By CLIVE ALLOCK, PPM columnist
It was a trip down that memory lane to see The Optimist ask in the last issue of Practical Punting if I still was a win punter as opposed to the many other options around but especially each way betting.
We have debated/discussed this many times over the years. Our paths have not crossed for a while as different geography makes face to face analysis hard but my answer old (as in long time association, not age!) colleague is ‐ yes, I remain a almost exclusively a win punter. Why? Well, it boils down to results.
Of course I am set in my ways and these noo fangled things like first four, multis and other tempting attractions are often beyond my computer skills. But again, when tried, it is the bottom line that keeps me doing my bets the same old, same old. Let me give some examples and even a rare detour into each way betting will show that for me it is not the best long term option. In so doing let me state that TO is, in my view, one of the smartest punters and thinkers about the game I have encountered in over half a century of punting. What works for him seems not to work for me and his skill in picking good value place chances for the all ups is something I cannot match.
But back to my reasons for win betting as the way for me. Results. One factor is a system (meaning here set rules for selections) that I have referred to from time to time. Over twenty years from 1990 my colleague dutifully kept results based on NSW prices. The result from over 5000 bets was a win profit of 1.5%. We stopped because the last years were not as good and we felt the reasons for a decline reflected some changes in racing circumstances. However my colleague kept place dividends for the same sample.
That result was a loss of 13.5%!! Of course as I noted greater selectivity such as TO can practice could give a very different result and I do know of one place only punter who chooses very carefully and has good results to show. But that survey mirrors my own experience. Some recent examples. I wrote about Complacent last time and unfortunately the gap between writing and publication meant the $65 win was missed by those brave enough to follow my hunch. My bet there was each way. Why? Well, I had backed two others to win also and thought he may still be one run short.
Now the place dividend was a nice $12 BUT with half the bet going to the place the loss was obviously $53 for each dollar bet. Clearly I would have been better to stick to my usual pattern and bet win. Likewise a friend had a horse that was expected to run an improved race. It did! A win at $45 was much improvement and very unexpected! Hence the bet was each way. Again a place dividend of $10 was nice but again a loss compared to the win bet. Okay.
The obvious rejoinder is – how often have you run a place and would have lost money but the place bet saved you? The answer is – often. One was the same friend with another horse that ran third at $100 paying a poor $17 for a place (which I collected). But it still is the overall outcome. My records continue to suggest that for me win betting is the best return. Others may do well with alternatives but my temperament and style point to any wining year being because of my win bets and some good dividends achieved.
As TO has said the debate goes on and the question of all ups, first fours, place or whatever I think does remain with what works for each individual and we each need to find that out. And I am probably too old to change my ways!
WHAT A GREAT STORY! The win of all involved with that Cup this year (horse, jockey trainer and all) was a fantastic racing story even if for the second year in a row I backed second, third and fourth (and no – place dividends would not have covered my bets!).
Still perhaps too early to abandon my $10‐ $21 selection approach which had seven bets this year and probably reflects the uncertainty of punters and bookies alike about where to place some horses in the market. Personally I think the race has become much more uncertain for serious punting and I do not share the excitement that officials show around so many overseas horses coming here. But as I said – I may be getting too old for such changes! Still, the win left me pondering about how the winner may have ben selected. Form guides did include a good third at Flemington in a sound distance race and the second at the previous start probably also broke the track record now held by the winner. However I felt the distance would test and it ended up being a slow run event.
But I vaguely recalled a selection technique from days of yore that has dropped out of favour for whatever reason. As I recall you backed the second, third and fourth from the Caulfield Cup AND the Moonee Valley Cup (no winners as they get penalised usually) and the first three in the MacKinnon. Of course some do not start in the Melbourne Cup and a rare beast may be featured twice but you mostly ended up with five or six contenders and of course this year great joy! Maybe this one or some modern adaption is worth rethinking over?