I was reading about David M Greenwood in the paper today, the “mastermind” behind the Ad Vitam race-fixing in 2011 and 2012. Greenwood is portrayed by the disciplinary panel as “a stranger to false modesty (who) described himself as one of the best five race readers in the country.”
A successful gambler being a stranger to false modesty is such a well-worn cliché it's hardly worthy of comment. However, the numbers, as reported, (and presented without any analysis) are an interesting insight into the betting habits of “one of the best five race readers in the country.”
It's suggested that he has made a profit of around £5 million in 10 years. And that he was turning over “about £1m each week.” So he bet, say, £50m a year for 10 years to make 5m.
Which would suggest that “one of the best five race readers in the country” has a 1% edge. Which, if true, would make him a terrible gambler. And this without taking into account he's just been disqualified for fixing races – which presumably accounts for a lot more than 1%, else why bother?
And so to the main race in question, where he finally backs Ad Vitam to win and place.
He puts £7887 on the horse to win and £16266 on the horse to place, making a profit of £8378 when Ad Vitam finished second. I repeat, second. That's hardly the betting coup of the century is it, for a man who turns over £1m a week and is “one of the five best race readers in the country.”?
He's been disqualified for 8 years when, of course, if only for the story's sake, he should have been disqualified ad vitam.
A successful gambler being a stranger to false modesty is such a well-worn cliché it's hardly worthy of comment. However, the numbers, as reported, (and presented without any analysis) are an interesting insight into the betting habits of “one of the best five race readers in the country.”
It's suggested that he has made a profit of around £5 million in 10 years. And that he was turning over “about £1m each week.” So he bet, say, £50m a year for 10 years to make 5m.
Which would suggest that “one of the best five race readers in the country” has a 1% edge. Which, if true, would make him a terrible gambler. And this without taking into account he's just been disqualified for fixing races – which presumably accounts for a lot more than 1%, else why bother?
And so to the main race in question, where he finally backs Ad Vitam to win and place.
He puts £7887 on the horse to win and £16266 on the horse to place, making a profit of £8378 when Ad Vitam finished second. I repeat, second. That's hardly the betting coup of the century is it, for a man who turns over £1m a week and is “one of the five best race readers in the country.”?
He's been disqualified for 8 years when, of course, if only for the story's sake, he should have been disqualified ad vitam.
RSS Feed