|Antiques Digest||Browse Auctions||Appraisal||Home|
Horse Racing Wagering System:
Business And Pleasure At The Racetrack
Past Performances Of Horses
Getting Rid Of Goats At The Racetrack
Speed Vs. Class In Horse Racing
Fundamentals Of Handicapping Horse Racing
Claiming Race System For Horses
$61,00 For $2 In 30 Days At The Races
Pulliing Out Of A Slump At The Racetrack
How To Bet Horses
More Horse Racing Tips
( Originally Published mid 1950's )
In a way, the writer is glad that he has retired from an active career as a public handicapper, because if a handicapper told a race fan that he could stretch a $2 bill into $61,000 within a period of four weeks, the said race fan probably would conk the handicapper with a lead pipe.
Yet that is exactly what could have been done during the four-week period described earlier in this book. It could have been done by progressive betting.
Now some fans think that progressive betting means wagering more than usual when you lose, in an effort to make up for previous losses when you do win.
That, however, is distinctly not our idea of progressive betting. Our idea of progressive betting is that the more you win, the more you bet. Conversely, it also can mean that the less you win, the less you bet. It has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of doubling your investments when you lose, which is a chronic and fatal habit with some race-goers.
This book's ideas on progressive betting were inspired by a mathematics professor whose classes the writer once attended.
Although this professorial patriarch probably never made a bet on anything in his life, he could and did discourse for hours on end concerning all forms of gambling including playing the stock market, to the utter fascination of his students.
The professor told his students that any mathematical operation involving chance deals with one of two lawsthe law of frequency or the law of averages.
You use the law of frequency when you figure that the present trend will continue. You rely on the law of averages when you reach the conclusion that a long string of losers-or winners-is due to be halted.
In sports, if you are looking for a solid investment, you might say that the law of frequency would require you to string along with a winner, particularly a champion.
In the stock market, the bulls figure that a bullish, or upward, trend will continue, and that stocks are likely to keep going up. On the other hand, the bears, who figure that stocks are due to go down, would be exponents of the law of averages.
Many a dice player will increase his wagers if he keeps on winning, thus placing his faith in the law of frequency. If a player at a roulette wheel happens to be a disciple of the law of averages, on the other hand, he will start playing the red after the black has come up a certain number of times in succession.
The law of frequency can be used to good advantage in making turf investments if you have a sound system of selection. It is known in this case as progression investment, to which we referred at the start of this chapter.
In progression investment, you wager a certain percentage of whatever amount happens to be in your investment fund at the moment. If you start winning, the size of your investments naturally will increase.
But with it all, you have a strong protection clause here in that if you should hit a slump, the amount of your wagers will decrease sharply until such time as you get started on a winning streak again.
This sort of protection will keep your investment fund alive even if you should run into a losing streak that otherwise might be disastrous.
To make this form of progression workable on a wide scope, we will assume that a group of four turf investors formed a partnership, each going to a different track so that all selections at all major tracks could be followed.
Now let's turn back to the Recapitulation Of Results given in the previous chapter. Our rule is to start with an investment of $2, and thereafter invest on each horse one-fifth of whatever our investment fund or "bankroll" happens to be.
We believe this to be a reasonably safe method of procedure with a sound system of selection that should not run into a long slump.
If you should encounter a slump, here is how you would make your investments:
Let's say that there was $50 in the investment fund when the slump started. At that point you would be investing $10, or one-fifth of $50.
If the horse should lose, reducing your investment fund to $40, your next investment would be $8, or onefifth of that sum.
If that horse also should lose, decreasing your bankroll to $32, your investment on the next one would be $6, or approximately one-fifth of $32, and so on.
If the investment fund went down to $26, the next wager would be $5. If that one lost-decreasing the investment fund to $21, the following wager would be $4. Should that venture decrease the bankroll to $17, our next investment would be limited to $3. A loss here would shrink the bankroll to $14.
Now here is where this system's sliding scale begins really to show its merits in safeguarding the race fan against a prolonged slump. If the next $3 investment also should lose, decreasing the bankroll to $11, he still would be able to make five more investments of $2 each without having his bankroll wiped out completely.
Counting up all these hypothetical wagers that would decrease in the event of a bad losing streak, we find that if the slump started when the investment fund stood at $50, there would be enough funds for no less than 12 wagers without being wiped out. Incidentally, nothing remotely resembling such a prolonged losing streak ever has been encountered in any tests of this book's systems.
But as soon as you hit a winner, the amount of your investment naturally would increase. In fact, as few as three winners easily might boost the investment fund all the way from the low of just a few dollars to above $50, thus showing a profit on the entire cycle of investments despite the prolonged losing streak.
We believe that to be an extremely safe method of protecting your bankroll-playing with the track's money instead of your own.
A really conservative player could invest only onetenth of his current fund, instead of one-fifth, on each horse. That would safeguard against as many as 18 consecutive losing plays without getting wiped out.
However, let us examine the "Recapitulation. Of Results" listed in the preceding chapter and see how we would have made out using our "one-fifth" method.
As shown in the table in the last chapter, we would have invested $2 to win on May 21 on the first horse, Toquila. This one won, paying $6.80. Then, after a loser, we would have increased the bankroll to $21.20 with Gillie Young, an $18.40 winner.
After one more winner (King Jolie ) and two more losers (real or hypothetical), the bankroll would have stood at $19.30. The nearest thing to one-fifth of that amount is $4, so that's what we would have wagered on the next horse. He won, upping the investment fund to $31.70.
There were six winners and only two actual losers that first day. But to be on the conservative side, we are assuming, in working out our progression, that there were six losers instead of two.
The bankroll had advanced to $134.80 at the end of the first day and to $366.30 at the end of the second day. One-fifth of the latter sum is approximately $73, which is what we would have bet on Elixir, our first selection on May 23rd. Elixir jumped the bankroll to $3,206 and the next winner, joiner, upped it to $7,486.
At this point, betting one-fifth of our investment fund would have meant a wager of $1,500 or more on each selection. But being ultraconservative again, we are as suming that a fan would have restricted his bets to $200, even though long since he had been playing on his winnings-all on his original $2 bill, in fact.
But even with all these limitations, the investment fund would have jumped to $18,146.00 in only six racing days.
And by the end of four weeks, our little two-spot would have zoomed to $61,366.00, even with all those hypothetical losers thrown in.
A real plunger with the nerve to invest as much as $10,000 if the one-fifth method called for it, could have stretched a $2 bill to something like three million dollars during these four weeks, even taking into consideration the circumstance that dumping $10,000 into the mutual machines would have forced down the odds on a longshot.
Years ago when race track bookmakers were legalized, it was possible to wager $100,000 or more-let alone $10,000-on a single horse and without hurting the odds, either. In those days, you knew exactly what odds you were getting the moment you made a bet.
At that time, the winning-streak profits from the progression method outlined in this chapter would have been astronomical with an old-time plunger throwing his weight around.
Now it is readily admitted that winning streaks like the one listed in this and the previous chapter, or anything very close to such a streak, are not going to occur very frequently. However, in the next chapter we will demonstrate how the power of progression can transform even a bad slump into a period of considerable profit.