Quote:
Originally Posted by castaway01
You're a good guy Robert, but there is no "thriving" against a group that is up to a third of the betting pools and loses only a few percentage points when the takeout is already 20-25%. Mathematically that's not how it works.
|
Thank you Castaway. You seem like a good guy yourself.
It's a parimutuel system game with a takeout, so Moses himself couldn't lead
everyone to thriving profitability.
It still comes down to current winners, tournament players, near-winners, hobbyists looking to reduce losses, etc... And they have to be interested in learning. Some of that adaptability/approach, Understanding what's going on. Discussing races and discussing the wagering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
...
...
From there, if significance testing shows it to have value:
That CAW team will quietly incorporate it into their process.
Afterwards, the average odds for plays identified by the successful thought process posted will take a hit.
-jp
.
|
Jeff, your posts are often of value. Informative and respected.
I agree.
These syndicate teams are adaptive and employ some sharp people. There is a seriousness to the situation.
By and large; my focus here as far as
shared content is on fundamental things and/or systemic things.
for example; "Understanding 'will-pay' pools and loosely projecting odds rankings".
CAW teams may not like informed horseplayers, but they aren't going to stop playing doubles and multi-race wagers. Neither are other teams/whales/moderate-heavy players who are sharp and privy to information...
So, other than 'blind pools' much of the final odd, and any late-odds action or odds swings is always going to be relatively predictable in the majority of these races.
That's just one example, and not trying to go to deep into everything.
Of course, being well-informed is not enough to have an 'edge'.
The big, rare opportunities are when we have a useful model (or we may see multiple significant models that are moving in the same direction) that gives us an understanding, yet certain pools (which include or are even driven by CAW teams) happen to have it 'mispriced'. This is often times favorite-centric. Opportunities when we clearly understand how, and why the CAW teams are pricing it differently than us, and that they are in fact wrong.
I will not be naming, explaining, teaching those specific models or the exponential effects of multiple models . This is where I believe we should draw the line.
Methodology can still be demonstrated and discussed, with simply a general reference such as "a '
positive model' calls for keying the
horse", or perhaps something like "a '
negative model' calls for playing against this favorite
...
Relatively safe, and still informative for a shared discussion.
