3 ms·
The author claimed that 90% was illogical; that it should have been closer to 98-99%. What the author failed to realize is that there are overhead costs in bett
by codexb 3y ago
The author claimed that 90% was illogical; that it should have been closer to 98-99%. What the author failed to realize is that there are overhead costs in betting -- 10% rake, 5% withdrawal, etc. that cut into that 98-99% margin.
- caf 3y agoThe author didn't fail to realise any of that, because he pointed all of those things out (and more) in the article.