Kafkaesque, I think you may be confusing fair price as in close to 100% overround and fair price as in true chance of winning. In any case, I never said there wasn't a fair price, I said it's not relevant to where a gambler enters the market: if he wants to bet at 2.5 he will bet at 2.5 regardless of what a fair price is.Kafkaesque wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:19 pmAs far as I know, there's been several studies showing that the Pinnacle closing prices are extremely close to a fair price, so I'd say, you're off on that one. Call it wisdom of the crowd (with sharpies being a more significant part of said crowd) or whatever, but there does seem to be a fair price. Otherwise Pinnacle's business model wouldn't work imo.
It's mathematically not possible to calculate the true chance of a horse. You can prove that on average for a collection of runners that they are fair prices, but if the overround is close to 100%, you know this anyway.
I was referring to fair value as the horses true chance of winning, so there may have been a slight misunderstanding.ruthlessimon wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:30 pm(tangent incoming) I define fair value as simply the price which facilitates the most trade. Markets are complex & as new information gets priced in, fair value shifts around. But I'm sure there's almost a 100% correlation between fair value & highest volume. All of my trades revolve around this price point 1 way or another