Racing luck favors the longshot

[RaceIsClosed]

Favorite goes down or gets a bad trip, long priced horses benefit a lot, where the favorite barely gets anything when the reverse occurs.

Win odds are based on probability related to skill (or potential), but racing luck odds are equally distributed among horses, regardless of price, and exert more downward pressure on the lower priced horses.

[ranchwest]

Results are fairly evenly distributed over the odds ranges. Beating the odds is a matter of selecting more efficiently than the averages.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Results are fairly evenly distributed over the odds ranges. Beating the odds is a matter of selecting more efficiently than the averages.
______________
I certainly agree that by definition beating the odds requires luck and maybe limitedly distributed or understood information also!!!

[RaceIsClosed]

Results are fairly evenly distributed over the odds ranges. Beating the odds is a matter of selecting more efficiently than the averages.

What I said was that the impact of racing luck, very prominent in all turf races or dirt races with small fields, will always favor the longshot because racing luck is not distributed proportional to the horses' abilities, and that when a favorite has a problem, the other horses benefit more than the favorite benefits when they have a problem.

[Overlay]

I understand your valid point, but I think it should also be considered that the favorite might have positive factors working for it that were responsible for making it the favorite to begin with (like superior condition or a more skilled jockey), and that could allow it to be more capable of overcoming (or even avoiding altogether) the normal events of bad "luck" that affect the running of a race, and that might knock a lesser horse out of contention.

[RaceIsClosed]

I understand your valid point, but I think it should also be considered that the favorite might have positive factors working for it that were responsible for making it the favorite to begin with (like superior condition or a more skilled jockey), and that could allow it to be more capable of overcoming (or even avoiding altogether) the normal events of bad "luck" that affect the running of a race, and that might knock a lesser horse out of contention.

Would any horse other than Barbaro pulling up have affected the Preakness the same way? That's the best extreme example. Would the other horses in the 2004 Belmont have ganged up on anyone other than Smarty? Why do so few people bridgejump at the harness races? Same reason: racing luck favors the longshot, and it is too expensive when bad luck happens to an odds-on.

[garyoz]

Favorite goes down or gets a bad trip, long priced horses benefit a lot, where the favorite barely gets anything when the reverse occurs.

Win odds are based on probability related to skill (or potential), but racing luck odds are equally distributed among horses, regardless of price, and exert more downward pressure on the lower priced horses.

Don't quite get the point. Is the argument that this makes longshots a more attractive wager? The research, such as the academic articles in the book, "Efficiency of Race Track Betting Markets" indicates that longshots are overbet.

[RaceIsClosed]

Don't quite get the point. Is the argument that this makes longshots a more attractive wager? The research, such as the academic articles in the book, "Efficiency of Race Track Betting Markets" indicates that longshots are overbet.

Most longshots are overbet, but that doesn't mean the value isn't there for the right ones.

Stiffed horses also favor the longshot, as favorites have many reasons to stiff.

How many people here make their big scores off of low-priced horses most of the time? I know it can be done, but I see it very rarely.

[ranchwest]

What I said was that the impact of racing luck, very prominent in all turf races or dirt races with small fields, will always favor the longshot because racing luck is not distributed proportional to the horses' abilities, and that when a favorite has a problem, the other horses benefit more than the favorite benefits when they have a problem.

My point is that the fairly even distribution across all odds is a condition AFTER "luck". This suggests that luck is not a significant factor based on odds. As someone else pointed out, the lower odds horses are probably, on average, more likely to overcome bad racing "luck".

The selection and wagering processes are the long-term route to winning.

[RaceIsClosed]

My point is that the fairly even distribution across all odds is a condition AFTER "luck". This suggests that luck is not a significant factor based on odds. As someone else pointed out, the lower odds horses are probably, on average, more likely to overcome bad racing "luck"..

That is already built into the price. Now ask yourself this: does it benefit a 12-1 (Bernardini) when a 1-2 shot breaks his leg (Barbaro) more or less than it would benefit the 1-2 shot when the 12-1 breaks his leg? This is simple relativity. If your horse goes off stride at the trotters and he's 4-5, the rest of the field has gotten a gift, while if he's 20-1, they won't even notice.


The selection and wagering processes are the long-term route to winning.

This is part of that process.

Odds are not distributed based on the racing luck the public thinks will occur, which means that they are giving an even distribution of that probability to each horse, and that means that the distribution doesn't reflect the odds the way the skill distribution (i.e., regular handicapping) does.

In a more extreme example, let's use a 1-20 shot in a match race against a 20-1 shot, and put a mine in the stretch that either horse could step on and be blown to bits by doing so. Does that "racing luck" favor the 20-1 shot or the 1-20 shot?

[ranchwest]

I've only been to about 10 tracks, but none of them have had any mines on them.

There are way too many ways for a 4/5 to predictably lose to depend on the 4/5 losing through unpredictable means.

[RaceIsClosed]

I've only been to about 10 tracks, but none of them have had any mines on them.

There are way too many ways for a 4/5 to predictably lose to depend on the 4/5 losing through unpredictable means.

When I can get a payoff of $500+ on a very logical trifecta by just assuming that something bad is going to happen to a 1-5 shot (ideal if he has anything less than an absolutely stellar record), I'll do it. I call that pretending he's not in the race. Other horses gang up on heavy favorites so they are actually more likely to encounter difficulty, and the line doesn't take this into account at all.

It's just one of many reasons to go "off the chalk" in at least one spot.

[ranchwest]

I love betting against the chalk. I just need more of a reason for the chalk to lose than the fact that something MIGHT happen. Yes, the fact that something MIGHT happen is a little added incentive, but successful handicapping is about advantage. The advantage is in finding chalk that you have a reasonable certainty will lose.

[Handiman]

Sorry, but I don't see any validity to this proposition. First of all, racing luck is an invisible creature. Not anything you can predict, nor count on. Secondly, bad racing luck affecting the favorite, does not reflect on the longshot's chances anymore than it does on the 2nd favorite. In fact it actually may reflect better on the 2nd fav than any other horse, sense most people agree that the public as a whole, produce the most solid odds line. After all, the 2nd fav is the 2nd fav based on solid handicapping, albeit a consenus of thousand of handicappers.

So to bet on longshots, hoping to catch a nice pay as a result of bad racing luck is ineffectual at best, and ridiculous the rest of the time in my opinion.

Handi

[RaceIsClosed]

Sorry, but I don't see any validity to this proposition. First of all, racing luck is an invisible creature. Not anything you can predict, nor count on. Secondly, bad racing luck affecting the favorite, does not reflect on the longshot's chances anymore than it does on the 2nd favorite. In fact it actually may reflect better on the 2nd fav than any other horse, sense most people agree that the public as a whole, produce the most solid odds line. After all, the 2nd fav is the 2nd fav based on solid handicapping, albeit a consenus of thousand of handicappers.

So to bet on longshots, hoping to catch a nice pay as a result of bad racing luck is ineffectual at best, and ridiculous the rest of the time in my opinion.

Handi

I didn't say it was the only factor, but it's one less reason to bet chalk, and one more reason to bet prices.

It shades how I bet, doesn't determine it. Makes me more likely to cover exotics if the top horse is a price, etc.

[toetoe]

In the good old days of yore, before the first hippodromic land mines, times were better. Let's recall those halcyon days (you too, Halcyonridge). It just makes good sense and benefits the horses, as the more there is of yore, the less there is of mines. :bang: