Posted by Chuck
on May 26, 2012, 8:56 pm, in reply to "hey moron"
99.1.204.117
hence the phrase, "a long shot to win". In this case, I would not consider the two lotus cars to even have a long shot to win the Indy 500. You have never even heard of the phrase "they do not even have a long shot to win".
Using your moronic concept of "long shot", Marty Roth and Milka Duno at one time were considered long shots to win the Indy 500????
It is now commonly thought that in betting, long shots get odds while a bet on a team with no odds is the "sucker bet" or "off the board". The concept of "sucker bet" is also the negative term used to describe the high risk behavior of an individual with a serious gambling problem that is not even betting long shots rather just throwing money away. The more positive term for "sucker bet" is "off the board".
Long story short, "long shots" have a real chance to win even if it is very slim chance while drivers "off the board" are considered to have no chance to win hence they are "sucker bets".
I hope this clears up the concept of "long shot" past the traditional use in horse racing. Terminology had to change for different sports because in horse racing every horse in the race had odds to win for that race and the sport has an incentive to try to make sure all the horses in a race are fairly evenly matched for the race. This is not true in all sports.
Responses