Heavily Bet Horses Who Have Don't a Chance.

[JimG]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

And twisty-turny backfits don't count. You know, 4/5 horses in post position 3 or 7, on a Thursday, in one of the middle 3 races on the card, with a left-handed jockey wearing pink silks.

I avoid those at all costs.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

That is a viable assessment. And 29% recovery puts you well on the road to break-even or better.




IMHO...

Good luck finding such horses more than a couple of times per year.

Not saying that they don't lose, but finding them beforehand is just about as difficult as finding 20/1 shots with a 75% chance of winning.

But I await anyone with a study that can show they predicted in advance a significant number of 4/5 horses that, collectively, only hit 5% of the time.

And twisty-turny backfits don't count. You know, 4/5 horses in post position 3 or 7, on a Thursday, in one of the middle 3 races on the card, with a left-handed jockey wearing pink silks.

<5% only happens when you've spotted a major flaw. As Dave states, those no-hope heavy favorites are fairly rare.

Rare still, but more common, is simply the significant underlay. It doesn't have to "never" win to be a goldmine, it simply hast to be underlayed enough.

[Robert Fischer]

Today we have Texas Red in the Dwyer, with potential to be a sizable underlay.
Here is a horse who had a dream trip in the Breeders Cup Juvenile, and is still irrationally being bet for that. As an added bonus he's a son of beloved horse Afleet Alex.
He already paid off substantially in February, when the only decent rival (Lord Nelson) paid nearly 2-1.

Today is more difficult. Blofeld, Tommy Macho, and Speightster stretch the available value.

Considering how hot Pletcher is, and the fact that Speightster is not only stepping up, but is also stretching-out, I'll take my chances with a small investment on the two Pletcher entries Blofeld and Tommy Macho.
Win Dutch and using only those two entries in the double and pick3 to start.

The idea is not to go crazy and blow up my bankroll in an all or nothing, but to make a small investment that over the course of the year of many such plays, will show me growing my bankroll exponentially.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Today we have Texas Red in the Dwyer, with potential to be a sizable underlay.
Here is a horse who had a dream trip in the Breeders Cup Juvenile, and is still irrationally being bet for that. As an added bonus he's a son of beloved horse Afleet Alex.
He already paid off substantially in February, when the only decent rival (Lord Nelson) paid nearly 2-1.

Today is more difficult. Blofeld, Tommy Macho, and Speightster stretch the available value.

Considering how hot Pletcher is, and the fact that Speightster is not only stepping up, but is also stretching-out, I'll take my chances with a small investment on the two Pletcher entries Blofeld and Tommy Macho.
Win Dutch and using only those two entries in the double and pick3 to start.

The idea is not to go crazy and blow up my bankroll in an all or nothing, but to make a small investment that over the course of the year of many such plays, will show me growing my bankroll exponentially.

Hey Robert,

T A Pletcher has been giving a slight profit at around 15% in Stakes races on the Dirt so far at Belmont per $2 win wager. His average win price is close to $8 per win in this situation.



So that might be a good bet today in the 7th race especially if the public plays #6 Speightster and #4 Texas Red!!


Let's see what happens!!

[Robert Fischer]

Speightster is a concern and he took a lot of early money.

Can't bet 'em all, I will stick with what I wrote. The 1 and 3.

Only room for all three in something like the Pick-4.

[Robert Fischer]

Not today. Correctly identified the losing favorite, but - the market shifted to a position which wasn't obvious before the betting opened.

- Texas Red was not a 'Heavily Bet' horse

Speightster ended up with strong money and finished @ 2-1 vs 9-5 for Texas Red.


That changed the situation to the point where there was no longer a big bucket of money in front of a lone vulnerable horse.


In practice, I think you have to 'eat' any lead-in multi-race wagers at that point and pass on the win dutching and multis going forward from that race , once you see the betting change from a 'Heavily Bet' Texas Red to two 'co favorites'.


Good race for thinking about the process. I lost today, but I didn't bet my whole bankroll. I'll have to come back and get 'em next time

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Not today. Correctly identified the losing favorite, but - the market shifted to a position which wasn't obvious before the betting opened.

- Texas Red was not a 'Heavily Bet' horse

Speightster ended up with strong money and finished @ 2-1 vs 9-5 for Texas Red.


That changed the situation to the point where there was no longer a big bucket of money in front of a lone vulnerable horse.


In practice, I think you have to 'eat' any lead-in multi-race wagers at that point and pass on the win dutching and multis going forward from that race , once you see the betting change from a 'Heavily Bet' Texas Red to two 'co favorites'.


Good race for thinking about the process. I lost today, but I didn't bet my whole bankroll. I'll have to come back and get 'em next time

Sorry about that Robert,

I picked up some show money on #3 Tommy Macho but that was about it this will also hurt Pletcher's return in Stakes races on the Dirt.

However, like you say have to get back at them next time!!

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by burnsy

........are the best races to bet. I'm not a believer in trying to bet every race, so I look or specialize in the these type of races. At Saratoga there is at least one of them a day, many days there are more. I laughed when someone started a thread claiming the results are "random"......far from it, when some chalky, chalk or second choice has little chance compared to the odds they are bet at. I call that a "no brainer". For me, its all about odds and the horses actual chances of winning. That's how I rate a horse. If one doesn't bet every race, it only takes one pop to have a good day. I'll sacrifice a few (races) for value, as long as I'm getting what I think is the right price. People get so hung up on cashing, they can't see the big picture. I've been known to hit the "all" button in pics when I think the chalk is a terrible bet or the pool is crushed out of control.......but I've never "dutched" a race in my life. If I feel like I don't need to waste time doing that, I'll pass. If you play this game with the intentions of cashing every race.......you are not going to actually win that often. It's a pipe dream, take selected shots or stay home.........There are two kinds of people that almost always lose at horses, the ones that are compulsive are the worst, the ones that think they can beat every race are only one step behind the first ones........"I'll bet every horse just to cash".......Yeah, good luck with that...

If I was articulate, I could have typed this. Just find me one good one. That's all I ask. And after I hit that, find me one more.

One at a time at this game is my strategy. Has been for a long time. I'd rather have $20 on one race than $2 on 10.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

If I was articulate, I could have typed this. Just find me one good one. That's all I ask. And after I hit that, find me one more.

One at a time at this game is my strategy. Has been for a long time. I'd rather have $20 on one race than $2 on 10.

I'm going to echo this. Sure, it's "fun" to bet a little on a bunch of races, not denying that. But if you're out to win money, your last sentence is surely true.

[Luckycreed]

Don't underestimate the stupidly overbet second and third favourite when really they have little chance of rolling the fav angle.Horses that go around at 1-3 that would have to have a cardiac arrest to lose and should be 1-10 but silly people who do not understand what value really is assume it is unders and back the no hoper second or third fav thinking they are getting value.

[thaskalos]

What is a more common occurrence? The heavily-bet horse who never wins...or the undistinguished-looking horse, who should receive only lukewarm support on the board...but gets bet heavily and wins?

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

What is a more common occurrence? The heavily-bet horse who never wins...or the lackluster-looking horse, who should receive only lukewarm support on the board...but gets bet heavily and wins?

Been reading this thread wondering when somebody would point out the obvious.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

Been reading this thread wondering when somebody would point out the obvious.

I was going to pass on this thread...but it irks me when I see people talk about the "stupidity" of the betting public.

[Luckycreed]

No their not dumb just plain greedy so they will not back long odds on horses, or try to find a reason they will get beat, you see it from time to time in three year old stakes races all over the world.

Horse should be 1'10 and goes off at 1.30 because gamblers will not take the "short" odds, up to a mile really dominant three year olds just win and keep winning.When Horse is actually being traded shorter on betfair than it is paying on the home tote.you make a small profit (about 3%) backing on the home tote without doing one scrap of form study.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Luckycreed

No their not dumb just plain greedy so they will not back long odds on horses, or try to find a reason they will get beat, you see it from time to time in three year old stakes races all over the world.

Horse should be 1'10 and goes off at 1.30 because gamblers will not take the "short" odds, up to a mile really dominant three year olds just win and keep winning.When Horse is actually being traded shorter on betfair than it is paying on the home tote.you make a small profit (about 3%) backing on the home tote without doing one scrap of form study.

I honestly don't remember any horses who went off at 1.30/1 while figuring to be 1/10...so, I don't know what you are suggesting here. When you say that the bettors "will not take the short odds", are you advocating betting on these 3/5 shots that we occasionally see...simply because they figure on paper to be 2/5?