Quote:
|
Originally Posted by thaskalos
This too is outdated advice...IMO. It doesn't work out in practice, and I doubt it ever did.
More than a few serious players (or "bettors", as you seem to prefer to call them) convince themselves that they "can win"...usually by betting their picks "on paper", on their kitchen table.
They convince themselves that, since they can win on paper, they should easily be able to win when betting for real...or, if they have been able to win by making $2 bets, they should be able to perform equally well when they move up to betting "real" money.
Of course...they get a rude awakening when they move from theory to practice.
I am afraid that simplistic advice, like the one you are offering in the post highlighted above, does not fare so well when applied to complicated games...even when you regard these games as "warfare".
This is strictly my opinion of course...
|
I think the rude awakening is that the trivial results in a (very) small sample do not extrapolate well to a larger sequence of events. It has nothing to do with wins on paper or wins for modest wagers--it has to do with the underlying conceptual flaws of believing a small sample is representative of the distribution in a larger sample. Again, pretty simple stuff.
That accounts for the frequent sequence of picking a few winners in a small sample of races, then betting on the basis of that sample as if it is representative. It is not.
