Validating longshot wins: measuring how "true-to-form" did a race run

[Bill Cullen]

Validating longshot wins: measuring how "true-to-form" did a race run

I am currently experimenting with measuring the "formfulness" of a race in order to validate longshot wins. If I see a horse with high morning line odds and the horse won its last race at high odds also, then I try to go back to the result chart for that race (if I can access it) and see who came in second and third in the race. If the horses that placed and showed were among the three lowest priced horses in the race, then I consider the race to have run "true to form" or as expected.

Obviously this isn't always true, but I want to get a sense of the impact values for longshot winners that came out of "true-to-form" races versus longshot winners that came out of ("NOT-true-to-form") races.

I would be grateful to hear from anyone with any experience or insights in this area. I will share any insights I obtain from my research.

Love this board!

Be well.

Bill C

[BIG HIT]

Kinda a key race type thing.The problem i would have although won as longshot last race.His fourm was darken depending how you look at that subject and poor fig last race or all his fig were slow side compared to today race.What i'am trying to point out is as a fan of jerry stokes,boxie and jim lehand type horse also i think a trainer won't waste that kinda horse.Bill hope you have best of luck and sorry really was'nt much help.

[michiken]

IMO, longshots win because the 'favorites' were not able, for whatever reason, to run back to their 'projected' pacelines.

Sometimes it could be argued that the favorites lost the race. Horses lose due to too much time off, wrong distance, bad rides, etc. I hope you can factor these into the stew.


:13:

[Tom]

You might find the article on volitility on page 9 in this newsletter interesting.
IT is an objective way to measure the strength of the favorites.

http://www.homebased2.com/km/pdf/HTRMonthlyReport-AUG2002.pdf

[Bill Cullen]

Hope my research includes this...

thanks,

Bill C

[Bill Cullen]

Great article!

MANY THANKS,

Bill C

[CBedo]

I seem to remember from forever ago, Cramer writing about "mutual horse fund investing" and doing some research about horses that have won at long odds before and their possible propensity to do so again. I'll try to dig it up if noone else can elaborate on it.

[Bill Cullen]

Thanks-That would be very useful!

Bill C

[nobeyerspls]

Since most of my longsht winners are angle plays, I don't think it matters how "formful" the race was. For example, a 35-1 winner recently beat the 2-1 favorite and then ran fourth next time out. The winning race was for maidens and this 4 year old caught a bunch of mediocre 3 year olds in a stretchout from a sprint to two turns.
Other solo opportunities include favorable surface change, uncontested speed, fillies off a layoff, older males long to short, change of equipment, fillies turf to dirt, and second lifetime start. By definition, most of these conditions will not be present for the next start.

[Robert Fischer]

if you can't get the past performances, at least get the chart and odds for the race in question.

as you watch the replay focus on the betting favorites and look for reasons that they may have been comprimised.

Did the choices run a good race and the longshot outran them, or did the longshot win by default when everyone else was a dud?

[HUSKER55]

I don't see how that would make a difference. If the track favorite wins 30% of the time and a "longshot" comes in the first 8 races the odds for the favorite in the 9th race is still 30%.

If the favorite does not win then that means a non favorite horse won that race. The odds say that a lot of people bet the wrong horse but nothing more. That is the nature of pari-mutual wagering.

Once you have made your bet is there anyody here that would not like to see their horse go off at 99:1? Of coarse you hope that no one see what you do.

I happen to think horse run in cycles and I bet that way. I am looking for that horse to "come into form". I also think a lot of people at the track "play the favorites" angle and hence,..the longshot wins. That means nothing except a lot of people didn't do their work.


just my humble opinion

husker55

:)

[Tom Barrister]

I like the concept of the horse winning at long odds SOMEWHERE in the last 10 races (or in its history if you make your own past performance database on each horse), although it probably would be more relevant if the horse had the same trainer then as today (although not steadfastly so, as the horse might be the type to occasionally wake up feeling good and outperforming even the trainer's expectations). I not as fond of the idea of it running big at long odds in its last race, as that will usually drive the odds down today, and the effort of the last race may cause the horse to do poorly ("bounce") today.

[HEY DUDE]

HUSKER55,

I have to agree with you regarding cycles. I too look for that. Although, it is an interesting project Bill has going on and will be interested in following his progress.

[BIG HIT]

Hope spelled his name wright anyway he had article in horseplayer magazine.This was a few year ago and i don't subscribe to it any more.Go something you see where horse won long odd's note jky trainer combo and today horse look's like he dozen't belong into today race with same combo he was a bet

[Bill Cullen]

Bravo!

If you judiciously use the spot you mentioned, you'll beat the game.

Bill Cullen