Anyone who loses his life savings on the first race of the day, won't be out for the day but out for good!ShaunWhite wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 4:47 amSurely that's incorrect. Bookies win when favourites lose (generalisation), and if the fav was very short, some of the odds on boys will be losing lumps. The 100/1 outsider might only have had a tenner on it and the 1.2 shot will have 100s of 1000s. They'll cut and cut a popular fav because they don't want any more liability.Derek27 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:36 pmNo, only punters who backed the loser will have less money and they won't have had their life savings on it!dragontrades wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:26 pm
Do things like this affect the following markets?
Punters having less money?
Are there any (ex)bookies here who can confirm that?
i'm judging it mainly by the amateur dramatics they do on a saturday after a string of favourites have landed, and by the way an afternoon can dry up after few losing shorties.
I also don't think Euler would have mentioned it unless it was going to have an effect. His comments are sometimes enigmatic but hardly ever just narrative.
You're making the assumption that there's a group of "odds on boys" who lump on every odd-on favourite big time. A punter may be interested in one odd-on favourite and not another, so a different group of people could be backing the other favourite.
One thing we can be certain about is that people who primarily back odd-on favourites lose - but they're getting the money from somewhere!