Quote:
Originally Posted by Swifty0x0
It's not even money. In the example I gave it's AVERAGE odds of 4/1 from both horses. That means each is 4/1, or 3/1 and 5/1, etc. If their average is 4/1 then you collect $10.00 for every $4.00 bet ($2 on each horse). If you have a 60% win rate this would yield a profit of 50% [for 100 races, 60 wins collects $600 versus $400 wagered is $200 profit, or 50% ROI].
|
If You Invest in 2 bets @ $2.00
(each) at odds of 4-1 = $4.00
(
Average Odds have multiple combinations) If your lower odds horse wins, the bet becomes progressively worse.
If you win you will receive $10.00 (
$5.00 for every $2.00 bet) Which equates to
3/2 odds. If you choose to bet these races then
rots of ruck.
It's your prerogative. Providing and hypothetically speaking, if you can maintain a 60% win rate betting 2 horses over 100 races (
doubtful), you might win a little bit of money but in my experience most handicappers are not capable of maintaining a 60% hit rate over the long term.
It just a'int happening.
As far as I'm concerned, betting without value is a losing proposition. To exasperate a poor betting scenario, the use for proof of short term cycles such as
20 race cycles are useless, promotes false confidence, proves nothing and enhances a losing environment.