Heavily Bet Horses Who Have Don't a Chance.

[Robert Goren]

These are horses that make you want to dutch the rest of the field. In a different thread I mention one of my favorites types. The horse with a bullet WO since his last race and is dropping in claiming price to boot. These horse almost never win, but often are the favorite and sometimes are heavy favorites. Of course you don't see them every day, but they do pop up more often than you would think. Do you have something like this?

[Dave Schwartz]

I see these fairly often, but always from a "dynamic" factor approach. (i.e. developed as a custom set of "what wins a race like this" factors)

I could never say that the horse "has no chance." My expectation is that they win around 50% of the races the tote board reflects.

If they are very low odds, like 3/5 or below, the best I can hope for is around 70% of what the tote board reflects. More realistically, usually like 80%.

So, if I had a tossable horse that was 1/9, (percent of pool = 72-75% or so) I would expect the horse to actually be around 55% hit rate.

Historically, I do much better in races where the tossable favorite is between 7/5 and 9/5. Those are just killer races for me because those tossed horses lose over 50% of their investor's money. (i.e. $Net = $0.90)


That makes the rest of the field very playable, especially in large fields. I have had races like that where I have actually bet 7 horses in an exacta box! Rarely do I go above 5, but it has happened. My $Net in such races is around $3.20.

[Overlay]

These are horses that make you want to dutch the rest of the field. In a different thread I mention one of my favorites types. The horse with a bullet WO since his last race and is dropping in claiming price to boot. These horse almost never win, but often are the favorite and sometimes are heavy favorites. Of course you don't see them every day, but they do pop up more often than you would think. Do you have something like this?

I don't have a list of "bet-against" angles such as the one you mentioned, but I regularly see horses at all odds ranges that are bet down far below my assessment of their probability of winning.

I wouldn't say that they all fall into the "don't have a chance" category, but they are definitely very poor betting risks (underlays), which, by default, generally means that other solid horses in the race are being overlooked, and are offering value.

As long as you have a dependable means of plausibly explaining why the bet-downs are being misjudged by the public (rather than being the product of "inside information"), I say, "Go for it."

[traveler]

My take is it doesn't have to be a heavily bet favourite, but you need to eliminate the first or second betting choice or races become pretty tough to beat.

Yeah, I know they all have some chance to win and big field vs. small fields, etc.

Looking for losers in the top 2 makes finding positive expectation horses a lot easier to find.

[Robert Goren]

Figuring a 17% take out. I would want at least double that of dead money to dutch the rest of field. Give the dead horse a 5% chance of winning, the horse would have to be even money or less to consider a dutch. The "Bullet WO" horses win less than 2% of the time according to my numbers and often go off at less than even money. This something I noticed well over 40 years ago, but it still works even in this day where even horses dropping off a claim or horse who ran a good second drop and win. Things that were the kiss of death before slot money fueled purses. A horse like this makes every other horse in the race a value bet.

[betovernetcapper]

A bet against strategy that comes up fairly often is a horse that is heavily bet in the win pool and lightly bet in the exacta & place & show pools. If at 1 minute or so to post it's 4-5 in the win pool and 2-1 in the exacta pool, my experience is the horse is going to preform sub par. A program like ATR helps see these spots.

[Stillriledup]

Just bet against that horse w exchange wager.

Of course in the land of the free, you can't do that.

[Robert Goren]

A bet against strategy that comes up fairly often is a horse that is heavily bet in the win pool and lightly bet in the exacta & place & show pools. If at 1 minute or so to post it's 4-5 in the win pool and 2-1 in the exacta pool, my experience is the horse is going to preform sub par. A program like ATR helps see these spots. Where do I find ATR?

[Overlay]

Where do I find ATR?
Here's a link:

http://homebased2.com/atr/at_the_races.htm

[pondman]

For several years I've been focused on dirt route races between 1 and 1 /18. And so I do have a criteria that a horse must have before I bet. And most of this includes raw #s, or the fact that the horse just doesn't have an edge on a highly competitive field-- it's not any kind of standout. I see a lot of false favorites this way. And I have started to play a few tris and supers if 2 or 3 other horses are strong enough contenders, but they don't meet a win bet criteria. But I don't see these in most races, and I don't have any method of playing dutch. I just pass the race, and look for a single somewhere else. I think it's a lot of stress and a potential hit to a bank to over due the dutch betting and have a lot more money riding on a race than needed. It's easier to just pass.

[burnsy]

........are the best races to bet. I'm not a believer in trying to bet every race, so I look or specialize in the these type of races. At Saratoga there is at least one of them a day, many days there are more. I laughed when someone started a thread claiming the results are "random"......far from it, when some chalky, chalk or second choice has little chance compared to the odds they are bet at. I call that a "no brainer". For me, its all about odds and the horses actual chances of winning. That's how I rate a horse. If one doesn't bet every race, it only takes one pop to have a good day. I'll sacrifice a few (races) for value, as long as I'm getting what I think is the right price. People get so hung up on cashing, they can't see the big picture. I've been known to hit the "all" button in pics when I think the chalk is a terrible bet or the pool is crushed out of control.......but I've never "dutched" a race in my life. If I feel like I don't need to waste time doing that, I'll pass. If you play this game with the intentions of cashing every race.......you are not going to actually win that often. It's a pipe dream, take selected shots or stay home.........There are two kinds of people that almost always lose at horses, the ones that are compulsive are the worst, the ones that think they can beat every race are only one step behind the first ones........"I'll bet every horse just to cash".......Yeah, good luck with that... :rolleyes:

[Robert Fischer]

If your insight is accurate, there will be times when you feel that you see a profitable systemic event. You will then need to find the courage to oppose both authority and the consensus.
http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/f89/fa6/dc5/resized/pai-mei-says-meme-generator-your-kung-fu-is-weak-06b56b.jpg

[TheOracle]

I see these fairly often, but always from a "dynamic" factor approach. (i.e. developed as a custom set of "what wins a race like this" factors)

I could never say that the horse "has no chance." My expectation is that they win around 50% of the races the tote board reflects.

If they are very low odds, like 3/5 or below, the best I can hope for is around 70% of what the tote board reflects. More realistically, usually like 80%.

So, if I had a tossable horse that was 1/9, (percent of pool = 72-75% or so) I would expect the horse to actually be around 55% hit rate.

Historically, I do much better in races where the tossable favorite is between 7/5 and 9/5. Those are just killer races for me because those tossed horses lose over 50% of their investor's money. (i.e. $Net = $0.90)


That makes the rest of the field very playable, especially in large fields. I have had races like that where I have actually bet 7 horses in an exacta box! Rarely do I go above 5, but it has happened. My $Net in such races is around $3.20.


Hey Dave,

To underscore your point about tossing favorites between 7/5 and 9/5 I have taken a look at over 150+ races at Belmont this year on the Dirt all less than 1 Mile.

My data only has the Morning Line Favorites, but if you use that as a bench mark, and look at the Morning Line Favorites ending in 5 i.e. (,,7/5, 8/5,,, etc.) they have only won 20 out of their last 46 races in this situation.

If you wagered $2 to win on all of the Morning Line Favorites ending with 5 in Sprint races on the Dirt at Belmont it would have cost you $92 and you would have lost $23.70 which puts you in the whole with a negative return of -26%.

These horses lost at a rate of 57% and when I look at the Turf races at Belmont it's even worse.


http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/test1.jpg
http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/test2.jpg
http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/test3.jpg
http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/test4.jpg
http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/test5.jpg
http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/test6.jpg
http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/test7.jpg


So those Morning Line Favorites that went on to become the actual favorites made for huge overlays in many of these instances which I believe contributed to the average win price of $10 in this situation.

[Robert Goren]

When I started this thread, I was not talking about even money horses who have 30% chance of winning. Those horses abound in todays racing world. I was talking about 4/5 horses who have a less than 5% chance to win. There are plenty of them out there. The trick is to identify them. I gave one example.
I know that with advent of multi-level bets like exactas and trifectas, ditching has taken a back seat. But it still can be a very profitable strategy on occasion. With the increase in takeout rates, those occasions occur less often than they did 50 years ago, but they still pop up from time to time. It is but another weapon in the handicapper's arsenal. It should not be used on every race. But there is a time and place for it. Hopefully the two posters who are writing books on handicapping will include a chapter on it.

[Dave Schwartz]

So those Morning Line Favorites that went on to become the actual favorites made for huge overlays in many of these instances which I believe contributed to the average win price of $10 in this situation.

That is a viable assessment. And 29% recovery puts you well on the road to break-even or better. :ThmbUp:


I was talking about 4/5 horses who have a less than 5% chance to win.

IMHO...

Good luck finding such horses more than a couple of times per year.

Not saying that they don't lose, but finding them beforehand is just about as difficult as finding 20/1 shots with a 75% chance of winning.

But I await anyone with a study that can show they predicted in advance a significant number of 4/5 horses that, collectively, only hit 5% of the time.

And twisty-turny backfits don't count. You know, 4/5 horses in post position 3 or 7, on a Thursday, in one of the middle 3 races on the card, with a left-handed jockey wearing pink silks.

[JimG]

And twisty-turny backfits don't count. You know, 4/5 horses in post position 3 or 7, on a Thursday, in one of the middle 3 races on the card, with a left-handed jockey wearing pink silks.

I avoid those at all costs.

[Robert Fischer]

That is a viable assessment. And 29% recovery puts you well on the road to break-even or better. :ThmbUp:




IMHO...

Good luck finding such horses more than a couple of times per year.

Not saying that they don't lose, but finding them beforehand is just about as difficult as finding 20/1 shots with a 75% chance of winning.

But I await anyone with a study that can show they predicted in advance a significant number of 4/5 horses that, collectively, only hit 5% of the time.

And twisty-turny backfits don't count. You know, 4/5 horses in post position 3 or 7, on a Thursday, in one of the middle 3 races on the card, with a left-handed jockey wearing pink silks.

<5% only happens when you've spotted a major flaw. As Dave states, those no-hope heavy favorites are fairly rare.

Rare still, but more common, is simply the significant underlay. It doesn't have to "never" win to be a goldmine, it simply hast to be underlayed enough.

[Robert Fischer]

Today we have Texas Red in the Dwyer, with potential to be a sizable underlay.
Here is a horse who had a dream trip in the Breeders Cup Juvenile, and is still irrationally being bet for that. As an added bonus he's a son of beloved horse Afleet Alex.
He already paid off substantially in February, when the only decent rival (Lord Nelson) paid nearly 2-1.

Today is more difficult. Blofeld, Tommy Macho, and Speightster stretch the available value.

Considering how hot Pletcher is, and the fact that Speightster is not only stepping up, but is also stretching-out, I'll take my chances with a small investment on the two Pletcher entries Blofeld and Tommy Macho.
Win Dutch and using only those two entries in the double and pick3 to start.

The idea is not to go crazy and blow up my bankroll in an all or nothing, but to make a small investment that over the course of the year of many such plays, will show me growing my bankroll exponentially.

[TheOracle]

Today we have Texas Red in the Dwyer, with potential to be a sizable underlay.
Here is a horse who had a dream trip in the Breeders Cup Juvenile, and is still irrationally being bet for that. As an added bonus he's a son of beloved horse Afleet Alex.
He already paid off substantially in February, when the only decent rival (Lord Nelson) paid nearly 2-1.

Today is more difficult. Blofeld, Tommy Macho, and Speightster stretch the available value.

Considering how hot Pletcher is, and the fact that Speightster is not only stepping up, but is also stretching-out, I'll take my chances with a small investment on the two Pletcher entries Blofeld and Tommy Macho.
Win Dutch and using only those two entries in the double and pick3 to start.

The idea is not to go crazy and blow up my bankroll in an all or nothing, but to make a small investment that over the course of the year of many such plays, will show me growing my bankroll exponentially.


Hey Robert,

T A Pletcher has been giving a slight profit at around 15% in Stakes races on the Dirt so far at Belmont per $2 win wager. His average win price is close to $8 per win in this situation.

http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/t pletcher stksdrt.jpg

So that might be a good bet today in the 7th race especially if the public plays #6 Speightster and #4 Texas Red!!


Let's see what happens!!

[Robert Fischer]

Speightster is a concern and he took a lot of early money.

Can't bet 'em all, I will stick with what I wrote. The 1 and 3.

Only room for all three in something like the Pick-4.

[Robert Fischer]

Not today. Correctly identified the losing favorite, but - the market shifted to a position which wasn't obvious before the betting opened.

- Texas Red was not a 'Heavily Bet' horse

Speightster ended up with strong money and finished @ 2-1 vs 9-5 for Texas Red.


That changed the situation to the point where there was no longer a big bucket of money in front of a lone vulnerable horse.


In practice, I think you have to 'eat' any lead-in multi-race wagers at that point and pass on the win dutching and multis going forward from that race , once you see the betting change from a 'Heavily Bet' Texas Red to two 'co favorites'.


Good race for thinking about the process. I lost today, but I didn't bet my whole bankroll. I'll have to come back and get 'em next time ;)

[TheOracle]

Not today. Correctly identified the losing favorite, but - the market shifted to a position which wasn't obvious before the betting opened.

- Texas Red was not a 'Heavily Bet' horse

Speightster ended up with strong money and finished @ 2-1 vs 9-5 for Texas Red.


That changed the situation to the point where there was no longer a big bucket of money in front of a lone vulnerable horse.


In practice, I think you have to 'eat' any lead-in multi-race wagers at that point and pass on the win dutching and multis going forward from that race , once you see the betting change from a 'Heavily Bet' Texas Red to two 'co favorites'.


Good race for thinking about the process. I lost today, but I didn't bet my whole bankroll. I'll have to come back and get 'em next time ;)

Sorry about that Robert,

I picked up some show money on #3 Tommy Macho but that was about it this will also hurt Pletcher's return in Stakes races on the Dirt.

However, like you say have to get back at them next time!!

[ultracapper]

........are the best races to bet. I'm not a believer in trying to bet every race, so I look or specialize in the these type of races. At Saratoga there is at least one of them a day, many days there are more. I laughed when someone started a thread claiming the results are "random"......far from it, when some chalky, chalk or second choice has little chance compared to the odds they are bet at. I call that a "no brainer". For me, its all about odds and the horses actual chances of winning. That's how I rate a horse. If one doesn't bet every race, it only takes one pop to have a good day. I'll sacrifice a few (races) for value, as long as I'm getting what I think is the right price. People get so hung up on cashing, they can't see the big picture. I've been known to hit the "all" button in pics when I think the chalk is a terrible bet or the pool is crushed out of control.......but I've never "dutched" a race in my life. If I feel like I don't need to waste time doing that, I'll pass. If you play this game with the intentions of cashing every race.......you are not going to actually win that often. It's a pipe dream, take selected shots or stay home.........There are two kinds of people that almost always lose at horses, the ones that are compulsive are the worst, the ones that think they can beat every race are only one step behind the first ones........"I'll bet every horse just to cash".......Yeah, good luck with that... :rolleyes:

If I was articulate, I could have typed this. Just find me one good one. That's all I ask. And after I hit that, find me one more.

One at a time at this game is my strategy. Has been for a long time. I'd rather have $20 on one race than $2 on 10.

[castaway01]

If I was articulate, I could have typed this. Just find me one good one. That's all I ask. And after I hit that, find me one more.

One at a time at this game is my strategy. Has been for a long time. I'd rather have $20 on one race than $2 on 10.

I'm going to echo this. Sure, it's "fun" to bet a little on a bunch of races, not denying that. But if you're out to win money, your last sentence is surely true.

[Luckycreed]

Don't underestimate the stupidly overbet second and third favourite when really they have little chance of rolling the fav angle.Horses that go around at 1-3 that would have to have a cardiac arrest to lose and should be 1-10 but silly people who do not understand what value really is assume it is unders and back the no hoper second or third fav thinking they are getting value.

[thaskalos]

What is a more common occurrence? The heavily-bet horse who never wins...or the undistinguished-looking horse, who should receive only lukewarm support on the board...but gets bet heavily and wins?

[cj]

What is a more common occurrence? The heavily-bet horse who never wins...or the lackluster-looking horse, who should receive only lukewarm support on the board...but gets bet heavily and wins?

Been reading this thread wondering when somebody would point out the obvious.

[thaskalos]

Been reading this thread wondering when somebody would point out the obvious.
I was going to pass on this thread...but it irks me when I see people talk about the "stupidity" of the betting public.

[Luckycreed]

No their not dumb just plain greedy so they will not back long odds on horses, or try to find a reason they will get beat, you see it from time to time in three year old stakes races all over the world.

Horse should be 1'10 and goes off at 1.30 because gamblers will not take the "short" odds, up to a mile really dominant three year olds just win and keep winning.When Horse is actually being traded shorter on betfair than it is paying on the home tote.you make a small profit (about 3%) backing on the home tote without doing one scrap of form study.

[thaskalos]

No their not dumb just plain greedy so they will not back long odds on horses, or try to find a reason they will get beat, you see it from time to time in three year old stakes races all over the world.

Horse should be 1'10 and goes off at 1.30 because gamblers will not take the "short" odds, up to a mile really dominant three year olds just win and keep winning.When Horse is actually being traded shorter on betfair than it is paying on the home tote.you make a small profit (about 3%) backing on the home tote without doing one scrap of form study.
I honestly don't remember any horses who went off at 1.30/1 while figuring to be 1/10...so, I don't know what you are suggesting here. When you say that the bettors "will not take the short odds", are you advocating betting on these 3/5 shots that we occasionally see...simply because they figure on paper to be 2/5?

[Dave Schwartz]

When you say that the bettors "will not take the short odds", are you advocating betting on these 3/5 shots that we occasionally see...simply because they figure on paper to be 2/5?

I would say that.

(Assuming, of course, that I have history that says such 3/5s as THIS one are profitable FOR ME.)

[thaskalos]

I would say that.

(Assuming, of course, that I have history that says such 3/5s as THIS one are profitable FOR ME.)
IMO...these 3/5s are so few, that the evidence that they collectively provide could never be called a "history". A "minor trend", is more like it...

[Poindexter]

I would say that.

(Assuming, of course, that I have history that says such 3/5s as THIS one are profitable FOR ME.)


I am in that school. I do not like betting odds on horse straight, I much rather single them in a pick 3/4/5 or key them on top when I like them. I don't doubt they could be profitable, especially with rebates, it is just a tendency I have always had. These horses can be tricky however, you sometimes do not know if you are going to get 2/5, 3/5 or 4/5 until after the bell, and that is break even of .70 to .55. If I am keying him in a pick 3 I don't particularly care, but if I was trying to grind out profits these late odds changes can be monumental.

[Robert Fischer]

weird race @ Del Mar

Jens De Ville 3 was so obviously the best, had a low ml, but for some reason they bet miltee like she was a lock, and JDV was frigid on the board??

scared me into only betting a smaller amount

[Robert Fischer]

Another weird one was the 8th? @ Charlestown tonight.

:2: began to take heavy late money and enter minus-pool territory, and then was a late scratch by the stewards.

Did not leave much time for players to adjust and a lot of money went on the 2nd choice, but it was just an odd situation.

Maybe the 2 was indeed unsound and it was a great thing for both horse and players, but just seemed odd.

Couldn't really bet a race like that, but it was strange.

[delayjf]

These are horses that make you want to dutch the rest of the field

Robert,

When I read the above, it reminded me of a race at Ak-Sar-Ben back in the early 80s where, except for the 4-1 second choice, you could have literally dutch the rest of the field and not lost money - and the heavy favorite lost.