Secrets of Handicapping

Learn the fundamentals of handicapping from
two of the worlds leading experts.

Practical Punting Magazine editor Brian
Blackwell and US expert Barry Meadow share
their views on handicapping.
Meadows ideas come from his lifelong pursuit of
profit in US racing. Brian gives the Aussie angle.
The Secrets of
Handicapping
I
N
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
O
R
Y

G
U
I
D
E
PUBLISHED BY
Thanks for downloading!
Make sure you check out the ideas in this introductory guide. Keep
in mind, this is not a denitive 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 cant 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 worlds richest resource of betting
knowledge obtained from leading racing experts and betting
professionals.
Everything you need to know about punting practicalpunting.com.au
An Introductory Guide:
The Fundamentals of Handicapping

About the Authors

Brian is editor of Australias favourite racing
website and magazine, Practical Punting,
as well as being head tipster of the PPD
CLUB, the nations leading daily tipping site.
Brian Blackwell:
practicalpunting.com.au

Barry Meadow, has spent more than 40 years
in the gambling world. Barry, one of Americas
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 the
2005 documentary, Player: The Blue-Collar Gambler.
Quirky Facts: Barrys eclectic resume also includes serving in Vietnam, writing television
sitcoms, playing the professional tennis circuit in India, and doing standup comedy in
California.
Barry Meadow
Yep, an old photo . . .
a very funky cat.
trpublishing.com
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 GAME
With 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. Meadows ideas
come from his lifelong pursuit of prot 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.

Lets 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, Barrys right in suggesting that this is a complex game. It requires enormous
attention to detail and much instinctive judgement, and its this latter aspect of things
that a lot of punters never master. Some guys are brilliant at it. Its like sport, some
people have an instinctive skill, or genius, while others dont 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 todays 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 isnt 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.
Ive never been a keen speed-ratings man but I know this
is an area which serious punters are starting to examine in
greater detail. Im 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 theres the pace problem . . . slow races, fast
races early, and all that. Its 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. Whats intellectual about a horse race, they seem
to be thinking. But thats 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 horses
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 youll see the evidence there of how individual handicappers can be
poles apart in their deliberations and decisions.
BM: In this article, well look at how you MIGHT approach the races. But there are
never any hard and fast rules, because context is everything. Ive 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 somethings 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 todays 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
todays 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: Barrys hitting on some very basic truths about form analysis. Its 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 isnt. 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 shes in a
Mares Class 3 and handicapped on 58kg on a 53kg Limit.
With no allowance, shes 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 shes had three starts at the current
distance for two wins and a 2nd. Thats good. Against
this is the fact that shes 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. Its
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 its
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 horses last race, or last couple of races. There
are many reasons why a horse doesnt 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,
its not likely someone will jump up and surprise.
At this stage youre not handicapping, but weighing and sifting and measuring and
calculating. You have no concern with pace or form or class. Youre simply getting a
feel for each horses 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 youre 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 its 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: Im always looking back for a clue to what might happen today. I am a great
believer in horses repeating something theyve done well before. So course and
distance specialists play a big role in my form assessments. I tend to lean towards
them, especially if Im 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?
IS THE TRAINER SO
IMPORTANT?
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
horses 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 thats 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 didnt pick it up and I should have done.
Another lesson learned. Leave no stone unturned.
BM: A Jaguar thats in the shop cannot outspeed a Volkswagen thats 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 havent been in the money at their last start, or even their last two
or three starts. Then theres 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 horses form do need to be looked at; you cant 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 trainers 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 youll 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 trainers 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: Were 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 thats
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 trainers name and the computer-generated system pops up
the trainers 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 dont 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 horses 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, theyll try to find a
stellar jockey.
BB: Same here in Australia. Ive 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 hed 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 its 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 cant 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: Its 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 jockeys every ride because no matter how good
they are they are all prone to bad runs. Its 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 jockeys
fitness, or troubles at home, or simply his confidence. Again, were 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 horses potential, and how to spot it, is one of the great conundrums of the turf.
How many of us wish wed 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 thats 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 its 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: Heres 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 dont 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
CLASS, IMPROVEMENT
AND THE BIAS BLUES
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. Its 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 cant be certain that
a $500,000 yearling will outperform a $5000 one, its 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 Ive 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 Pursers 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, youre 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. Its 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 its 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
youre 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 horses presumed running style (which may or may not be the
way he runs today).
Each horses 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 its amazing how many
times this sort of thinking is turned on its head when the race starts! But its something
we need to try to fix on as punters. Who will lead, whos 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. Ive won many races
backing horses drawn wide, and Ive 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, youd 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
todays 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, youll 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 dont 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, its a matter of satisfaction, and a keen sense that the horse Ive 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
STAKING
THE HEART OF THE GAME
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 thats emerged is that the
best of handicappers end up losing because while they can get their head around the
form they cant achieve the same success with the way they bet.
Personally, Ive seen a few very serious punters knocked out of the game because they
could pick winners but they couldnt 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 shouldnt you
spend money at the races?
Youll lose $50 on average and throw in other expenses and youve spent maybe $70
for an afternoons excitement, which is just about the going rate for other forms of
entertainment.
BB: Thats right, and there is one advantage with going racing and its that you really do
have a chance of paying nothing if youre 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, youll need to be
selective, and that includes not making betting decisions until youve got all the available
information.
While you may think youve 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 Ill play
them exactly as I envisioned in the morning.
Therell be late scratchings and possibly a track bias to deal with. More importantly, until
I see the odds I have no idea whether Ill 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 its 7/4! Thats when I seriously start
reconsidering, though, lets face it, the very fact that its 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 didnt 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 weve 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 dont 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 theres an overlooked runner in every race were 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. Its just that the favourite loses most races,
which is more about the nature of how races are put together than it is about the publics
errors.
The money to be made in this game comes from when theres a discrepancy between
the way we see a race and how the public sees it.
Theyve overbet a horse while we think they have overlooked a horse. We dont 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 were right, so we have to secure
the odds on our winners to compensate for this. If we dont, 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 theyll 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
NEVER RISK MORE THAN
5% OF YOUR CAPITAL
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 cant 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 dont
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, hes 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, its no big deal to lose for months at a time.
Anyone who tells you different is lying.
Lets 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. Ive 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 dont 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 youd 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, isnt 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 cant beat a race but you can beat the races!
Thats 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) Dont bet for a place, except savers.
(4) Dont bet two horses in the one race.
(5) Box your exactas.
(6) A real pro bets only one or two races a day.
(7) Dont 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, isnt it?
BM: It includes any plan to raise or lower your bet after a win, or a loss. Among this
group:
Bet more when youre winning because you are playing with the tracks money, or
Raise your bet after a loss because youre 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: Im 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
wouldnt 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 dont take below evens for one horse, then dont 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, thats it for the day.
BM: I dont 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: Lets 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: Dont play a horse unless youve 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 dont 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, dont bet. Never play odds-on horses
unless youve 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), youll still maintain a 5 per cent edge, enough to succeed. And
sometimes your evens shots will pay $5.40 or $6.
Once youve eliminated a horse by lining him out, dont 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 pacers recent suckalong fast
mile, or overlooked a greyhounds three-week layoff, etc. These errors cause the prices
of the other entrants to drift upwards.
BB: Lets 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. Im talking about lists of
horses to follow. Im 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
theyve recently run fast races or theyve had trouble.
The horse whos 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 Nunamakers 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 dont 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 horses
connections.
Ive often seen a horse run a slashing race in a Class 1 and Ive 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 youve spotted a horse striking trouble then just about
everyone else will, too. I watch video tapes every night, and occasionally Ill 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 hasnt been noted and evaluated by your competitors.
06
CHAPTER
THE ELUSIVE HUNT
FOR VALUE BETTING
THE ELUSIVE HUNT
FOR VALUE BETTING
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. Well take a look
at Barrys special value betting charts and see what he has to say about trifecta betting.
BB: We ended the last parts chat with you mentioning that handi cappers, the rank
and file punters, will probably never make a discovery that hasnt been noted and
evaluated by ones competitors. What about the staking aspect of things? Trifectas for
example?
BM: While picking 1-2-3 order of finish isnt easy, the hard part is that you must bet
without knowing whether youre getting value. Unlike exactas and quinellas, when you
play trifectas you usually have no idea what the numbers you fancy will pay.
You dont know whether youre betting an overlay or an underlay. Is the 2-4-7
combination returning $68 or $680? All you know is youre 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. Theyre tough but they
do offer the chance of windfall returns.
BM: You have to decide whether the race interests you. If you dont 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
its true that occasionally a trifecta comes back in five figures, usually the number is
considerably less.
If your entire betting stake is, say, $500, dont 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. Youre 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: Its all about strategy, I suppose, and one mans meat is another mans poison. I
would say that the majority of punters cant be bothered trying to assess a formline.
Its 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 couldnt 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), youll win at least once if youre 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 youre looking to crush, bet more money on
fewer combinations. If you typically bet three exacta combinations, you shouldnt bet
more than 15 trifecta combinations.
BB: Im 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. Ill only bet though when my No. 1
choice is at very good odds, more than 6/1, and the longer the better. Ill also tailor my
outlay on each runner if needs be according to the odds Ive assessed on them.
Ill 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, dont play the trifecta. Thats my advice. Youve
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 Ive 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 Required
2-5 or below 4-5
1-2 or 3-5 1-1
4-5 6-5
1-1 3-2
6-5 9-5
7-5 or 3-2 2-1
8-5 or 9-5 5-2
2-1 3-1
5-2 7-2
3-1 9-2
7-2 5-1
4-1 6-1
9-2 or 5-1 7-1
6-1 9-1
7-1 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 youll 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 10
1/5 125
2/5 100
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 14
9/2 8 10 11 12
5 5 7 8 10
6 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 its 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) wont 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, youll wind up with
less than even-money for your action. Thats why I insist on at least 3/1 for any horse
thats part of a two-horse overlay.
Heres 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: Lets 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 youll 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: Were coming to the end of this guide. I think its 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 doesnt grow as fat as it should. Overbet and you can
easily go bankrupt, even if you bet with an advantage. The bet charts weve illustrated
have been scaled on the conservative side but as you win you can increase your
stakes.
If youve never made an odds line before, it may take you some time initially. As with
any skill, the more you practise, the swifter youll get.
BB: Barry, thanks for taking part in this discussion. Its been great to get the benefit of
your years of experience. Unlike a lot of experts, you are there at the rockface, youre
betting every day, in big numbers, so you are not talking only from theory.
Id recommend any punter to buy your best-selling book Money Secrets At The
Racetrack. Its full of ideas. And it makes a lot of sense.
* Barry Meadows website is www.trpublishing.com
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.

Secrets of Handicapping

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Secrets of Handicapping

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Learn the fundamentals of handicapping from

two of the worlds leading experts.

00 Fighting a complex game

Potrebbero piacerti anche