Hello Bhagwan,

To someone who has a Science degree, I find your claims and those of others here in a similar vein rather odd, especially when comparing Horse racing probability to Casinos or Science. You are all correct as long as you are working with known data. If unknown data is involved, the larger the % of unknown data, the greater the result variable will be the more times it is tested.
Casino game variable data is a known quantity, so the odds can be easily calculated. In other words the casinos certainty of winning increases the more one plays. The less bets the player has the greater his/here chance of winning. Mathematically speaking, one play only is the best chance a player will ever have because the odds are against them. From there on the players odds of winning diminish. The reason Casinos are rich is because players keep playing at odds that are against them. The more they play, the more they will lose regardless of player strategy or staking methods. Players believe otherwise and are encouraged to do so by the Casinos. Something similar is at work here it seems.

Horse racing cannot really be compared to casino games nor scientific probability experiments with known data. Isn't unknown data in horse racing greater than 50% ?

Anyway, just my $0.2 cents worth. I'll let you boys get back to solving the mysteries of winning probability. I'll stick to my Tea leaves as my main selection process in picking winners at the races. It seems to work just as well as anything else, and I get to drink the tea !

All the best,
Zoe