You say 200 bets to gain even? Well if you use compounding in dice games at 98% win (for about 1% gain at 1% house edge), you can double your bankroll in only 70 rolls.
So, 70 rolls at 99% win and provably fair? I'd say that's far better chances than betting 200 times at horses without provably fair!
And still people lose at 99% chance;)
That's not the same as 99% chance of a dice.
You choose that horse to lose based on several factors, such as previous record, previous Jockey, you get all these stats immediately at many sites without having to dig for this data.
You also don't have to gain even, if you are happy with making $1000 - just take it out and continue later on when you feel comfortable - the chances are better if you don't do it constantly time after time but instead - choose carefully your venue etc.
I do get it's not the same, but I have a feeling it's rather hugely more variant than we'd think. I bet on sports a lot too and there's just so much to account for that they've got hundreds of analysts and computers drawing up the initial odds for football which has arguably more variables than horse racing.
It just feels like a really bad idea (and certainly not a proven method) to use your strategy on 200 horse bets just to double the bankroll, when it seems far easier to use a provably fair method at about equal chances.
Furthermore, with bookies, they may never always take your full 6k bankroll, and then there's so much chance for collusion, bad luck... you do say Australia is less prone to corruption but that doesn't mean it isn't bulletproof. I'd rather risk it on pure maths on dice is what I'm saying - not that I'd ever risk 6k for $60!
P.S.: Found this site on 100/1 horse strike rates. They do seem to be climbing every year, closer to the 1% equilibrium. So it may appear, statistically, betting against 100/1 horses has an edge. But phew, I could still never do that. If you want, you should do a record and collect 200 races so you have something to show =)
So, 70 rolls at 99% win and provably fair? I'd say that's far better chances than betting 200 times at horses without provably fair!
Yeah, I did count in house edge already for those 70 rolls. It would be fewer rolls without edge. I'd still never all-in $6 70 times at 99% chance though. Madness. Unless that were maybe 1% of my bankroll, and I just wanted to show off or build up a wagering record. Playing for wagering prizes makes that +EV.