Quote:
Originally Posted by v j stauffer
I wonder what would happen if we all switched to betting WIN only.
Let's say a player churns $100,000 a year betting everything available.
Let's say that player is excellent and over 12 months that $100,000 becomes $120,000
Do you think that figure would be larger if the entire amount was WIN only?
Certainly WIN takes away the chance for a windfall score. But for every windfall we all know there's days on end of torn up tickets.
I wouldn't even know how to test it. But my gut feeling is WIN only would turn out to be financially sound.
Thoughts.
Oh, and Lambo. I truly appreciate the very lovely sentiments you've sent my way over the years and recently.
Humbled
VJS
|
Doubtful. The overall betting handle figures to decline if the bettor restricts himself to win-betting, IMO...and that will result in a lesser overall profit. There aren't many races where the bettor can find a sound win-bet...whereas the flexibility of the exotics can have him betting on practically every race that he sees. In fact...I'm of the opinion that the popularity of the exotics can be mainly attributed to the players inability to come up with enough sound win-bets. We need a lot of self-confidence as strict win-bettors...whereas the exotics allow us to be rather vague in our handicapping and betting.
So...even though the win-bettor can boast of a bigger ROI...his overall profit figures to be less due to win-betting's more restrictive nature.
