Anatomy of a long shot

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Overlay

... I had him fourth-best in the field at fair odds of 24-1, compared to the 34-1 he went off at, ...

Does anyone remember what he opened at (was it indeed something like 24 - 1)?

I was wondering if his odds drifted up or did it go down. If it drifted up from 10 or 15 - 1 then did you stay with him?

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

Does anyone remember what he opened at (was it indeed something like 24 - 1)?

I was wondering if his odds drifted up or did it go down. If it drifted up from 10 or 15 - 1 then did you stay with him?

Just to be clear, 24-1 was what I would have had him at in my personal line. (He was 15-1 in the morning line (tied for second-highest out of the eight horses), so his public odds went even higher during the betting.) Also, I would not have been influenced by the morning-line odds, or by any patterns of movement in the horse's odds (other than from the standpoint of whether the movement made the horse an underlay or an overlay compared to my line).

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Overlay

Just to be clear, 24-1 was what I would have had him at in my personal line. (He was 15-1 in the morning line (tied for second-highest out of the eight horses), so his public odds went even higher during the betting.) Also, I would not have been influenced by the morning-line odds, or by any patterns of movement in the horse's odds (other than from the standpoint of whether the movement made the horse an underlay or an overlay compared to my line).

I understood your reply which is why I worded it as "was it indeed". I'm surprised the m/l was 15 - 1 given the horse's pp's. For the people who selected him at the opening hope you stayed on him.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO...post-race "reevaluating" is a must, but post-race "handicapping" is not a good idea if the player is already accomplished in the craft of handicapping. It is a dangerous practice to review the past performances of these improbable longshot winners looking for "clues"...because virtually ALL of them will reveal some sort of "angle", which the player might mistake for a "wake-up" factor, after the fact. If it isn't a "new trainer", then it might be a "new jockey"...or a "change in distance"...or a "work two days before the race"..."improving speed figures"...a "new pace top"...ran in a "tandem race"...was at a "new low"...etc. There are many, many angles out there, and almost all of them have been discredited from a handicapping value point of view...but we still have them stored in our mind...and we bring them out in cases like these...while telling ourselves that this "post-race handicapping" practice is "helping us to better understand the game". IMO...it does nothing but confuse us, and make us doubt the methods that we are already employing.

When you are handicapping a race whose winner you already know, you are (perhaps unconsciously) fixated on the winner...and you ignore the fact that all the losers in the race have their share of these "wake-up" factors too.

"KNOW THYSELVES", a very wise Greek declared thousands of years ago...and it's a message that the horseplayer should take to heart. As handicappers, we are preoccupied with the task of evaluating the ability of the horses that we analyze...but the more important task is to truthfully evaluate our own ability as players. Are we still searching to find ourselves in this game...or are we "accomplished players"...who have mastered the "fundamentals", and are seeking to further hone their craft by honest work based on independent research?

The "accomplished player", whose game has been crafted by the thorough analysis of thousands of races, realizes that he cannot be expected to "understand" every race outcome that he sees. This is a very complicated game...and the improbable will occur...at times with alarming regularity. IMO...the right thing to do in these cases is to shrug our shoulders and move on to the next race.

We've seen everything...and we'll see it again. This game will forever confound us...and there is nothing that we can do about it. Just because we lost a bet does not necessarily mean that we made a mistake in the race.

Agree with a lot of what you said. Several more observations, IMO the key thing to note for that race is the overbet favorite and why it's overbet (running style). Throwing darts at a board against a 1/2 favorite like this probably doesn't lose much money. So whomever you picked here is IMO less critical to long-term success, as long as it isn't the favorite we're probably on the right track. Several horses may have been playable. I agree with the earlier poster who mentioned the 1-Sugar Gold, also not bad at 8/1. The 1 and 2 were both decent options but also lacked any early speed which is why the favorite is bad in the first place... it just came up as a very odd race. And I know this will be an unpopular notion but there's nothing set in stone which can prove to me this horse doesn't win without the trainer change. This is a wakeup horse, and I agree most likely we pin the tail on the trainer because it's easy... a high percentage of the time much of this looking back and 'fitting' is like track bias, handicappers comfort food... or apophenia.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by MJC922

This is a wakeup horse, and I agree most likely we pin the tail on the trainer because it's easy... a high percentage of the time much of this looking back and 'fitting' is like track bias, handicappers comfort food... or apophenia.

IMO...the main thing is to realize that we don't really have to supply a "valid reason" to try and explain these improbabilities. They are an inherent part of the game, and we can't avoid them...so, the best that we can do is to learn to cope with them without having them affect our equilibrium going forward.

A lot of this game remains out of our control...and we should learn to shrug our shoulders and move on. THAT'S the sign of a truly disciplined player...IMO.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Overlay

I had him fourth-best in the field at fair odds of 24-1, compared to the 34-1 he went off at, making him one of four overlays in the field. The only other horse that I rated as an overlay that went off at lower actual odds than Lyrical Miracle was Sugar Gold (fair odds of 3-1 and went off at 8-1), and they finished 1-2.

As I indicated in my original post, Lyrical Miracle may not have been the most likely winner, but I would have been hesitant to discard him out-of-hand from a handicapping or betting standpoint.

Your last sentence above confuses me. What is your normal procedure when encountering a horse whom you consider to be the "fourth-best in the field at fair odds of 24-1"...but you see this horse offered at 34-1 odds on the tote board? Is this a legitimate BET...as far as you are concerned?

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO...the main thing is to realize that we don't really have to supply a "valid reason" to try and explain these improbabilities. They are an inherent part of the game, and we can't avoid them...so, the best that we can do is to learn to cope with them without having them affect our equilibrium going forward.

A lot of this game remains out of our control...and we should learn to shrug our shoulders and move on. THAT'S the sign of a truly disciplined player...IMO.

I don't disagree. A profitable player can see the difference between a winning horse that he should have vs those few winners he really has no business having if he wants to be profitable over the long haul.

However it is instructive (I think) to go back and dissect / discuss / identify the types of races that may be considered long-term beatable even in hindsight as far too many races don't fit the bill. That the end result was somewhat improbable in this case I see as beside the point.

[cbp]

Originally Posted by pandy

I would imagine that Andy picked him because of the trainer change, but just a guess. The speed and fade angle was very week because he essentially was distanced in his last two starts at the same distance and a one mile race is not a good spot for a horse that crawls home every start. Speed and fade longshots are better bets in sprints.

10/2: a sloppy track where many were 'distanced': duels early, opens a lead, then backs up. Other than the top two, that had a nice setup, everything else was going backwards the last three calls. Ran better than the other speed.

10/11: A race where Pin and Win finally lived up to his 7/05 race, WIPING OUT the field: made a nice wide run on the turn before backing up entering. But EVERYTHING else in the race backed up the last THREE calls.

Speed fade is one thing; speed/turn move then fade in a WIPEOUT is another.

Just speculating, but Serling probably noticed the wide turn run and the shape of the race.

Not saying this one stood out but it was a subtle move last race and the odds were certainly high enough. These comments are without looking at the field of the winning race.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Your last sentence above confuses me. What is your normal procedure when encountering a horse whom you consider to be the "fourth-best in the field at fair odds of 24-1"...but you see this horse offered at 34-1 odds on the tote board? Is this a legitimate BET...as far as you are concerned?

It's relatively rare that a horse that is markedly superior to its competition will be allowed to go off even as an overlay, let alone a high-odds overlay. And, although blindly stabbing at longshots is a recipe for failure, higher-odds winners (when they occur) can potentially make the difference between long-run profit or loss.

Maintaining visibility of those higher-odds horses (coupled with a quantitative, compartmentalized handicapping method that permits visibility of exactly how a horse received its fair odds) permits determination of both when and why a longshot might have a significantly better chance of winning than its odds indicate, and the selective placement of wagers on that basis. Basing wager sizes on degree of edge (which will normally be less on higher-odds overlays) also serves to limit potential losses, while preserving the possibility of sizable gains.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Overlay

It's relatively rare that a horse that is markedly superior to its competition will be allowed to go off even as an overlay, let alone a high-odds overlay. And, although blindly stabbing at longshots is a recipe for failure, higher-odds winners (when they occur) can potentially make the difference between long-run profit or loss.

Maintaining visibility of those higher-odds horses (coupled with a quantitative, compartmentalized handicapping method that permits visibility of exactly how a horse received its fair odds) permits determination of both when and why a longshot might have a significantly better chance of winning than its odds indicate, and the selective placement of wagers on that basis. Basing wager sizes on degree of edge (which will normally be less on higher-odds overlays) also serves to limit potential losses, while preserving the possibility of sizable gains.

Overlay...in English please. Would a horse who is selected by you as the 4th-best horse in the race at true odds of 24-1, qualify as a bet at the post-time odds of 34-1?

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Overlay...in English please. Would a horse who is selected by you as the 4th-best horse in the race at true odds of 24-1, qualify as a bet at the post-time odds of 34-1?

Yes, it would qualify as a wager that I myself would not hesitate to make, both because I have complete confidence in the elements and calculations that my method would have used to arrive at the horse's fair odds, and because my personal experience has repeatedly validated that confidence.

Will such higher-odds wagers always win, or is the fact that they are an overlay a guarantee of success? No. But they will win often enough at sufficiently high odds to produce a greater level of profit than if they were excluded.

One of the strengths of my methods is that they permit individual users to tailor them to their own handicapping and wagering preferences. If wagering on such a horse (even though, as I said, I would have no problem doing so) would be beyond the comfort zone of an individual user, that user could certainly choose to restrict play to overlaid horses with either fair odds or actual odds below a personally-set odds ceiling. Either way, the important consideration is that the wagers will be overlays.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

All longshots look like garbage on the form.

EMD actually hit the nail on the head. Find a race with a weak favorite and what you see as a wide open field and then.... fire.

Yours truly did just that last night. And it paid handsomely.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?t=127074

The key is to not be afraid to take your shot, and at the same time lick your wounds when it doesn't. I did both last night in back to back races.

[lansdale]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

As I recall from the stories I've read, the shoe info wasn't readily available but was posted at certain tracks and he only used it for certain type of track conditions e.g., sloppy etc.

Information about shoes was a big part of his game, and whatever the track made available was never sufficient. So he had a guy with binoculars at the track describing the shoe situation in detail, as the Times article states. Races switched from turf to dirt provided the best opportunities, as one might guess.



'Dahlman also pays close attention to pace, or the time for each quarter mile of a race, which he jots down in one of two fat, spiral-bound notebooks. The other is devoted to his overriding preoccupation, horseshoes. Years ago, Dahlman began noticing something funny about horses equipped with mud calks, cleats that some trainers use for extra traction when rain turns dirt into mud. Dahlman noted that even when rain failed to materialize, a lot of horses seemed to improve several lengths when wearing mud calks for the first time.

He began keeping detailed records, and he now considers it his biggest edge. It's the reason he loves Golden Gate Fields, near San Francisco. It rains a lot there, so plenty of mediocre-seeming horses are switching to mud calks for the first time and then sneaking into exactas at good prices. A second reason for loving Golden Gate is that the track posts very detailed shoe information before each race. Not all mud shoes are created equal, in Dahlman's view. Mud nails, which turn shoes into a kind of hobnailed boot, make no difference, in his opinion. But jar calks, which have a kind of high heel, do. The New York tracks do not provide detailed shoe information, so 10 minutes before every race, the phone in Dahlman's office rings. It's a man named Gene (Dahlman professes not to know his last name), a sharp-eyed informant in New York who stands by the paddock with a pair of binoculars and relays shoe information to Dahlman.

''No one,'' says Chip Taylor, ''has made as much money off shoes as Ernie has.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/03/ma...pagewanted=all

[whodoyoulike]

You would think that this angle would still be effective today unless most of the entries now are shoed this way which complicates the selection process.

The link may have been the same I read since it was dated early 2000's.

[pandy]

Ernie got a lot of these plays from horses adding mud caulks, and in New York they banned mud caulks years ago.