What factors do Longshots show?
 

Wanted to ask this question over at PA, but I felt like I would get picked on about this topic. I am a young (18) student trying to learn the game while off school in Canada and just wanted to know what factors do Longshots win with?

I am currently reading "Finding The Hidden Horse" by Conrad Crease, and he says the 3 best "tells" to find a longshot winner or place is:

1) Poor race in last start
2) Cutback in distance
3) Fast workout of 48.1 in 4F and 1:00:1 in 5F workouts

Anyone else have any tips for me to learn about. Was going to write up some notes and try it on some old Racing Forms/Programs and see what works...

Thanks to all who reply

(This was also posted on the RX Forum)

03-30-2020, 06:01 PM
Conley all LS are not created equal. Since you are a member at P &C I will tell you that a viable LS must have some corollary support to be consider as a possible upset winner or in the money horse. Things like counter energy for instance. Also those that keep models have ways to id the factors that win or place at the tracks they play. The more corollaries a horse has the better. Post this at P&C and see what others think
Tim

Conley,


I have done a lot of reading, research and testing on this subject.
Most angles have a short life span and work at specific tracks.
They run a bell curve pattern.

You need a large sample size of 1000 races to check and see what the validity of a given angles might be. I think you will be impressed but possibly somewhat disappointed in the results. This has been well defined in Barry Meadows latest 445 page book "The Skeptical Handicapper". The data which is reasonably current and very accurate, was supplied by Ken Massa, a very astute programmer, contest winner and creator of HTR, one of the best software tools in the market However and in my opinion, his data comes at a very steep price. I believe you can do better elsewhere.



You might also try and find a copies of Ray Taulbots "Book Of Angles" and Boxcars "Angles Library". These books have more angles Then Carter has "Little Lliver Pills".:)


I have recently created 7 or 8 angles That are generalized at certain distances, surfaces and at certain tracks using a data mining application that I subscribe to. These angles were compiled (data mined, researched and back tested) over a two year span. In the past 90 days January through March they appeared only 55 times and produced 47% winners (26) of which 6 paid better then 4-1 odds of higher at a substantial profit. These were single horse plays to win.

I posted one a few days ago on "The UpInClass Board" which won and paid $13+ (March 28th).


To sum it all up. Playing longshots is no piece of cake. :D

You have to have patience,discipline and a large bankroll to possibly :confused:succeed.

The primary factor is that the horse is overlooked by the betting public. The reasons for that are many and varied. And unpredictable. I would advise against specifically looking for long-shots. Handicap the race without regard to morning line or other odds related issues. Then watch the odds as it gets close to post time and bet if the odds seem reasonable and pass if they are too short. First find the winner without regards to odds, then decide if it is a bet.

We posted another angle winner on The UpInClass board. The horse won and as expected and projected, paid a very small price going off as the favorite, This horse offered no value for me but may have been significant for those that make "horizontal" bets.:confused:

What factors do Longshots show?
 

I use my interpretation of the Sartin Methology.

On 4/2/20 my results(dismal? or good)


Tier 1 results

GP 8 #9 ran out at 33.1/1. 4th choice won @ 1.0/1
OP 4 #3 placed @ 43.5/1, place ODDS were 11/1
OP 8 #3 ran out @ 22/1 3rd choice won @ 7.6/1
OP 7 # Top two were scratched so I passed.
Bet one horse only and if double digit odds bet also to place.

Lost 3$(betting 1$ to win) but won $22 (betting $2 to place)
if only betting $1 to place, I still came out ahead.

I'm not betting yet in real life but am doing research and making a good long database.

I bet the best of the last 3. Pass races that have two or more sprinters in a route and visa versa.

There is no way that I'm going to make money by betting two horses to win. I'd rather stick with betting one horse.

Sartin theory and recommendation was to bet any horse going off over a certain odds in the programs top 3 and also bet good price horses to place as you accomplished.

Some just can't pull the trigger on longshots, a real hole in their game.

He also believed in two horse betting as the lower priced horses kept the bankroll healthy until the good paying horse came along and than it was all profit. Betting only one horse increases loses and when that good paying horses does come along most of the profit has to be used to recoup loses rather than profit.

Two horse betting also reduces the number of loses and it helps one to make better choices because their not under pressure from a depleted bankroll. Much better decision making is enhanced by two horse betting. Far too many look at one horse betting as macho thing instead of which makes the most money. In other words its not the road you take but whether or not you get there.

Anyone using a one horse betting procedure will incur more loses, also playing only good paying horses will incur longer runouts too. And today many winners just aren't worth the risk reward to make a bet. Good price horses can't be played at random and within RDSS or any Sartin Factor must be within the top 3.

Two weeks ago I played a contest and in a contest your forced to play only one horse. Well I had 8 alternate horses win and 3 were at very nice odds. I was freaking out about this from a contest point of view but played two horses to win with actual betting money and made a nice profit for the day. If I put the work in such as doing a race or races for a contest I always bet my selections.

I wish you great success wallyHeitz on your journey with Sartin concepts. He has done an unbelievable amount of research that took many years, I hope you take advantage of all his hard lessons learned.

Mitch44

Mitch44:



Mitch, I respectfully disagree with your thinking. If you can provide a meaningful study (1000 races or races run over a 2 year period) on what you have written then I might have to change my way of thinking.
I doubt whether you can provide this.



The Doc's studies are anecdotal and as far as I know and as far as I'm concerned two horse betting reduces you're odds dramatically when you do win and in fact increases the bets you make which necessitates a larger bankroll as opposed to betting a single horse to win. If you are looking for a crutch or comfort, you are in the wrong game.

To me 2 horse betting and 20 race cycles are pure nonsense unless you can back them up with meaning data.

Hey Bill I've been betting 2 horses to win since I joined the group in 90. I've shown a profit every year since 98. I believe there is plenty of room for whatever approach one chooses to employ. And since I know Mitch on a personnel basis I can vouch for the fact that he is a winner.
Tim

Bill your free to believe whatever you wish to along with anybody else. Your right Bill I don't have a 1,000 race study to offer up to you. My experience comes after many years of racing, study,experience, research etc. and proven data research to find factors that win. I can play any race with those factors or any track with those factors . They are interchangeable. Once I find a fact from back testing or research I no longer need it nor do I keep the research material. Those that don't believe it are the ones that need it or need to confirm the fact. Some keep rolling data research only to find a small difference, who cares? The fact remains that it still is profitable and advantageous etc.

Your 1,000 race study is also a fallacy as 1,000 races aren't needed to find a fact. Far too many are hung up on large data bases which to me are a waste of time. Current information is far more valuable that something that happened last year or a 1,000 races ago. Pars are a perfect example of this, immediacy is far more important, track profiles are another and not needed. Data that is forever changing is not preferred data.

I don't consider myself an expert on data collection but common sense prevails and many collect data in a manner that are extremely flawed,no different than s-hit in and s-it out.

I could also be a wise ass and say your 1,000 race study is no good and 2,000 are needed to bring the error rate down under ??? because I did 2,000 and its more specific. I can find out in 21 races about something that will be very similar or an insignificant difference in 100 races . If I find a fact that is 65% and in 100 races and its 65.50 in 100 or 66.10 in 1,000 races I could care less as its a valuable percentage. Hey where does one draw the line? Hell I guess someone has to have 5,000 to get their confidence level up. I'm not into your data base is bigger than mine. Whoopie due!! I don't play those games and I'm definitely not impressed.

In fact on this site I don't know of one winner that is a one horse better. I've seen many try and fail. That macho thing grabs hold of them but they fail to succeed. At one time a person that could pick 33% winners with one horse was considered an expert in this field. With todays low paying horses and races I doubt a 33% winner can show a profit.

Mitch44