Quote:
Originally Posted by
bocce ball
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redietz
The interviewer asked me if I did horses. I said something like, "Too hard. I'd sooner bet on three-legged giraffe races."
Is that because of the inherent difficulty of handicapping, or because the vig is unbeatable? The latest Nevada gaming revenue report shows a 15.5% win for race books, and only 5.4% for sports (12 months ended August 31st, statewide).
http://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdoc...cumentid=12385
As for your abilities, you've already given ironclad examples of arb opportunities. But not everyone relies on evidence when evaluating a claim.
Don't get me wrong. There are people who have gone through extended periods being able to win at horses (regnis is one). But these people have intimate knowledge of tracks, the tendencies of owners and trainers, why certain jockeys take what mounts, the "non-verbals" of horses in the paddock, and so on. Anyone trying to win at horses without the "in-family" long-term knowledge base is just a civilian, like me.
Plus, the idea of trying to overcome the 15-20% vig gives me the queasy shivers. I wouldn't even know how to mentally deal with that kind of disadvantage.
Quick aside: 30 years ago, back in the good old days, comps for betting sports and races were the same. Back then, it was great. They were lumped together, and you could get real sports comps. Now it's more like a 5-to-1 ratio -- you get five times (at least) in comps for race betting as for sports. Race comps have stayed pretty much the same as 30 years ago; sports comps have been dramatically reduced.