FALSE OUTSIDERS!!

[punter57]

Most of us know what a "false" favourite (FF) is supposed to be. There are a whole heap of systems and eliminators to first detect them and THEN get rid of them. Simply, these FFs are horses which are overbet into favouritism (and therefore "unders"), while the genuine "top chance" or even second chance (or EVERYTHING ELSE) blows out to be overs. The theory goes that if there were 34 races last Saturday (with 34 favs, in S,M,B,A)) and you expected 10 favs to win (30%) on average, you would greatly increase your POT by getting rid of as many of the losing 24 favs as possible. Find the one's who "shouldn't" be favs and DITCH THEM. Bet the "right" 10 and you'd be home and hosed!!! Simple, eh? NO, not really. The main "problem" is in deciding, among the "real" chances, which one is the "realest" ON THAT DAY!!!
On the other hand, every week a host of despised roughies thunder home, or lead all the way at 33s or 50s or even at $209 in Melbourne (two saturdays back).
After seeing 5 such "upset" horses in the already mentioned 34 races LAST saturday, some at Group Level, you'd have to rub your eyes and scratch your head. Why WERE they roughies? Brindabella in MR8 was 3rd rated on Unitab but STILL over $30 the win. Romantic Lover was $5 in my Courier-Mail and won like it, BUT at $26!! Now there are a couple of FALSE outsiders!!!!
There were just over 140 horses paying $20 or more last Saturday (my definition of an OS), from which 5 saluted: that's about 1 in 28. But what if we eliminate 100 of the losers and bet the rest?? What if we cut it diown to 29 and still get 4 at an average price of around $30 EACH???!!!.Well, if you're satisfied with that, read no further (see Selecting Longshots Mechanically Thread) but if you'd like to do even better, maybe we can pull a few ideas TOGETHER right here. Please, everyone, this is a LONGSHOT thread. Let's not get swamped by "shortie fans" who have nothing positive to say. Thanks.

[Dale]

Hi Punter 57,

I've been wrestling with a selection method of mine that i feel is coming up with way too many bets,i have come to the conclusion that the 1st and 2nd pre post favorites amongst this lot are not pulling their weight POT wise.

I've done my research and am going to give them the punt.

At this stage of the system developement i only have a couple of rules/filters but have a few up my sleeve ready to test now that i have dumped the favs.

Trying to implement rules that eliminate false favorites is very tricky,i like you feel it is much easier to eliminate the roughies,so many of them are absolute no hopers.

I look forward to the responses in this thread and in time will post a few ideas.

[Oaksnaf]

I find i get too little selections with my roughies.

From a race i would select the lowest 20% odds. Meaning in a field of 15 the bottom 3 odds, in a field of 10 the bottom 2 odds. Its probably not enough to select from though. Perhaps the bottom 30% or 40% would be a better option.

But anywho i base it on weight/places and their last three starts. If they come below a certain rating then they get chosen. But in a number of months ive only had about 10 or so selections. Two have won.

Ive got nothing concrete to show you in evidence to suggest the above results are real. But ill have a look at my archived results and see what i can pull out.

[Dale]

Oaksnaf ever thought about ruling out those over 33-1 pre post and then applying your idea.

[Dale]

...Practical Punting Monthly ....I remember an article about selecting longshots,basicly the writer said most longer priced winners are on the limit weight so rule out every horse not on the limit weight and go from there.

To expand on an idea from Partypooper why not then rule out any limit weight horse that hasnt won at the distance or track...................

[Bhagwan]

Consider only targeting Class 1,2 & 3 races only.
This will reduce the number of bets to a given day, this class seems to strike a number of $20+ mules along the way.

Maybe apply a filter such as , must have been $8.50 or less last start.
This tells us that it was not considered to be a totall dud in the market place last time out.

This rule does seem to work as well as anything else.

[punter57]

G'day. Not 100% sure about the low classes Baggy, but since many, many nags in these classes are HOPELESS and soon to be added to my Border Collie's daily diet, I think this could be fertile ground. Possibly a straight forward SR or prizemoney elimination rule would get rid of the dirt surrounding the nuggets, or something like that.
Dale. Lower weighted horses DO tend to be the source of plenty of upsets, especially once you get away from the shorter sprints (ie a flashing runaway roughie can just make it 1100 or 1200 before dying under 60kgs, but not 3200m!!!). I also reckon you've got to look at horses which are "failing" but then being moved up in class, and in particular, horses NOT being raised in distance as well.
An example was Cozarvy on 28 June 2003. This horse had been easily "done" twice in a row over 1350 (Class 4s) at Strathalbin and was in town for a 0MW and still at 1310. I was at Cheltenham that day and wondering WHY Brian Cozamanis was doing this and WHY Clare Lindop was riding it again, as she had in the two previous losses. Incidentally Dale, Cozamanis has a Pt Lincoln stable, which puts his horses firmly on the radar when they "travel" (as you know!!!), apart from being a "mechanical longshot (1457) to boot. Anyway, it made them look like fools at 60s!! Off the bottom weight, of course. Hmmmmm. Bye for now.
PS. The only other "mechanical" in that race was SECOND. Quinella over $400 and Tri at $17000. Though I NEVER play exotics, that day I was cursing and sorely tempted!!

[topsy99]

in race 8 at werribee today tevella was running. it was a listed horse (caulfield 16/10/04) won its last start and was paying $38 win and $6.30 place.
it was beaten a head into second place.

was number 5 and carried 56 kgs. (barrier 7)

had a lot going for it and was obviously well over the odds.

[brave chief]

If you're looking at horses on the limit, I tend to shy away from those ridden by claiming apprentices. Why? It seems nowadays most apps (I know I'm generalising) can't ride below 53kg or 52kg anyway, so they can't claim their full allowance, if at all. Bit of a waste.

Again, as a mechenical rule, I also take notice of first-uppers & 2nd uppers (or first starters & 2nd starters) over any distance. Its a general rule of a lot of systems to eliminate these horses automatically.

[jacfin]

P57
Of the last 28 Sat winners for your longshot plan with all classes included, 18 were on the limit weight.
22 were drawn in barriers 1 - 7.

[punter57]

Jacfin. G'day. As you know, I'm not a great computer whizz and actually ONLY keep handwritten records of the longshot winners in detail and the total number of bets I've made. The one's that don't win I just note as P or NP (ie place, no place) and don't bother with divvies for them etc, or even the names. Anyhow this year I've bet 41 race meetings on Sat and Public Hols. On average you get about 25 bets per day. On Public Hols it is often the case that there are only 1 or 2 "quality" racemeetings as the Holiday is not nationwide., so these days are (kind of) "half-saturday" standard, with fewer bets. Anyway, from these 1000 odd bets (please, no instant cardiac arrests!!!) the return is just on 1800 Units. I suspect this is a little lower than usual. I don't keep very accurate records about a lot of things when they are profitable, as I'm of the "if it ain't broke, why fix it" school, so it's all a little "touchy-feely" with me.

Anyhow, here's something else everyone might want to look at from the recent past. Go to 30/4/2005 BR8. Could any horse be "worse" than this???? First run in 14 months!! Last time in it was about last in a field of 13 after another spell. (ie immediately spelled AGAIN). Before THAT it was also about last of 15. 2 runs in 18 months and both at the tail of the field. Hmmmm. This had THREE things going for it, however. You can probably see it's a dead cert "mechanical" and that it's not always been a Gold Coaster but the other "suspicious" manoeuvre might take a little closer inspection. It was THIS that showed conclusively that making Applicant an outsider was FALSE in the extreme. Cheers. Gotta run. Back tomorrow night or Sat morning.

[Dale]

Earlier in the thread we were talking about concentrating on horses on the limit weight as most longshots are on the limit weight....

I put forward the same idea here that i just did in the Outsider thread,that being that it might pay to ignore horses with a win in their last 4 starts..

So look at all the horses on the limit weight,rule out any that have a win in form,i'd also rule out any that havent won a race,from there a bit of form study and a bit of luck and you might latch on to a roughie like Volitant at $40 yesterday.

[jacfin]

I've been doing a lot of study on longshots recently and one thing which has become apparent in Sat metro longshots is that most of the winners have a last three starts beaten lengths total of less than 21.5 lengths.

[Dale]

A few big priced winners yesterday on the limit weight without a win in their last 4 starts.

$22.80,$34.20 and the 200/300 -1 shot at canberra.

Interstingly the canberra winner and saturdays big winner Volitant both were on the limit weight,without a win in their form and having their 4th run back from a spell,could be a system right there..............

[DR RON]

I've always liked backing horses that are having their 4th run from a spell.It seems to me that an average horse seems to need 3 runs to get to peak fitness. This wont be the case with all horses but I would be interested to see some stats regarding number of runs from a spell before saluting.????

[Oaksnaf]

I've always liked backing horses that are having their 4th run from a spell.It seems to me that an average horse seems to need 3 runs to get to peak fitness. This wont be the case with all horses but I would be interested to see some stats regarding number of runs from a spell before saluting.????
Yes it is quite odd, some horses love being first up and then wont perform second up and then start to improve on thier third-fourth up start.

Certainly gives the horse enough time to perform. And well if you have a $26 winner, then that gives you 25 races without a winner to at least grab another winner. Certainly seems like it could come up with a handy profit.

Ill be keeping an eye on this for sure.

[Sisterfifi]

Hi,

For what its worth my 2 cents worth. I am always looking for the longshots. I have over the years developed my own formula. I always look at distance, speed and weight first. Looking to see how fast the horse can race over that distance carrying what weight. I then take into consideration such things as barrier and track conditions. I totally disregard class which I think can be misleading - look at Leica Falcon. I also find out what the track record is for that distance and compare the horse to that.

For the Melbourne Cup I look for horses that have a record of running under 3.20 on a good or better track. The race record is 3.16 all the best horses should be capable of running under 3.20. This year my 3200m horses were Makybe Diva and Eye Popper. For the horses that have not run at 3200m I usually look at the record of those that have raced at 2800 or over next and then disregard the rest. This year there was a whole swag that had not gone near 2800m but only 2400m so I looked at their form which brought up On A Juene and Lachlan River. I then monitor the weather and reframe my selections if the track conditions deteriorate.

Another favourite of mine is to apply the criteria to horses coming from the country to the city. Also, I look at the lead up races to the Spring Carnival when all the good horses are resuming.

regards

Sisterfifi