Last month we began this series which focuses on the 10 systems and staking plans that a group of PPM contributors has voted "the best" of the past 17 years, though they all said they could easily have chosen another 100!

Deciding which systems are the tops proved a tougher job than we'd anticipated. All members of the team had varying views.


And let me admit it, some were biased. They were very partial to their own systems ahead of the others! Finally, to fix this problem, it was decided that each PPM contributor had to vote for a system that he hadn't devised himself. This was the only fair way we could think of to beat parochialism.

Since our launch in April 1985, we've published hundreds of systems and staking plans. Many have been small "spot play" ideas (such as the ones you'll find in this issue of the magazine), others were more inventive ratings ideas, or large-scale systems demanding great discipline and control to be operated successfully.

Over the years we've had a tremendous amount of feedback from our readers. Some say they are still using systems they picked up from PPM in the '80s! Others say they used our system rules as the basis for their own and, by adding a rule or two, came up with a winning approach.

PPM's aim all along has been the business of inspiring punters to try a different approach, to throw out their losing ways and to head into new territory. The point we stress is this: If in normal times, following the betting technique you've always used, your annual loss is $2000, and then you use a system and cut your annual loss down to $1000, then that's a PROFITABLE move for you.

You may still be losing but you are not losing as much. There is more money in your pocket.

We've heard from many, many readers who thank us for helping them trim their losses, or to break square.

Systems 7 & 8 in our poll
 After due deliberation, our contributors (Jon Hudson, Richard Hartley Jnr, Martin Dowling, P.B. King, Philip Roy, Denton Jardine and Alan Jacobs) decided on the 10 "best" systems.

Listed at No. 7 on the top 10 chart is the 19 WAYS TO WIN staking plan that we first published in the early '90s. It's a fantastic approach and an ideal one for the small-bet punters of this world.

Now, a lot of backers achieve consistent results without ever managing to turn them into overall profit. They follow racing closely, know the formbook well and can pick out two or three sound wagers each day that are certain to go close at decent prices.

Yet, in the long run they lose ... too many near-misses, good 2nds and close-up 3rds eat into the gains from the winners.

This is where the 19 Ways plan comes into action. The trick with this approach is to link up one horse from one race with two horses from another in singles and eachway doubles. Let's say you pick Horse A as a banker for the first race and decide on Horses B and C for the second leg. The full bet is written as follows and you will see that it is very easy to follow even though the bet itself encompasses many variables as far as the results are concerned:

RACE 1
1PT WIN A

RACE 2
HALF-POINT WIN B
HALF-POINT WIN C
1PT EACHWAY DOUBLE A and B
1PT EACHWAY DOUBLE A and C

It may surprise you to learn that there are no less than 19 chances of a return! The possible combinations are as follows:

  1. A wins and B wins. C places. Result: 2 wins singles, 1 win double, 2 place doubles.
  2. A wins and C wins. B places. Result: 2 wins singles, 1 win double, 2 place doubles.
  3. A wins and B wins. C loses. Result: 2 win singles, 1 win double, 1 place double.
  4. A wins and C wins. B loses. Result: 2 win singles, 1 win double, 1 place double.
  5. A wins and B places. C places. Result: 1 win single, 2 place doubles.
  6. A wins and B places. C loses. Result: 1 win single, 1 place double.
  7. A wins and C places. B loses. Result: 1 win single, 1 place double.
  8. A wins and B loses. C loses. Result: 1 win single.
  9. B wins and A places. C places. Result: 1 win single, 2 place doubles.
  10. B wins and A places. C loses. Result: 1 win single, 1 place double.
  11. B wins and C places. A loses. Result: 1 win single.
  12. B wins and A loses. C loses. Result: 1 win single.
  13. C wins and A places. B places. Result: 1 win single, 2 place doubles.
  14. C wins and A places. B loses. Result: 1 win single, 1 place double.
  15. C wins and B places. A loses. Result: 1 win single.
  16. C wins and A loses. B loses. Result: 1 win single.
  17. A places and B places. C places. Result: 2 place doubles.
  18. A places and B places. C loses. Result: 1 place double.
  19. A places and C places. B loses. Result: 1 place double.

Eachway doubles are definitely value bets for the careful punter. This 19 Ways staking plan with its clever  combination of win singles and eachway doubles on three horses has tremendous scope.

It's for this reason that our judges were united in determining it to be one of the very best approaches we have outlined in PPM.

Says Martin Dowling: "It's always fascinated me, and I think for the small punter it is an absolute beauty. You can use it right through the meeting and have an enormous amount of fun, without risking too much."

The system voted at position No. 8 in our top 10 goes back some years in the magazine.

We published it in July 1994 in the Plan of the Month column. It's a system unashamedly aimed at backing top chances in sprint races.

The judges liked it because of its potential to return a very high win-strike rate as well as a solid profit on turnover. In the test conducted at the time, over two months, the strike rate for winners was 56 per cent and the overall profit on turnover at level stakes was 78 per cent. Excellent figures.

The plan, called THE 6-TRACK PLAN, is as follows:

  1. Only operate at Flemington, Moonee Valley, Sandown, Rosehill, Randwick and Warwick Farm.
  2. Ignore any races that do not have between 8 and 15 runners.
  3. Operate only on races between 1100m and 1215m.
  4. The track condition must be no worse than Dead.
  5. Consider only runners in barriers 1 through to 9.
  6. Contender must have raced in the last 24 days.
  7. Contender must have a place-strike percentage of at least 24 per cent.
  8. Contender's last race margin, if beaten, should be no more than 3 lengths. Winners are automatically included as contenders.

These, then, are the simple rules of the game. There are never many races to bet on because you are looking at a restricted distance range. In the test conducted, there were 23 bets between March 8 and April 30. There were 13 winners. The best winner paid $6.40.

A system like this one is an ideal vehicle for those among you who like to have a facility to back "superbets"  alongside your normal day's bets. You will usually get four bets a week on Saturdays. That's enough to give you some very special action.

In the test, there were three bets on March 12, 1994, three bets on March 19, four bets on April 16, and three bets on April 30. The other days had one or two bets. This is selective action.

Denton Jardine, one of the judges, says: "This system really appealed to me because it doesn't try to tilt at too many windmills. It restricts itself to a narrow distance range, it looks for good horses but it doesn't slavishly follow horses that ran placings last start. I think it's a most useful and reliable approach and I had no hesitation in including it on the top 10.”

Next month, in our April issue, we'll bring you the systems and staking plans that rank 4, 5 and 6 in the top 10. I know you will be delighted at the selections.

Martin Dowling has told me that the system he has chosen for the next section of this popularity poll is the best he has seen, mainly because of its ability to easily select the leading contenders in a race, a fact that Martin considers most essential in any mechanical system or form approach.

By Jon Hudson

PRACTICAL PUNTING - MARCH 2003