 42 bets (just to make the maths easy with the odds you chose). 21 bets on a 2-1 shot paying 5-2 and 21 bets on a 6-1 shot paying 12-1.
You would expect a third of the 2-1 shots to win giving you 7 wins from your 21 races and returning you 7 lots of $3.50 or $24.50. And you'd expect 1 in 7 of your 6-1 shots to win returning 3 winners at $13 each or $39.
Betting them in the same race again for 21 races I maintain you would have three wins by your 6-1 shot paying $39 and 7 wins by your 2-1 shot paying you $24.50 - same result (IF your ratings are accurate).
Why is this so if with two races you could conceivably have two winners while in a single race you always have one loser. Because immediately you declare that one of your horses didn't win it means the other one has a greater chance of being the winner.
Take the case of the 2-1 shot winning. This means in 7 of the 21 races the 6-1 shot didn't win. True. But take the other 14 races - because the 2-1 shot didn't win the chances of all the other horses winning increases proportionately. In fact since the chance of Mr 2-1 winning is exactly a third if you take him out the chance of the other horses winning improves by 3/2. The 6-1 horse who did have a 14.29% chance of winning suddenly has a 21.43% chance of winning or is now an 11-3 chance. If we take the 14 races that Mr 2-1 didn't win there is a chance that Mr 6-1 (who is now Mr 11-3) will win 3 of these races and thus will still return 3 times $13.
The same logic applies when the 6-1 shot doesn't win increasing the chances of the 2-1 shot winning in the remaining 18 races.
Now I confidently expect someone with more mathmatics and more patience than I have to shoot this argument down in flames but until that time I maintain that IF YOUR RATINGS ARE ACCURATE you have as much chance backing two over the odds horses in one race as you do backing two in two races.
Of course where this breaks down is that most peoples ratings aren't accurate so they find themselves betting into a negative expectation game.
KV