A symposium with Richard Hartley Jnr, Rick Roberts, Bruce Master, and chaired by Martin Dowling.
M.D: Winning is all. It's like any other sport or recreation. Everything else is secondary in a punter's mind. If he doesn't win he is losing, and while this sounds obvious it is the difference between the feelings of elation and happiness and a feeling of depression. We four are here to establish our ideas for winning in 1991.
We are not so much interested in what we might do ourselves, as we are all, in the end, individuals, but we are looking at what our readers might do, week-by-week, to try to improve their chances. References to Winmaster, etc., are out as they are mentioned elsewhere. We want to come right down to the basic philosophy behind winning for the New Year.
We are going to concentrate on what the punter can do to improve his lot from day to day, and maybe change his ways slightly. Let's start with Rick, as the one who has opinions on everything.
RR: Thanks mate. I do have opinions on winning though, and 1991 is no different from any other year. Above all other things, the punter must record every wager he makes in a book.
RH: Yes, Rick, but it's bigger than that. He has to record every horse he considers then write down why he either backs it or lets it go. Then he has to follow up with an analysis of how it ran and whether his selecting was good, bad or somewhere in between. It's a big job and it doesn't stop with recording the bets. If there was bad luck involved it has to be genuine bad luck. In other words, a truthful account of exactly how the horse went, whether he backed the thing or not.
RR: Fair enough, Richard. You are quite right in fact, and I do that. So let's start with a rule:
BUY A SMALL DIARY, ONE DAY TO A PAGE.
USE THE FOLLOWING CODES: CONSELECTION/ REJECTION.
RECORD THE RESULTS OF EVERY ONE OF THESE CONTENDERS.
What you should do is to put a stroke through either the word selection or rejection, depending on whether you decide to support the horse or let it run without you.
You will have a separate section for your bank (every decent diary has a month-by-month section for this). This will be your way of keeping your day-today bank record, besides recording the bets and the returns alongside your contenders.
You will write up, after the race, how your selection fared, and do it absolutely honestly. Keep a record of your wins and losses, and the percentages involved.
Make notes as to the kinds of races you bet in, so you can detect any strengths and weaknesses in your selections as your book fills up.
MD: There is no doubt that a book is essential. We can return to it later if time permits, but let's see what Bruce has to say.
BM: Being new to this kind of thing but of course in the game for years, I am inclined to say:
STICK TO THE SATURDAY MEETINGS.
They are generally where the form is best exposed, and you do get 52 betting days in every year, with heaven knows how many races to pick from! It means you have time to collect your thoughts after nominations and again after acceptances.
At this point the symposium stopped because it was being held at my residence on Sunday afternoon, November 25. We listened to the marvellous call by Brian Martin of the Japan Cup, and rejoiced along with all Australia in BETTER LOOSEN UP'S WIN IN THE JAPAN CUP. Well done, David Hayes, Michael Clarke and of course, above all, you wonderful horse!
What is racing about? It's about champions. Had you followed this fellow through the spring of 1990, you'd have been very happy.
BM: Not only do you get to bet on the best races, when you stick to the Saturday cards, but also you bet on the best horses racing at that time of year. Better Loosen Up is one supreme example. There were fifty others I could have come at but having just listened to his crowning achievement, I am thinking that all his great wins have been on Saturdays. Cox Plate, Mackinnon, etc. OK, the Japan Cup was on Sunday, but that is not very relevant to my argument is it? Look at Planet Ruler, Sydeston, Super Impose, Canny Lad, and so on. Not only the best races and the best horses, but it's also really exciting. It's a way of life, almost all you need in the way of both thrills and relaxation!
RR: Agreed. The best horses, the best races, but I'd add something else. The best trainers and riders.
STICK TO THE BEST RIDERS AND THE BEST TRAINERS
Some of the top fellows don't ride in the country or midweek, and even if they do I find the form harder to sift because I find the horses are often far too close together.
Also, the best races-those which offer the most prizemoney and consequently attract the best animals - are run on Saturdays except for a handful that, if you want to, you can add to your list. The Australian Cup, the Melbourne Cup, the William Reid, and the big races for top horses run on Tuesdays and Thursdays during the big carnivals. But most of the year the principle sticks.
I can establish the outstanding chances in the weekend meetings without too much trouble. I don't mean I can get all the winners, but in five or six races between Sydney and Melbourne, and maybe Brisbane and Adelaide, I can usually fine down the fields and at least know exactly where my attention ought to be centring.
Take as an example the Caulfield Cup. Even in a race like that there was one outstanding horse, Sydeston, and only four or five that had any hope of beating him, given the conditions. Many of them had been fighting each other for a berth in the race by trying to win midweek races, and if you can bring to mind the Melbourne Show Day meeting, there were examples of horses that won and sprang surprises. Those horses failed later on in the big Saturday races. I am thinking of Submariner, and also just a Dancer (who, I accept, won the Herbert Power but it turned out to be a very substandard race). On that Show day, Sydeston actually missed a place. Now there's a situation!
RH: True enough. The best riders have been mentioned. It's not an easy task to single them out, but at the moment Darren Beadman is riding so well, both for the Vic Thompson stable and outside (Kingston Rule for Bart Cummings is the prime example) that he would be at the top of my tree. Also in Sydney I always like to have John Marshall or Jim Cassidy on a Cummings horse, Dittman on a Smith cuddy, and I am also partial to Ken Russell, Shane Dye (who can win on anything) and Malcolm Johnston. In fact the last-named could have been anything. He seems to get into all sorts of bother, but he remains amongst the greats of modern riding.
Contrary to general opinion, I do not believe that there is any great apprentice in Sydney at the moment. Young G. Geran might develop into one, though. Matt Privato is promising. Melbourne is simpler, with Mick Clarke and Darren Gaud outstanding among the seniors. I have a very strong opinion of White on a distance horse, and Greg Hall is a very fine rider. Mick's brother Gary is also a top hoop. Melbourne has a couple of apprentices that could be worth following in the 1991 year. G. Robinson is one, G. Darrington the other. I think that if Peter Hutchinson ever decides to come over from Adelaide he will be very welcome, as the Melbourne riders are not as good as the Sydney ones, pound for pound.
MD: Yeah, well that ought to stir up some mail, Richard. I'm not sure the Editor wants to receive 3,000 letters from irate Victorian subscribers.
RR: Can I say something? Look, another major factor for the punter if he is serious about winning is the WAY he limits his bets. If he only bets on Saturday, OK, but whenever he bets he has to have limiters. I think that I can name half a dozen without drawing breath:
- SELECT A CERTAIN DISTANCE RANGE.
- SELECT A CERTAIN KIND OF RACING.
- LIMIT YOUR SYSTEMS AND PLANS.
- ESTABLISH YOUR BANK AND DECIDE ON AN ACCEPTABLE TURNOVER PROFIT.
- DECIDE ABOUT STAKING RIGHT FROM THE START.
- DECIDE WHAT PROPORTION, IF ANY, OF YOUR BANK IS DEVOTED TO PURSUING THE EXOTIC BETS.
Let me look at these in turn:
Select a certain distance range. There must be one that suits your betting style. If not, establish one!
BM: Yes, I only bet up to 2000 metres and never below 1200. I reckon that below 1200, one minor incident puts my horse out of the race, and over 2000, I am dealing with the imponderables of racing. As a matter of fact I like most the races of 1400 to 2000 metres on the bigger tracks.
RR: I too like the serious sprinters and the milers-plus, as I call them. If a horse can get a strong 1600 it can usually get a good 2000. Not always, but often. The tempo of a 2000 race is so often run at a slower bat that the good, strong milers can often cope. You will have your failures, but I have found that I make money expecting a strong miler to stay 2000 metres. I never expect him to stay 2400!
BM: That is the way to travel. Think very hard about your own ability to ascertain as much as you can about the betting game, and be prepared to admit and accept that there are areas best left to other investors. For example, I never bet on two-year-olds. Men I have been to the track with The Optimist, another who doesn't bet on the babies, we have often talked the philsophy of racing for anything up to three-quarters of an hour, because neither of us has the slightest interest in the betting ring for a particular two or three two-year-old races. He might end up wandering down to see if there's a story to sniff out, but that's as close as he gets to the actual betting.
Next point is limit your systems and your plans. Do not have 20 or 30 hanging around your neck like albatrosses! Have three or four good ones and stick to them. if you have faith in a selector, then for Pete's sake stay with Wm. don't chop and change. If Brian's 100 Horses to Follow, for example, is one of your favourites, then use it. Don't go on and off it.
As to the bank, the turnover is the key. If you expect to make a profit on turnover of, say, 10% (which is marvellous), your bank might actually turn over 10 times during a year. If you have a bank of $2000, and you bet $400 a week one way and another, then in five weeks you will have turned your bank over, and in a year it will have been turned over 10 times. This means that a bank of $2000 can theoretically return 100% of itself in a year. That's 10% of $20,000, which is what you will have invested as your bank turns over. It works out at $2000, or 100% of the original bank.
Decide about staking and decide about exotics. I don't bet exotics these days but I have friends who make money at them all the time. They concentrate on the trifectas and invest when they believe that the public is wrong in its choice of the favourite.
Whatever you decide, be sure to allocate part of the bank to it, and keep a separate account of your activities. If you start "skipping" a report here and there, you are doomed. And you are only cheating yourself!
RH: I agree with your basic arguments, and I don't think that anybody here is in disagreement. We might ask Martin in the time remaining to draw up a list of “observances". How about we each indicate one golden rule for winning in 1991, and then have dinner?
MD: Fine. List your golden rule, and we'll print each one at the end of the article I work out from this tape.
THE GOLDEN RULES OF THE FOUR SPEAKERS:
RH: This above all. Never invest what you cannot afford to lose. If you are doing this your judgement will be shot to pieces. Your whole betting programme will be worthless, because nerves will take over. I have seen too much of this, and I have seen punters go broke for two reasons when this happens. Some go broke because their judgement is affected by the importance of the cash they are using. The others go broke because they start betting to desperately get square. I know a journalist who had $1000 (credit bet) on a horse in the last race recently at Canterbury midweek. He didn't even select the horse in his top three for the paper he writes for, yet he was so worked up after dropping $2000 during the day that he had to try to get out. I don't need to say what the result was, do I?
BM: My golden rule is to establish your bank and stick to it. I guess that Richard and I are on the same line here, except that I say you have to have bank behind you in the first place.
RH: I couldn't agree more.
RR: Stick to top riders. They get the best horses and the best horses win. In fact they win the best races too! I could offer more, as you saw above, but this is one that will get you a share of the 20/1 winners as well as the short priced ones. And they are really what give the big thrills.
MD: My final word is one I so often offer. Decide on a range of bets and stick within it. If you are an old hand you know by now where you make your money. If not, watch every bet and try to stay with (say) two cities and three or four races per meeting maximum.
We are all agreed on keeping a book. We believe that without it you are sunk. And there is no point of the book unless everything goes into it. Remember what we noted above: the punter is only fooling himself if he doesn't record a losing bet, and very soon he is a mere gambler, and everything that he has ever learnt has gone out the window.
THE GOLDEN RULE FOR 1991, ABOVE ALL ELSE, IS TO BE TRUE TO YOURSELF. NO PUNTER CAN SURVIVE ONCE HE STARTS FUDGING THE BETS!
By Richard Hartley Jnr
PRACTICAL PUNTING - JANUARY 1991