This looks like another one of these threads which is going to end in confusion, mainly because of the "unreliability" of data bases etc etc. Which, of course is why some of us (a few) are not overwhelmed by statistical "proofs". That aside, the ongoing and perhaps permanently ingrained prejudices against longshots has shown up again in several POSTS. ie the longshots have "distorted" the results or will be "discarded" etc or "without these longies, such and such a method, shows a loss" etc etc.
In La Mer's thread about the "rationality" of bookies markets , he pointed out the Betfair data showing that the exchange punters/layers had it EXACTLY right at ALL price levels. The 2-1 shots won 33% of the time (not 40%, not 25%) and all the way up (the100-1 shots won 1%). This means that ALL were correct, none of them were "unexpected" long-term: that to make money on the shorties (say 2-1) you couldn't bet them ALL as you would only get your money back (minus commission) and likewise the 100-1 shots. You had to be selective, leaving some AT ALL PRICE LEVELS aside and bet the rest. The key here is that the trick is to BE ON the longshot when it appears, not to say "IT WON"T HAPPEN"
The longer-priced horses are NOT flukes just as the favourites that win are not flukes (ie if you told a non-racing person that ALL THE DATA in the world could only get it right 30% of the time, THEY might consider these paltry results, 30%, as "flukes" too!!!!!). So far no-one has bothered explaining how a horse like Pimpala Prince can win 11 races in it's life BUT 4 of these at $30+ (too flukey by half??) OR why some trainers show a rather impressive return at long odds (let's investigate Ms D Poidevin-Lane) when they put TWO horses in the same race.. These are NOT flukes.
C. Prince: Very good comment that it is ILLOGICALITY which brings rules and systems undone. Never met a "logica'l computer or horse yet but plenty of VERY logical trainers!!! Cheers.