Hi Mr Magic
I see that you place absolutely no value on the abilities of a Jockey? You equate a SELECTED, consistent performing Jockey's chance to win to the flip of a coin? Sorry, but there is a flaw in your logic. As we have seen, a consistent performing Jockey also gets offered the best rides, etc.

You cannot compare such a jockey's chances to statistical "chance". If it was there will be no diff in any prices in a race, and no Jockey Premierships either.

Come on...

Becareful, I also suspect a slight problem in your statistical analysis, although I cannot define it exactly. It just seem outside my grasp... instinct?

The average of 1.83 as stated by EI can be misleading, as one would have to be more detailed about this: The actual divs of the strikes of the 6 and 18 WILL make a diffs.

Take your example of two x10 runs: A win of 18 units on $5 would certainly influence the average... The diff being between the losses and the wins- NB: Lose at 18 units= 18 units "down", but win at 18 units "equals a run of 18 straight (single unit) wins AT THE PRICE"! Does this make sense?

You cannot lose more than the units you bet, but you can win a hell of a lot more than the amount/units bet.

I think the way you examined the 56% strike rate is also a bit suspect: 100 bets = 56% strike rate. You cannot then ADD more winners to the 44 losing bets as "secondary winners" at $2 and $6 and $18... increasing to 171 bets in total... this is wrong, as the original 56 bets within 100 bets MUST include the higher amount bets(2/6/18)!

Your assumption regarding losses looks like this: 56 straight wins(have to be!) ie 44 out of the first 100 lost;

then 25 2 units out of THIS 44 equals 50 losses (somewhere) again...??? Because this is second tier bets!

also 11 6 unit = 11x2 losses = 22 losses

and lastly 4.5 x 3 = 10.5 losses

our losses out of 171 must be 44+50+22+10.5=126.5 which is no longer 56% strike rate out of 171...

THUS the 44 "original"losses must include some of the other second and higher tier losses- which means that the 56 winners are not all plain 1 unit winners, etc etc etc.

My stats are no good, I know, but as far as I can determine, there are a few logical flaws in your stats too.

Please- I am not shooting anybody down here- I am merely pointing out some mistakes in the reasoning of the answers. The dividends might average 1.83 but because of the staking plan, this cannot be used as with flat betting.

I admit I am too stoopid to come up with the correct interpretation myself, but I can only say I "feel" EI's system deserves a bit better scrutiny before filing it in file 13...as with all systems which relies on the user for some discretionary input.

To pick this Jockey or that, that is the question...!