Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GameTheory
No, unless you can find a wager that pays off the same as a cancel (gives you your money back) and still gives you the rebate. You'd either lose the bet and be down $140 - $2000 = -1860 or be up $140 + ($2000 x payoff odds)...
|
I think this discussion has been more about the theoretical than about what actually happens in practice among spot players vs. volume players.
If both are breaking even on the bets and profiting only from rebates, then whichever method gets more money through the windows is preferable.
It would seem easier to get more money through the windows with a larger number of bets.
However, if one is getting a higher ROI from his bets (without rebates) by being more comprehensive in his handicapping and more careful about what price he'll take, then his method might be equal or even better even if he's getting less money through the windows.
I've seen spot players bet 10K per race on exotics playing NY and CA races only. I doubt there are many high volume players that bet that much per race, but perhaps they make up the difference (and more) in quantity of bets.
Personally, I think this debate is more about the time and energy you want to put into your handicapping, what your bankroll looks like, how much you can bet without the amounts impairing your judgment as a handicapper, and whether you enjoy gambling volume or gambling quality.
IMO, most people that are good enough to win could do just as well either way as long as they have the bankroll, temperment, and desire to work real hard.
