Hi KV!
NOW that really should have made your day?
Cheers mate!

Flattering as it may be to have ones dudgeon impugned by the forum's mathmatical elite I would far prefer you elaborate on the above (preferably with a minimum of millinery and floor covering terms).

KV

That was written before learning that your model has a particularly high Trifecta strike rate and did not depend on larger collects as I first assumed.

If as it seems you can make 30% Trifecta POT betting all 16,000 races a year it makes your model beyond anything I have contemplated.

So the big question is why haven't you actually dipped your toes in the water?

You don't have to try it with the presumed $20 bet required for financial independence. If you started with just 50 cents you wouldn't do too much damage but it would give you a feel for whether you've miscalculated somehow.

Consider a Trifecta punter successful at finding Overs.

Then the effect of halving the rake on the % of action is:

10% => 26%
5% => 20%

Asssuming Overs are distributed according to the spreadsheet NORMSDIST function.

That is someone previously with 5% action can now get 20%. 4 times the action suggests at least 4 times the profit.

That is a phenomenal improvement which could set someone up for life.

There are well documented articles worldwide about the extents big players go to reduce the rake. Yet when an actual opportunity arises which doesn't involve consorting with Triads or whatever, there is an inexplicable reluctance.

This simply is wrong. The few who know the approximates also have lots of savant money with which to tsunami the pools.

It has been like that for a painfully long time, and I'm amazed that this should be disputed.

These big players didn't get where they are by being philanthropists and intentionally leaving even a scrap for anyone else.

There's no need to take anyone's word either way. It's easy to satisfy yourself with a test similar to what I recently undertook on the NSW TAB.

11:43 $3,024
11:44 $3,788
11:45 $5,278 = AST + actual jump
11:45+ $6,797

In this piddly NZ jumps race the pool nearly doubled from 60 seconds before actual jump until close.

So nearly half the money in that pool was very well educated. That is an overwhelming proportion which must crush Overs - particularly with a 21% rake.

JFC - Ain't you assuming that ALL of the money going into the pools in the last 60 seconds or so is from 'educated' punters? Clearly, that would not be the case.

La Mer,

Obviously I am making assumptions but it is also possible that not all of the money prior to 60 seconds is dumb. Connections and hedging bookmakers might place their significant bets a little earlier to ensure they get set.

I was looking for for an experiment that everyone could try to get a feel for the significant very late money that only surfaces after it's too late.

But this phenomenon has long been well documented. The most publicised recent example was the famed dawg sting where the mastermind has described how he instructed the operator to delay his monster bet so no one could see its effect before the boxes were flung open.

P.S. dawg as in doggone it