But there's a reason that horse is a 100-1 outsider. It's only got three legs and one of those is wooden. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred it will lose. The one occasion on which it might emerge victorious is during a cavalry charge when the enemy has run out of cannon shot obliterating the rest of the field.
At the moment, elements within the Latvian government appear to be playing the odds just like a novice gambler: thinking one outrageous wager is all it will take to scoop the jackpot. The big difference is that while I merely gambled with my pathetic earnings, they are gambling with national security.
What odds would you give that NATO will enforce its Article 5 commitment to mutual defense should little green men or big green tanks start popping up on the wrong side of Latvia's easy-to-cross eastern border?
We're assured it's absolutely cast iron, that the odds are so overwhelmingly odds-on it's not even worth a wager. But might it be worth just a little flutter to make it more interesting? Say, a 10,000-1 chance that Article 5 would not be enforced by some countries if in return we get the chance to keep Arabs, Muslims and anyone else we're scared of out of the country?
Because that's basically what's happening with the current advocates of the "No refugees for Latvia" policy.
Yes, there is that tantalizing, one-in-a-million chance Latvia will be granted not just special but unique status within the European Union and be exempted from taking in any refugees at all. It's a long shot, but imagine if it came off! Boy, those other countries would feel pretty dumb.
Still, they wouldn't be able to take it out on us by say, telling us to buy our own fighter planes and patrol our own airspace, or by not sending their troops to fight on our behalf because we're also in NATO.
Currently Germany and Hungary are patrolling Baltic airspace.
I suggested on social media that if Latvia exercises its undoubted right not to accept any refugees, Germany and Hungary might exercise their right to stay at home and was quickly pounced on by people telling me NATO and the EU are completely different institutions, that what happens in one has no effect on the other.
Their faith was captivating. Personally I think someone like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban probably is the kind of guy to hold a grudge. Welcome to Realpolitik.
I received a tiny bit of vindication when Latvia's own NATO ambassador admitted there might theoretically be possible reactions from NATO allies to Latvia turning its back on the refugee question, and then a bit more vindication when the Foreign Ministry released its own report making the point more explicitly:
"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs would like to give advance warning that, with this approach, Latvia could lose support from the EU and NATO on a number of issues vital for Latvia. It cannot be ruled out that Latvia’s position against asylum seekers could, in the future, trigger opposition when it comes to decisions of importance, including with respect to strengthening of NATO’s presence in Latvia within the framework of collective defense or Article 5. In joint projects with EU partners, especially Italy, France, Germany, Austria, Hungary and Sweden, Latvia could also experience an impact."
Now, foreign Minister Edgars Rinkevics received a considerable amount of criticism for suggesting NATO support and refugee policy might be connected. One respected political commentator described him as "pretty shallow" for drawing the parallel.
Yet it is inconceivable that Rinkevics - never the most flamboyant or speculative of ministers - would endorse such a statement unless his counterparts in the named countries had had "a quiet word" in his ear.
That's what happens at these EU get-togethers - after the handshakes and waffling press statements there is hard bargaining, cajoling, and yes, even veiled threats in the corner of the room. Welcome to Realpolitik. It's not like in the family photo.
It's worth remembering that both Greece and Turkey, two of the countries hit hardest by the refugee crisis, are NATO members (and that both spent more than 2% of GDP on defense last year) and that Rinkevics specifically namechecks Sweden - not even a NATO member - in his report.
It's also worth remembering that contrary to popular belief, Article 5 is not some automatic "trigger" that guarantees that in the event of an attack all allies will wade in. It only guarantees they will all talk about it. Article 5 is "an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in these particular circumstances."
NATO updated its information about Article 5 on its official website to include specific mention of Russia as recently as July 7.
It's fine to not be keen on taking in refugees - let's face it, no-one is really over the moon at the prospect. But putting the humanitarian arguments to one side, if we want to serve our own best interests, is it really worth taking the slightest gamble on weakening our national defense against its clearest and most ever-present danger, particularly now? Any action that does so is irresponsible to the point of negligence.
Of course there is the counter-argument that taking in refugees is itself a security threat. This is a valid concern, despite the fact that many of the 'ISIS fighters' among the refugees identified by extreme right-wing websites turn out to have been anti-ISIS volunteers.
There were, after all, Soviet agents among the White Russian refugees of 1917, and all subsequent groups fleeing Communism, including those from Latvia. But their mission was primarily to keep tabs on the emigre community more than to undermine their host nations. If ISIS really was keen to get its people into Latvia it would be considerably more efficient to send British sympathisers on the next economy flight from London Luton.
Even then I somehow doubt they would make much headway in launching a Baltic jihad. Compare the threat to that posed by the well documented cadre of paid Kremlin propagandists already here and active among the population and it's clear which poses the major security risk.
Grumble, moan, be a bit awkward if it makes you feel better and you don't mind looking selfish. Say "I'll go along with Estonia and Lithuania but just because we're friends" and take in some refugees. Make the best of a bad job.
Standing alone for some misplaced principle of national purity might feel nice for a few minutes, but it could feel awfully lonely when the sound of engines revving up drifts across the border and no-one else seems particularly interested in riding to the rescue.
Is it worth a roll of the dice, a spin of the wheel to get something extra out of the refugee crisis? No it's not. Stick to the short priced winner that is being a full and equal member of NATO and not the long priced loser of cutting Latvia adrift for the sake of short-term popularity.
If those advocating this isolationist stance really care about celebrating the nation's centenary in 2018, they should think beyond the next retweet and worry about going down in history as the super-patriots who left the country open to attack.
The form guide suggests 800 Russian tanks are more of a threat than 800 Syrian refugees. But if they still want to take a punt on that long-priced winner, they should remember another saying of the betting shop: "If you want to gamble, be ready to lose your stake."
It's a mug's game.
