The session looked at somehow plugging an integrity hole, where Mark agrees it does more harm than good. You know the drill - there might someone, somewhere doing something to undermine the sport, so we must over-regulate the betting of the sport, or at the very least, shout it from the highest mountain.
- But what concerned me about the session was the extent to which it – and so many sessions like it – served only to perpetuate myths which rapidly take on the status of fact in the public pysche.
Resistance is futile, because like an Olympic athlete saving himself, this is baked into the price with a risk component. Bettors ain't dumb.
If Usain Bolt is 1.15 to win his elim on merit, but at a meet in this exact same situation last year he tanked the quarterfinals, his price will probably be 1.35. Some bettors will look at it as a bargain, some as too risky and make their plays. If Rock n Roll Hanover is in an elim and he is off four weeks with a bad post, he may be 4-5 instead of 1-5. Some will roll the dice at a 45% implied probability, some will look elsewhere.
I agree with Mark. There is no need to regulate something that is an intimate component of the off price. That's why it's called gambling.