| |
Racing Forum
answer
Posted By: Dunbar
Date: 16 May 02, 10:04 am
From reading your post I get the impression you think my "fair odds" are a prediction of what the tote odds are going to be when the gate opens.
No, not at all. By "fair odds", I assume we both mean the odds that reflect the actual chance that a horse has to win the race. The fair odds should therefore be the lowest possible odds at which it makes sense to place a bet.
Surely I'm wrong but that's the way I read your post. I already said, as you noted, I would post the results of every horse regardless of actual closing odds, so why make it sound as if I'm betting into a negative EV situation?
What I am saying is that if you did bet Dizzy yesterday, then your bet was way below the "fair odds" you posted. If the parimutual odds are 7-5 and your estimate of "fair odds" is 5-2, then you accepted track odds that were well below your estimate of "fair odds".
When you say a horse's fair odds are 5-2, that (to me at least) means that you think the horse has a 2/7 chance to win the race. When the payoff is 7-5, you are only winning $1.40 per $1 bet. Here's your EV:
EV = ((2/7) * $1.40) + ((5/7) * -$1)) = -31%
That's why I said you were betting into a negative ev situation.
Now, if you are saying that you yourself did not place the bet (on Dizzy) once you saw the track odds, then fine. I'm not trying to tick you off here--I enjoy your posts, and you obviously know a lot about handicapping--but I'm just trying to point out some obvious math/ev problems with the stuff you're posting.
--Dunbar
- answer -- Dunbar -- 16 May 02, 10:04 am
| |
Racing Forum is maintained by Pi Yee Press