Anatomy of a long shot

[classhandicapper]

It's never easy to tell if there's a bias after just a couple of races. It requires that your opinions about the horses going into the race are correct to begin with. Then you also have to be sharp enough to tell the difference between a logical result given those horses, the pace, and the race development vs one that may have been influenced by the surface.

How many people are good enough at all those facets of the game to be accurate quickly?

Not many.

Yet every single person watching the races will have an opinion and start adjusting. That's why so many people are wrong so often. That's also what makes it fertile grounds.

Biases are a major component of my game and I make mistakes all the time, sometimes even after reviewing all 9 races several times.

So when I make live calls after a few races I do it in a somewhat reasonable way.

If there's a horse I'm already considering making a play on and I think he might be getting a bias to his advantage, I'll upgrade him. If it's against him, I'll back off. It's a good tiebreaker on the tougher calls. I won't play a horse I wasn't considering to begin with off a speculative bias call.

Same thing when it's negative.

If there's a favorite I'm considering keying against and now he has a potential bias in his favor, I back off. If it's against him, the decision is easier.

[classhandicapper]

IMO, if you are going to play longshots on top you better have a good reason to think the horse is good enough to win if he runs his race today or that he's likely to improve a lot today. IMO, fishing for prices on mediocre horses is usually a good way to go broke even if you have a trip or some angle.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

IMO, if you are going to play longshots on top you better have a good reason to think the horse is good enough to win if he runs his race today or that he's likely to improve a lot today. IMO, fishing for prices on mediocre horses is usually a good way to go broke even if you have a trip or some angle.

Yes, they need to have their A race be comparable to the field. If not, one better hope they are a closer in a collapse race where all better horses run to their worst of their abilities due to pace/dynamics. Or the horse better be a solid speed with the track in their favor.

In this case, the winner's A race was 2 lengths comparable to the winner's top effort (and the chalk's races were in the slop not dirt). With the early races showing speed as a plus on opening day, this horse was far from impossible.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

IMO, if you are going to play longshots on top you better have a good reason to think the horse is good enough to win if he runs his race today or that he's likely to improve a lot today. IMO, fishing for prices on mediocre horses is usually a good way to go broke even if you have a trip or some angle.

IMO...you bet the longshots to win because you realize after a while that the "good enough to win" horses just don't win as often as perhaps they should. Yes...common sense says that we shouldn't bet on a horse unless it "looks good enough to win"...but the sad truth is that these types of horses seldom return the kinds of payoffs that make the "longshots" deserving of the name.

When a horse like Keen Ice faces a horse like American Pharoah...are you really betting on Keen Ice because you think that he is "good enough to win if he runs his race", or, because he is "likely to improve a lot today"? Of course not. You bet him strictly because of PRICE! You KNOW that Keen Ice is the vastly inferior horse...and you bet on him simply because experience tells you that ALL the horses lose, from time to time.

After playing this game for many years, the studious player sometimes develops an "instinct"; a "sixth sense"...if you will. He relies on this instinct to guide him when he branches into "longshot play". And the accuracy of this "instinct" decides his fate.

IMO...although "science" has its place in handicapping...the horseplayer's craft is mostly an ART.

[Tom]

Yes, they need to have their A race be comparable to the field.

But that race should project to be comparable or better.
Young horses improve their Beyers by 10-30 points and knowing when they might can lead to big scores.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by Tom

But that race should project to be comparable or better.
Young horses improve their Beyers by 10-30 points and knowing when they might can lead to big scores.

I absolutely agree. I love the 3 year old who has returned to the races who has matched his 2 year old best fig AND is ready to surge past that number.

Or the 1st off a long layoff 3 year old who can project much higher than the existing 3 year old foes.

Also love the late season 3 year old who comes back on the wrong surface, in preps and then POPS on the correct surface, improving 10-20-30 points in the process.

When that happens, ITSMYLUCKYDAY

[Tom]

Very good!

[NorCalGreg]

Originally Posted by Tom

But that race should project to be comparable or better.
Young horses improve their Beyers by 10-30 points and knowing when they might can lead to big scores.

Good example, Tom....you made the point right there.

[cbp]

Originally Posted by mikesal57

Did anyone mention "track bias" ?

Opening day at track...Would you know how it plays?

Of course not.....watch a few races, see that horses no more than running 3rd and no more than 2 lengths behind are winning....

Now you have an idea that speed is better ....the favorite closer is now a vulnerable play....the longshot is one of the better early horses in this terrible field (NW 2 lifetime)..

Would you now say he has a chance?

Mike

I looked at the charts for the day and I don't see a bias. A speed bias would mean that frontRUNNERS would get the better of it. Interestingly, in the race in question, EVERTHING in the race, with the exception of the runner up, who was LAST the first two calls, backed up vis a vis the winner the last THREE calls (last 4 with the exception of the fourth horse, who gained from the 1st to the 2nd call). The winner was 3rd early, sitting just off the pace. If there was a speed bias, why did the other 6 horses that were within 2.5 lengths of the lead at the first call ALL BACK UP?

This horse just dropped them all.

For an example of an actual bias, a closers bias look at the turf races @ BEL 10/25/15. I was playing speed all day even though I KNEW after the 2nd race, when Excellent Royale cruised to the lead in hand, and then just flat out collapsed in the stretch.

[mikesal57]

a speed bias doesn't mean that every front runner is going to win...
in all the dirt races except one...the winner was within 2 lts of the lead

When I try to get a feeling on the track I look at where the winners are coming from..
Is it early, mid pack , or late...

this is me ...

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO...you bet the longshots to win because you realize after a while that the "good enough to win" horses just don't win as often as perhaps they should. Yes...common sense says that we shouldn't bet on a horse unless it "looks good enough to win"...but the sad truth is that these types of horses seldom return the kinds of payoffs that make the "longshots" deserving of the name.

When a horse like Keen Ice faces a horse like American Pharoah...are you really betting on Keen Ice because you think that he is "good enough to win if he runs his race", or, because he is "likely to improve a lot today"? Of course not. You bet him strictly because of PRICE! You KNOW that Keen Ice is the vastly inferior horse...and you bet on him simply because experience tells you that ALL the horses lose, from time to time.

After playing this game for many years, the studious player sometimes develops an "instinct"; a "sixth sense"...if you will. He relies on this instinct to guide him when he branches into "longshot play". And the accuracy of this "instinct" decides his fate.

IMO...although "science" has its place in handicapping...the horseplayer's craft is mostly an ART.

The data I have studied on horses I thought were better than they looked on paper suggested that unless the horse fit fairly close with the better horses in the race, I was unlikely to make money betting on them. In fact, the lower ranked ones underperformed the track take. Sure, some won and paid big prices because some of every category of horses wins, but not enough. The ones that were near the top in rank and fit the race did much better.

I didn't play Keen Ice (18.30 -1), but I wouldn't argue with anyone that thought he had a similar chance to win as Frosted (7.60 -1), Texas Red (5.80 -1), and Upstart 15.60-1)

Give AP 65%-70% of the race????

Give KI, F, TR, and Upstart 20%-25% broken up as you see it.

I'm not a big fan of betting against horses like AP in spots like that, but I can see someone concluding KI was an overlay there.

[delayjf]

The data I have studied on horses I thought were better than they looked on paper suggested that unless the horse fit fairly close with the better horses in the race,

That's what I was seeing as well - my definition was - a speed figure that was competitive with this field somewhere in his PPs.

Now according to CJ, this longshot was #2 on the projected pace, which makes me curious as to how his timeform pace figures related to this field to be rated so high by the project pace. In addition, an argument could be made that his last race pace figure might actually understate his effort as according to TLG, he was wide on the turn.

I'm not a big fan of betting against horses like AP in spots like that

The only rational I could have for betting against AP was my anticipation of a bounce coming off his efforts in the TC and the Haskell.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm not a big fan of betting against horses like AP in spots like that, but I can see someone concluding KI was an overlay there.

My only concern with American Pharoah before the Travers was all the question marks about where he'd run. How do you train a horse for a peak effort if you don't know when and where he'll run? Eventually picking the earlier race made this even tougher.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

My only concern with American Pharoah before the Travers was all the question marks about where he'd run. How do you train a horse for a peak effort if you don't know when and where he'll run? Eventually picking the earlier race made this even tougher.

I'm not a big fan of that either.

The really suspect ones are when they have either a route or sprint in mind or a dirt or turf in mind. At least have a similar race in mind.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm not a big fan of that either.

The really suspect ones are when they have either a route or sprint in mind or a dirt or turf in mind. At least have a similar race in mind.

I could probably think of several examples if I really thought about, but it has always been a big negative for me.