Quote:
Originally Posted by AskinHaskin
So the study was hundreds of races, where with your use of "8" for average field size, it should have landed randomly at or even near to 12.5% favorites (as the runners who broke-through, not as the winners of those races)... and yet the culprits in the study couldn't even reach 10% favorites, despite human factors (the mutuel department having a stake in what occurs) likely to make the favorite percentage even higher than pure randomness.
|
The data is most likely flawed for reasons which aren't disclosed by the study's author.
