8. Cautions on Betting

So far, we have dwelt on handicapping to pick winners. This methodology, however, has only been presented in its posi­tive sense. The truth is that three out of five races are un-bettable and this doesn't matter whether favorites or long shots win them. The fact is: The best horse doesn't always win and the fastest horse doesnt always win. One of the reasons for this is plain: Races are filled by racing secretaries eager to fill cards, not to produce easily handicapped win­ners.

Although many unbettable situations can be readily as­certained, many can not. Some situations are plainly ridicu­lous; others just confusing. I advocate, that you train your eye to see how not to bet as much as when to and how to bet. If you can correctly spot unbettable situations, you will greatly improve your chances of winning.

When I speak of unbettable situations, I do not refer to rainy weather or muddy tracks. Nor do I refer to situations outside of the mechanical character of the race itself. By an unbettable situation, I mean that mechanical element in the race itself, which will cause confusion as to the proper horse to bet on, thus preventing intelligent wagering. The follow­ing is a sketch of hazards that I have found which will de­crease your chances of picking winners, and which, if not painstakingly avoided, will insure losses and incorrect choices.

An unbettable situation can be created by oneself. One who constantly watches the odds board is looking for trouble. He is looking for a crutch to lean on. He begins to look for a "hint" from someone who knows something, or tries to discover if the public agrees with his selection, so as to be psychologically prepared to rush the mutuel windows. I have heard many people say, "This is the horse that looks like a winner, but how can he win at this price?" or, "The smart boys are on the number 3 horse, how can I go with this one?" Well, to put it bluntly, there are no smart boys. No one knows any more than you do! Wrong, you say? Stop to think for a minute. There are eight horses in a race, and the owners of at least five of them probably feel that their horse is ready and can win. So who, then, are the smart boys? One of the eight has to win and seven others have to lose, yet the fans think that there is always someone who knows something more than they do—and they are waiting to get the tip! Get off the cloud. Figure it out for yourself—your selection is as good as the racing commissioner's!

It seems to be psychologically easier to bet heavier on an odds-on choice than on a horse which is 3 to 1. You are consoled by the fact that the public likes him, the public handicappers like him, and you like him. But the horse doesn't know that he is being approbated in this manner! Remember statistics prove that John Q. Public and John Q. Public Handicapper are wrong 66% of the time. The favorites win on the average of one out of three races. How does it make sense to follow some one who is wrong 2 out of 3 times?

It is far better to develop your own independent handi­capping ability and disregard the public, the public handi­cappers, and the odds boards. I am not suggesting wagering on 20 to 1 horses, nor am I suggesting playing favorites. In­stead, I suggest a happy medium between disregarding the public choice and betting your own choices! If these two happen to coincide, there shouldn't be any need to be un­happy about it. The public does win one out of three and if you can ride that one you will be helping your own situation, unless the above happens to be an under even money selec­tion; at which point no intelligent bet can be made.

Price as such shouldn't influence your decision, as our aim is to be on the winning horse, and price doesn't determine the winner. Price can be determined by a dozen factors other than those positively bearing on the choice in the race. This statement may need clarification: On small tracks, a switch by one or two bettors, wagering heavily, can change and distort the odds. At the larger tracks public sentiment whipped up by X handicapper, or rumors that a "driver's hot tonight" can create a similar situation. These factors can be thus emotionally stimulated and not be based on reasonable handicapping. I have seen "on the track" tips being circu­lated in a weird and impossible-to-determine manner, whereby Joe tells Mike and Mike tells Frank, etc. No one knows where it came from, but it was from a reliable source! But, strangely enough, everyone at the track has now heard about this and a ten-to-one shot has become even money at post time—! Result: They usually lose! A tip is not worth a $2.00 bet.

A good example of an unbettable situation occurred in a co-feature race at Roosevelt Raceway on October 23, 1959. It was a top quality race, composed of Junior Free For All pacers, and the public installed Irish (#1) as the 8-5 favorite. (The past performances of the race in question will be found on the next page.)

1. Irish: From the 1 post this time, a position which

Irish had not held for at least the last six races. At the same time the positions held were such as to require a constant running-from-behind strategy. Only once in the last seven races had Irish held a post from the 4 slot or better. Each race which Irish ran re­quired him to run from far back (7, 5, 7, 8, 6), and hence he looked as though he was chal­lenging at the half or ¾ with a strong stretch drive. On this day, from the 1 post Irish could be counted on to stay close to the front—but how close? Would he take the lead? Would he try to stay up front? This seemed an im­possible question to answer, yet the public had installed him as the 8-5 favorite. (3 to 1 on the morning line.) Irish seemed unpre­dictable in this race.

2. Golden Miss: Stepped from AA in her last race, this mare had been given a rough post in a rough race. Last time out she had been beaten by 11 lengths. But from the 2 post in this one, Stretch being driven by one of the leading drivers in the country and fully capable of a fine stretch drive, how would she react? She could be expected to challenge in the stretch and exactly what type or how good a chal­lenge one could expect, is hard to judge in this case.

3. Hundred Proof: A good finisher, Hundred Proof has proven in the last three races that he is not only capable of a good stretch drive, but that he could make up lengths from the stretch turn Stretch to the wire. In his last three races, the fine finishing capabilities of this horse became readily apparent. But if it was a stretch drive between Hundred Proof and Golden Miss to the wire, who would prove the better? Ex­tremely hard to determine. Both horses appear from past performances to be similar in stretch capabilities.

4. O'Brien Hanover: A fine horse who doesn't appear to be in usual form. Normally according to past performances this horse would be eliminated from contention. But how can you eliminate (?)  a horse who has run a 2:01 (best time) in both 1958 and 1959, and who has won $154,-000 in the last two years? O'Brien Hanover has been up against the best horses in the country including Bye Bye Byrd! Bye Bye Byrd is currently (at the time of this race) the world's record holder and the best pacer of 1959. To be beaten by this horse is hardly a black mark against any contender! O'Brien Hanover is a question mark, both as to what he will do, and to what he can do. The exact nature of what he will do in this race is un-definable.

5. Esquire Direct:

6. Devastator:

Fades

7. Adios Claire:

Stretch

Scratched.

Seems outclassed. Has only run one race at Roosevelt Raceway coming from FFA at Blue Bonnets which is definitely not in the same category as FFA at Roosevelt. This can be easily determined by looking at his win­nings. Nine times in the money, he should most certainly have won more than $10,000 at any major track. This horse can be defi­nitely eliminated because he fades, and be­cause he is outclassed.

A good finisher, she cannot be ruled out of this one. As a matter of fact Adios Claire is very definitely in this race. She rates as a better finisher than either Golden Miss or Hundred Proof and should "take" either horse if the winning depends on a good stretch drive. However, the seven post horse gives the other two stretch horses a major advantage over Adios Claire. How Adios Claire will finish in this one can only be an­swered by inspection of her performances. She should be in there. It should be close at the wire!

8. Adios Bess: Clearly outclassed. She has come up from the minor circuit and has been stepped up into top company. Adios Bess is clearly an outclassed horse, and even though she ap Front       pears to win decisively, the caliber of this opposition can be determined by answering two questions:

a.) Where has she been running? b.) How much money has she won? The crusher is put on Adios Bess because she has been put in the eight slot. She is a front runner and will be counted out of the race by the effort necessary to obtain the lead.

We have narrowed this race down to five horses. Disre­garding Adios Bess and Devastator, and Esquire Direct being scratched; we still have a rough competitive situation developing among the five remaining horses. Three stretch runners and two unknowns. The public has installed Irish as the favorite, with Adios Claire the second choice. What should we do? If we are interested in keeping our wagering profitable, we shouldn't bet! It is impossible to determine what these five horses will do in relation to each other.

The results showed this partial confusion; O'Brien Han­over was the winner, and Adios Claire, second. Irish, the favorite, was fourth.

Here, then, was a race, which by every criterion should have been passed. There was no outstanding horse, as such, although the public had its favorite. It is far better to learn that when a perplexing and impossible to determine racing situation arises, don't bet on it! Sit and watch it! If you can't figure out "how the race will be run," then save your money for a better wager.

On the same program (October 23, 1959) is found another example of outright confusion. In scanning the past per­formances (shown on the following page), it is interesting to note that a "good line" just cannot be established on any of the horses. The eventual winner should be considered, but cannot be picked, as there is nothing but "hope" to bet on!

If you were marking each horse, in attempting to figure out "how the race will be run" you would find that each no­tation would be weak in meaning, to say the least. The re­sults of any analysis would be confusing and uncertain.

In analyzing, take a look at the past performances, and mark the various horses as to their running abilities. Then decide how each horse will fit into this race, and whether this will give you a clue as to who will win, or place, etc. When a race of this type develops, you are far better off recognizing the difficulties and skipping this one! Each time you correctly pass up a bad one, you will enhance your over­all chances of success in the long run.

1. Dash for Cash          front, fades
   
   
2. Gorgeous Widow     mild stretch
   
   
3. Nancy Blades           fair stretch, even
   
   
4. Volo Yates  ¾
   
   
5. Treasure Island         front, lead, fades
   
   
6. Trinity Place ¾ stretch
   
   
7. Magic         ½ to front, fades
   
   
8. My Irish      front, fades
   

results: Trinity Place Won Dash For a cash Placed My Irish Showed

An unbettable situation, which, according to any method of handicapping, had to be at least labelled a difficult race to figure. Following the desire to wager profitably, you should not bet this race. The race was a mixture of poor stretch runners, and poor front runners. You cannot figure a race which has nothing but confusion in its make-up and re­sult!

Another situation which suggests unbettable possibilities is one where there are many "import" horses coming to run at a major track for the first time. It is difficult to determine just how horses from other tracks will stack up against those horses that have been running at a major circuit all season. The following is a good example of what I am referring to: It will show what kind of a difficult situation can result and how to cope with this situation.

I suggest that you analyze the following past performance chart and form your own conclusions as to what each horse will do and which you would pick as the apparent winner. Try to get an intelligent line on the import horses. It might help to refer to Appendix #3 in the back of the book. Read my analysis, and tie results of the race; but first consider in your own mind whether this race could have been ana­lyzed.

Good Pick stretch runner closes strongly PP1

Has been running at the minor circuit. Last five races at Suffolk Downs (a mile track) where average time should be about 2 or 3 seconds faster than the comparable times at a % mile track like Roosevelt or Yonkers Raceways. Looking at the winning times of Good Pick (as a guide only), one can easily see that he has not been running in the same general class as this race. Not only that, but the class B in which Good Pick has been running, is not the same class B which is being run in this race. Especially true in this race because if you notice, this race has been further subdivided into B-l, the highest section of B class at the current meeting. It seems logical that Good Pick is not strong competition.

cm ^r co co o^ co

McPhergus excellent stretch PP 2

In the last three races McPhergus has shown he can come from behind convincingly, and even in fast races has done this. His record shows 19 races with 11 wins. A horse of this caliber, who is in form, is definitely the one to beat. Mc­Phergus should be marked as a strong stretch runner, or ex­cellent stretch, and from the 2 post he must be considered as perfectly able to make use of this ability. There would be no need for McPhergus to attempt to take the lead unless it was handed to him; otherwise he should await his oppor­tunity and will make use of his strong stretch capabilities.

Atlas Farval front fade long chance (?) PP 3

Has been doing nothing on the mile track (Suffolk Downs) and even though stepped down into the lettered class of "B," there is still nothing to recommend him, because the two "B" classes have nothing in common at the two tracks. He tends to go to the front and fade in the stretch, and he should be marked in this way. He might also be noted as outclassed and not considered in the figuring of this race.

Penney's First Lass close to front even PP 4

She has been running at Suffolk Downs, but has done bet­ter than Atlas Farval (#3). In her last race, she beat Atlas Farval by two lengths, although not showing much herself. She might be marked as "even or close to the front" but hardly can be considered as competition in this race for the same reason as the other Suffolk horse, namely the out­classed Atlas Farval.

Scotch Byrd ¾ stretch PP 5

Scotch Byrd has shown himself to be a good ¾ and stretch horse, but in his last two races he has been losing decisively. He is a good stretch runner when in form, but even then he would be at a disadvantage from the 5 post, against Me-Phergus. A stretch duel against these two would probably find McPhergus the winner. Since Scotch Byrd appears out of form, he is regarded out of this race, although one still must regard him as an apparent threat to "close."

Highland Boy even drop in class PP 6

Down in class, he has been running in better races but has shown no marked tendency either to take the lead or move in the stretch. There is nothing to recommend him other than the drop in class, and this is not enough here, as it may only signify that he has been doing so poorly that he has been placed in a lower group. (This is not always true, by the way.) The sixth position suggests that he would have a difficult time to do anything here, as he runs "even." Mark as "even," "Down in Class"; but he should be out of this one.

Maxine's Knight front runner fades PP 7

Maxine's Knight is a front runner who managed to hang on in his last two races. But he generally can be counted on to fade. In this race, he could be expected to rush up for the lead, but from the 7 post this will require considerable effort and this horse will be expected to make a race of it for the first ½ or ¾, at least. Generally a poor stretch runner; he cannot be considered as competition to McPhergus in the final quarter. Although Maxine's Knight has been stepped down in class from A to B he has not shown any really decisive improvement. He should be marked: "Front Run-ner, Fades.

Smart Set ¾ stretch PP 8

Smart Set has come from the minor circuit, but proved himself in his last race at Roosevelt Raceway, when he won convincingly going away at the finish. Definitely a threat in this race, but because of his post position disadvantage he has no chance to take it in the stretch as McPhergus is the better of the two stretch runners; especially in view of the spot in post positions. It might be possible that Smart Set will go out earlier this time and try to go for the lead, al­though this will be difficult from the 8 spot. Mark Smart Set “¾ to stretch.”

SUMMARY

Four horses from other tracks:

PP 1     Good Pick        Eliminated

PP 3     Atlas Farval       Eliminated

PP 4     Penney's First Lass        Eliminated

PP 8     Smart Set          Stretch ¾

PP 1     Good Pick        (Eliminated) Stretch

PP 2     McPhergus        Strong Stretch (excellent)

PP 3     Atlas Farval       (Eliminated) Front Fade

PP 4      Penney's First Lass        Even (Close to Front)

PP 5      Scotch Byrd      Good Stretch

PP 6      Highland Boy    Even (Drop in Class)

PP 7      Maxine's Knight            Front Fade

PP 8      Smart Set          Stretch

The race may be narrowed down to McPhergus and Smart Set. McPhergus, who runs from the 2 post and is the better finisher, has the definite edge over Smart Set, greater than just the initial advantage of about six lengths.

The winner was McPhergus (in the stretch). The apparent hazard of four horses coming from other tracks was elimi­nated, in this case, after inspection and presented no ap­preciable difficulty. The race was definitely a good bet, as the competition was slight and the stretch-running character­istic of McPhergus outweighed any other competition in the race.

Another problem inherent in winning is that you must first beat "yourself"! It is a hard thing to accomplish. It is also difficult to refrain from betting a race when you are either winning or losing up to that point. The nature of man seems to prod him towards the mutuel window with money in his hand and a number on his tongue.

If you don't feel that you have enough self-control to limit your interest to two or three races on a particular card, then you had better resign yourself to losing.

The true fact is: The average racing fan beats himself be­cause he plays too many races.

One must realize that if he applies good solid common sense to his wagering, he can only win a percentage of the time. For this percentage to be profitable, one must realize that whenever there is a hazard or an unbettable situation, then he must refrain from betting! Every time you take a chance you not only reduce the possibility of gain over the long run, but you psychologically beat "yourself." Every time he loses, even the most intelligent handicapper gets that natural desire: To stage a comeback! He then proceeds to forget everything he knows and has learned and to throw good money after bad. This, of course, destroys his chances in the long pull.

When one loses sight of his original objective, sensibly picking winners, he becomes a prey and falls into "sucker-dom." To refrain from this type of betting takes courage and fortitude, but always remember this: to refrain from a bet because of an impossible situation saves you money!

You must lose, if you can't control your desire to bet. No one ever has shown a profit by betting every race, so dont try it!

Furthermore, I suggest that your betting consist of even amounts on each race when you do bet. In this way, when you lose, your losses will affect the average in a specified amount. How many bettors have you known who win three $2.00 bets in a row, then get cocky, and bet heavily on the next one, only to lose heavily? They have won three out of four races, yet their operation shows a loss!

Using a graduated scale, or "reinvesting" your profits, or any other betting scheme is doomed to failure—unless you have an infinite amount of capital! I have known bettors who double their bet after each successive loss, the feeling being that when they do get a winner it will pull them out from all their losses. In case you still don't know what this means, look at the table below. Beginning with a nominal amount of $5.00 to win, one would have to own a bank, after 14 suc­cessive losses!

This would have amounted to a grand cumulative total of over $160,000.00 wagered after 15 bets. In theory this is a smart method, for if you hit any horse paying over 2 to 1, you must not only recoup your losses, but you will show a profit. The major problem becomes apparent: How many individuals can take advantage of this grandiose scheme?

It should be apparent that the most reliable method of wagering should center about intelligent handicapping, and that wagering should be secondary and left to an even bet which one can afford. If you feel you can afford to lose $30.00 on a particular program, then a wager of $10.00 per race should be made, and your losses should be no more than $30.00. However, if two bets produce wins and the third bet were for a higher amount (under the system play) you still could lose, if you began doubling up on winnings. The theory behind this form of idiocy is that one can "break the bank," and this just isn't true! Your hope should be for a nominal profit, backed up by intelligent handicapping rather than for riding home with a barrel full of money— which is only a pipe dream!

The most secure and intelligent method of wagering is a flat play, betting an essentially even amount on a limited number of races. One must consider, however, that the real meaning behind betting is the handicapping which produces it, and any betting idea is only as good as the handicapper.

I suggest that you do not bet on more than two or three races per program. There are several reasons for this: First, in handicapping according to "how a race will be run" more time is required to study the program than picking the "best" horse, or the horse with the "fastest times" etc. Secondly, in many races one will find it impossible to separate the con­tenders. I have seen races where four front runners are lined up in the first four post positions, with no good stretch run­ners in the race. How can you thus pick a winning horse in­telligently? The obvious answer is that you cannot! In other words, one out of two races will have to be rejected because of the impossible task of handicapping them intelligently.

Again, it is generally not profitable to bet on class C trots, or lower, because these horses break stride regularly. It is also true that some better class trots have "breakers" and other inherent difficulties which you can best leave alone.

Stake races or FFA (free for all) races, where the compe­tition is so keen as to make all eight horses possible winners, are generally better watched than wagered.

Summarizing: It will be apparent, now, that for one reason or another one should limit his wagers to two or three per program, and these should be the two or three "best" bets of that program. By "best" I mean having the best chance of winning. You can't win every race! If you bet nine races per night, expect to be a loser. The possibility of operating at a profit on this basis is about 1000 to one. But, the handicapper who analyzes racing in such a way as to pick the two best bets on the card, and bets an equal amount on each, has a very good chance of winning, provided, of course, he has mastered the art of handicapping. This same bettor, with an excellent handicapping outlook, who makes the same two bets to win or place only, doubles his chances to win. Learn to restrict your betting to the two or three best bets on the card, and your chances of winning will improve im­measurably!

Are You Ready To Move Onto The Next Lesson? Click Here...