6th October 2005, 01:41 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 4,434
|
|
The favourite has the same chance of winning regardless of the previous outcome as random chance has no memory. However, when we are talking "punters" backing different horses based on their own selection method and the odds are against them, then the more bets he has,the more likely the true loss will be revealed.
There is also the scenario, that horses are not coins, therefore the next favourite might have a better chance of winning as all favourites are not true even money chances either. There are field size, fitness, class issues etc.
For example: One might know that favourites have a 30% loss on turnover.
50% of favourites won races at Caulfield on a particular day - the last four races.
Punter A bet all 8 races and showed a small loss even with a 50% strike rate.
Punter B bet the last 4 races only and showed a good profit.
If Punter B stops for the day, he is in front with less bets than Punter A, but no, he caught the redeye to Belmont and backed the favourite in every race.
He lost half his bank as only two favourites were successful.
Punter B was in front with less bets originally.
Punter A was behind because he had more bets.
Then punter B got silly and had a lot more bets than punter A and ended up worse off. The odds got him in the end.
I think this is what Crash was getting at.
Let's not even get into the magnification of profit or loss on incremental staking. The more money - the bigger loss on a negative game.
|