If a runner reaches the price point 2.0 in play, the theory would go that at that point in time specifically (assuming market efficiency long term) the runner has a 50% chance of winning, and thus would go on to win as many as they lose (and extrapolated that runners that hit 2.0 at some stage in play tallied up long term would see 50% winners and 50% losers).
Extrapolating that, would it be then true to say that a runner that hit's 50% chance of winning is as likely to subsequently hit 75% chance of winning as they are to hit 25% chance of winning, and so on and so forth, so that in terms of % chance of winning, and market efficiency, distribution of wins to losses would be evenly distributed moving away from 2.0 in either direction?
This obviously assumes that the collective wisdom of the crowd in play is accurately representing liklihood of winning on the ladder at any given point.
I'm not really clear on all this theory or market efficiency so it would be great to understand if this is conceptually accurate or not and if not why that's not the case (I read somewhere that take a point in time and the wisdom of the crowd should accurately reflect chances at that point in time).
Thanks in advance
Market Efficiency In Play...is it straightforward?
I think you've summed up very well exactly how I envisage the market efficiency to work.
Of course whether the market follows that efficiency is for you to find out, but I personally think you're on the right track of how to view it. Often to find inefficiency you need to look at slices of the market though. Finding those slices is the hard part.
Of course whether the market follows that efficiency is for you to find out, but I personally think you're on the right track of how to view it. Often to find inefficiency you need to look at slices of the market though. Finding those slices is the hard part.