|
This thread petered out but I want to revive it because I had a definite reason for bringing up the most important aspect of the topic, the reliability of negative factors.
Without being able to reliably toss horses from contention, it is impossible, IMO, to be able to know whether you're getting value on your selection. Not only do the unexpected pop up horses beat you from time to time in a race to race viewpoint, but those unexpected pop up horses will destroy your profitability in the long run viewpoint also.
In a 6 horse race, simple, fair odds, are 5/1, and 6/1 is overlay. If you are able to RELIABLY TOSS 3 of those horses, you now have 3 contenders, and simple, fair odds on the probable winners is 2/1, 5/2 being an overlay on the true contenders. If one of those 3 supposedly reliable tosses pops up and wins, after the fact you have learned that simple, fair odds on all contenders was 3/1, not 2/1, and overlay was 7/2, not 5/2.
The short of it is, if you can not reliably, confidently toss horses, you will find yourself betting underlays when you believe you are betting overlays, and betting underlays in this game will kill you.
About 15 years ago was when I first started making the first step in my selection process the elimination of horses I believed had little to no chance to win the race. As a W/P bettor, the mastering of this elimination process is absolutely paramount to my long term success, so I asked the question.....
Do you find the reliability of negative factors, those factors that lead us to toss horses, more reliable than the reliability of positive factors, those factors that lead us to support horses? And when seeing those factors in the horse's previous race, do they weigh heavier than seeing those same factors further in the past of a horse's racing career?
|
