AN EASIER WAY TO MAKE MONEY?You know, with your access to the net there are easier ways to make a buck than to shove it all into the biggest (and therefore often most difficult) races.Let's have a look at the long weekend.Say you used part of your bank, or a separate bank, to fund a method that selects two - no more - chances at reasonable odds. I mean around, say, $5 through to $10. That keeps it in the single digit odds area but in an area where (if betting to win) you're asked to pick maybe o
AN EASIER WAY TO MAKE MONEY?
You know, with your access to the net there are easier ways to make a buck than to shove it all into the biggest (and therefore often most difficult) races.
Let's have a look at the long weekend.
Say you used part of your bank, or a separate bank, to fund a method that selects two - no more - chances at reasonable odds. I mean around, say, $5 through to $10. That keeps it in the single digit odds area but in an area where (if betting to win) you're asked to pick maybe one winner in five bets to make a steady income. Three in five places to cover the each way component.
I tried this on Saturday, then again on Monday.
Saturday produced these two, after scratchings and after knowing more or less how the track was going to be playing (I mean by that an hour prior to the chosen races' being run): FANJURA at Caulfield and COUNT ENCOSTA at Rosehill.
Why these two? There is more than one reason; in fact there's a set.
Because of the field sizes.
Because of the form shown.
Because of the opposition and the number of chances.
Because the likely odds would mean a decent edge even if they only placed.
Fanjura was opposed by nine "usual suspects". Up to Group Three? Well, his win first up at Caulfield said he was OK with Australian conditions, his UK form at 2000 metres (today's distance) said he'd won three from four and placed in the other, and he was clearly a horse of real potential. All that at around $5.50. He firmed to significantly shorter, and it would have been best (with hindsight) to take the early $5.50 that was plentiful an hour before the race.
The thing about that $5.50 is that each way you're looking to a profit if he runs in the first three. This is his fifth shot at the distance, and he's never NOT done that.
Count Encosta had won his last two starts, and while rising in class, also met seven opponents. All the TABs were showing double figures early, so a punter might wait and take Best TAB, or better still one of those Best of the Best TAB/SP offers. Even if you could only get the local TAB, the home tote paid $12. The best for a place was around 2/1, but then the chances were very limited.
On Monday only Canterbury seemed to be offering a genuine city-class meeting. In an eight horse field, it was difficult to imagine the nice mare PRINCESS QUALITY missing a place. She swanned in, and the early $5.50 proved a bonus for both win and place.
The other pick was another import, ALBERTINELLI. He looked a ready-made each way job for the Neville Sellwood 1900 metres. The $6.50 each way seemed a bit lean on what the early forecasts (and my own thinking) suggested. He met one that had finished in front of him last start (and ironically, won today too!), and I'd anticipated maybe tens. However the early TAB markets suggested I'd never even see that $6.50 during the last half hour, and anyway I'd be getting tote place odds, which are usually crippling.
I went for the $6.50 with half my stake, and when betting opened seriously I quickly realised I wouldn't see that again, so I grabbed an offer of $6. He firmed to $5 and even less, with all the TABs paying around $4.50. Unusually though, they still paid $2.20 best (and home) TAB for the place. Anyway he got up for third, and I was relieved at that, as he was never going to win and had a fight to even get that minor placing.
Now this is not meant to suggest that I - or you - can do this every week. But if you go back over the lead-up and the known form of those four horses, I suspect you'll see that they all had great each way chances in fields where the chances were limited, and where they would be at backable each way odds.
All in all, I maintain that this approach can make a positive difference. That's what it's all about, agreed?