This illustrates something that I find philosophically interesting. We "raters" use methods which are designed to find the winner of a race and which are not designed around 'price'. We leave it up to the ratings user whether or not they accept the price that is on offer.

However, many users want the strike rate (that a good rater generates) combined with odds that are an expression of the extreme unlikeliness of the happening coming to pass.

For the past few Saturdays I have circulated my subscribers (at no extra cost) with a "laylist" which sets out +/- 75 of the unlikeliest chances for Sat. Metro races. Yesterday we were pottering along as usual with <2% SR when my lay in Ascot R3 "The Regulator" crossed the line first @ $36+. That horse hasn't been closer to the front than 4 len. for a year and yet on a big race day it performed :-) This happenstance generated some acrimonious correspondence but illustrates the dichotomy that faces both the 'rater' and the 'punter'.

Should the punter be satisfied with an evens Fav. and doubling his money when it wins or should he join the search for the (unreachable in my opinion) goal of a 50% SR with $36 dividends ?? Which takes me back to my first paragraph.

All part of life's rich tapestry :-)