What is

[Show Me the Wire]

a good objective definition of a longshot?

Can a longshot be objectively defined by some criteria, for example any horse with odds higher than its natural odds of winning?

[kenwoodallpromos]

a good objective definition of a longshot?

Can a longshot be objectively defined by some criteria, for example any horse with odds higher than its natural odds of winning?
_______________
6-1 or higher. My reasoning is that it is outside the range of many payoffs at most tracks, and 5-1 seems to be the highest M/L odds that the M/L makers do not just automatically assign; 6-1 and above seems to be arrived at with little thought for the M/L.
6-1 or 14% chance of winning is below most of the track win takeouts.
I think for betting purposes field size should have some bearing on what should be conidered a longshot also: the shorter the field or the more predictable the race type, the lower the odds to be considered a longshot.
A field of 5 I may consider a certain 4-1 a longshot; a field over 10 and I may consider only 8-1 or 10-1 as longshots because of post position, random risk of losing, etc.

[Show Me the Wire]

kenwoodallpromos:

Yes, I agree about field size whould be in the equation. The 6 to 1 is a little bit low for my purposes of defining a longshot. The reason I asked is for purposes of another way to define negative key races and I do not think a 6-1 horse ($14) winner would be an indicator of a weak field.

Maybe this may pique more interest in the discussion of objectively defining a longshot.

[Overlay]

Along the lines of field size, how about (as a kind of across-the-board criterion) a horse that goes off at odds higher than its random chance of winning based on the number of horses in the race (higher than 6-1 in a seven-horse field, 7-1 in an eight-horse field, and so on)?

[Show Me the Wire]

Yes, that is one objective criteria.

[Tom]

Anything that pays $20 of more.

[twindouble]

Anything that pays $20 of more.

Long shot is a relative term having value, that's why other expressions evolved, like BOMB meaning a real long shot, 30-1 and up, blew everyone away. Another is a sleeper, meaning not picked to speak of, ML, or handicappers. Then there's the horse paid telephone numbers or the payoff. The use of these terms from player to player can vary when it comes to odds, depends on how big his or her ego is, ESP long shot.

The most popular expressions wouldn't be allowed on this board. :eek:


Good luck and bombs away.


T.D.

[Ron]

A longshot is anything but the favorite.

Or, if not, then what is a favorite?

[twindouble]

I like to use the term "Sleeper", no one has him picked but I think he'll wake up and run a big race. Most of the time, it's form cycle that put me on the horse or a troubled race that I made note of and an added factor, he's running this time against lesser company or a more suitable distance. It's one thing to talk about value, it's another to end up with it.



T.D.

[Ron]

I like to use the term "Sleeper", no one has him picked but I think he'll wake up and run a big race. Most of the time, it's form cycle that put me on the horse or a troubled race that I made note of and an added factor, he's running this time against lesser company or a more suitable distance. It's one thing to talk about value, it's another to end up with it.



T.D.

I think its funny when analysts talk about their sleeper picks.

[twindouble]

I think its funny when analysts talk about their sleeper picks.

Meaning, you laugh when they don't win?

Do me a favor Ron, don't refer to me as an analyst. I'm a gambler and a handicapper.



T.D.

[JPinMaryland]

I liked it when Achilles of Troy suddenly became "everybody's" sleeper pick for the derby. First it was Hammerin Hank then Beyer himself. Then someone else.

I'm standing in line at the OTB and my buddy calls me with 20 min to post. "Please, can you put $20 to win on Achilles of Troy?" :lol:

I knew right then I should have just pocketed the money and not made the bet. It would have covered most of my exotics, but then I figured with my luck AoT would win and I would end up owing him like $250 or so.

Really should have kept the money..

[kenwoodallpromos]

kenwoodallpromos:

Yes, I agree about field size whould be in the equation. The 6 to 1 is a little bit low for my purposes of defining a longshot. The reason I asked is for purposes of another way to define negative key races and I do not think a 6-1 horse ($14) winner would be an indicator of a weak field.

Maybe this may pique more interest in the discussion of objectively defining a longshot.
______________
I'll lay out and keep reading this thread after this question: In your opinion does the odds or number of "contenders" make a difference in a negative key race?
Sometimes what I call a less predictable race is one whose contenders are relatively higher odds, like no horses less than 5-2 or 3-1, or maybe a big favorite that is a flase favorite.

[rastajenk]

What became of Achilles of Troy? Is he done for good? How about that barn's real sleeper, Scanlon's Song or something like that? Man, they thought they were loaded back then. What a goofy outfit.

[Show Me the Wire]

kenwoodallpromos:

No to both. Looking at one of my best handicapping strategies, it is negative key races. Most people ignore negative key races, maybe not after this thread, and horses coming from these races are overbet.

I do not hava a large db, so I was wondering if there was an objective criteria we could use to quantify what is a longshot to see if by definition when a true longshot wins a race will that race be a negative key race.

[Show Me the Wire]

Achilles of Troy and the derby. Thread drift doncha think. :bang:

[Overlay]

Sorry for my redundant post. I didn't completely read your thread starter before I sent it.

[cj]

I'd consider a longshot any horses that has odds greater than his natural chance of winning. In a 10 horse field, it would be 10-1 or above. In a 5 horse field, 5-1 and above, etc.

[CryingForTheHorses]

a good objective definition of a longshot?

Can a longshot be objectively defined by some criteria, for example any horse with odds higher than its natural odds of winning?


Ill give you my opinion..A unknown trainer claims a horse that is always close runing 4h or 5th or getting beat 5 to 6 lenghts..This trainer can find the kinks in this claimed horse.Horse has been close in several races but now his odds will go up. When the trainer runs this horse back wih all his problems fixed..The horse wins and pays a price..The trick is to know who has the horse!!

[Ron]

Meaning, you laugh when they don't win?

Do me a favor Ron, don't refer to me as an analyst. I'm a gambler and a handicapper.



T.D.

When I said analyst I was referring to someone who knew what they were talking about.

[twindouble]

When I said analyst I was referring to someone who knew what they were talking about.

Oh my that was crushing, I'll never be the same. Have to hang up my racing, go to back of line and just envy your vast knowlege of handicapping. Not to mention the huge sums of money you make.:rolleyes:


T.D.

[Pgh. Gere]

SMTW- I know when I make a line, 6-1 is the highest odds for a horse I consider a contender. A 7 or 8 -1 horse, probably an outsider and something I missed. The 9-1 or 10-1 range seems like a good cutoff for the "longshot" criteria.

Interested in finding out more about negative key races and how you define them.

[Show Me the Wire]

Pgh. Gere:

You know it when you see it. Seriously, I look for a few types. The first is the opposite of a key race. The winner next out or the close itm finisher performs poorly, without an excuse, and a couple others do too.

The best negative key race and hardest to find is when a participating horse makes a true drop in class next out, takes betting action and performs poorly.

It also seems when a high paying horse wins a race, it usually indicates a pretty weak group.

These angles are hidden as it does not have anything to do with final time.

[Show Me the Wire]

McSchell_Racing:

Thanks for the info, but what I am looking for is how my fellow posters define a longshot and the probability that the longshot won because of a hidden weak field and not becuase the trainer found the hole card.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Ill give you my opinion..A unknown trainer claims a horse that is always close runing 4h or 5th or getting beat 5 to 6 lenghts..This trainer can find the kinks in this claimed horse.Horse has been close in several races but now his odds will go up. When the trainer runs this horse back wih all his problems fixed..The horse wins and pays a price..The trick is to know who has the horse!!
_______
You mentioned 5 or 6 lengths- do you believe that even a 4th or 5th place finish can be improved enough to win with a good trainer if the lengths back is not very many? In looking for longer odds on the board than the real value (overlay loingshot), should I be focusing more on lengths needed to improve more than finish position? That makes pretty good sense to me!

[twindouble]

Pgh. Gere:

You know it when you see it. Seriously, I look for a few types. The first is the opposite of a key race. The winner next out or the close itm finisher performs poorly, without an excuse, and a couple others do too.

The best negative key race and hardest to find is when a participating horse makes a true drop in class next out, takes betting action and performs poorly.

It also seems when a high paying horse wins a race, it usually indicates a pretty weak group.

These angles are hidden as it does not have anything to do with final time.

Believe it or not Boxcar who no longer posts on this forum sighted many "angles" that were valid and tried to support what he was saying by post race analysis and examples. Big mistake on his part. My problem with it all was defining what an "angle" is when it comes to handicapping. Some of his examples to me were legit handicapping factors that were in the PP's and conditions along with trainer intent. Another thing that I always concerned myself with was, not to get swallowed up looking for angles and long shots. The reason being I could lose sight of the more important fundamental factors of handicapping.


T.D.

[Show Me the Wire]

twindouble:

Yes, I am familiar with Boxcar's postings, even from the old Derby Board.

I misspoke when I used the term angle. Iit is a different way to analyze past performances.

Angles develop from intent. LIke drop in class and switch to a good jock, signals the trainers intent. Will it always work no. Why because there are other trainers in the same race with the intent to win, the horse is not good enough, or sim;ly the trainer is weak.

Negative key races are not angles, it tkaes into account the company the horse runs against. The biggest factor besides random choas is the population of the race the horse competed against.


kenwoodallpromos:

Yes, amount of lengths is a good way to gauge how much improvement is needed.

[skate]

i think, to a large extent, it depends on how many races you play.

if you play every race, you may consider 7/2 to be a long shoot.

got a friend, looks for $500 to $800 exacts, when i gave him an 9/1 shot, he said he did not play the Chalk.

anymore, to me, i look for minimum 15/1. to consider a serious play. but i don't consider this (15/1) to necessarily be A long shot.

at 50/1, i'm warming up, and just Looove that 60/1, 70/1.

when im hitting my 12% (which im not now) , who's happy... ?