Secrets of Handicapping

Learn the fundamentals of handicapping from two of the world’s leading experts.

Practical Punting Magazine editor Brian Blackwell and US expert Barry Meadow share their views on handicapping.

Meadow’s ideas come from his lifelong pursuit of profit in US racing. Brian gives the Aussie angle.

The Secrets of Handicapping

INTRODUCTORY GUIDE

PUBLISHED BY

Thanks for downloading!

Make sure you check out the ideas in this introductory guide. Keep in mind, this is not a definitive guide on all things horseracing… rather this is an introduction to the fundamentals of handicapping.

If you want to know everything about punting … then join us for free….

Over 80,000 members can’t be wrong!

Join tens of thousands of happy members and get instant access to thousands of articles.

Articles covering all aspects of betting and horse racing.You will have exclusive entry to the world’s richest resource of betting knowledge obtained from leading racing experts and betting professionals.

An Introductory Guide: The Fundamentals of Handicapping

About the Authors

Brian is editor of Australia’s favourite racing website and magazine, Practical Punting, as well as being head tipster of the PPD CLUB, the nation’s leading daily tipping site.

Brian Blackwell: practicalpunting.com.au Barry Meadow, has spent more than 40 years in the gambling world. Barry, one of America’s greatest modern-day racing experts, has been a top-name writer in PPM for some years now. His collected works, in books and magazines, are a feast of information for punters no matter where they come from around the world. Meadow has presented at every Handicapping Expo since 1990, was a member of the NTRA Players Panel, and is an adviser to the Horseplayers Association of North America. He has appeared on several radio and television programs and was featured in the2005 documentary, Player: The Blue-Collar Gambler.

Quirky Facts: Barry’s eclectic resume also includes serving in Vietnam, writing television sitcoms, playing the professional tennis circuit in India, and doing standup comedy in California.

Contents•

00 Fighting a complex game

00 Is the trainer so important?

00 Class, improvement and the bias blues

00 Staking – the heart of the game

00 Never risk more than 5% of your capital

00 The elusive hunt for value betting

Copyright Equestrian Publishing Pty Ltd ABN 18 106 237 199 All rights reserved. All materials contained in this email are protected by Australian and International copyright laws and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the specific written permission from Equestrian Publishing Pty Ltd.Whilst past results can indicate a strong and reliable method, turf speculation cannot be guaranteed for future performance. Equestrian Publishing Pty Ltd, its employees, agents or contractors, therefore cannot and do not provide any guarantees or warranties against or in respect of fulfilment of future profits.

01 CHAPTER

FIGHTING A COMPLEX GAME

The fundamentals of handicapping

FIGHTING A COMPLEX GAMEWith Barry Meadows and Brian Blackwell

INTRODUCTION: In this ebook, PPM editor Brian Blackwell and US expert Barry

Meadow share their views on the fundamentals of handicapping. Meadow’s ideas

come from his lifelong pursuit of profit in US racing. Brian gives the Aussie angle.

These two top pros discuss various aspects of the task of picking and backing

winners. The topics range over most handicapping factors.

Let’s get started.

Barry Meadow: Although countless players have attempted to reduce

handicapping to systems and angles, most experienced players understand the game

is far too complex for this. I prefer the comprehensive approach: Learn as much

about the race, the track, the entrants and the connections as possible, and use this

information to form your opinions.

Brian Blackwell: Mostly I agree, though I do feel that systems and offbeat angles

can be a useful approach from a methodical point of view, even if only to add system

and angles selections to your exotic bets. Many times, you can swot up the form for

hours and hours and miss the winner, while a sensible system can nab the winner in a

tick.

But, yes, Barry’s right in suggesting that this is a complex game. It requires enormous

attention to detail and much instinctive judgement, and it’s this latter aspect of things

that a lot of punters never master. Some guys are brilliant at it. It’s like sport, some

people have an instinctive skill, or genius, while others don’t and these latter people

end up running or playing for fun, while the instinctive ones win gold medals.

BM: There are two major areas that handicappers must consider: The historical

record for each horse and the circumstances of today’s race.

Broadly, handicapping falls into several categories:

ABILITY OF EACH HORSE

Can generally be measured and includes such factors as speed figures or pace ratings

or power ratings, earnings, class levels faced successfully, etc.

FORM OF EACH HORSE

Can usually, but not always, be analysed and includes such factors as recent finishes,

recent speed numbers, layoff patterns, workouts, body language on race day, etc.

CONNECTIONS

Can usually be analysed and includes trainer, jockey and owners, percentages overall

and in recent months, trainer specialties, hot/cold stables, etc.

POTENTIAL

This is mostly guesswork because it must be estimated, taking in breeding, sales

prices, significant trainer switches, distance switches, blinkers on, etc.

RACE SETUP

This also is often guesswork and includes the probable pace scenario, the influence

of post position, an analysis of jockey styles, questions about horses whose style is

unclear, etc.

BB: This just goes to show that there isn’t a great deal of difference in form analysis

anywhere in the world. Here in Australia we more or less follow the same guidelines

as Barry has outlined.

I’ve never been a keen speed-ratings man but I know this

is an area which serious punters are starting to examine in

greater detail. I’m afraid the prospect terrifies me of trying

to co-relate race times from all our various tracks, with

their different shapes, different home straights, and their

general quirks.

How can we compare a time at, say, Ballarat with a time

recorded at Moonee Valley. Both are very different tracks.

And then there’s the pace problem . . . slow races, fast

races early, and all that. It’s a puzzle to me but I know that

very good judges like our own E.J. Minnis, and Dennis

Walker from The Rating Bureau, have really come to grips

with the problem.

BM: Even under the general categories, guesswork is often a factor. Did the horse run

poorly last start because of a track bias, or is he tailing off?

If a horse turned in a big win five weeks ago and is entered for the first time since,

what kind of form is he really in? Was that fast workout an indication of something

good, was it misrecorded?

Because horse-racing handi capping has so many pieces of information to be

analysed, much of which is contradictory or uncertain, it has long posed an intellectual

challenge.

For many, it is a confounding yet wonderful hobby. Many players buy a formguide each

day, handicap, and rarely bet. Find a roulette player who does the same!

BB: I often tell non-racing people that horse-racing selection is an intellectual

challenge, and they look mystified. What’s intellectual about a horse race, they seem

to be thinking. But that’s what racing is, a giant, never-ending, absorbing, frightening,

frustrating challenge to the brain and the instinct.

Each race is a mystery. Each offers up its clues, often a myriad of them. The

handicapper, preparing to put his money on the result of his deliberations, has to sift

through these layers of clues, decide which to ignore, and which to embrace.

The sorts of questions that Barry mentions are just the tip of the iceberg. As punters,

we know we have to answer so many questions as we go through each horse’s

formlines. I guess each of us does it differently, and each of us has his or her own way

of chucking out contenders, and giving our vote to others.

Rarely will two punters agree on the top three contenders in a race; just check out any

tipsters’ poll and you’ll see the evidence there of how individual handicappers can be

poles apart in their deliberations and decisions.

BM: In this article, we’ll look at how you MIGHT approach the races. But there are

never any hard and fast rules, because context is everything. I’ve never met two

players with exactly the same approach.

Even among successful professionals there is a wide variety of ways to do this. You

may have your own particular approach, and this is not meant as a replacement for

what you are doing. If something’s working, stick with it.

Before beginning to sift through the runners, read the Race Conditions. By

understanding these, you can guess who belongs in the race. The rule is this: What is

each horse doing in this race?

Is he entered simply to get some work? Does today’s appearance have the look of a

prep, designed to help the horse get ready for something else down the road? A sharp

player will see if there is another spot where the horse might have been a better fit.

The reading of the conditions also includes checking the distance and the surface of

today’s race. Few horses are equally adept at all distances. Even a switch from 1200m

to 1300m can make a huge difference to some horses.

Track conditions are in the same category. Some horses handle hard turf but not soft.

BB: Barry’s hitting on some very basic truths about form analysis. It’s true that we

each have our ideas about how to do things. When I settle down with the formguide,

I usually follow a pattern. I have my list of "horses to follow" in my mind and my first

job is to see if any are engaged. If they are, I circle them in coloured biro (usually red).

Then I go looking for positive factors for each horse. I circle, in green, these factors .

. . like good trainer, good draw, good jockey, good percentages, winner at the track,

winner at the distance, suited on the going. By the time all these green circles have

been slotted in, I am starting to get a picture of each runner, and how strong it may be.

But now I start searching for the actual context of the race. Who is well placed, and

who isn’t. I look initially for "class" aspects. Which runners are down in class, how did

they go last start, how much weight turnaround is there?

After this, I am after good form last start, and then at the last two or three starts. I

check weights from last start to today. A horse may have carried 2kg under the Limit,

thanks to an apprentice allowance, last start in a Mares Class 6 and now she’s in a

Mares Class 3 and handicapped on 58kg on a 53kg Limit.

With no allowance, she’s going to carry 5kg over the

Limit, and effectively she is 7kg negative on that last-

start run in higher class.

The question to be answered is this: Can the mare

cope with the additional weight and win the weaker

race? I will now look for other clues. How has she

performed in similar class before, and how much

weight did she carry? Is she suited by current

conditions?

With this particular horse, say, there is a positive

formline in that she’s had three starts at the current

distance for two wins and a 2nd. That’s good. Against

this is the fact that she’s started at the track three

times and failed to run a place!

I go through all the runners to examine their latest

starts, and to assess the variations in weight. It’s

surprising how often you can spot a horse that gets in

well, and one that gets in tough.

Once all this work is done, the time arrives to make some judgements. I try to pin the

main chances down to five or six; sometimes it can be done easily, other times it’s

harder to separate the contenders. If this happens, I will skip the race or spend some

more time on the race with a view to sussing out a longshot.

BM: Take care not to look solely at the horse’s last race, or last couple of races. There

are many reasons why a horse doesn’t run to his ratings, including but not limited to

unsuitable distance, unsuitable track conditions, track biases, pace problems, trouble

in the running, wrong surface, different racetrack, class questions, and much more.

Some players use projected ratings, or pars, to help determine this. For instance, the

par for a $20,000 3YO filly claimer at UpsandDowns might be 103 under your figures.

If three horses have exceeded this number recently and nobody else has beaten a 98,

it’s not likely someone will jump up and surprise.

At this stage you’re not handicapping, but weighing and sifting and measuring and

calculating. You have no concern with pace or form or class. You’re simply getting a

feel for each horse’s ability.

Horses are far more likely to win when dropped in class than when raised in class.

There are several reasons for this: The easier pace of the lower class, the lower

final figures, the fact that a horse is often dropped after a dull effort and then simply

returns to his usual effort, the theory that a horse might not have been well meant in

the higher class, particularly after a layoff.

Class and speed are interrelated, in that the classiest horses go the fastest. However,

experienced players understand that a per formance against $25,000 claimers is

generally more meaningful than the same performance against $8000 class.

While horses do go in and out of class levels just as they go in and out of form, in

general the higher-class race presents a horse with many more potential rivals.

Maybe nobody in for $8000 can attain those numbers on their best days but half a

dozen horses might step up to do this in the higher-ranked group.

When you’re reviewing the class levels of each horse, you want to look at how

successfully the horse has competed at those levels, rather than simply whether he

put in an appearance but did nothing.

Sometimes it’s difficult to gauge class levels, and the more

such horses you have in the race, the more difficult will be

the handicapping.

What to do with a horse shipped in from New Zealand?

What about a second-time starter who debuted in a

straight maiden race, did nothing, and is now in a $40,000

race?

What about the horse once trained by Izzy Incompetent,

now switched to a 30 per cent strike-rate wizard who

steps him up three levels? While recent form of course is

important, any horse which has shown back class must be

monitored carefully because there is a chance he might

return to his previous ability.

BB: I’m always looking back for a clue to what might happen today. I am a great

believer in horses repeating something they’ve done well before. So course and

distance specialists play a big role in my form assessments. I tend to lean towards

them, especially if I’m faced with the task of splitting some contenders with not much

between them.

What Barry is stressing is the fact that no stone can be left unturned. You have to do

the leg work. You will get away with a winner or two with scant form analysis but in

the long term you will miss out time and again if you fail to play the game properly.

02 CHAPTER

IS THE TRAINER SO IMPORTANT?

The fundamentals of handicapping

IS THE TRAINER SOIMPORTANT?With Barry Meadows and Brian Blackwell

INTRODUCTION: In the second chapter, Barry and Brian go more deeply into aspects of

form and reveal the positive characteristics to look for. They also look at the influence of a

horse’s connections. How much faith can you place in certain trainers and jockeys?

Brian Blackwell: In the last part we touched on the topic of trainers. Are they so

important? Can they lead or mislead us? Personally, I take a great deal of notice of

trainers and I can often be swayed one way or the other by who is the trainer of a

horse.

Forced to choose sometimes between a horse from, say, the stable of a high-profile

trainer and one from a minor trainer, I will swing towards the well-known trainer. Not

always, but enough times to make this a significant factor for me when analysing a

race.

There are some trainers I have a really soft spot for. They are good, reliable trainers

when they have a horse in a race which has sound form patterns. Some of my

favourites are very good with first-uppers.

Barry Meadow: Whenever a good trainer moves a horse, either up or down (in

class), pay attention (the class movements of the 5 per cent trainers generally are of

little interest).

By placing a horse in a particular spot, those 20 per cent and up trainers are giving

you a message. A big drop indicates little confidence or the desire to get rid of the

horse (in American claiming races), while a step up indicates the opposite.

BB: We can get signals from jockeys, too, be it in

city or provincial and country races. Just recently, a

good lockey went to Bendigo for one ride, in the last

race of the day. It was a Maiden race, a lowly race,

and the horse he was riding had raced only once

before.

Now, why was the jockey, a top-flight rider who

on the previous Saturday had won the Cox Plate at

Moonee Valley, bothering to go to Bendigo for just

one ride? Obviously, the horse had a great chance,

and that’s how it turned out. The jockey brought the

horse home with a strong run down the outside to

win narrowly at around 3/1.

I guess this only goes to show that the punter has to

be actively searching for clues like this one. I confess

that I didn’t pick it up and I should have done.

Another lesson learned. Leave no stone unturned.

BM: A Jaguar that’s in the shop cannot outspeed a Volkswagen that’s on the road.

Thus the search for horses with good speed/ power/class numbers (ratings) must be

tempered by how they appear on form.

In his entertaining book The Odds Must Be Crazy, Len Ragozin, of The Sheets, said that

his handicapping turned around when instead of simply betting the horses with the

best numbers he began to look for horses who appeared to be rounding into condition.

Sharp, fit horses often outran their numbers, while classy animals whose form was

suspect often ran worse than projected.

Entire books have been written on this subject (Thoroughbred Cycles, How Will

Your Horse Run Today and Form Points come to mind) and there has evolved some

consensus on the characteristics of horses which can be considered to be in form.

Among the positives are these:

(a) The horse finished within five lengths of the winner last start, in his regular class.

(b) The horse ran at or near the front of the pack until at least the stretch, or the

horse passed several rivals in the run to the line.

(c) The horse has been working regularly with no gaps in the workout lines.

(d) The horse shows no gaps in its racing schedule; if he usually races every three

weeks he does not suddenly show a seven-week gap.

BB: Much the same applies in Australia, though the general points that Barry makes

differ a little. In the last decade or so, more and more emphasis has been applied to

recent form, and good efforts within the last 7, 14 and up to 21 days. Most punters get

wary when a horse is coming in after a month or more off.

We know, of course, that there are trainers who specialise in scoring with fresh horses.

Brian Mayfield -Smith springs to mind.

BM: To be considered to be in form, a horse should have accomplished at least one

of the points I have made.

Conversely, a horse who has done little but run around in the back of the pack, never

making a move, can generally be quickly tossed as a con tender without a massive

class drop; an exception would be the horse who got trapped behind a slow pace and

came home in his usual quick fraction.

Other indications of possible poor form include the addition of front bandages, a

class drop after a win or in-the-money finish, the switch of stables from a top trainer

to a lowly one, frequent breaks in both the training and racing patterns, a too-fat or

too-skinny appear ance on raceday, and a sudden lack of speed from a horse who

previously was known for quick starts.

BB: Poor form is often easy to spot but we have to be a touch careful. Plenty of

horses win who haven’t been in the money at their last start, or even their last two

or three starts. Then there’s poor form in a high-class race, but good form when the

horse is dropped back in class.

It gets back to the key point in form analysis: Nothing is what it may seem at first

glance. How many times do we see “duck egg” winners? Those horses with 000

before their names. Maybe they did finish 12th last start, 11th two runs back and 14th

three runs back . . . but what were the circum stances of those races, and how do they

tie-in with the current race?

Those zero figures in a horse’s form do need to be looked at; you can’t just ignore them.

BM: Many trainers prefer to work with only a couple of jockeys. In this way, the jocks

get to know the idiosyncrasies of the trainer’s horses, often work the horses in the

morning, and can be counted upon to ride them.

Others prefer to spread the work around,

getting the best jockey available. Knowing this

can enable you to figure out why a certain

jockey has been listed to ride a particular

horse.

The more you learn about each trainer, the

more you’ll understand why his horses are

placed in the spots they are, and how they are

likely to do in those spots. Some handicappers

go so far as to create a “winners’ notebook” by

pasting the past performances and results chart

of every trainer’s wins into a folder.

By studying the folder, handicappers might be able to uncover patterns that may be a

bit too subtle for the statistics types.

BB: We’re all in agreement here. I have always felt that not enough attention is paid

in the formguides to the individual stats of trainers. Sure, we see how many winners

and placegetters they have and where they stand on the premier ship ladder but that’s

about it.

We need to know which races they are best at winning, which tracks where they

specialise and so on. Racenet website has a very useful facility where you can find out

which jockeys and trainers have the best strike rates together.

All you do is type in the trainer’s name and the computer-generated system pops up

the trainer’s best strike rates with various jockeys.

I guess that if we want to analyse trainers in depth then we are going to have to do it

ourselves via a database of results that can be interrogated.

I know quite a few serious punters who have databases of results that can be asked

just about anything, but these things don’t come cheaply.

BM: On the subject of connections, the jockey can be crucial, both in a positive

and negative way. A number of my statistical studies have shown that when a high-

percentage jockey is added, not only does the horse’s win percentage go up but so too

does the ROI (return on investment), and vice-versa.

When a horse has little chance, some trainers will give the mount to a struggling jock

who might need the money, but when they have a live mount, they’ll try to find a

stellar jockey.

BB: Same here in Australia. I’ve never tested the theory but I suspect that if we go

back through the form of various horses we will find that they have gone better for

BETTER jockeys.

Just as an example, I looked up a well-known horse of recent years and noted that

in his last 20 starts he’d been ridden 13 times by jockeys I would class in the “B”

category.

In those 13 runs, there were two wins. In the other seven outings, when ridden by two

“A” rated jockeys, there were five wins and two 2nds!

BM: While it’s true that horses make the jockey, the jockeys who have proven they

can win get the pick of the mounts. The same jockeys dominate the standings year

after year. But you usually can’t make money on the leading jocks, because the crowd

pounds them.

Better to find an up-and-coming jockey, or a jockey from a lesser track who may have

plenty of ability but no following.

Sometimes we see that a leading jockey has ridden three or four of the horses in a

race last time out. Why is he picking this one today? Sometimes the answer is more

subtle than “He had the choice so he might like this one best”.

Jockey styles also come into play. Some jockeys are send types, firing out of the gate

and daring anyone to go with them. Others are position types who prefer to wait and

see what develops.

BB: It’s a fact that in Australia the rides of many of

our leading jockeys are overbet, and yet they can still

pop up on longshots.

Noel Callow was an example. The public loved him,

especially at midweek meetings, yet he was able to

win on 66/1 chance Tumeric a few years ago.

In Sydney, Corey Brown and Darren Beadman tended

to be overbet, while at the time a jockey like Glen

Boss was not. Any rider on a hot streak also tends to

get the public riding his bandwagon.

It is fatal, financially, to try to back a jockey’s every ride because no matter how good

they are they are all prone to bad runs. It’s easy for 20 or more losers to be accrued,

and when that happens the jockey-lover punters are in desperate straits. Nevertheless,

a punter has to seriously consider the jockey factor, each and every time.

BM: Like other athletes, jockeys go through slumps. Sometimes it has to do with a

change in agents, or the arrival of bigger-name jocks for carnivals, or the jockey’s

fitness, or troubles at home, or simply his confidence. Again, we’re less interested in

the why of something than in NOTING it. If a jockey is 0 from 17 rides at the current

meeting (carnival in Australia) with no 2nds, avoid him.

The owner is the final part of the

connections triangle. While most

owners are simply businessmen who

write cheques and have little to do

with the success or failure of any

particular horse, some owners are

much more involved.

Some trainers do their best work with

a single owner, which could indicate

that the owner might be suggesting to

the trainer where to place the horse.

In general, though, owners are less

important than jockeys, who in turn

are less important than trainers. In any event, great connections cannot make slow

horses run fast.

BB: A horse’s potential, and how to spot it, is one of the great conundrums of the turf.

How many of us wish we’d been able to spot the potential of various great horses? Or

even just good horses.

Then we have to assess the improvement factor regarding each horse. Faced with the

formlines we can easily determine the value of past runs, and we can usually work out

a class level, but what then?

How do we determine if a last-start winner has any improvement in him and if so will

it be enough to cope with a rise in class or an increase in weight?

We are asked to decide the level of improvement for a horse and that’s not an easy

task.

Personally, I am loath to concede more than a couple of lengths’ improvement in a

horse from one race to the next. Beyond that I believe it’s getting into really unknown

territory.

Some horses can make remarkable strides within the space of a few runs but most

cannot. The majority will reach a certain level, the level of their ability, and be unable

to progress. Others, better horses, can keep improving.

BM: Here’s where the great guessing game takes place. Just as two baseball scouts

may disagree on the potential of a high-school pitcher, and both may be wrong,

handicappers can differ as to potential.

Horses’ careers are short, and they sometimes make huge leaps, or regressions, from

one race to the next.

You don’t make much simply by assuming a horse will run what he ran last time. You

make it by PROJECTING IMPROVEMENT.

This is why potential is so important. It consists of two elements: The intrinsic

CLASS of the horse, and his POSSIBILITY OF IMPROVEMENT DUE TO CHANGING

CIRCUMSTANCES.

03 CHAPTER

CLASS, IMPROVEMENT AND THE BIAS BLUES

The fundamentals of handicapping

CLASS, IMPROVEMENT AND THE BIAS BLUES

With Barry Meadows and Brian Blackwell

INTRODUCTION: In the third chapter, Barry and Brian will discuss various aspects of the

task of picking winners. The topics range over most aspects of handicapping. The previous

part in the series ended with Barry talking about "class" and the possibility of improvement

in a horse due to changing circumstances.

Barry Meadow: The intrinsic class I talk about comes from breeding; for example,

the mating of Unbridled with Toussaud, both champions, yielded Belmont Stakes winner

Empire Maker. It’s more likely that a sire with a $100,000 fee will be the daddy of

somebody great, compared with a sire who stands for $1000.

Become familiar with the leading sires and broodmare sires, or at least check the

pedigree ratings you can find (note: in Australia, check out the Australian Bloodhorse

Review at www.bloodhorsereview.com.au). One clue as to the intrinsic class of a

horse is its sale price, either as a yearling or as a 2yo. While you can’t be certain that

a $500,000 yearling will outperform a $5000 one, it’s a reasonable guess that it will.

These individuals either are out of top-ranked sires and mares, or look terrific in farm

videos and in the sales ring.

Brian Blackwell: I have to admit I’ve never been a breeding buff, though I do spend

a lot of time looking into bloodlines when it comes to finding winners on rain-affected

tracks. Some sires manage to produce terrific wet-weather gallopers but others cannot

do it.

Phil Purser’s Just Racing website (www.justracing.com.au) has a full list of sires with

their wet-weather rankings. I often refer to it, especially with new horses in Maiden

races on country and provincial tracks affected by rain.

BM: The possibility of improve ment due to changing circum stances is the key source

to profits in this game.

There are a number of areas to consider.

• Is the trainer new (could mean a wakeup)?

• Is the horse switching from a sprint to a longer race, perhaps what he

wanted all along?

• Is he adding or shedding blinkers? Is he trying a new surface for the

first time?

• Has he just been gelded?

• Is he switching tracks?

• Is he coming off a long break, possibly as an improved horse?

• Is a top jockey replacing a moderate one?

When considering the possibility of improvement, you’re always guessing, no matter

what the breeding, running style, trainer record, or anything else.

A horse can be bred to run all day and yet collapses at anything over 1200m. The more

you rely on this guess factor, the more price you should demand. It’s foolish to take 6/5

on a horse who just won a 1200m race and is now entered at 1800m. With a greater

margin for error, longshot players can take more chances.

BB: Everyone who looks at the form should be asking themselves a few basic

questions:

• Why is this horse in this race?

• Can it improve on its last start?

• If it’s going up in distance, can it handle the new trip?

You must be constantly making up your mind about something and, in the process, what

you’re really doing is trying to rationalise the formlines. What do they really mean in the

context of the current race?

BM: Horses are not numbers. They race each other, not the clock.

When we handicap, we assume there will be no trouble, which is not usually the case.

We plot the race by considering several factors:

• The horse’s presumed running style (which may or may not be the

way he runs today).

• Each horse’s recent figures (particularly pace).

• Post positions (which may help or hinder each horse).

• Jockey styles.

The more a horse is a prisoner of his style (he has only one way to go and everybody

knows it), the easier it will be to plot his probable performance, and the likely results.

BB: I think running style has to be combined with the track profile, too. In Australia, our

tracks come in all shapes and sizes, and some suit front-runners, or on-pace runners,

while others provide some comfort for those horses without early speed who get well

back and then rely on securing a clear run to finish off and score.

When I do the form I try to imagine how a race might pan out, but it’s amazing how many

times this sort of thinking is turned on its head when the race starts! But it’s something

we need to try to fix on as punters. Who will lead, who’s going to get a nice run, and so

on.

A member of the PPD Club, my daily tipping service, criticised me recently for selecting

horses drawn out wide. I tend to do this because, as I explained to him, if we want a

level-stakes profit over 12 months then risks need to be taken. I’ve won many races

backing horses drawn wide, and I’ve lost plenty on horses drawn close to the rails,

mostly because they wound up snookered on the rails with nowhere to go in the straight

when it mattered the most!

BM: Yes, a track profile, an examination of where the winners come from at all distances

and surfaces for a particular track, is a useful handicapping tool.

At certain tracks at some distances, you’d better be near the front early to have much

of a chance. At some, the inside gates have a huge advantage, while at others you want

your horse on the outside.

By having an up-to-date track profile for each distance for each surface, you can see

which horses might be favoured, or disfavoured, by the probable pace. This is also where

today’s track bias, if any, can be factored in. How is the track playing? Find out.

BB: In Australia, we are gradually getting into the speed ratings side of things, and

taking more notice of sectional times in a race. The Sportsman runs all the Sydney and

Brisbane metropolitan sectionals and these are very useful for those punters who like

to dissect the clock. So far as barriers are concerned for each track, take a look at the

Racenet website (www.racenet.com.au) for these details.

BM: Everyone is looking for the obvious, the lone speedster, the lone closer, in a race

with four early-speed types, and so on. Generally, you’ll get prices on what is NOT

obvious. For instance, a horse might prefer the lead but for various reasons he was not

able to secure that position in his past four races. Today he draws inside in a middle-

distance race without much speed on either side. This might be the time he can show

what he can do.

If you don’t have much of a clue about how the race might be set up, you probably are

better off looking for other races to bet.

BB: This is the big test for all punters, when to bet and when to stay out.

I tend to wait for my instinct to come into play. I will type out a preview and try to build

up a profile for a horse and then I tend to get a buzz when I read it, or I get some nagging

flutters. When the flutters come, I know that I am not really happy about the horse. I then

go back and look at the form of all the other contenders again.

For me, it’s a matter of satisfaction, and a keen sense that the horse I’ve chosen has a

lot of positive factors in its favour. And the more I see that everyone else has missed the

horse the better I feel.

04 CHAPTER

STAKING – THE HEART OF THE GAME

The fundamentals of handicapping

STAKING – THE HEART OF THE GAME

With Barry Meadows and Brian Blackwell

INTRODUCTION: In the fourth chapter, more handicapping discussion from Barry and Brian,

with the emphasis on the betting side of things. What are your long-term prospects? How best

to invest the dollar?

Brian (BB): Practical Punting has spent around 30 years talking about money

management and how to bet, and I think the one moot point that’s emerged is that the

best of handicappers end up losing because while they can get their head around the

form they can’t achieve the same success with the way they bet.

Personally, I’ve seen a few very serious punters knocked out of the game because they

could pick winners but they couldn’t back them well enough to make things pay off.

Barry (BM): This leads to the larger question of why we go to the races. What are our

goals? To have a good time with friends, have a couple of drinks, and gamble a little? To

try to stay in action for every race? To try to make long-term lifetime profits?

If you go to the track as a hobby, then money management is not that important. You win

some, you lose some, and ultimately you pay an entertainment cost.

You expect to spend money if you play golf or attend the theatre, so why shouldn’t you

spend money at the races?

You’ll lose $50 on average and throw in other expenses and you’ve spent maybe $70

for an afternoon’s excitement, which is just about the going rate for other forms of

entertainment.

BB: That’s right, and there is one advantage with going racing and it’s that you really do

have a chance of paying nothing if you’re clever enough to find winners and back them

well. No other form of entertainment gives you the chance to emerge without it having

cost a cent and maybe with money IN your pocket.

BM: Most of us are looking to make some money with our betting but success in the

long term is much different from measuring it in the short term.

If you are going to have a chance at making long-term profits, you’ll need to be

selective, and that includes not making betting decisions until you’ve got all the available

information.

While you may think you’ve got three prime bets and three action plays on tap, your

wagering schedule should never be cast in bronze. Maybe your plays will change. If I

have six bets originally planned for the day, the chances are just about nil that I’ll play

them exactly as I envisioned in the morning.

There’ll be late scratchings and possibly a track bias to deal with. More importantly, until

I see the odds I have no idea whether I’ll be betting a certain horse.

Some time ago, I narrowed a race to Horse A, which I really liked, with B and C as far-

behind but not impossible contenders. I was planning a huge bet on A.

However, apparently everybody at Santa Anita had the same idea and my wonderful

selection was pounded to oblivion. Strangely enough, both B and C were let go at decent

prices. I bet them both, and B won.

BB: I have to say I encounter this situation a great deal. I might tip a horse priced

at 6/1 in the morning market but by racetime it’s 7/4! That’s when I seriously start

reconsidering, though, let’s face it, the very fact that it’s short indicates it has a very

strong winning chance! So sometimes it can be a real pain deciding whether to discard

the horse that was “value” at 9am but no value at 3pm.

BM: Generally, if my top pick gets hammered I wind up passing the race altogether but

every so often some other runner offers good value.

Until you see the odds you never know whether your prime bets are worth playing,

whether any horses you didn’t originally plan to bet suddenly seem like bargains.

BB: How would you recommend a punter use a bank of $250 for the day?

BM: As a general rule, you might bet four times the amount of money on your best bets

as you do on your action plays, and perhaps bet twice the amount to win as you would

in the exactas and the other exotics.

In this way, you will be emphasising your best bets but you still have a chance to win

something if an action bet hits. So the $250 for three best bets and three action plays

could be allocated as follows: Prime bets: $60 per race, with $40 to win and $20 in

exotics; action bets: $15 per race, with $10 to win and $5 in exotics.

That takes care of $225 with a few dollars left over.

BB: The player using this approach will need, of course, to observe all the usual rules

about value and so on, as we’ve just talked about. I recall, Barry, that you once wrote

about overbet versus overlooked in this regard?

BM: Yes, whenever we handicap we need to look not just for the winner, or even for

just the contenders.

Instead, we should be aware of which horses might fit into two categories:

• One is an overbet horse that looks obvious to the crowd but we don’t like

him for some reason.

• The other is the overlooked horse which has a legitimate chance but might

be overlooked by the crowd.

The ideal race to play is one in which BOTH these horses are part of the mix. Generally,

the overbet horse will be the favourite while the overlooked horse will be the second

choice or higher. This is not always the case, though.

Sometimes the favourite will be overlooked or should have been bet more than he has

been and maybe a horse who should be 6/1 is hammered to 3/1. Sometimes we will

make bets on an overlooked horse, even though no runner is especially overbet.

Other times, a horse may be overbet but nothing seems to offer much value anyway.

If we really believe there’s an overlooked runner in every race we’re seriously mistaken

about the nature of pari-mutuel (tote) betting because every long-term statistic shows

that the public is quite good at estimating odds.

But the public is not correct all the time. It’s just that the favourite loses most races,

which is more about the nature of how races are put together than it is about the public’s

errors.

The money to be made in this game comes from when there’s a discrepancy between

the way we see a race and how the public sees it.

They’ve overbet a horse while we think they have overlooked a horse. We don’t have to

be right all the time but if we are right often enough, we can win.

BB: I guess this is the nub of the whole betting game.

We know we are going to be wrong more times than we’re right, so we have to secure

the odds on our winners to compensate for this. If we don’t, we are history.

Which brings me to the next theme to discuss and this is about staking itself, the act of

betting.

How do we bet?

Do we put the same amount of money on each selection, in other words, level stakes,

or do we bet to a percentage, or use a progression method, or go for a target betting

plan?

The arguments about staking plans have been going on since racing started and I

suppose they’ll be raging long after Barry and myself are betting in the great betting

room in the sky, so we know the issue is a vital one for anyone interested in making

money.

I tend to vary my approach but on the whole I bet a small percentage of my bank and try

to keep it stable, though I will splash out whenever I think I have a real value bet.

05 CHAPTER

NEVER RISK MORE THAN 5% OF YOUR CAPITAL

The fundamentals of handicapping

NEVER RISK MORE THAN5% OF YOUR CAPITAL

With Barry Meadows and Brian Blackwell

INTRODUCTION: Next in chapter 5, more views from Barry Meadow and Brian Blackwell

about staking and making racing pay.

Brian (BB): In the last part we began to look at the whole spectrum of staking,

money management, that sort of thing. An essential aspect of the entire racing game,

and one that many punters never really master. A bit like real life on the domestic front

for many people; they can earn the money but can’t invest it wisely. In horse-racing,

the equivalent is that you can pick the winners, but can you back them?

Barry (BM): Proper money management, a wise guy once explained, is betting the

maximum on your winners and the minimum on your losers.

It is possible to be the best handicapper in the universe and still lose money if you don’t

handle your cash correctly.

The example is the man who hits 99 per cent winners but unfortunately bets 100 per

cent of his capital on every play. As soon as he misses, he’s broke.

I think four items of advice summarise the matter:

(1) Keep records of all bets and expenses.

(2) Do not overbet in relation to your bankroll.

(3) Bet more when the value is greater.

(4) Bet within your emotional threshold.

BB: Perhaps an important point following on from these issues is the problem of losing

runs. No matter how long a person has been a punter, I think we all get surprised by

how long a losing run can last. Sometimes it seems they will never end.

BM: Even when you play the game with an advantage (and a pro bettor may

realistically expect to win 8 to 10 per cent on each invested dollar), your losing streaks

will astonish you.

Playing five races a day, five times a week, it’s no big deal to lose for months at a time.

Anyone who tells you different is lying.

Let’s say a place betting method hits 49 per cent winners at a $4.20 average mutual

($2 units) for a 2.9 per cent return on investment.

The standard deviation for 100 races is 5 (calculated by taking the square root of 100

x .49 x .51). Your totals will fall within one standard deviation 68 per cent of the time

(44-54 wins), within two 95 per cent of the time (39-59 wins), and within three nearly

100 per cent of the time (34-64).

For a 10,000-race series, your expected profit for $2 bets is $580. But your standard

deviation is 50 wins. That means that instead of hitting the expected 4900 wins out of

10,000 bets, three standard deviations could place you as low as 4750, which would

turn you into a net loser.

Punters should consider this profound and horrifying truth: You can be a winning player,

with an edge on every wager, and bet on 10,000 races only to wind up behind.

BB: Now, Barry, many punters cannot comprehend 10,000 bets. I’ve spoken to many

of them about this and they tend to scoff at the stories of the line of ruin and so on

because they don’t believe in examining 10,000, 20,000 or whatever number of bets.

The bloke who has a couple of win bets a week will have only a 100 or so bets a year.

BM: Yes, but you need long, long workouts of betting results before you can develop

correct strategies. And the lower your win percentage, the longer workouts you need.

Take a trifecta result in which you play one $2 ticket on 120 trifectas and hit six at an

average mutual of $52. With a healthy 30 per cent profit margin, things look promising.

Moving along to a 500-race series, the standard deviation is 4.87 (the square root of

the total 500 x .05 x .95). That means while on average you’d hit 25 trifectas, hitting

only 10 out of 500 is within the three standard deviations range, and that would mean a

nearly 50 per cent loss.

BB: It IS a tough game, isn’t it, but people are beating it.

I feel I have a somewhat rudimentary approach in that I am very much an instinct

bettor, spur of the moment, rushes of blood, etc., though I do try to bet a small

percentage of my bank overall.

All in all, I think we can say that you can’t beat a race but you can beat the races!

That’s if you bet only overlays and those overlays are true overlays.

BM: Losers think of selecting the winner and beating a race. Professionals think of

betting for value and beating the races.

I think we should run over some of the more common betting falsehoods to put things

into perspective.

(1) Alter your bet size based on your last result.

(2) Bet your top pick but only at 2/1 or higher.

(3) Don’t bet for a place, except savers.

(4) Don’t bet two horses in the one race.

(5) Box your exactas.

(6) A real pro bets only one or two races a day.

(7) Don’t mess with trifectas.

(8) A clever staking plan turns flat-bet losses into profits.

All these beliefs are wrong.

BB: Yet a lot of punters will swear by them. Especially altering the size of bets after

the last result. This is put forward in many staking plans, isn’t it?

BM: It includes any plan to raise or lower your bet after a win, or a loss. Among this

group:

“Bet more when you’re winning because you are playing with the track’s money”, or

“Raise your bet after a loss because you’re due to win”, or

“Bet a constant percentage of your bankroll”.

Now, you never know whether your next bet, or series, is going to win or lose. Bet size

depends on your win percentage and advantage, not on whether you hammered the

double.

BB: I’m interested in what you have to say about betting the top pick but only at 2/1

or higher. I know a couple of chaps who have followed this approach and they seem to

have done okay.

BM: This fallacy fails to consider what chance you give your top pick in a particular

race. All top choices are not equal. Not long ago I reviewed some statistics for four

harness racing meetings and found that my first choice won 38 per cent of the time.

But while horses I made evens or below won 53 per cent of their starts, those I made

exactly 2/1 won only 28 per cent and it was from this group that most of the higher-

priced horses came.

BB: Many punters will take a saver bet, for win or

place. Are they doing the wrong thing in your opinion?

BM: There is no such thing as insurance. Every bet

either wins or loses on its own merit. If a horse offers

value to place, then play it, regardless of whether you

bet it to win.

As for not betting two horses in the one race . . . You

wouldn’t think of betting only one $2 bet in the trifecta

or exacta, so why restrict yourself on the win end?

You must, however, deduct the cost of the losing bet

from your determination about whether a race offers

value. If you do bet two in a race, stick with those

going off at 3/1 or higher.

Otherwise, if you back two horses at 2/1 for example, you stand to collect $6 for a $4

bet and if you ordinarily don’t take below evens for one horse, then don’t do it for two.

BB: I was very interested in your listing of the fallacy real pro fessionals only bet one

or two races a day. Those I know will bet many, many times in the course of a day,

depending on whether they reckon they have an edge. They see no sense in restricting

bets. I have to say, though, that I do know professionals who pick out one bet for the

day and plonk the lot on it and, win or lose, that’s it for the day.

BM: I don’t know any pro fessionals who bet every race, but most play whenever they

feel they have an edge, and that may be as often as six or seven times per card.

The edge might be a single exacta overlay on their second and third choices, or a place

bet, or a daily double with the first-race favourite. But while a pro may make one or two

prime bets a day, he rarely sits on his hands the rest of the time.

BB: Let’s talk about win betting, because this for most punters is the crux of the whole

game. Do we bet level stakes, do we chance our arm in another way, can we sex-up

the win betting and get away from level stakes?

BM: Don’t play a horse unless you’ve made it 6/1 or below on your personal odds

line. One reason for this is that as your odds assignments go UP, the chance of making

a mistake increases. For example, if you made a horse a 15/1 chance instead of 25/1

(a mere 2 point error out of 100 on the odds pie), you might bet 23/1 shots that are

underlays rather than overlays.

Secondly, once you get too far down the line and start betting fifth and sixth choices,

you may wind up putting too much of your capital on horses you don’t like very much.

BB: My personal view is that if you have a bank, you should never bet more than 5 per

cent of it at any one time. This is a mantra for those punters who like to stick to a rigid-

like staking approach. Others like a looser framework. This percentage of bank applies,

I suggest, no matter what approach you are using.

BM: The game is always about best odds. But unless a horse is at least 50 PER CENT

HIGHER than your personal odds assessment, don’t bet. Never play odds-on horses

unless you’ve made them 2/5 or less on your line and they go off at 4/5; such a play

might come up twice a meeting.

Assuming your odds line is accurate, the 50 per cent requirement theoretically ensures

at least a 22 per cent edge on every bet (a 4/5 shot going off at 6/5 yields 22.2 per

cent, while a 9/2 shot going off at 7/1 yields 45.5 per cent).

But as we sadly discover, underlays always outperform overlays, thus the 50 per cent

bonus demand. If your even-money overlays win just 42 per cent of the time at a payoff

of $5 (for $2 units), you’ll still maintain a 5 per cent edge, enough to succeed. And

sometimes your evens shots will pay $5.40 or $6.

Once you’ve eliminated a horse by lining him out, don’t bet him to win even if he winds

up an overlay. Example: You line a horse out but still make him 6/1 on your odds line

and he goes off at 9/1 . . . pass him. Restrict your bets to your contenders.

BB: We hear talk about what some call the free-lunch factor in overlay betting, Barry,

and I see you talk about it in your wonderful book Money Secrets At The Racetrack. Tell

us more about this.

BM: When you decide a horse is an overlay, you are pitting your judgement against

that of the public, and fans are not all oafs. If you rate a horse a 2/5 chance but the

public makes him 7/2, you have probably over-estimated the horse.

Your overlays will usually come from lesser mistakes, that the public has failed to

recognise a crucial negative trainer change, overrated a pacer’s recent suckalong fast

mile, or overlooked a greyhound’s three-week layoff, etc. These errors cause the prices

of the other entrants to drift upwards.

BB: Let’s switch tack now for a chat about another hot topic, and one that interests

me a lot because I fancy you and I will agree to disagree. I’m talking about lists of

horses to follow. I’m a great fan of them and, used with some discretion and good

sense, I think they can be highly valuable. But you are known to have put up a differing

view about them.

BM: If everybody else with a formguide, or a TV replay, can spot the reasons for a

Horses to Follow listing, why compile a list at all? Most listed horses are put in because

they’ve recently run fast races or they’ve had trouble.

The horse who’s run fast will wind up with a high rating and pay zero next time, and

trouble horses not only are bad news, they are a gambling catastrophe.

One of the revealing surveys in Michael Nunamaker’s book Modern Impact Values

centred on horses with trouble lines. Nunamaker recorded the results from betting

1384 horses whose last-start form said “BLOCKED”, or “BUMPED” or “CHECKED”, the

very horses likely to appear in Horses to Follow lists.

Betting them all next time out, you would have lost in excess of 35 per cent of your

money. Troubled runners equal trouble for your wallet because players tend to overbet

these horses at their next start.

BB: I guess my point is that we don’t blindly bet the horses to follow listings next

start but we do use them as a starting point, and examine their prospects in detail. I

know from experience that much depends on the astuteness or stupidity of the horse’s

connections.

I’ve often seen a horse run a slashing race in a Class 1 and I’ve put him on my list, but

the very next start his stable has entered him in a Class 6, or some higher-class race,

in which he basically has no chance.

This is where we need to examine all the listings we make and not just fall into them

next start.

BM: A real problem is that if you’ve spotted a horse striking trouble then just about

everyone else will, too. I watch video tapes every night, and occasionally I’ll see a horse

who was in 8th and was making a tiny move when he got blocked. My own private

future goldmine? Sorry, his name soon appears everywhere.

As a handicapper, you are never Magellan. You will probably never make a discovery

that hasn’t been noted and evaluated by your competitors.

06 CHAPTER

THE ELUSIVE HUNT FOR VALUE BETTING

The fundamentals of handicapping

THE ELUSIVE HUNTFOR VALUE BETTING

With Barry Meadows and Brian Blackwell

INTRODUCTION: In the sixth Chapter more views and advice from Barry and Brian as they

continue their discussions on the fundamentals of handicapping and betting. We’ll take a look

at Barry’s special value betting charts and see what he has to say about trifecta betting.

BB: We ended the last part’s chat with you mentioning that handi cappers, the rank

and file punters, will probably never make a discovery that hasn’t been noted and

evaluated by one’s competitors. What about the staking aspect of things? Trifectas for

example?

BM: While picking 1-2-3 order of finish isn’t easy, the hard part is that you must bet

without knowing whether you’re getting value. Unlike exactas and quinellas, when you

play trifectas you usually have no idea what the numbers you fancy will pay.

You don’t know whether you’re betting an overlay or an underlay. Is the 2-4-7

combination returning $68 or $680? All you know is you’re booking a high takeout on

a blind bet.

That makes the trifecta a much less desirable play than the exacta and quinella.

Nonetheless, trifectas do offer the one edge that is characteristic of all exotic wagers –

the throwaway factor. Thank you, numerology and astrology players!

Others spread bets wildly, buying so many tickets that they lose money even when

they hit the winning combination. These “donations” mean free money for sharp

bettors.

BB: I think the choice of race on which to bet is all-important, though I see punters

betting the trifectas on every race with little thought given to whether it offers them

any value. Personally, I prefer to attack the races with big fields. They’re tough but they

do offer the chance of windfall returns.

BM: You have to decide whether the race interests you. If you don’t like the race well

enough to make your own betting line on it, forget the trifecta. This helps avoid such

desperado strategies as boxing a bunch and hoping something of a longshot comes in.

Trifecta costs can escalate rapidly. Wheel (banker) one horse in a nine-horse field and

a $2 trifecta costs $112 ($56 for $1 units), which is more than it might pay. While

it’s true that occasionally a trifecta comes back in five figures, usually the number is

considerably less.

If your entire betting stake is, say, $500, don’t bother with the trifectas at all. It will

require too high a percentage of your bankroll to play properly.

BB: I should say at this point, Barry, that in some parts of Australia punters have

flexi betting available, which means they can bet as much as they like on a trifecta

combination, and if it wins they receive a percentage of the dividend. For example,

they might back a combination that calls for $100 (using $1 units) but they only want

to bet $40. So in the event of a win they would receive 40 per cent of the dividend.

BM: Looking over a large number of trifecta results, one notes the influence of the $1

box bet on the size of the payoffs. When the favourites finish 1-2-3 in any order, the

return is minuscule. You’re better off taking a shot at the exacta.

The two most common strategies, boxing and wheeling (banker selection), are

dismal failures. Boxing, taking your top 3, 4 or 5 horses and betting them all in all

combinations, generally yields underlaid payoffs even if the favourite finishes 3rd.

BB: It’s all about strategy, I suppose, and one man’s meat is another man’s poison. I

would say that the majority of punters can’t be bothered trying to assess a formline.

It’s long been a condition with punters. But I take your point that if a person is serious

about betting on trifectas, then he or she should be prepared to spend some quality

time carefully assessing and pricing the main chances.

BM: A good strategy for the trifecta, as it is with the exacta, is to key your top horse

for first (and sometimes with the second pick) with the legitimate contenders, not

merely throw the horse in with every other runner and pray. To catch big payoffs, use a

strange one in third slot, since even living filth may stagger in 3rd with the right trip.

If you have a strong opinion, you love No. 5, think that at least one of No. 1, 2 or 3

must finish in the money, and feel Nos. 8 and 9 are so horrible they couldn’t get into

the picture even with fudging in the photo lab, you can bet fewer combinations in

larger amounts:

5-1-2, 5-1-3, 5-2-1, 5-2-3, 5-3-1, 5-3-2, 5-1-23467, 5-2-13467, 5-3-12467,

5-23467-1, 5-13467-2, 5-12467-3.

For $36 (using $1 units), you’ll win at least once if you’re right, and twice if two of

your horses finish in the money.

This all comes down to the basic philosophy of the trifecta. That is, are you playing

merely to get it, or to make a big score? If you’re looking to crush, bet more money on

fewer combinations. If you typically bet three exacta combinations, you shouldn’t bet

more than 15 trifecta combinations.

BB: I’m a great believer in the banker, Barry. I like to attack the large-field races and

a favourite bet is to pick out my win banker and link it with 6 or 7 to run 2nd and 3rd.

That puts me up for $42 if I take 7 with my banker. I’ll only bet though when my No. 1

choice is at very good odds, more than 6/1, and the longer the better. I’ll also tailor my

outlay on each runner if needs be according to the odds I’ve assessed on them.

I’ll bet only a couple of times a week on the trifecta, so there is no great drama

involved in working out individual unit assessments. But I make sure I wait for the

right races. I have to think that I can make a lot of money should I be right.

BM: Without a key horse or horses, don’t play the trifecta. That’s my advice. You’ve

got to focus.

BB: Our talk about win betting from last week is probably worth taking a step further,

Barry. The 50 per cent overlay aspect is a concept many might find hard to grasp or

believe in.

BM: Well, as I’ve said, assuming your odds line is accurate, the 50 per cent

requirement theoretically ensures at least a 22 per cent edge on every bet. (See the

win overlay chart below.)

Win Overlays

Your Line Odds Required2-5 or below 4-51-2 or 3-5 1-14-5 6-51-1 3-26-5 9-57-5 or 3-2 2-18-5 or 9-5 5-22-1 3-15-2 7-23-1 9-27-2 5-14-1 6-19-2 or 5-1 7-16-1 9-17-1 or above exactas only

BB: Yes, we can see from that chart that if you price a horse at evens, then you

should be asking for at least 6/4 about it (3/2 in the chart). If your price is 5/2, then

you should be looking at securing 7/2 or better. If your assessment is 4/1 on your top

choice, then you need to get at least 6/1. These figures seem quite reasonable to me.

As you have stated, Barry, the 50 per cent requirement is based on the odds line being

accurate, or as accurate as it can be.

BM: The Win Bet Chart sets out clearly how much you need to invest following my

approach. As you’ll see from the chart, if you have a selection assessed as a 3/2

chance (6/4) and you can secure 3/1, then the bet called for is $29. If you could get

this horse at 4/1, then the bet would be $33.

If you make a horse 6/5 and the crowd has him at 9/5, you would bet $35. If they send

him away at 2/1, raise your bet to $40. If an overlay is not listed on the chart (e.g. your

3/5 shot goes off at 8/5, play the highest number, in this case $80.

WIN BET CHART (capital = $2000) 4/5 1 6/5 7/5 3/2 8/5 9/5 2 5/2 3 7/2 4 9/2 5 6 7 8 9 101/5 1252/5 100 1/2 60 63 65 3/5 60 66 71 80 4/5 50 57 68 75 1 40 50 55 60 6/5 35 40 7/5 30 32 33 34 3/2 26 27 29 31 33 8/5 24 26 28 30 31 9/5 21 23 25 27 28 29 2 20 22 25 26 28 5/2 17 20 22 24 3 13 16 16 17 7/2 12 13 14 15 4 10 11 12 13 149/2 8 10 11 125 5 7 8 106 6 8

The figures on the Win Bet Chart assume that the race is “average” (rated, say, B on

an ABC scale of interest in a race). If you rate a race as a C, bet less; if you rate the

race an A, bet more.

The numbers were derived by assuming that instead of your odds line being accurate,

it is only accurate to the point where you will earn a 6 per cent edge on minimum

overlays, 8 per cent on overlays of one extra column, 10 per cent on overlays of two

extra columns, and 12 per cent on overlays of three extra columns, and then using half

the Kelly recommendation, rather than the full Kelly, for security. Thus, if it’s in error, it

errs on the side of safety.

Note that the largest bets are those with the greatest chance of winning. That is, the

horses listed at even-money and below. Although your bets also increase as the edge

becomes larger, the key is the frequency of wins, not the size of the advantage.

The small bets in the chart (e.g. $6 to win on a horse you rate 6/12 who goes off at

9/1) won’t bring you a million dollars in a week. However, their conservatism makes

it unlikely that you will go bust. And, assuming your handicapping improves with

experience, your capital will grow larger which will enable you to increase your bets.

BB: I notice in your excellent book Money Secrets At The Racetrack that you get into

the area of two-horse overlays. How does the average punter work this approach?

BM: At times, two contenders will be listed at least 50 per cent above your odds line.

Recently, I checked the results of 12 meetings which yielded 420 races in which I had

two or more horses above the 50 per cent overlay mark (of which nearly all had only

two horses above the line). Playing both, or all, overlays would have resulted in net

profits for nine of these 12 meetings.

My conclusion: If two horses are overlaid, bet them both. When you bet more than one

horse in a race, you are guaranteed at least one losing bet, so you must subtract that

losing wager before considering whether the bet is still an overlay.

If one horse is 2/1 and another is 5/2, even if both are overlays, you’ll wind up with

less than even-money for your action. That’s why I insist on at least 3/1 for any horse

that’s part of a two-horse overlay.

Here’s how I see things with two-horse overlays:

YOUR LINE

3/2 or below 3/1

2/1, 4/1

3/1 or 7/2 6/1

9/2, 8/1

6/1

ODDS NEEDED

8/5 or 9/5, 7/2

5/2, 9/2

4/1, 7/1

/1, 9/1

10/1

If only one horse meets these more difficult overlay requirements, then bet that horse

only. For example: Let’s say a 6/5 shot on your line is listed at 2/1, and a 4/1 shot is

listed at 8/1. Skip the 2/1 horse and bet the 8/1 chance only.

BB: I know in these situations a lot of punters would want to Dutch the pair to collect

the same profit no matter which of them wins. What are your views on this?

BM: Dutching helps prevent long losing streaks, since generally when you bet

only one overlay you’ll be passing the one at low odds, which is more likely to win.

However, you are also laying out a lot more money to collect small profits with

Dutching, and often both overlays will lose.

BB: We’re coming to the end of this guide. I think it’s been a most useful discussion

with enough ideas in it to help punters trim up their thinking about betting, to make

them think twice about some of their bad habits and to instil in them some self-

discipline to successfully tackle their racetrack betting.

How would you sum up, Barry?

BM: Well, to win you must understand the game well enough to make an accurate

odds line for your contenders. Then you must follow a strategy. The key to winning is

to find the overlays and bet them correctly.

Underbet and your bankroll doesn’t grow as fat as it should. Overbet and you can

easily go bankrupt, even if you bet with an advantage. The bet charts we’ve illustrated

have been scaled on the conservative side but as you win you can increase your

stakes.

If you’ve never made an odds line before, it may take you some time initially. As with

any skill, the more you practise, the swifter you’ll get.

BB: Barry, thanks for taking part in this discussion. It’s been great to get the benefit of

your years of experience. Unlike a lot of experts, you are there at the rockface, you’re

betting every day, in big numbers, so you are not talking only from theory.

I’d recommend any punter to buy your best-selling book Money Secrets At The

Racetrack. It’s full of ideas. And it makes a lot of sense.

All the secrets you need to WIN!Free and instant access to thousands of betting articles, staking plans & winning strategies. All designed to help you win.