4th July 2005, 12:08 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Mt Tamborine
Posts: 574
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zlotti
Here is a simple question for you. If you're average strike rate at selecting winners is 25% consistently, you have a bank of $500 and you are flat stakes betting. You back only runners that are paying max $3. How long before you have no bank?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Top Rank
Obviously the answer to your question is not very long.
Here is a question.
Over time, a long long time, the horse with the best winning strike rate wins 20% of the time, just for arguments sake.
Does that mean that unless you are taking greater than $5.00 about these runners you are not getting value.
Or is it the case that every race is an individual event, therefore you need to price each horse with the best winning strike rate in each race.
Thus coming up with a different price and then you shop for the value each individual time.
|
Sorry in advance if I'm butting in on someone else's question here.
Assessing the odds on one parameter, best strike rate in this case, is of course pointless. As you say, each race is an individual event. If the horse won a lot of easy races and is hopelessly outclassed in its current race of course the price will be over $5.00. The price doesn't make it worth betting on. Next race might have a horse which won the same number of races in top class and is now racing against lesser horses. We'll take the $2.00 on this one and (hopefully) come out in front.
Zlotti's simple question may not be that simple, some of the information can be taken two ways. It implies the punter has done the form to the best of his ability to get his 25% strike rate and it's most unlikely that all his selections would pay less than $3.00 so perhaps he is using the less than $3 as an extra filter. Maybe with this extra filter he can come out in front.
(If you're selecting based on price < $3 only and that gives 25% winners I apologise for adding a level of interest that wasn't there).
KV
|