What's in a word?

[Capper Al]

The term long shot to me general means a horse that paid random (or natural) odds or better to win. A friend used to set the mark at $10.00 or more. Whatever way you look at this, it's looking at the payout.

Long shots are determined in many ways. Mine is a horse that should have had low odds, but for some reason is going off at high odds. The catch is that it should of been a low odds horse. While others might look for something hidden like a jockey move on a high odds horses. The difference is that many of these types hidden angle plays should be high odd horses. When the hidden angle horse wins, one might look back at the form and say something like the horse has the best overall speed at the dist. This being the only factor worth mentioning.

It dawned on me that we might have two categories of high payout horses, long shots and surprises. The two are different in how we look at them and not in the similar payouts. To the value player, this might be a good distinction to make. I'd key on the expected low odds long shot, but only include the possible surprise horse as one of many in a wheel.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Long shots are determined in many ways. Mine is a horse that should have had low odds, but for some reason is going off at high odds. .....

It dawned on me that we might have two categories of high payout horses, long shots and surprises. The two are different in how we look at them and not in the similar payouts. To the value player, this might be a good distinction to make. I'd key on the expected low odds long shot, but only include the possible surprise horse as one of many in a wheel.

The problem I see with your approach Capper Al is it is personal to you or your opinion.

1. When you say the horse should have had low odds, that is your opinion.
Other handicappers (and the betting public) obviously think otherwise.
When you personally believe the horse's chances are better than the public is rating it, you have an overlay, which in your example is a long shot.

2. The horse or horses that you list as "surprises" - are surprises to you.
They may not be surprises to other handicappers at the track.
To them they are legitimate overlays with better chances than you've rated them.

I prefer to use the term "logical longshots."
Those are horses who for any of a variety of factors are or will be under-rated by the public.
There are more of them around than most handicappers like to admit.

In contrast, there are "illogical longshots" - in reality even at 25-1 their odds aren't high enough to justify there chances of winning. With many of those runners they should be 50 to 1 or higher because unless there is a major accident in front of them, they have virtually no chance of taking a race.
However, if one of them ever comes in, and they seldom do, you'd better look deeper and see what if anything you were missing - for instance a recent barn change or whatever.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

The problem I see with your approach Capper Al is it is personal to you or your opinion.

1. When you say the horse should have had low odds, that is your opinion.
Other handicappers (and the betting public) obviously think otherwise.
When you personally believe the horse's chances are better than the public is rating it, you have an overlay, which in your example is a long shot.

2. The horse or horses that you list as "surprises" - are surprises to you.
They may not be surprises to other handicappers at the track.
To them they are legitimate overlays with better chances than you've rated them.

I prefer to use the term "logical longshots."
Those are horses who for any of a variety of factors are or will be under-rated by the public.
There are more of them around than most handicappers like to admit.

In contrast, there are "illogical longshots" - in reality even at 25-1 their odds aren't high enough to justify there chances of winning. With many of those runners they should be 50 to 1 or higher because unless there is a major accident in front of them, they have virtually no chance of taking a race.
However, if one of them ever comes in, and they seldom do, you'd better look deeper and see what if anything you were missing - for instance a recent barn change or whatever.

In the end, they are all personal judgements for any of us. For me an illogical long shot is one that after the race nothing could be found to support him. Otherwise, you are saying pretty much the same thing as I did.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

In the end, they are all personal judgements for any of us. For me an illogical long shot is one that after the race nothing could be found to support him. Otherwise, you are saying pretty much the same thing as I did.

Yes, racing depends upon each of us holding opinions. Otherwise, betting would be pretty bland.

I suppose where we are differing is in your use of the term "surprises."

I'm working from the belief that in order to win a horse race, a horse must be able to either set today's pace or overcome that pace with enough speed to capture a win.

A logical longshot is one who can do that, if he's at an appropriate class level and shows what you refer to as an angle that will give it an edge and the public is under-rating it.

An illogical longshot cannot overcome today's pace with enough speed to capture the win, and there's no angle on earth that will allow it to do so.
This type of runner can only win if a catastrophic event takes place in front of it.

Both horses could go off at 20-1 on the tote board.
But the logical longshot should probably be say, 5-1.
The illogical longshot should probably be 50-1.

Logical longshots are not surprises. Rational cases can be made for them in the context of today's pace and speed and the angle that gives them an edge to complete that feat.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Long shots are determined in many ways. Mine is a horse that should have had low odds, but for some reason is going off at high odds. The catch is that it should of been a low odds horse.

IMO, that's not a "longshot"; it's a sucker horse.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO, that's not a "longshot"; it's a sucker horse.

I think what Al is meaning is the horse has a higher chance of winning than what the public is giving it and the odds are high enough , say 5-1 or more, to give it longshot status.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO, that's not a "longshot"; it's a sucker horse.

They do scare me too. The question always is why are they getting off the horse?

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

I think what Al is meaning is the horse has a higher chance of winning than what the public is giving it and the odds are high enough , say 5-1 or more, to give it longshot status.

Yes.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Logical longshots are not surprises. Rational cases can be made for them in the context of today's pace and speed and the angle that gives them an edge to complete that feat.

That's how I look at it. The only difference is you look through the pace using other factors. I look through a comprehensive approach that includes pace.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

However, if one of them ever comes in, and they seldom do, you'd better look deeper and see what if anything you were missing - for instance a recent barn change or whatever.

It's certainly useful to go back and see what you may have missed, but (to me) horse racing will always have an element of randomness to it that can't be foreseen or predicted, either as the result of information that the handicapper (perhaps any handicapper) does not (or even cannot) know, or as the result of something totally unforeseen (or even unforeseeable) that happens during the running of the race itself (and not necessarily on the order of an accident or some other noticeable error). I think that coming up with a probability for each horse using a model that demonstrates its long-term accuracy/reliability over a statistically significant number of races is as close as one can get to accounting for it.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Overlay

It's certainly useful to go back and see what you may have missed, but (to me) horse racing will always have an element of randomness to it that can't be foreseen or predicted, either as the result of information that the handicapper (perhaps any handicapper) does not (or even cannot) know, or as the result of something totally unforeseen (or even unforeseeable) that happens during the running of the race itself (and not necessarily on the order of an accident or some other noticeable error). I think that coming up with a probability for each horse using a model that demonstrates its long-term accuracy/reliability over a statistically significant number of races is as close as one can get to accounting for it.

Agreed.
A total collapse of the pace setters can allow a Minethebird type to come in,
although Minethatbird arguably ran against fast fractions at Sunland.