|Antiques Digest||Browse Auctions||Appraisal||Antiques And Arts News||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 )
Now let's see if this progression method could pull us out of a bad slump if we should hit one.
Once again we will use our table given in the recapitulation of all results. However, despite specialized selections which never should go into a really serious tailspin, let's say we encounter a slump where we get only 20 percent winners, or but one winner out of five.
This means we must figure on four hypothetical losers for every winner in order to maintain our ratio of a winning percentage of only 20 percent.
We will start out with an investment fund of $10, instead of $2, but still invest only $2 on each horse the first day.
That is, we will wager only $2 until such time as the investment fund increases to approximately $20, when the progression schedule will call for an investment of $4, or one-fifth of $20.
However, a loser at that point would require us to reduce our bet back to $2 until such time as the bankroll had worked back up to $20 or thereabouts again.
The first day, May 21, was a big one with 6 actual plays and 24 losers, hypothetical or otherwise, for a total of 30 investments.
The first actual winner, Toquila, paid only $6.80, and due to the $2 losses incurred by each of the four hypothetical losers that went with her, we lost $3.20 on that deal. This decreased our investment fund to its all-time low of $6.80.
However, the next winner, Gillie Young, paid $18.40. Despite his four hypothetical losing companions, we made a net profit of $8.40 on that deal, increasing our investment fund to $15.20, enough to withstand a temporary setback which now developed.
Since our next two winners, King Jolie and Highquillo, averaged only slightly better than 3 to 1, they whittled our bankroll down to $11.50 because of the 8 hypothetical losers that went with them.
However, the next two winners, Question Eight and Little Hope, paying $20.60 and $20.40 respectively, increased our investment fund to $42.90 despite 8 accompanying hypothetical losers.
Theoretically, our investment scale had called for a wager of $3 on both King Jolie and Highquillo. However, both wagers were limited to $2 because there is no way to cram a $3 bill into a mutuel machine.
The mutuel returns on the last four winners mentioned should illustrate clearly the necessity of having system rules that produce fair-priced selections, especially during a slump.
For instance, the two winners, King Jolie and Highquillo, actually put a dent in the bankroll with their accompanying losers. But the two longshot winners, Ques tion Eight and Little Hope, gave the investment fund a tremendous shot in the arm.
On the second day the winner Alfadur was no particular bargain, but Free Press, paying $18.40, increased our investment fund to $56.10 despite accompanying losers.
The following day, May 23, really would have been "Payday At The Races." The first horse, Elixir, although he had only $11 riding on his nose under the investment scale, won and paid $79.80, giving us a net profit of $383.90 and increasing our bankroll to an even $440.
We now would have been able to wager $88 to win on joiner, the next horse, as well as on the four hypothetical losers that went with him. Joiner, paying $46.80, added a net profit of $1,619.20, increasing the investment fund to $2,059.20.
The next winner, Donna Boorse, with a $200 win bet riding on her nose, would have added a net profit of $1,900 to swell the investment fund to $3,959.20.
Two winners later, Portcullis, paying $44.20 with a win bet of $200 called for, would have added a net profit of $3,420 and increased the total investment fund to $6,999.20, at the start of only the fourth day of our test. This test should demonstrate clearly how progressive investment can produce a healthy profit for a sound selection system even though the system's normal winning percentage should run into a bad slump.
To our mind, running a $2 bill up to $7,000.00 in only four racing days in spite of a winning percentage of only 20 percent, constitutes a terrific feat. A veteran handicapper of 40 years' experience told the writer he never had heard of anything like it in the entire history of racing.
This should be a crushing, convincing demonstration of why the law of frequency is much better than the law of averages when it comes to turf investments.
There is no particular point in carrying this chapter's progression demonstration any further because it already has been shown that progression will pull us out of a bad slump if the investor is using a racing system that is constructed along the correct lines. This book's systems probably could withstand a slump that produced only 15 percent winners.
Most any racing system would be ruined by a slump that produced an average of only 20 percent winners. But if you use a system that does not come up with very many short-priced horses, you even can beat a slump.
For instance, only 3 of the 55 winning plays listed in our four-week test went off at a price of less than 8 to 5, and even those 3 would not have been eligible if they had not qualified as one of our powerful automatic plays. In this connection it should be made clear that we are not against consensus horses in racing papers or newspaper selections as such. Rather, the times we generally try to avoid them is when the odds on them are 8 to 5 or less.
This ends our discussion of progressive investment. In the next two chapters, we will discuss additional methods of betting.