It's a wonderful time of year.
May you all be warm & safe.

And I have a simple, two-word suggestion.
(You know I would have something.)

Heating Pad
When it's cold, we sleep with a heating pad over the covers and keep the heat low. Saves big winter $$ on heating costs.

OK, truth: Our two-story house has a huge flaw: If the temp is set to more than 62 degrees downstairs, it is 85 upstairs. (Not joking.) So, this discovery was a defense mechanism.

The bird needs 61+, so that's where we keep it.

During the day we use the gas fireplace.

And stay WARM! We're looking at wind chills -25 tonight. — Tom

Wow!

Merry Christmas to you as well!

Life begins anew at 72...LOL. — Mickey Arnold

That's 2 weeks away for me!

Natural odds, by definition, would be the dart-throwing chances.
Thus...

• 8-horse field, natural odds would be 7/1.
• 10-horse field, natural odds would be 9/1.
• 6-horse field, natural odds would be 5/1.
• 12-horse field, natural odds would be 11/1.

However, I suggest that you use a minimum of 8/1 and a maximum of 10/1.

Therefore...

• 8-horse field, natural odds would be 8/1.
• 10-horse field, natural odds would still be 9/1.
• 6-horse field, natural odds would be 8/1.
• 12-horse field, natural odds would be 10/1.

don't understand. Is that for horse racing? Update what? Odds? Parimutuel odds? — RanchWest

The game at Betfair is about arbitrage.

So, it's all about current take & lay price.

By the time a good bet is put up, it's gone in a 5th of a second or less.

To be competitive on Betfair, the standard is that your software must update 29 times per second.

Of course ,I'm aware that the participation rate will necessarily fluctuate from pool to pool, which is why I suggested "average" participation. Am I correct in assuming that the ROI of +7.5% to 9% is factoring in the rebates? — William Zayonce

Yes.

The "process" is certainly not unique but it's objective is find selections which are "unique in that field". A white horse is not unique (there are plenty of white horses in the world) however ,a white horse in a field of horses which are not white is unique in that field. This is,of course, not a relevant handicapping factor ( unless we know that white horses run faster than nonwhite ones and a large portion of players can't see that it's white ) — William Zayonce

We see this differently.

Ah... I was referring to unique permutations.

Have I made an inaccurate assumption? — William Zayonce

You'll have to be the judge of that, but I would say "no."

Not +/- 3% but rather precisely -3.5% has been the target.
This allows an ROI of +7.5% to +9%.
The model calls for the bankroll to be churned 125x per year.

Limited to 30/35% depends upon the track takeout & rebate.

Odds levelling out: They do not "level out." They skew towards the efficient -3.5% for them, which equates to almost pure takeout rates for us.

3: the possibility that many players are simply getting more efficient, perhaps by using computer programs .? — William Zayonce

This is the real challenge.

4 people out of a 1000 win.
6 out of 6 whales win.

There's the math.

The higher the rebate, the higher the percentage of whale money at the track.
About 34% of total win pool at tracks like MNR, CT, DED, etc.
About 10% of total win pool at tracks like SA, CD, etc.

The higher the rebate, the greater the percent of pool that shows up after the gate opens.
About 60% of total win pool at tracks like MNR, CT, DED, etc.
About 45% of total win pool at tracks like SA, CD, etc.

Using that math, for every $100 wagered "late"
$57 will be whale money at tracks like MNR, CT, DED, etc.
(34 / 60 = 56.7%)
$22 will be whale money at tracks like CD, SA, etc.
(10 / 45 = 22.2%) — William Zayonce

Well, it was WRONG.
Using that math, for every $100 wagered "late"
$57 will be whale money at tracks like MNR, CT, DED, etc.
(34 / 60 = 56.7%)
$22 will be whale money at tracks like MNR, CT, DED, etc.
(10 / 45 = 22.2%)

Fixed MY typo in the original and your repost.

Well, if it's working, keep doing it.

There's also the horses that match what you know works and nobody has it. — RanchWest

Nobody has it for the same reason.

I built such a product years ago: Vulnerable Favorites.

I would think it's the same process that identifies false, vulnerable or" play against" choices in the top 2 spots. — William Zayonce

I'd completely agree.

Do you have such a process yourself?

If so, how effective is it?

What about an engine that identifies win candidates in the 40% of races that those top 2 lose? — William Zayonce

How do you identify just those race?

Finding which contenders will likely take the most action is plenty good enough for my purposes. — William Zayonce

I built that engine.
It loses 4-6% per wagered dollar for me.

Wait...
Are you speaking of their bet size relative to:
A. Total Pool size (i.e. they're eating their own profit)
or
B. Their total bankroll (i.e. optimum bet theory)

Of course they have A covered.
That is basic tote math.