Can longshots be "due"

[dav4463]

I know every race is different and the results are not dependent on the other. However, longshots seem to run in cycles. If you look back at the past few races at any track and there are five or more straight races won by single-digit horses (less than 3-1).....is it time to toss the favorite and look for bombs until one hits?

[singunner]

Yes. And there is also a discernible pattern in Pi, the Fibonacci sequence and the stock market.

The moment you step away from fact, I can no longer give a non-sarcastic response. To try and actually be helpful, allow me to direct you to the aptly named Gambler's Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy).

When I was younger, I developed a program that would simulate a roulette wheel and allow you to input patterns to try and beat it. My favorite was always betting on black and doubling up every time you lost to make incremental increases without ever actually losing your entire bankroll. I set it to run 10 million times and try to get from 100 dollars to 200 dollars. Out of 10 million trials (which took about 12 hours of processing), there was not one instane of reaching 200. A truly impressive fallacy.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Your cycle of 5+ winners at under $10, then a longshot, then 5+ winners at under $10 means no more than 2 longshots per racecard. Should be easy to verify, but do not look to 12-29 SA- there were more than 2.

[Valuist]

When the track is biased I think you see more of these kinds of streaks. A good rail, speed biased track may be more likely to produce some chalky payoffs while a dead rail and closers track is a more likely scenario for longshots.

[JustRalph]

I know every race is different and the results are not dependent on the other. However, longshots seem to run in cycles. If you look back at the past few races at any track and there are five or more straight races won by single-digit horses (less than 3-1).....is it time to toss the favorite and look for bombs until one hits?

no way. You have to evaluate every race on its own merits.

[robert99]

There is no "longshots are due" statistical effect.

There are, however, causation effects where specific changes make good recent horse form ( and shorter prices) less relevant and are are not fully appreciated by those "anchored" to the recent past. Humans are not well adapted to appreciating quickly that things/ times have changed. Examples could be a wet/ cold period of weather following a long dry/ warm spell; any cause that blunts speed/ class from prevailing; late in the season where previously good horses get well past their seasonal peaks; fillies and mares becoming more competitive in the autumn etc.

It is, however, not easy to predict which poor horse will come good on those days. I take a holiday in those periods.

[Overlay]

When the track is biased I think you see more of these kinds of streaks. A good rail, speed biased track may be more likely to produce some chalky payoffs while a dead rail and closers track is a more likely scenario for longshots.

I remember Ainslie discussing a race meeting where Jorge Velasquez was riding one longshot winner after another by staying in the middle of the track with his horses because he had realized that the rail had gone dead, which apparently none of the other riders picked up on as quickly.

[46zilzal]

simple: wagering is OFTEN independent of the TRUE capping chances a horse presents. They are mutually exclusive.

[Fastracehorse]

Yes. And there is also a discernible pattern in Pi, the Fibonacci sequence and the stock market.

The moment you step away from fact, I can no longer give a non-sarcastic response. To try and actually be helpful, allow me to direct you to the aptly named Gambler's Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy).

When I was younger, I developed a program that would simulate a roulette wheel and allow you to input patterns to try and beat it. My favorite was always betting on black and doubling up every time you lost to make incremental increases without ever actually losing your entire bankroll. I set it to run 10 million times and try to get from 100 dollars to 200 dollars. Out of 10 million trials (which took about 12 hours of processing), there was not one instane of reaching 200. A truly impressive fallacy.

Thanx,

fffastt

[Kelso]

When the track is biased I think you see more of these kinds of streaks. A good rail, speed biased track may be more likely to produce some chalky payoffs while a dead rail and closers track is a more likely scenario for longshots.



I understand that the same horses, in the same company, run the same types of races differently at different tracks, and I've seen the results of my elementary handicapping efforts vary significantly among the dozen or so tracks I've played, (past 3 months: best at Deleware, worst at Delta; OK at Aqueduct, not so hot at Meadowlands).

This seems to be an extremely important issue to understand as thoroughly as possible. Is there any literature ... quickie or lengthy, summary or detailed ... on the subject of track characteristics/effects that anyone in the forum recommends.

Thanks very much.

[The_Suppositionist]

It’s always time to look for bombs but I wouldn’t say you are any more likely to see one come in because one hasn’t for a while than you are if one came in the last race. In fact, my buddy and I have a saying, “one good long shot deserves another”, which only means that it has been our experience that when one long shot comes in it is often followed by another. More often that dumb luck might explain, anyway. This may be due to several factors, like the condition of the track has changed and the bias is now favorable to horses with a different style than it was earlier in the card and it takes a few races for the public to pick up on it. It may be that some of the cheaper and or longer races are grouped together on a card which are more likely to be won by less formful horses etc..

I think you CAN say that long odds horses are “due to improve” either by coming into form through an increased level of fitness, because that’s the goal that most trainers strive for, or by being moved to a level where the horse will be more competitive so a horse can find its level and improve (make some purse money). That’s what handicappers are trying to predict, what the horses form cycle looks like and where a horse is in that form cycle. Then we try to decide whether its current expected form is good enough to win or get in the money against today‘s competition.

Long shots hitting the board are really just an indication of how well the public assessed a horses chances and, or, how well they predicted how the race shaped up. Sometimes it is predictable and sometimes it isn’t. The astute handicapper can get better than the average player at predicting when a horse will run better than its odds might indicate. And that’s the other thing, you never know how the betting public will assess a horses chances. I have seen plenty of times where the betting public didn’t think as much of a horse’s chances as I did and it was to my benefit, betting wise. Course it has gone the other way probably even more often but as long as the payout from the long stuff covers the loses on the losing long stuff, I’ll be OK. The thing about long shots is you only usually need one to make a day and sometimes they can make a week, month or a whole meet if you got em in a gimmick the right way. But you have to pick your spots. A steady diet of long shots will eat up a bank roll in a hurry. I generally will only play a bomber if I have some good reasons to, and that doesn’t happen often but I do play against the low odds horses a lot and would rather lay off a race than risk money on anything less than 5:2 or so but I do use favorites in gimmicks.

I’ve found the best spots for long shots are in races with large fields, cheap claiming and maiden claiming races and occasionally in a stake races. I would say grass races also but I feel that the reason you see a fair number of long shots in grass races is more a function of them usually being races with large fields than the fact they are on the grass. Good claimers and allowance races are less likely places for long shots.

Breeders Cup day is the best example where stakes long shots do well and we usually see a lot of them. I think the reason is because of the huge fields and because it is hard to predict which horse can maintain the fine edge of talent level, and fitness, that it takes to be successful at the highest levels. We can’t predict who is losing that edge and who is rising up to it, so well.

We should also make the distinction between playable long shots and unplayable ones. I always go back after a race, and especially after a long shot won races, to see what I may have over looked. Often times it sticks out plain as day why a long shot improved. It found it’s form, it moved inside or outside, it was lone speed or sleeper speed, first lasix, back to a preferred track, surface or distance etc.. Other times it seems inexplicable why a long shot was able to run better today.

Then there is always the long shot who lucked into a situation where everything went their way and if you run the same group of horses fifty times they will only win one of those races but as the saying goes, it is sometimes better to be lucky than good. I think some of those cheap claimers that race 20-25 times per year are in the game for those situations. I once played a long shot because I felt he would end up being the lone speed, he ended up laying off the pace and got lucky making a charge up the rail to win, see what I mean, just dumb luck sometimes.
I always feel long shots or “overlays” are where the money is at in win/place betting and the gimmicks. I always say that as a general rule they give you two chances per day to make money. That is, there are generally on average two races per race card where the public is off and one or two playable long shots will hit the board. That’s what I’m generally looking for, those opportunities. You may get none you may get five or six. You may have the key long shot but not have the right low odds horse with him. Every once and a while you get it right though and that’s when all the aggravation becomes worth it. It’s what I play for while trying to stay afloat in the attrition races.

So while it is true that the “gamblers fallacy” is a true fallacy, it is also true that we can expect that the betting public will allow horses with good chances of running well to go off at long odds. We just can’t say that it is in any way predictable from how long it has been since the last time they allowed it to happen.

The_Suppositionist