Quote:
|
Originally Posted by traynor
Again, it all depends on turnover and ROI. There is a very good reason why most serious bettors (at least those using computer models) "truncate outliers" and apply other standard statistical processes to clean the data before trundling off to bet. It avoids much of the self-delusion of "I'm profitable!!!" Unless one is very certain what one is doing AND has a fairly rapid turnover AND a decent ROI, money management approaches are much better in theory than in practice.
...
...
...
I cannot imagine sizing wagers according to some subjective feeling of "confidence" in a particular race. I wager according to computer models, not subjective (and highly prone to errors of judgement) feelings about a race. YMMV.
|
Why is "rapid turnover" a key to success? I'll agree that outliers need to be pruned from the winners - that makes sense. But can't a player with an ROI of 1.15 who makes 100 bets a year compete with a player with an ROI of 1.02 who makes 1000 bets per year?
As for a confidence factor, I'll agree with you (and Thask) that it's a very advanced skill. A computer would be one way to get around it, while flat wagering is another. I tend to almost fade myself - especially at Hong Kong. The more I like a horse, the less I bet - as they tend to be the ones that run out.....
