An infinite number ..... so for those of you who said none ..... you're wrong !!

Let's take a race with say 15 starters;

All have;
varying fitness levels
varying suitablility to the track
varying suitability to the distance
..... the conditions
..... the barrier
..... their health, both physical and mental
..... their class to compete at this level
..... their physical strength (have they matured ?)
..... then throw luck into the mix

The best horse, the one that ticks the most boxes, does not always win. Why ?? Well, there's as many variables for your horse as there are sides on a circle, and then we have to take into account all the other horses and their variables (ie; things that can affect their performance).

Given up ..... ???

Don't !!!

One horse has to win and one horse has to run last.

Aren't you better off getting decent odds about a horse with a chance, than taking prohibitive odds (I call these less that $3.00) about a "good thing". Look no further than this forum, and form guides for reasons why you should back the favourites few, that is the first 3 or 4 in the market. 90% of the systems and commentary direct you that way, straight to the pointy end of the market where most punters go.

Let me give you ONE example of what I'm talking about ..... a horse has had a couple of starts this time in, shows a little promise, has drawn the outside barrier. The scribe will say "surely has an impossible task from this draw", and the form of the horse is good, but not good enough with the draw. My contention is that this horse is worth backing because of the "negative" draw and the "negative" comment by the scribe. It Has to be well over the odds, had it drawn favourably ?? ..... Now you say, but it hasn't drawn favourable and the ratings have taken into account it's bad draw ----- Fair comment !! BUT, what if after the first 100 metres it is lucky enough to be sitting one out and a couple back ??, in a prime spot. It happens. Why take prohibitive odds on a horse being fit enough and good enough and NOT having bad luck, when you can take 10 times those odds on a horse needing a slice of luck early in running, and maybe showing improvement from it's previous runs.

It's gambling for sure.

So let's say this horse doesn't get the luck it needed, but the jockey did the right thing and didn't cruel it ..... Next start the scribe comments "didn't fire a shot at it's last start and can't see it troubling these" ..... So now you're getting more leverage on a horse that COULD have measured up last start had it had a favourable draw and favourable luck in running ..... You could quite easily be getting 33 / 1 about a horse who's right in the mix, who's up to this class, but has been overlooked.

It's that simple, but you need the mentality to look beyond the circle, find a decent horse with big X against it's name for one reason or another ..... it could be that it's lighly raced and has previously failed over this distance. the scribe will point this out, but why is the trainer putting it over a distance it "cannot win at". Back it at good odds, it's worth it BUT ..... Here's the rub ..... MY MESSAGE is should this horse fail due to bad luck or any one of a myriad of reasons, then you're going to get enormous odds at it's next start because it failed "once again" under similar circumstances.

I've suggested in previous posts to back the negative, and follow up on a failure ..... don't back a donkey tho', that's not what this post is all about.

This post is about finding unbelievably good odds against the lemmings top selections. So, back the negative and follow up next start.

Your eyes will be opened to the real opportunities that lay ahead of you, and you'll get an insight into how trainers place their horses. But you need to look beyond the circle ........