Kenny, you must have a gambling problem as you logic [the personal attack approach] is more disturbing than offensive. Your obviously close to an emotional breakdown. Have a Bex and a good lie down [often].

Doc.
Point taken about the innuendo. I was wrong. Looking again it's quite funny :-) I'm shocked I didn't spot it straight away. My forum attempts are competing with anxious visions of being washed down a river crossing on a 4X4 trip over the Vic. alps next week. What odds that happening ?

Quote: 'The premise of your original post is wrong.
The punter who places fewer wagers will not enjoy an advantage over the punter who places many wagers - JUST BECAUSE HE PLACES FEWER WAGERS.' End quote.

Yes, I agree with that statement too Doc. I can buy one tatts ticket and win 1st. prize and you can buy a million of them and miss out [or vis-a-vis]. Your statement though was incomplete. If we both lose, who will lose the most? I'd call that an advantage, wouldn't you?

Lets simplify my original point. Punter A and B have exactly the same selection ability [handicapping ability]. Simpler still: Punter A and B are the same punter [we'll call him 'Ace'] and for the past 5 years Ace has been averaging 3 bets a day and for the 5yrs. before that 7 bets a day and he made a profit during both periods [the word loss in 'profit/loss' in my original example obviously freaked out some readers here, so Ace is a winner]. He bets to win only on one selection per race and bets the same amount per day [total daily turnover] and makes his own selections by handicapping his races.

Ace won more over the last 5yrs. than the previous 5yrs. His strike rate improved yet his handicapping ability was the same during both periods. Why was his POT higher by having less bets ?

Now we come to my point about odds. All Ace's bets over the last 10yrs. where at 5/1 odds [for simplicity]. 6x5/6x1 units for 5yrs. and 3x5/3x1 units for 5yrs. I had assumed in my original post that all punters here realize that there is no such thing as true odds in racing because to work out true odds all possibilities must be known. A casino has true odds but never in a horse race. So our 5/1 odds are a mixture of true odds and random odds [random chance]. I'd say 1/3rd true odds [represents the fav. SR] and 2/3rds. random chance odds which through good form study Ace can reduce but never eliminate.

Ace, buy reducing the amount of bets he had, reduced his random chance odds against him over the 5yr. period. Does that make sense now or have I completely descended into murk here ? If so, please explain why.