THE ART OF WINNER-FINDING

 Professional Punters  betting challenges

Getting bets on

OKAY, THE TITLE IS ALREADY SOMEWHAT MISLEADING! We have covered many of the aspects of actually identifying the sort of horse that is liable to make you money. This time I am addressing a persistent problem for the successful or semi-successful punter: that of actually placing bets.

Before launching in to the rights and wrongs of the uneasy game of financial chess played between bookmakers and punters, a thorough grounding in debate, or arguing if I am truthful, dictates I ought to present both sides of the argument.

Perhaps we can look at the punter’s case first. He contends that bookmakers invite bets by pricing up horses and if they are incorrect, it is his prerogative to revise his betting accordingly. Therefore, when the bookmaker offers 8/1 about a horse he priced the night before and the going has altered, or there is a noticeable change in draw bias, the punter bemoans the fact he cannot avail himself of the price. After all, his argument will meander, the price did not stipulate, ‘only available if nothing has occurred that is likely to alter the chance of said runner since this price was framed.’ Refusing bets on this animal is tantamount to saying 8/1 is only available providing the horse is not three lengths clear with a hundred yards to cover. The bookmaker that assessed its chance as being 8/1 realises he may have got it wrong and is restricting how much is available. Surely, such behaviour is scandalous!

Okay, let us look at this from the bookmaker’s perspective. He has priced up the race in good faith, assuming that the prices reflect a rough betting pattern on the event in question. So in the case of the 8/1 chance, he would expect approximately eleven percent of all punters betting on the event to back that particular runner. When it is quite plain that, for whatever reason, instead of eleven percent of punters wishing to back it, something like twenty-five percent of punters wish to be on [making it a 3/1 chance in real terms], one of two things has occurred. Either the bookmakers have made a massive collective mistake, or something beyond their control has manifested itself making demand for the 8/1 chance radically increase. Possibly the horse is a Pricewise selection or, as earlier illustrated, circumstances have altered.

Understandably, the bookmaker needs and wants to take evasive action. That means from his point of view two things must happen: he has to restrict the bets he takes on the horse and, at the earliest opportunity, the price must be altered to a more realistic one.

At the risk of stating the obvious, I will state it anyway as it seems to be overlooked by many a disgruntled punter. Bookmakers are not there to provide a service. They are in business to make money. They are not obliged to accommodate punters at all costs. In their defence, they do try to cater for regular smaller-stake clients, those they perceive as comprising their core business. But the first sort of customer to receive a knock-back is the one they do not really want – the one that plays for high stakes.

Allow me to deviate for just a paragraph here and cite the current situation facing banks. On the face of it, their reluctance to pass on the interest rate decrease appears shameful. But is it? Despite what would be protestations to the contrary, Government has engineered this change in interest rates. By reacting in a prescribed manner by the Bank of England, banks and building societies are running the risk of exacerbating present financial problems. Government is attempting to refloat the economy by stimulating borrowing. In part, that is how we find ourselves in our current situation. As commercial businesses, banks are unprepared to be Government-managed, making them reluctant to lend money at disadvantageous rates and to people or companies that are likely to be poor risks. I am afraid under the present crisis that means all of us have to be including in this category. (However, the passing of the borrowing rate to existing mortgage holders would be a reasonable compromise.) So a present stand-off exists between commercial companies of great strength and influence, and a Government whose policies are crumbling but that holds enormous power. The fact banks are resisting, demonstrates the strength of the free market. Money does not lie; not in world economy or on the racecourse. Unless we live in a police State, enterprise and a free market will always face up to the might of Government when it suspects it is in its interest to do so.

Know thy enemy! As punters, it is important for us to understand the way bookmakers operate, just as they know how we tick. In the example given, I can sympathise to an extent with the bookmaker’s plight.

Another popular complaint from punters is that they cannot get on. Half-hearted punters will tell you they are constantly knocked back. The inference is that they are too warm for the bookmakers to handle. The truth is that often they are taking the piss. Ask to back the second favourite each-way for serious money when the favourite is odds-on and the bookmaker will not want to know. Would you? It is a snide bet. No wonder this request is refused; such a punter is nothing short of a nuisance and is prejudicing his future chances. Try asking your local greengrocer if he will sell you 3 kilos of apples (or apples’s as greengrocers spell them), at cost, and he will soon tell you where to go. The principle is the same! Give a decent bookmaker a chance of winning from you and he will reciprocate by giving you a chance of winning from him. Ask the punter that tells you he is holding his own, breaking even, or beating his bookmaker one question: ‘Did your bookmaker send you a diary this year?’ If the answer is yes, the punter is a loser! Bookmakers do not send free diaries to customers that cost them money!

In some cases, heavy-hitters or very shrewd or well-informed punters cannot get on pure and simple. To put the bookmaker’s case, their bets can be so large they tip the scales of what is supposed to be a balanced book wildly out of kilter. No bookmaker wants a field book that contains ten £20 bets and one of £3,000. The clue is in the title. He is attempting to make a book and clearly cannot do that if it is top-heavy. What the £3,000 bettor is forcing the bookmaker to do is to gamble, and bookmakers are not in that business; after all that is supposed to be our province. To restore some equilibrium to the argument, bookmakers should know by now that no book is balanced. Most races only provide three or four runners that attract significant support. But there are occasions when all those for money get beaten, meaning the layer has the luxury of a clear book. It comes and goes. I do sympathise with punters known to be warm that open accounts with bookmakers. They phone to place a bet in the region of £800 (only part of their overall bet but a reasonable request for an individual firm) only to be told they can have £25. That is a disgrace! Bookmakers should refuse to either conduct business with select punters lock stock and barrel, or accept their wagers without too much question. The problem with the present system as far as hot punters are concerned is that, rather like the betting in-running players on the exchanges, they only get accommodated on potential losers. This means the bookmaker is dictating the extent of their business, which is bad news. The money belongs to the punter and if denied the chance to back horses identified as potential winners by the bookmaker, his chance of winning overall is greatly reduced. I have known many a big-hitter that has subsequently backed only short-priced horses, safe in the knowledge he will be accommodated. Now, they are in potential trouble. The reason they get on is that they are backing horses whose chances are there for all to see. They are firing into the Master Mindeds or Kauto Stars of this world. Bookmakers will soak up that sort of business all day. After all, the chance of such horses is common knowledge. Some win, some lose. Some whip round at the start, some unseat, some break legs. But not enough of them win to give the punter an advantage; and as I reiterate, without an edge, you will not win in the long run.

Being able to back what you wish to back is imperative for the professional punter. Depending on the individual concerned and the type of his business, to place his bets successfully, he has to be prepared to adjust his approach. Some very big players have a network of people who place bets for them. Bookmakers categorise punters’ business. Good customers, (that is to say habitual losers) are A Grade and their system slides down according to the win-to-lose ratio of the client. Placers of bets on behalf of others normally hold losing accounts, so bookmakers are reluctant to refuse their bets even if they know they are backing a warm horse. At first they will surmise such a bet could be a coincidence and will accept it on the assumption that even if it wins, they will get the money back. But the intelligence of bookmakers is sharp. Please note, by intelligence I am not necessarily talking about their IQ factor. No, I am referring to their ability to isolate what is happening, their MI5-type capacity if you like. Once they know you are placing bets for one of the big ten or twelve players in the business, you are tagged and reoccurrence of such business means refusal. As a result, the really big players are always on the lookout for new agents to handle part of their business, which, if mixed in with everyday stuff, has a chance of slipping under the wire.

Some of the bigger players open deposit accounts on behalf of ordinary people and run the business as if they were the individuals concerned. The bank details are all correct, cash is withdrawn and deposited at the behest of the punter and the real person, who is impersonated when the punter makes his phone calls, paid a commission. Some of the most successful and biggest players have to go to such lengths in order to place bets.

You may wonder what sort of punter is forced into taking such action. Firstly, there is the big hitter – the man betting in unquantifiable sums. His instructions can often be to ‘Get on as much as you can.’ No limit; no strings attached: £100,000, half-a-million, a million. He will accept whatever is returned. As you can imagine very few such punters exist. Even with the guarantee that such business guarantees the procurement of inside information, possibly of the highest calibre, I would dissuade involvement. Anyone dealing with this type of player is liable to sleepless nights. Being owed half a million by the King of Zongo Zongo is all very well, but should he be mauled to death by a rampant lion in his sleep, obtaining it is a different matter. Apart from the obvious drawback of getting paid (everyone dies – ever thought of how difficult it might be to persuade Mrs Zongo Zongo that you are owed the money – particularly if she ushered the lion into his bedroom?), your personal betting, if you are counting on King Zongo Zongo’s connections, will always involve you taking under the odds. By definition, your function is to ensure the king receives the best odds available. You are merely receiving the crumbs left on the table, or in this case, possibly the bones. No one, other than a close ally, blood relative, or someone you owe money to, should be granted credit. Some rules in life are incontrovertible. This I suggest is one.

So if you are successful in this business and bet in reasonable sums, just how do you get on? I shall use myself as an example because that way I shall not offend anyone and I am addressing a subject I know something about. As far as I am concerned, the fewer people privy to my business the better. But it is an unfortunate fact that the bigger the player you are, the more likely it is that you are compelled to recruit helpers. Personally, I am not big enough to resort to these tactics. And although I often use commission agents, I have a fair relationship with one firm that allows me to do business on advantageous terms because my stakes are not so big that I knock them over, and they respect my opinion. I realise some of you may accuse me of consorting with the enemy but mine is a one-off case, which, without going into detail, I can justify. Putting it bluntly, I used to work for the firm concerned. I play the game with them; in return, they play it with me. But I am under no illusion, they will do me no favours and the bigger my stake, the less likely they are to be obliging.

I have been in the business a while and built up useful contacts along the way. The same will happen to any aspiring punter who makes the grade but, as with all matters, it takes time.

I have two additional pieces of advice for those wishing to make a living backing horses. We have established it can be done but is very difficult. Unless you are Michael Tabor, in which case I suspect I lost you a long time ago; as expressed in my last piece, expenses make life hard. If an opportunity presents itself to make money from a sideline allied to your racing prowess, then take it. Most professionals do have regular incomes of some sort. It takes pressure away from those losing runs and means you have a specified amount coming in each month, even if sometimes more goes out. My situation is a perfect example. Bob Rothman (a man I have known for a long time) pays me to write up my racing notes and compile articles for this site. He underpays me of course, but because he is a  pleasure to work for, trustworthy and does not encroach on my lifestyle, I do it. As I write, it is an arrangement that suits us both admirably. In truth, I am paid to do something I enjoy and most of the input to the site is the result of work I would be doing in any case. The only downside is that I am allowing private thoughts and opinions to enter the public domain. However, such is the nature of the beast – the price those of us in search of a regular wage must pay. Many of the horses I nominate on Bush Telegraph shorten up in the market. Now, there are two reasons for this. Firstly, if I back them then I am in-part responsible. This is not because I smash horses up as my employer might do, but because those who handle my business respect my opinion and they are liable to follow me, often for higher stakes.

Secondly, most of the time what I say is correct. Therefore, because I have hit on the right horse, others are waiting in the wings to invest their cash, which will affect the betting market. If that sounds conceited, that is not my intention. I have already explained that I spend a great deal of time watching and analysing races. This work pays dividends and often means I know more than the opposition. It does not guarantee success but means most of the time I know what I am doing.

As I write, I have narrowly failed to receive a payday on Whistledownwind, a horse foolishly campaigned over an incorrect trip before going to Jeremy Noseda and inched out today over a more suitable distance. Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag and Whistledownwind will not be available at all prices from 10/1 to 7’s next time. But it is an example of how, when you feel you know what is not obvious to all and sundry, you can mop up while those who were on their third pint as you worked are left scratching their heads.[/vc_row]

THE ART OF WINNER-FINDING II

MY CONTENTION when last tackling this subject was that it is better to use your eyes than a slide rule when trying to pluck winners from the tree of racing. As a result, I have been prompted to demonstrate what was meant, isolating some of the issues mentioned.

So I will start with one of the most intricate, perhaps vital components when trying to read a race – that is horses in general. After all, it is difficult to assess the future of an animal without forming a judgement of its physical positives and negatives. Let us start with the paddock. Appraisal of horses in the paddock is not as difficult as those that do it, and therefore wish to preserve their monopoly on a pursuit few tend to query, wish to have us believe. Start with the most obvious. If we are evaluating newcomers and maidens, look at a horse in the parade ring as if you are weighing up someone at a social gathering. Does the horse look at ease in its surroundings, is it comfortable. Has it a swagger in its walk. You often hear paddock observers say a horse is a good walker. Walking does not have too much to do with racing, but a horse that has a John Wayne-type gait is probably confident and capable of running up to its best. If it appears curled up – the equivalent of a shrinking violet at a party – is sweating and edgy, chances are it cannot wait to get back to its stables and is unlikely to show too much in a race. Its ears should be forward, possibly flicking back and forth with interest, its head held high and coat shining. It should not be carrying condition – that is weight round the tummy – whilst ideally its backend should rise from its middle with its hindquarters well-muscled. Remember that the engine of a horse is its hind legs. They are the pistons. The more built up a horse’s backend is, the greater its power. Sprinters often have backsides like butcher’s dogs or cooks. They have to be all muscle and speed, often running on one breath from stall to line.

Apart from fitness issues, these remarks do not normally apply to seasoned handicappers, some of whom, aware it is merely another day at the office, can walk round the paddock all day like old sheep. Horsey people will tell you that equines do not fully mature until reaching the age of six. That is not necessarily true of racehorses; but be prepared for them to improve physically from two to three and again when they become four. Some horses are only shells in their younger days. These are unfurnished animals, yet to fill their frames. They appear leggy and slightly gangly and are similar to the teenager in the playground whose body is sprouting in all directions waiting to take a solid shape.

The debate over paddock-watching is an ongoing one as not everyone likes the same thing. Just as some men are attracted to blondes or brunettes or women wearing glasses, some horse-watchers like big rangy types that can often be weak, ignoring at their peril athletic and compact types that, once fit, are ready to shoot from the hip.

Note how a horse goes to post. You want to see it striding out with some zest on the ground not scratching to post as if on a gravely road. But horses that pull hard are bad news. They are fighting their jockey, expending energy in the process. If they pull on the way to the start, there is every chance they will do the same in a race, in which case they are unlikely to get home.

If the ground is soft, it is unlikely to suit a horse with a low action. Fast ground it can skim over is what is required and having to handle soft ground corresponds to a human running in wellington boots. On the other hand, soft ground will suit the sort of horse with a rounded action, which is one that resembles a rocking horse, and that hits the ground hard with its forelegs. Imagine those front legs thumping down of fast ground and you get an idea of how it feels for the horse – rather like racing on hot coals. Wingwalker is an obvious example of a horse that climbs when faced with fast ground and predictably, it proved his undoing at Newmarket. There is a saying that horses will go on any ground once. That holds water to a degree but sensible trainers do not ask questions their charges have difficulty in answering. Once again, breeding will help provide a clue or two as to how a horse will handle extremes of going. There are too many stallions to list individually here but a couple of general rules apply. Sire of the moment, Galileo, produces stock that is best on firm. The same applies to Elusive Quality. Oasis Dream’s offspring, along with Pivotal’s, like some give. American-breds are invariably best on fast ground; although those like Street Cry (responsible for imposing horses) and One Cool Cat, who were proven on dirt, can produce stock that handle easy ground.

There is another saying often muttered around paddocks and in betting rings. That is, when dealing with extremes of ground that, it is the same for all. Actually, it is not! No horse wants a bog to race on. Similarly, few, if any, want to gallop on the equivalent of the M1. Some are better equipped to handle such conditions but it is never the same for all of them!

Assessing a race is the easy part. Always question form from slowly run races that have developed into a two-furlong dash. Races with the best record are run at a proper end-to-end gallop, often the case with handicaps. Handicappers are the literal workhorses of the industry and know what they are doing. They settle well, can squeeze through gaps; their experience and professionalism means they are often hard to beat when faced with winners of maidens. And because they have been around for a while, they are often streetwise enough to save something for themselves. They also carry few secrets. We know their optimum conditions and at what time of year they tend to bloom. Whether they invariably need a run and whether they have a left or right-handed preference. The last point may seem trivial but horses often have a preferred lead leg, something that can be crucial on tight tracks like Chester. If it is their off fore, a right-handed track suits them better than one that requires them to change leads. Overall, Flat horses are less likely to be as affected as those who jump fences or hurdles, who are required to be in a greater rhythm.

Some maiden winners can look impressive when showboating to a hard-held easy success. Check to see what such horses have beaten. Watching a horse cruising away from a horse rated 75 does not mean you have seen a 90-rated animal. Similarly, horses hemmed or boxed in, snatched up, or otherwise unlucky, never find what you might at first glance think they might next time. Two lengths is a lot to find. Watching unlucky horses can be deceptive. Just as horses that veer from a true line have never given away the distance you presume them to have, those that get a run via the high street can mislead. Halve the impact their apparent misfortune will have next time and you will be about right.

A top class horse has the ability to quicken in a race three times. Once to angle for a position, again to challenge or maybe inch into the lead, and one last time when confronted. But there are not too many of those; maybe I have seen twenty. Most, even Group 1 winners, have two gear changes. I would have said New Approach had two-and-a-half gears, Lush Lashes had two and that Zarkava, never fully tested, probably had three.

However, we are starting at the top. Most animals have one change of gear and it is just a question of for how long they can sustain it. Some have a short sharp burst, others can lengthen and keep up a strong gallop for a couple of furlongs. Watching the lesser end of the spectrum, it is noticeable that once let down, poor horses may try but they cannot accelerate. So they go from seeming to be travelling strongly to just plugging on at the same old pace. This is especially useful to remember if you are an in-running player. Inexperienced race-readers often label such animals as dogs but that only demonstrates they do not know what they are looking at. For this reason, it does help to know and understand the animals you are watching. The gift of speed has been bestowed on some horses, allowing a change of gear, whereas others have only one pace. Rather like people, they can only achieve what is within their capabilities.

Better horses can accelerate, some even battle back when headed. Although not a advocate of sectional timing – mainly because I feel the work involved is not commensurate with the end product – the time of a race, in comparison with those on the same day, providing the going is constant, will provide a clue as to the worth of a race. Once again though, this does depend on the way the race was run. But if a race is recorded in a slow time for no obvious reason, then it is an event to be wary of until proved otherwise. As a potential race-reader, the ability to pigeon hole races is vital. Bad or moderate races will throw up that sort of horse. Those that are visually appealing and start to produce subsequent winners are worth paying attention to. Wingwalker’s maiden at Newmarket was a notable example this year as it produced a host of mid-summer winners including Delegator, who later went on to finish fifth in the Dewhurst.

It can be just as useful to identify bad or average races. Those that do not put in the work are likely to assume that because a horse won at one of the major tracks, it was a decent performance. Even if you formed no particular view at the time, clues are always in evidence. What did said horse beat? Did the market suggest it was a strong contest with several fancied horses lining up? Alternatively, were there silly plunges on big-priced horses caused by the awareness by shrewdies that nothing was fancied and they could have a blast on a long-priced half-chancer. The betting is often a good guide, particularly in maidens. When they bet 5 or 6/1 the field, clearly there are no standout messages for the participants. Unless something streaks to an unexpected wide margin victory, as Your Old Pal did at Newbury, chances are the race contains little of substance. But always be prepared to rethink. If a week is a long time in politics, two months can be a long time in the life of a two-year-old.

Keeping a record of horses and races that have made an impression will help greatly in your future strategy. Like everything connected with this business, it requires plenty of work and to avoid burn out, you should concentrate on those aspects of the game you are best at.

Try to do it all and you will end up gibbering to yourself in some quiet corner somewhere.

THE KNACK OF WINNER-FINDING

THERE IS a story that concerns a man who owns a factory that makes components for motor cars. A vital piece of machinery malfunctions. Without it, he is unable to manufacture the pistons and valves that are the focal point of his business. So he calls in an expert, a man who mends intricate pieces of machinery for a living. When the man arrives at the factory he circles the offending piece of apparatus, looking at this, looking at that and tutting the way tradesmen do. After a few minutes, he delves into a bag of tools and produces a hammer. Then, to a hushed ensemble, he lifts the hammer high over his head, bringing it down sharply on a nut. He asks the owner to press the start button; and low and behold, the machine kick-starts into action.

Once the factory floor churns back to production, the owner calls the hammer-hitter into his office and asks how much he charges for his services.

“£1,000,’ is the reply.

‘That’s scandalous,’ retorts the owner. ‘You have only been here for five minutes. Would you care to itemise your bill.’

‘Certainly,’ says the tradesman. ‘£1 for hitting the nut: £999 for knowing which nut to hit.’

In other words, the man had a knack known only to himself. He knew how to restore the machine to working order. How he arrived at this was somewhat incidental.

Possessing a knack for anything is a precious commodity. Actors can be taught how to act, footballers how to score goals, jockeys how to ride horses. But what lifts the good from the very good; the very good from the excellent, is something that cannot be taught and that is a knack. After all the theory has been exhausted, it is the person that can operate without recourse to a manual, the one that can improvise, the one that has an in-built auto-pilot, that will be the best.

Some professional punters try to narrow winner-finding down to a fine art. They approach it as if they are architects that need a blueprint. To a degree, there are certain elementary things you need to know. Just as the actor has to look natural and listen for his cue, the punter must be conversant with his script. He needs to know that a high-numbered draw at Chester is hard to overcome as it is on the round course at Thirsk. In a sprint, it is handy to know where the pace is likely to come from so that a selection is not likely to be cast adrift in the middle of the ocean. A view needs to be formed when a selection is tackling a trip it is unproven over. If dealing with a steeplechaser, an impression of the horse’s jumping capabilities is required. Knowing a little about breeding is desirable. That will help evaluate whether a certain horse is likely to handle the ground it faces.

It is also advantageous, particularly in non-handicap events, if a punter can segregate the quality of a race he has watched. He needs to know whether it is poor, moderate, good or top class. That way, he will be able to read how dangerous future participants from such a race are likely to be. He will then know whether to overlook them with a degree of safety in favour of horses that appear to have contested better events. Sometimes finishing sixth in a good maiden is preferable to having been second in a moderate one.

Many of these points are basic but it is surprising how many times you hear so-called pundits falling into the various black holes espoused here. ‘That was a really good effort last time,’ they will often say, ‘So and so was only beaten a length at Newmarket.’ But how many winners came from that race and, more importantly, if the race was recently run and nothing has surfaced from it, what sort of a race did it look to be to the naked eye?

Now we are taking knack. Successful punters need to be good race-readers. They need to spot when a horse fails to stay; therefore, it is possible to forgive a disappointing finishing position. Similarly, they need to notice a horse staying on at the end of a race that was patently too short and make sure they pay special attention to its chances when a more suitable trip is presented.

So, let us return to the punter that takes the blueprint approach and wants to cover every angle. I know one enormously successful punter who takes this approach. Actually, I have worked for him on and off. I have read races on his behalf, helped compile sectional timing, assisted in surveys on ground analysis at various tracks but, largely, I thought most of it was piffle! I cannot argue with his results and some people like to be doubly sure before they bet. It is the belt and braces approach and if that gives them comfort then fine; but I contend if you do not know what you are looking at, then you should do something else.

I should say here that plenty of successful punters do not know what they are looking at. They employ people like me to tell them. That is a different matter. They have accepted that evaluating form and watching the confirmation of horses in the paddock and scrutinising the worth of races is not their forte. What they are good at is collating all information put before them and acting accordingly. They make successful decisions regarding betting in the same way managing directors take judgements based on expert opinion.

But unless you are in a position to employ a work force to feed you data, and then have the courage to act accordingly, we have to assume as a fledging pro-punter, you reach most decisions yourself.

Personally, I feel sectional timing is nonsense. Once you start introducing such clutter into the winner-finding process, you then have to agree an accurate going description, measure the wind direction and, Oh Lord, by the time you have worked it all out, you might as well have gone to university for five years and qualified as a lawyer. Forget that nonsense! Use your eyes!

I once told the punter I was describing; I thought Notnowcato would win the Juddmonte. ‘Couldn’t back him,’ was his reply. ‘He’s never done a decent time.’ He only won by a short head but he won and I backed him at 8/1 with the pro punter choosing to disregard the opinion he paid me to supply. I also told him to ignore news from Newmarket that Soviet Song had been working badly prior to her win at Ascot, as four-year-old fillies can often doss at home. This is something I know because I understand, in part anyway, how racehorses function.

He did not. If it was not there in some wad of paper, then it was not worth bringing to the table. Of course, on plenty of occasions, he was right and I was wrong, but the point I am trying to make is that not everything can be quantified. Some things have to be the result of intuition and often they are the best decisions we make in life.

Think back to all the good and difficult decisions you have made: perhaps regarding buying or selling a house or a car. There is no way under these circumstances you can cover every eventuality. Ultimately, some thought process has to kick in and you make a decision often based on scant information. But it is information you trust allied to a general feeling. If buying a house, you like the fact that the neighbouring houses all have well-tendered gardens, that there is not a rusting fridge stuck out on someone’s back yard and three doors down there is not the sight of a car jacked-up on bricks. These are positives but do not ensure the house you are contemplating buying does not have dry rot, is not haunted, infested with rats or that that well slanted lawn is not about to succumb to subsidence. However, they are clues.

I started with a story and will end with one. It just happens to be true and as a tale is nothing more than an example of Lawrence Olivier’s inflated ego. When Dustin Hoffman [a very fine actor] worked with the great man on Marathon Man, he needed to appear out of breath for one scene. Hoffman set about running up several flights of stairs prior to the take, eventually bursting in on the set gasping. After the scene, Olivier asked Hoffman why he had put himself through such a vigorous rigmarole. ‘So I was genuinely out of breath,’ Hoffman replied.

‘Why don’t you try acting dear boy,’ replied Olivier. As I have said, I can imagine him saying such a thing in that supercilious way the British cultivate when they feel they are superior. But the point is well made; it just would have been more dignified had Larry kept it to himself!

Bugger the times! If you think Notnowcato can beat Dylan Thomas over ten furlongs and on ground that is ideal for him, back him! Don’t wait for some boffin with a slide rule to confirm what you suspect may be right.

Try to winkle out a knack, be it for racing or for hitting the right nut with a hammer. The man with the knack will always sit down to eat at night. And who knows, in the coming winter months that could just be important.

THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING…

INFORMATION is regarded as the Holy Grail. Ask any punter what he would prefer. The formbook or information – and he will invariably say information.

Ask any professional punter and he will say the formbook. Both have their merits and in a balanced attempt to back winners, both are essential tools of the trade. But whereas it is possible to bob along without information, it is difficult without reference to the formbook. The reason is simple although many of you will have difficulty accepting it.

So let me put it this way. If I claimed to have seen a UFO and that I could provide a picture to prove it and that William Hill were offering 100/1 about such an occurrence, would you be tempted? Hopefully not. The reason for this is that past records suggest that I am incorrect. I may not be mad or deluded. But I am almost certainly wrong. What I saw was likely to have been an air balloon, an aircraft of some kind, a shooting star, or even a trick of the light: in other words, the formbook points to me being wide of the mark.

But if you were a Buddhist monk or someone who had spent a lifetime in an Amazon jungle, you may be inclined to believe what I say could be true. That is because without the aid of a chronicle charting countless false sightings in the past, my argument and my photo seems plausible.

Horseracing information can be similarly misleading. Conveyed with the best of intentions, it often originates from a source that may have interpreted what it has seen incorrectly. Now if the formbook can back up what is being said, that is a different matter. But, in the case of unraced horses or those with little or no form, you are relinquishing your judgement to someone else.

There was a time when information was eagerly awaited. The phone call the night before informing you that a certain Newmarket yard was about to unleash a flying machine the next day. Yippee! You sleep fitfully, planning next day’s betting plans. You spend the money in advance: a holiday, a new car, a weekend in Amsterdam minus the missus. You are up as it is turning light, you are at the newspaper shop as the shutters rattle and there it is, priced in the betting forecast at 6/1. Even allowing for a few other people being in on the coup, it would still open up on course at 10/3 at worse.

Nowadays you switch on the internet or open the paper with numbed resignation. The Newmarket correspondent naps it. Everyone seems to know what you know and its forecast price is 11/10, meaning after the first chunky bet it will be a universal 4/5 chance.  Whether it wins or loses is now irrelevant. Back horses like this on a regular basis, however good they are reputed to be, and you will lose in the long run.

But suppose you spot a horse in a handicap that is exposed but is back on a mark lower than it has won off, has reasonable recent form suggesting it has not regressed, has its ground, its trip and wins at this time of year. It is lightly tipped and is 6/1 in the betting forecast. To top it all a good jockey has gone out of his way to take the ride. Now this is an interesting prospect. If you have the opportunity to ask the question, all you really need to know is if the horse is well enough to do himself justice. Time and time again so called informants let horses like this run loose. But ask them whether the animal in question is all right, okay, or in form and they will reply, ‘Yes, of course, he is going there to win if he can.’

‘Well he can,’ you reply; ‘what’s more I think he will.’

‘I wouldn’t put you off backing him,’ is the response.

You have been handed a free bet!

Maybe the horse wins, maybe he loses. But I know which of the two outlined bets I would rather be on: a horse that is close to even money, possibly odds-on, that I don’t know the colour of, or one I have worked out that only needs to run to form to win or finish second and is 6/1.

You may have noticed the title of this piece refers to our friends the Russians. During the cold war, the KGB were past masters at the game of espionage. They had little else to spend their money on, so invested millions on potential informants and contacts in the knowledge that many would be next to useless. They would cultivate sympathisers, or fellow travellers as they were then known, in the belief that one day, one of them could provide a scrap of information so vital, so beneficial to Mother Russia, that it could alter the course of history.

Whilst waiting for such critical and influential news, they would keep everyone on the payroll happy. They would give them tickets to the Russian ballet when it was in London; send occasional cases of vodka to their doors; take them to dinner at fancy restaurants and make them believe that the information they were supplying was of utmost importance.

Bear with me here as I am coming to the point, and like all good points it needs setting up. Let us say that the KGB recruited a lady – let’s call her Gladys – in charge of rations for aircrew at RAF Brize Norton, the place military aircraft take-off from. Year after year, Gladys has been given tickets to see the Bolshoi Ballet and has been made to feel important by her other employers, despite the fact she has never been able to tell them anything more salient than whether aircrew prefer chutney or Piccalilli on their sandwiches. Now, on the eve of a confrontation between East and West, she suddenly contacts her controller, stating that instead of supplying the usual rations this Friday, she has to make arrangements for fifty-times that amount. From a simple, almost innocuous piece of information, Russia is able to deduce that there is to be a major military move on that day. Gladys has paid them back a thousand times over and her information could alter the course of a significant showdown.

That is what I term the KGB factor. The sleepers who one cultivates to relay the bleedin’ obvious in anticipation of the day when they will impart something that makes all the difference between a winning and losing year.

To keep such people on board can be expensive: being told what you already know, or have no interest in knowing, can be frustrating – particularly if it costs you money. Gone are the days when information was reserved for the privileged few. Now, it is only a newspaper away.

To keep such people financially happy is often not cost effective. Only the biggest players can afford to maintain such a situation. But used in conjunction with the formbook, information can tip the balance between profit and loss. It is a pendulum that can tilt in either direction and one that requires fine-tuning.

In our next article on this subject, we will discuss how you go about making sure you are adequately informed.

Laying Horses …

PSST! DO YOU WANT TO know a good thing today? I have a cert, a sure thing; this cannot get beat! There is of course a drawback: it is only 1/3!

Faced with such an offer the chances are your enthusiasm is tempered. How many punters actually set their stall to make a large profit at such short odds? Not many I would suggest. So why should Betfair punters be prepared to lay horses at 3/1 – or in some cases at even bigger odds? Bearing in mind that everything becomes reversed when you become the layer, opposing a 3/1 chance is the equivalent of backing at 1/3. If you would not back a horse at those odds, why lay it?

Forget what you know or think you know about the horse, football team or boxer in question, backing at those odds means you have reduced your margin for error to such a level that you cannot show a profit in the long run. You need to be correct 75% of the time just to break even. Nobody is right 75% of the time about anything! The best you can expect to achieve is to be right 50% of the time and that is an ambitious target. Consequently, those thinking of laying horses are advised to concentrate on short-priced horses they consider to be flawed. Laying a horse at 1/3 means that it is 3/1 against you being right but, instead of having to be right 75% of the time, now you only need to be right 25% of the time to break even. On the occasions you collect, because the amount you win is three times the amount you risked, you can afford to be more adventurous with your liability.

Okay, there are not many 1/3 chances that we can confidently lay. Most of them appear to have outstanding chances hence the price, and most face inferior or poor opposition. So as a layer you have little in your favour and, at least on paper, are faced with a horse who only has to go down and come back. The other problem with taking chances with long odds-on shots is that, because you will find yourself on the wrong side of the transaction most of the time, there is little opportunity to recover losses as 1/3 chances that you feel are opposable are thin on the ground.

Laying horses is surprisingly tricky. Personally, if I think I have earmarked a wobbly favourite, I am more likely to try and spot the value against it – in other words – if possible find the winner.

But there is a school of thought that says if you lay a market-leader, you have the rest of the field running for you, meaning there is a strong chance something will emerge from the pack to foil the favourite. That is the bookmaker argument: that something will save their bacon but they do not know what that might be. That line of argument is too vague, too haphazard for my tastes. I need to have reasons to oppose the favourite and a couple of rivals in the field that I feel are capable of so doing.

Herewith, are a couple of areas we touched on in previous articles. Remember, just because a horse you do not particularly fancy is overpriced it is not a bet; conversely, do not fall into the trap of thinking that a horse you think will win is too short and therefore becomes a lay. Such thinking means you are bookmaker-driven. You are allowing them to decide your mindset and the object at all times is that you are in charge of your thought processes. There are occasions when the price is too low for your taste. That means you do not back it – simple as that.

To go back to the lay situation, I do have a train of thought that will horrify some and doubtless prompt objections a-plenty. I have often laid one horse and backed another in the same race. On the face of it, that seems a recipe for disaster. You are running the risk of losing twice. If the horse you have laid wins, you lose and of course forfeit your stake on the horse you have backed to boot. It is not for everyone but is not as daft as it sounds. If you are going to lay a horse at around 9/4, chances are you are not going to win much if it loses because its price means, as already stated, you are betting at odds-on. You are risking £90 for every £40 gained. You can turn that round by backing the horse you think has a strong chance of beating it at, say, odds of 6/1. Because you have already money in the bank on the assumption the favourite will lose, you do not need to lay out much on the horse you fancy. Should it win, as well as having run the risk of losing twice, you now win twice. This is not necessarily a recommended course of action on a regular basis but, like everything in this business, a flexible approach can pay dividends on occasion.

There are also times when to all intense and purposes there are only two possible winners of a race. Laying one of them is tantamount to backing the other. Yes, I know you have the rags running for you but, once again, by relying on them, you are playing the Zero on the roulette wheel – something that only obliges once in every thirty-seven spins. My own take on laying, unless I am handed an opportunity to lay a short one that I am convinced is not going to win and I am forcing the backer to bet odds-on, is to lay as part of an overall package or strategy. Identifying races that have a punter-friendly look to them can be as important as finding winners. You may be one of the best form students in the business, but you are going to need the gods to dish up a dollop of good fortune to collect in the Hunt Cup or the Ayr Gold Cup.

There is nothing more satisfying or confidence boosting than knowing before a race that you have read it correctly. That when you have identified only two runners and have taken 6/1 about yours, you are confident you only have one to beat. It may be a close-run thing and you may lose out to the one that was your biggest danger but, in running, as one horse after another drops by the wayside, you can be sure that sooner or later, your selection will be launching its challenge. Such confidence cannot be achieved on every race, or even on every day. But when it can, I submit that is the time to count your chips and place them on the green baize.

Personality has a great bearing on your success or lack of it and there is no perfect beast to build here. Take advice from those that have made this business pay and work round those aspects of their success that suit your style best. Do not put yourself under pressure to work to someone else’s methods if they do not suit you.

However, I am of the opinion that the more effective you are at sifting through the formbook and information received, the less bets you will need to strike. Scatter betting is for those who are playing percentages and nothing more. It is for accountants!

If you can identify winners and races where you can make the wheel spin in your favour, then it cuts out a lot of chagrin, a lot of unnecessary heartache and reduces the game of betting to something you are conducting on your terms.

What Are Betting Exchanges all about?

This blog is the result of an email from RE of Littleborough. He asked me to expand on ‘Betting Exchanges’…

Traditionally, betting on the horses has been done on course – a transaction between punter and bookmaker – or with registered bookies. In the old days, before mobiles or the internet, it was still possible to place bets remotely, using illegal ‘bookies runners’ – taking bets scribbled on the back of fag packets and running to the officially registered bookie.

Now there’s a wealth of different approaches, including on-line betting.

Betting Exchanges, though, are something else. They’re an on-line service where people can bet against each other, rather than against a bookie. Some will ‘back’ a horse to win, others will ‘lay’ a horse to lose.[/vc_column_text]

What are the advantages?

• The ease of placing bets on-line
• First, it offers more opportunities to win (backing a horse to lose)
• Increased eanings. It cuts out the bookie, who typically takes 20%, so returns can be higher
• Wins/losses are reported immediately. This is real-time gambling
• The fun of ‘being a bookie’, betting against different online punters. In fact Bookmakers use the exchanges to cover their own risks.
• By backing at one price and laying the same horse at another, it is possible to virtually guarantee a return. This is known as Arbitrage.
• Better odds. Online punters have the option of not taking initial offers on their bets, asking for better odds.
• Not being banned. Bookmakers often effectively ban a punter who keeps winning (don’t I know it!). This doesn’t apply to exchanges.

What are the disadvantages?

You are really entering the world of professional gambling, so novice beware. My advice? Use the HorseracingPro Arbitrage service and get the best of all worlds – a high degree of safety, with the possibility of ‘locked in’ profits, all with an insider’s knowledge.

Remember, successful betting is all about understanding both the odds and using ‘value’ as the guiding principle.