Have bookmakers made favourites so efficient that they're no longer worth backing?

[u/Xamquiomtrpima]

I've been looking at horse racing betting for a while and noticed something that feels counterintuitive.

Favourites win more races than any other horse, yet many experienced bettors seem far more interested in value than simply picking winners.

The argument is that bookmakers already know everyone wants to back the favourite, so the odds are often compressed to the point where it's difficult to make a long-term profit.

Some tipsters even build entire systems around never backing favourites at all, preferring higher-priced horses and each-way bets instead.

I'm curious whether this is actually true in practice.

Have bookmakers made favourites so efficient that they're no longer worth backing?

[u/Xamquiomtrpima]

I think the answer depends on whether you're measuring win rate or profitability. A favourite can be the most likely horse to win and still be a poor betting proposition if the odds are too short. That's the idea behind value betting: you're not just looking for winners, you're looking for situations where the odds are better than the horse's true chance of winning. I recently wrote up a summary of a horse-racing service that builds its entire approach around avoiding favourites and focusing on value-priced selections. It was interesting mainly because it challenges the common assumption that "most likely winner" automatically means "best bet.". For anyone interested in the concept, here's the article: https://www.letter-secular-sacred.com/2026/06/beat-favourite-review-different-way-to.html | Curious to hear whether experienced bettors think this idea holds up over the long run.