Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
IMO...it isn't prudent to judge a wager strictly by its ROI potential. Yes...your ROI would probably improve if you confined your bet structuring to horses in the mid-range and longshot levels...but doing so introduces a couple of factors into the equation which will likely sabotage the optimum long-term growth of the bankroll assigned to such a wager. By eliminating all the shorter-priced horses from consideration, you reduce the number of overall bets that you will be making over time. And, the lower success rate of the higher-priced horses will mean that you will have to supply a larger bankroll for the endeavor...to deal with the more turbulent variance swings that you are sure to encounter in such a venture. Consequently...you will likely find that, as a result of these two factors...your long-term bankroll will grow at a lesser rate than it would if you were including some shorter-priced horses into the wager...higher ROI notwithstanding. The inclusion of the shorter-priced horses will probably reduce your long-term ROI, but it will also allow you to make more bets over time...and the required bankroll size would be smaller because of the reduced "turbulence" that is the byproduct of such a wagering "compromise". These two wagering "advantages" often more than make up for the lower ROI rate that this wagering plan must necessarily carry along.
That's why I am seldom impressed by high ROI declarations. "How long will it take to safely double the bankroll?"...is the main money-management question to ask...IMO. Of course, as with everything else...the success of this venture will depend upon the ultimate skill level of the practitioner. Clever wager construction can only take us so far...
|
Gus, as always thank you for the thoughtful response. I had the same feeling about whether to cover low priced pay offs. It also helps out a bit in the level of mental frustration as lower paying doubles win more. Looks like the original assumption is valid for me. Thanks again.
