Conservative Systems: More Horses Will Win but Payoffs Are Lower
Betting systems is like buying a new car for your wife. If you should craftily pick out a nice, new, black sedan with four doors for what you consider the right price of $12,000, she’s going to flounce around, take one look at the other “hot” models on the showroom floor and come back with: “What’s wrong with the red, two-door, sports model for $40,000?”
Actually, there’s nothing wrong with either car. Everything else being equal under the hood, the only differences will be in the luxury components and the price.
Thus, if you bet the conservative systems, you’ll find that more horses win but the payoffs are lower. If you wager on the long shots in the hope of finding pie in the sky, there will be fewer trips to the cashier’s window but much higher returns when a nag does poke its nose in front.
One of the more conservative of the systems I used to bet was developed by the “Banker,” who explained it one day at Hollywood Park race track a few years ago.
The Banker is short, a kind of a plump person who always wears either a gray or a black suit and dark tie and carries a briefcase. The way his hair is always combed, looking neat and clean, you would think he just came from the barbershop.
The speculation is that the Banker wagers so much money that he has to carry it in his briefcase. Betting $1,000 to $2,000 a race isn’t unusual for him.
Some folks say that if he really is a banker, then the institution he works for should check out its books, because for sure it must be missing a lot of money. However, they never laugh at him or say these things to his face.
I found out later, however, that the Banker owns at least 25 apartment buildings, is really rich, and uses a lot of his income to bet the ponies. And even though he is wealthy, he carries sandwiches and a thermos of coffee in his briefcase so that he can eat and drink whenever he is hungry and doesn’t have to stand in line to buy food.
And the Banker’s system simply is to bet the favorite in every race for 2-year-old horses. During the 1989 fall season at Hollywood Park, on Dec. 21, three favorites won out of four races for 2-year-olds. In the third race, a 6 1/2-furlong sprint for fillies, the lineup and odds for $1 were:
1--Florala’s Belle, $8.00
2--St. Rosalia, 16.90
3--Blue Sonata, 37.70
4--Sidsraj, 15.70
5--Gloriport, 1.60
6--Wild Indigo, 99.90
7--Val’s Secret, 154.90
8--Saros Girl, 34.80
9--Slew Ali Marie, 169.10
10--Price Puzzler, 9.50
11-Gumonanni, 14.00
12--Stylish Bolide, 2.00
Gloriport was the horse to bet. As it turned out, Gloriport made a bold move, closing from fifth at the half-mile pole to first at the stretch and went on to win by two lengths. The return was $5.20.
In the fourth race, the favorite at $2.90 ran fourth by five lengths. However, the sixth race for 2-year-old maidens saw Ideal Union run six furlongs almost wire-to-wire to win by an easy five lengths and pay backers $7. In the seventh, a seven-furlong event for 2-year-old fillies, For My Mom took the lead going into the stretch and won by 3 1/2 lengths, returning $3.60.
For the day, system players would have bet $8 and would have cashed in tickets worth $15.80, for a $7.80 profit.
In any case, in 1989, there were 120 races for 2-year-olds at Hollywood Park and Santa Anita race tracks. Of these races, 48 favorites won. During the Hollywood Park summer season, 16 favorites won out of 36 races, and during the fall season 26 hit in 68 races. At Santa Anita, during a short five days in December, six favorites reached the finish first in 16 races.
For the 120 races during the year, you would have needed only $240, providing, of course, that you had continually bet $2 a race. Your returns would have amounted to $248.20 and your profit a nifty $28.20. Your winning percentage would have been a high 40%, compared to 30% to 33% for all favorites.
And if you’re the type who sneers at winning only $28.20 over a year’s activities, then raise your bets to make it more interesting. It’s like playing poker. If you’re holding the right cards, you can bet big with confidence. You don’t have to bluff.
Had you been betting $10 a race, you would have made $141. A $50 bet each race would have returned $705 and $100 would have resulted in a profit of $1,410. If you were the Banker, and could afford to bet $1,000 a race, you would have made $14,100 for the year.
One of the reasons there are fewer 2-year-old races at Santa Anita is that all the 1-year-olds turn 2 years old at the first of the year, regardless of when they were born. But they do have a way to go before reaching full growth and maturity.
At Hollywood Park later in the year, the 2-year-olds are older and physically stronger. This means that the 2-year-olds can become more predictable as the year lengthens.
What the experts will tell you is that betting on the 2-year-olds is the quickest way to bankruptcy. Not only will you go broke wagering on these neophytes, but also your aspirin and coffee bills should increase proportionately as you stay awake nights with headaches figuring out ways to get even.
Two-year-olds are new to the game and are terribly nervous, they say. They’ll jump from the slightest noise, they’ll run from people and they’ll even shy away from track shadows or flying pieces of paper. No matter where they are on the track--in the stable area or paddock or on the track--they can’t be trusted.
But who can trust a horse anyway? If you should ask the nag, it’s not going to admit that it has some head problems and is popping some pills. What it might say is: “I’ve been working out and I’m in shape. Ready to go. I’m going to win easy. A piece of cake. Those other goats in the race better watch out. They’re going to see my dust!”