Follow this idea... the crowd is a VERY GOOD handicapper, right? Their top-ranked selection wins far more often than their longest-odds runner. But why isn't the ROI on the crowd's TOP SELECTION exactly the same as on their WORST SELECTION? Why aren't both of those numbers EXACTLY THE SAME? You would think, if handicapping is important, that those two numbers would be nearly identical. After all, the crowd should be exactly as good as saying runner X is BEST as they are at saying that runner Y is WORST. But in reality, those two ROI numbers may be WAY DIFFERENT. Why is that??? Because handicapping just isn't as important as wagering. And while the crowd is really good at handicapping (as a conglomerate) they are incredibly bad at wagering. This is an exercise in psychology, not an exercise in picking winners.