Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasept
Just as the exactas pay less than the late probable displayed, they 'should' pay more when unidentified exacta targets come in. But the robotics cover an inordinate amount of potential results and widely depress the prices, yes..
Right. That's the whole question though the working number is 15-20% of total handle and the WPS/exacta pools are their area. And you don't necessarily know where the target is at any particular time. You can gravitate toward tracks like OP and TAM to avoid them or play in pools where their programming is neutered (tris, super, multis).
I'm not an economics guy, but aren't most equity markets less than a level playing field? Isn't there a patently unfair advantage for any whale getting rebates or with players that can punch $1,500 P6 tix over a typical $96 or $244 play? Where is the line between unbalanced and unacceptable? They certainly have an advantage and make it hard(er) for everyone else, but is that reason to exclude them from the pools?
The whole thing is a fascinating debate and emblematic of how complex the game and its' vexing issues are..
|
I think you are viewing this example from a "one trial" perspective rather than "in the long run". This matters more in a Pick 6 or other low probability wager because the volatility in success is much higher with a lower bankroll, but the net ROI over many trials for an equal player doesn't matter given the bankroll (assuming they are betting the same percentage of their bankroll to equalize the risk of ruin). Example:
Player (a) has a bankroll of $9,600 for the year and bets 100 pick 6's, all for the same $96. He hits 1 out of 100 (1%) for $10,000, for an ROI of +4.167%.
Player (b) has a bankroll of $150,000 for the year and bets 100 pick 6's, all for the same $1500. Because his "skill" is equal to player (a), he hits at the exact proportion to the amount wagered by player (a), so 15.625 of his pick 6's for the year for $10,000 each. His return is 4.167% as well.
The issue is volatility, which on a low probability wager is extremely high even with a large bankroll. Because player (a) wins at a much less frequent rate, it
feels like he's a net loser to player (b), but in the long run their percentage returns would converge.
Similar situation: One player bets only even money shots. The other only bets 10-1 shots. Assuming the likelihood that the even money shot is exactly 10x more likely to win any given bet, the only difference in their long term returns would be how effective their selections are. But the paths to that final return would be very different.