The shorter the distance of the race the less time for tactics to come into play. We must not overlook the prize incentive and we want a race where it is reasonable to expect that form can easily be evaluated.
There are sellers, maidens, two year olds, three-year-olds etc, and also more than one meeting so there is material for many methods.
Let us save time by taking incentive of prize-money to out-weigh tactics and opt for the principal meeting.
The method is now to evaluate the most valuable non-handicap at the principal meeting and bet only if we are left with one of the first two in the forecast.
There is plenty of scope for refinement as at the moment it could be a varied sort of race, two-year-old, maiden, sprint, stayers etc.
Leave it as it is or enjoy greater achievement by doing some of the work yourself and creating your own individual method from the mass of alternatives.
FORM CLASS EVALUATION
Form is a much used little word but few are in any way confident of defining just what it is.
A football team is said to be "in form" when having a good winning spell. A darts player who scores well each time or pulls off the odd 180 regularly is said to be "in form" and the athlete who goes from strength to strength is "in form". To be out of form must then be the reverse.
Some years ago I posed the question: " What is form if it is not that one performance is better than another?" Logically form must represent a degree of achievement. This being so, why does the interpretation of form cause so much confusion and controversy?
Plainly this must be the varied opinions as to the relative merits of various constituents, forming achievement.
To go a stage further a first division football team gaining a string of victories over non-league clubs would be showing form in as much as they continue to win, but the quality of that form could hardly be viewed as the equivalent of such an achievement against opposition from other first division clubs.
The international darts player who continues winning against the local pub league representatives would be showing form but once again this could not have the value of such a performance in professional tournaments. The school's star athlete who appeared invincible would surely meet his "Waterloo" if faced with Olympic quality opposition.
Logically the relative merit of form must be equated to the quality (class) in which it was achieved. This means there has to be at least two elements to jointly equate when judging the relative merits of one performance against another: FORM and CLASS.
Form is what they did and class is the level at which it was achieved.
Therefore, when looking at the relative merits of one horse against another, these two elements class and form must be equated along with other aspects such as distance, going, track, etc. Whatever the form and class, a long striding galloping horse is almost bound to come unstuck on a sharp track.
Permutations involved in the assessment of one horse against others in a race provides an extremely complex problem but we can make life much easier if the situation is followed logically.
With horse racing how then do we assess the class element? There are many views but a method found by myself to be most satisfactory is to use the value of the prize to the winner (penalty value).
Everything is best viewed in simple form and an easy way to present class as a rating is to divide the penalty value by 100 (move two decimal places) £8,025 becomes a class rating of 80. £5,840 becomes a class rating of 58. £61,932 becomes 619 and so on.
ODDS AGAINST
Racing is all about odds, not just prices on the bookmaker's boards but odds relating to many things and only by restricting betting to occasions when they are in your favour can you have any hope of winning in the long term.
Because a price is 6-4 on, it does not by itself mean the odds are AGAINST YOU as so many believe. In fact, the real odds,which is what matters, may well be 4-1 in your favour.
Many punters insist upon pushing the odds more and more against themselves and it is ironic that some believe they are doing the opposite. The numbers who indulge in doubles is amazing and very often you will find those who are looking to bet something each-way, a procedure which these days is completely negative.
Suggesting they back two horses in a race to win in one race brings a look of horror to their faces, but they would be reducing the odds against themselves by doing so.
Doubles, trebles, yankees, union jacks and all other fancy bets are strictly for the fun punters who do not object to subscribing to bookmakers benevolent funds.
Profit must be taken where you see it and once you understand that in almost every race there are only a few horses with any real credentials for winning, you will begin to be able to push the odds your way.
Everyday there are races where only two , or at most, three horses have any real chance and the rest are just making up numbers. And once you learn how to cut a race down to its real size you will be in a position to play the bookmaker at his own game.
The bookmaker ensures a profit by making his book over-round, but he is at the disadvantage of reckoning on the whole number that punters support. Once you have mastered the art of sorting out which two or three horses the winner should come from, you can make your own book within the market and take a profit whichever wins.
When you back a single horse the book has the rest running for it and each additional horse you back reduces the odds against yourself. When you know the winner must (or should) come from one of two or three horses and you can back all of them and make a profit, it must rate as a punters dream come true.
The good news is that it is not just a dream, but a fact and there to be taken most days. You have to be prepared to work at it because like anything else worth having it does not come free gratis.
Even when you can sort out the two or three horses the winner should come from, it does not automatically follow that a profit can be made; this will subject to the odds available. Also when calculations reveal a profit is possible you must be satisfied that the percentage gain is acceptable.
Although there are various ways to back a number of horses in one race, the most practicable is to stake a return of 100 points. A point can be whatever you like, 25 pence or £25, it is up to you and to make things simple I give below my own table for calculating what stakes are required for various odds.
ODDS STAKE
EVENS 50
11-10 48
6-5 47
5-4 45
11-8 42
6-4 40
13-8 38
7-4 37
15-8 35
2-1 34
9-4 31
5-2 30
11-4 27
3-1 25
10-3 24
7-2 23
4-1 20
9-2 19
5-1 17
11-2 16
6-1 16
7-1 13
8-1 12
9-1 11
10-1 9
12-1 8
14-1 7
16-1 6
20-1 5
25-1 4
To illustrate the procedure let us assume you have selected a race where the winner should come from one of three horses and you want to know what, if any profit can be taken. Add together the stakes required at the odds available about each horse.
The odds on offer are perhaps 2-1, 5-1, 9-1 which would work out as under.
34+17+11= 62 leaving a profit margin of 38 points.
This is an acceptable margin, but you must decide the percentage below which you would not bet.
CONTROVERSIAL
Don't run away with the idea that you can avoid backing a loser from time to time, because that is just not possible, but you must at all times play the game with as much in your favour as possible.
The definition of what constitutes "class" and "form" is just one of the controversial aspects of racing and I have been told in no uncertain terms that mine are wrong.
The strange thing is that those who make these judgements fail to provide an alternative and perhaps stranger still, mine continue to work year after year. Since I have previously explained my definition of "class" and how to calculate a rating to assist comparison, I will not go into it again here.
There are those in sport who refer to themselves as "professionals" and I have previously given my view of the majority. The true "pro" is someone who regularly derives an income from taking the odds, but none of my acquaintances broadcast the fact, indeed they go out of their way to remain unknown, and take good care not to divulge all their knowledge. When you see the performance of some of these professed professionals you will perhaps understand.
STAKING
Most staking systems have as a foundation a bank which for convenience is usually 100 points. To finish all square using level stakes (not allowing for tax) a series of four bets with three consecutive losers would require a 3/1 winner. Let us now match this with increasing stakes after winners (founded upon the misguided belief that having produced a winner you have hit a purple patch). We will adhere to the usual procedure of betting one tenth (approx) of the bank each time which means all points exceeding 100 (the original bank) will be profit.
The first bet is 10 points-result lost, leaving a bank of 90 points.
The second bet is nine points- result lost, leaving a bank of 81 points.
The third bet is eight points - result lost, leaving a bank of 73 points.
The fourth bet is seven points - result Won 3/1, leaving a bank of 94 points.
Clearly with the same run as you had with level stakes the result of the six point loss by this method does not show up well for the principle. Note your lowest stake is on a winner.
There is a huge lobby against increasing stakes after losers the idea being regarded as chasing bad money which in turn has been viewed as the sure way to bankruptcy.
The old saying "you must speculate to accumulate" comes into play here and providing you have a consistent selection method I personally take kindly to the idea providing extra precautions are taken. First let us see how increasing stakes after losers works out under the same pattern as before. Again we will start with a bank of 100 points but this time we add losses to the bank and in this case every time it falls below 100 points we are in profit. Again stake will be approx 10%.
First bet 10 points - result lost, leaving a bank of 110 points.
Second bet 11 points - result lost, leaving a bank of 121 points.
Third bet 12 points - result lost, leaving a bank of 133 points.
Fourth bet 13 points - result Won 3/1, leaving a bank of 94 points.
We thus have a profit of six points whereas we lost six points using the idea in reverse and ended all square with level stakes. This illustration then can be used with some degree of confidence to formulate a staking plan that will not get you into deep water providing it is used in conjunction with a viable selection method and a realistic starting bank.