Premium Tap to Classic?

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I agree that the argument is largely theoretical. It's my opinion that most people do not know how to deal with low probability events. Granted, most horses that go off at 40-1 have an even lower chance of winning the race than their odds imply. But even if they should be 60-1, that 1.5% chance of winning has to be factored into the other horses' chances of winning. Even more so when there are several of those 1.5%-2.5% horses in the race.

Sometimes a horse will go off at 40-1 when it really ought to be around 30-1. Those horses are excellent betting opportunities.

Bettors have a hard time distinguishing between 25-1 horses and 100-1 horses. Once you use "zero chance" or "toss out" or "starting gate malfunction", you fall into that trap.

I'm not sure why you think people are more likely to pick a longshot on the Internet (and not back it up at the window). You are much more likely to look like an idiot when you pick a 40-1 shot. Even if you know what you are doing, you can expect to be "wrong" 25-30 times for every time you are "right". And backing longshot picks with your wallet should not be inhibiting in the least. If you bet sensibly, you bet roughly 1/10th as much on a 40-1 shot as you'd bet on a 4-1 shot. So how scary can that be?

--Dunbar

Its not scary at all Dunbar, and every smart player knows that the only way to have a chance to win is to create value and bet against what you perceive to be bad favorites.
The "trap" here is that being able to handicap a race effectively is the first step in this. Simply betting random longshots isn't the way to go. Having a good knowledge of horses ability and running styles is the first step in isolating possible live long shots to either win or complete gimmicks.
If you knew me well enough, you'd know that I make the same statement about certain favorites having no shot as often as I do longshots. In last years BC sprint I said the same thing about Lost in The Fog. I said the wicked pace I predicted would hurt any chance he had.
I think that handicapping is the primary key in finding a live longshot, and the opinion someone has one what kind of chance any horse has, is the key in determining which longshots are live.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Its not scary at all Dunbar, and every smart player knows that the only way to have a chance to win is to create value and bet against what you perceive to be bad favorites.

Just to be clear, when I wrote "how scary can that be?", I was refering to BTWind's comment that people like to pick longshots on the Internet that they'd never bet at the window. I was saying that if you structure your bets reasonably, your bets on longshots should be small enough to not be particularly scary.

Originally Posted by oracle80

The "trap" here is that being able to handicap a race effectively is the first step in this. Simply betting random longshots isn't the way to go. Having a good knowledge of horses ability and running styles is the first step in isolating possible live long shots to either win or complete gimmicks.

No argument here.

Originally Posted by oracle80

If you knew me well enough, you'd know that I make the same statement about certain favorites having no shot as often as I do longshots. In last years BC sprint I said the same thing about Lost in The Fog. I said the wicked pace I predicted would hurt any chance he had.
I think that handicapping is the primary key in finding a live longshot, and the opinion someone has one what kind of chance any horse has, is the key in determining which longshots are live.

Not disputing any of that either, except the approach that a horse has "no shot". It's maybe a matter of semantics. I like to think in terms of every horse having a shot. The key is finding those whose odds are attractive, regardless of whether it is a fav or a longshot.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Slot, in the last decade for a while, "value handicapping" was the rage for a while. Guys weer told to make their own morning line, and only bet horses who were overlaid according to that line.
The problem is that what if you think a horse should be 10-1 and hes 20-1 and you don't think the horse stands a chance in the world? Do you bet him?
**** that!!!

This makes no sense to me. How can you "think the horse should be 10-1", but also "don't think the horse stands a chance in the world"? The whole point of making your own line is to come up with your own estimate of each horse's chance of winning. Once you make a line with a horse at 10-1, you are saying that that horse has a 1/11 chance of winning the race. It makes no sense to then turn around and say the horse has no chance.

I'm not trying to be insulting here, but I think you are confused about what making your own line means. You say something equally confusing with this:

Originally Posted by oracle80

I'm sorry but betting 40-1 shots that you think should be 20-1 who you still feel have no chance, is not the way I prefer to go.

If I think a horse "should be 20-1", it means I think he has a 1/21 chance of winning. That's not "no chance". I don't get your thinking here. You are not looking at making your own line the same way I do.

--Dunbar