[AusRace] Lew and Marie - a progressive bookmaker company - Part 2

[Tony Moffat]

1 Shimmy in the Ring -Part 2
I posted and recalled the first part but it went through. This part is
longer and not proofed. It has had some names and incidents removed.
In the late 60s, trotting and harness racing is the poor cousin in
horse racing prizemoney distribution. Often the on course tote holding
exceeded the off course holding from around Australia. Owners,
trainers and others involved could only gain a benefit if they bet.
Favourites are normally short and defined and runners odds past 50/1
were rare with odds often capped at twice the runner numbers plus 3 or
so e.g. 15 starters meant the longest price was 30/1 + 3 = 33/1. Book
percentage often totalled 130%+, if you could get bet coverage, very
much larger percentages were seen too, and an average would be quite
high as a result.
There were some good class horses racing at this time, some of them
went to trainers in Sydney and Melbourne and paid their way there too.
Fields were large and it was standing start conditions, a rubber band
released from across the track and they were off. The bikes were just
becoming light weight but there was still bamboo shafts and woven
wicker platforms and spoked wheels, inadequate protective helmets and
lace up shoes. 
The bookmaking office, the registered address, was on the farm in a
room designated for that purpose. Just a fireplace, a desk, a phone
and telex, a longer, wider table and some chairs with a view over the
dam, home of the cannibalistic geese. There were two sp in town, one a
funeral director, but Lew and we stayed away from them. The Police
came and took photos of the office and told Lew they had been
monitoring phone calls to and fro. This was the old plug and call
days, your call was connected to you by a human being. Lew never took
a bet before he got up on his stand 22 minutes before the first race.
To bet with him you had to be on course. All day he got off the stand
after the start and talked to connections and others who were not
watching the race. He rarely did. After the race he would say 'how
much is this going to cost me' or some other glib comment like 'Am I a
millionaire yet' and I would have the holdings and payout and he would
do the math and say 'good'.
Everything was 'good'. His response to a question was 'good' which was
interpreted as 'yes'. A no required an explanation and further input,
and after assessing all the known facts, after about 7 seconds back
would come 'good'. If, in the end 'good' was not 'good', then he moved
on. At the time of the initial 'good' he had said yes and he lived and
breathed that. You had to be in possession of all the facts though in
order to get a no into a 'good'. Questions had to be asked that could
only be answered as 'good'. It's an art, ask me. Such as, 'Lew we are
going to move the stand into the shade', 'good' as opposed to, 'but
all the betting traffic is here in the sun'. He had his prices and
percentages, an occasional bet with the Tote, a further occasional
Tote bet for himself, 'Lew-man', separate and remote from the book for
which Marie would give him the money from her purse. I don't think he
had a wallet even. He went to Auckland for 3 days and got annoyed when
they knocked back his offered cheques and his Dad and brothers had to
lend him local money, for which he gave them a cheque I'm sure.
Some punters were genius. "Ted" a carpenter never failed to back a
winner with us, say 12 consecutive winners over 8 meetings. He bet up
to $40 maximum on his single pick and stood near the stand during the
race then went to the queue. These were winners out to 8/1. Sometimes
he would have $10 with us and then some on the Tote, he often did not
cash his ticket with us, it was held by him and not changed back by
us. There are local and association rules to cover that and Ted bought
a stamp album in one day and he had pages of betting tickets, ours and
others, some out of business. I don't know if any in that book were
winners but there was a few there, 4 to a page and the book was full.
Lew was an opinion man and trusted his own form study. Chances are he
also had the winner in his sights.  He, or more often Marie bet on the
tote at the $20 window. 'A company investment' he called it and it was
never spoken of in a loud voice, returns would be in the $300-$400
range. Then he may have a bet for himself as I wrote before, 'some for
Uncle LewLew' he would announce then get some money from Marie's purse
and stand in the queue at the Tote window. Marie would talk to
somebody's wife and I would sneak off and have a leak, the bag chained
to me, funny mind picture even now. From judge's final, to payoff, to
setting the board for the next was about 11 minutes then 22 minutes
maybe of dealing, and calling bets before the next race started. Our
stand was quiet, Lew did spruik often and if he did it was about some
local champ, 'get over the odds on your cousin here' type of thing and
the ring would smile for once. In fact, Lews personification of a
runner was expected, and if there wasn't horses on the horizon you
would have thought it was Jimmy Sharmans junior boxing tent, with his
drone of 'get your best odds here,  step up step this way and back the
fav here, best prices for those with crooked noses'. It's not funny
now, but it was expected then and it could be hurtful, it was a
challenge, it's just business, that's all. Lew perhaps had fought with
Sharman troupe members. It's mostly a friendless place, the ring.
Serious faces scanning the odds, looking at their notes, or talking to
other serious faces. Not that we are the enemy, we were the reason
they stood there with their serious faces on, perhaps it's how they
believed they should behave, to display some credibility or
pre-knowledge. The company was known to be generous, Lews market was
close to other boards but it was his and a runner at 4/1 might be 9/1
on form, it's just that others had it shorter than us and were writing
business on it, why wouldn't we extend it to get some bets too and of
course, nowhere near its form price. Lew gave fractions, the increase
in return to the punter, after I had called the money side precisely
he would intervene and say to Stuart, 'write 100 to 16' for a 15 bet
at 6's then go through the rigmarole of getting a dollar note from his
sock and putting it in the bag. The client got 3/1 for that dollar for
free too, pure circus. He had a business model and he talked about it
in the car, if he could stay awake. He wanted the company to prosper,
he wanted us to be transparent in our dealings, and the odds are on
display on our stand, our prices are better, bet with us, bet within
the rules of betting. He never gave credit, he never donated money
that would be punted, he paid up after every race, and you pay up
before every race. He was not free with his opinion either, the board
prices came from him and his piece of notepaper, the prices were set
in less time and usually first, the other bagman would rock up and say
the boss wants some of the toppie and Lew would say 'I got a big man
with a big bag, tell him' out would come the 200 or some such and I
would call the bet, Lew would write and say 'two two' or whatever the
ticket number was and Stuart would say back 'Yes 2 2' and I would be
talking to the next client. The punters would be bursting with
anticipation to get their bets on, and move on to watch the race or
move down the and around the ring. They would call to Lew 'I want some
of that 7 s please' although they might be 3rd in the queue and Lew
would say 'sure' and sure enough in a couple of bets later he would
hand across his money and get it on at 7's. It rarely moved,
especially at the trots. If Lew rolled it in before the punters and
they asked for the early price they got it, say 6/4 into 5/4 , a
sizeable shift, and punter B wanted his 400 at 6/4, you're on, just
tell us what you want. Within the confines of the book prices you can
do that relatively safely, it's the crazy stuff that doesn't work for
you, like 400 at 6/4 then 600 at 5/1 just to get the income from the
same client. He's no mug, none of them are, he is happy to put his
first up at 6/4 and to him that is better than the winning chance of
this conveyance. Fascinating is the ebb and flow at your stand but
through the ring also during the pre-amble and after the jump, big
bets have been lost and won after the jump. We can write tickets and
have a few at the stand while the race is under way and in the back
straight.
I was allowed to call the bets as I had asked Lew to do this. I was
wanting to get the mental acuity of punting down and calling does
this. Generally, I called the take side of the bet as 1 or 2 or 4 or 8
and these were my multiplicands. I meant start at evens 1/1, then 2/1,
3/1,4/1 primary school stuff
On days we were not at a trot meeting there was a communal brunch,
this the era of early bbqs but mostly it was bread rolls and salad and
cold meat that Marie had prepared. There were 11 persons associated
with the company business, 23 if you included the motel and service
station and more than 90 in the whole concern if the other service
stations are included.
Snipped> 
The service stations were leased. Lew wanted to buy the sites, change
the brand, but continue as he had been including buying fuel from the
company who supplied it. It didn't happen although he was offered
further sites to lease towards Hay and south towards the border. The
fuel delivery lease changed too and it required negotiation to get it
working to the company benefit again. Lew and/or Sid spent days in
Sydney sorting it out. The MP for the area got involved.
I was with Lew and Marie to learn the operation of bookmaking and he
was a good teacher. Not really a face manager, he knew people who were
big bettors and welcomed them to the stand and he was often surprised,
but did not show it, at others who approached him and wanted a
sizeable bet, up to his maximum anyway and he took them all on. He
might accept another big bet on the same horse later in betting but
that depended on what he had written against other runners. He told
the big bettors that too saying check with me later I might ease yours
to get a bit more from you, ok. It was a challenge, really, saying I
have your bet but later on I will have another bet with you a longer
odds for the same amount. They came back more often than not and some
came back to gloat if they won. It's as if they had run the race.
Snipped>
 Lew did his own form study and set his own prices, they generally
agreed with the price rank in the ring. If A was favourite everywhere
it was often favourite with us, the difference being they might have
it at evens, 1/1, and Lew might have it at 2/1 or 6/4 and at that
price he had in fact determined it to be a 5/1 chance at best although
he was offering 2/1, thus protecting himself. Punters may have a price
point at which they start betting, or more often stop betting and they
are two different places for the same horse. Horse A mentioned, quoted
at evens everywhere still generated business for other bookmakers,
their faithful clients who bet with them and nobody else. Whereas
other punters may not start betting until A gets to 2/1 but will
continue betting until it is down to evens, so the ring compensates
itself often. Lew looks at the field of 11 runners and starts with the
premise that any runner can win, they are in the race, driven by an
authorised driver and the race is run within the rules of racing
therefore any runner can win. On that basis he should offer 10/1 the
field, you can outlay 11 dollars, one dollar on each horse and receive
11 dollars back, you can't lose, you can't win either. Lew then winds
in the prices of various runners, because of certain form tests, until
he has some at 8/1 and some at 12. Or 15 or 25/1. Then he keeps
modifying the prices, the four favourites perhaps until he settles at
3/1 for the best horse. Others might have that at 1/1 on their boards,
and Lew will have it at 6/4 and will accept a bet at 2/1 if you ask
him, just stand beside him and say what is the best price for $400 on
such and such and he will tell you, you say thank you, yes, Lew calls
the bet, Marie writes or pencils it in, I collect the money and Lew
writes the ticket, and puts all that data on the ticket, the horse
name, the amount on, the price he wrote it at. Marie totals the book
after every bet and when he has a liability of $4000 on one particular
horse she tells him, he actually adjusts the board when the holding is
at $2000, and the other runners are lengthened, just marginally but
perhaps the best in the ring now, the favourite stays put, he won't
shorten that until or unless he gets a sizeable bet at the  odds he
has, but he might lengthen the 3rd to 6th favourites a little. The 6th
favourite would probably be in the 12/1 range, the longest price for
it anywhere and probably longer than the tote. Marie would leave at
this point and put $20 or more on each of the 4th to 7th favourite,
rarely asking a nearby bookie for the bet, just insuring the book and
occasionally because we had not taken any money for those runners
also.
Snipped>
 It happens quite a bit actually, the favourites out to 5/1 are
backed, then a big gap out to 20/1, and a few bets on the longer
priced horses out there, Lew taking the bet and Marie laying off with
$10 on the tote. Lew never, or at least, rarely,  accepted a bet back
from another bookie, it annoyed them but their only defense was to say
no to us but they needed some lay money to balance their books too and
they were only going to get it in the volume needed from Lew or
another.
 I have seen races were the favourite lost and we have not had a bet
recorded for it, people just bypassed us, bet with their bookie or the
tote and on the same race we have not had a bet written against the
winner, so we are holding a couple of thousand and its all ours. Nor
did we write any business for the winner, lets say it's the third
favourite, but we did take in perhaps $2700 on other bets and as I
said, its all ours, the punters got it wrong.  We did nothing to
influence the out come of a race. Lew would have seen the price of the
other runners getting out and he might take some bag money and bet
with the tote on them. Lew would now have an opinion on the favourite,
because we hold nothing for it he might crunch it on the tote and
cover that bet with some others further out in the odds, the trouble
horses that can win but need everything in their favour to do so, most
often a miscalculation by a driver. He might spend a couple of hundred
on runners out past 12/1 and if they salute he wins again, he has the
money holding, there is nothing to pay out and he has a thousand or
more coming in from tote bets or bet. He may be called a punter
bookmaker, he is stunningly accurate in his assessments of runners
ability it just comes down to the horse on the day, the driver,
tactics and some other variables that can't be controlled. That's why
they have odds. Strangely, he finds the concept of professional
punting appealing, I mean, he does all this form study and pre race he
has an idea of the outcome, down to a couple of horses anyway, and has
priced their abilities so why not just give the bookmaking away and
live the dream of punting for a living. He won't because Marie wants
the connection of being involved on both sides, they are married and
in a partnership in business as well. Lew will often have a bet away
from the business side of things and put the money in his wallet after
a collect, that is permissible, he did employ a commissionaire for a
year, a man to do his betting for him which caused trouble in the
ring, with bookies refusing to take bets from this man or halving the
bets. So they bet on the tote, using the local tote prices to bet to
chances and make a quid no matter what won. Later in Melbourne, he
also had a man running for him and placing bets. He had Stewart as the
form guru also and between the two of them, Lew and Stu, they did well
I imagine. I was never given a tip in the time I worked there, we
talked about certain races and runners but I was never told the
perceived best horses in any race. Its just business, I would bet on
the tote, or Marie would bet for me, if she was going that way for the
business she would plonk my bet on too.  I was permitted to bet with
the book, up to a level which was way higher than I wanted anyway and
I might have two $20 bets with him during the course of a day. I
repeat, it's just business, not family or friend or anything like that
and I got paid for what I did, I was an employee, earlier in his
overall business of which bookmaking was an arm, then a pay rise to
live and work in Melbourne with him, them actually because I often
slept at their home after a country meeting and a late arrival back
into the city. He did country trots in Victoria to start with then
transferred to horse racing when he could, this was his intention all
along. 
Snipped>
Lew using a man to place his bets was a profitable time, about the
same as writing tickets he has said. His brother or his cousins did
the running for him when we were in Melbourne at the races, they would
lay off for us, invariably on the Tote. His brother was a fearless
operator really and it was boom or bust with him, he had a substantial
bank I believe and a daily limit, a limit to lose that is, if he lost
his bank roll he just sat with us and drank tea although that didn't
happen often. He might be finished his betting by the time of the
second jump race, he found these particularly appealing for his
betting, some people berate the jumps confusing the horse falls and
the jockey injuries possible with the competitiveness that is always
present. Jump jockeys are heavyweights generally, or normally, and as
they can only compete in one or two races a program the pressure is on
to get into the places to make a living with a sling for winning or
placing perhaps. They get 2.5% of the prizemoney, this may have
increased now though, and they are good riders, tough men, who have
respect and feelings for their horses. Often a runner will be eased
out at the top of the straight because the rider can tell that it is
not going to figure in the finish. The distance of the race, the
weight carried and the jump is a severe multiplier for effort needed
to win these races. There is often a short priced favourite, who
scores above the average I believe and there is a gap in prices back
to the other runners. Jumps racing will be phased out, people see the
occasional fall and determine that every race must be like that, it's
not though. One facet of jumps racing that is annoying is a big horse,
having made a fortune for its owners is sold, commonly its a gelding
or a barren mare, and although they have earnt and paid for their
retirement they are put over the jumps and exposed to injury, and the
injuries occasionally mean the horse has to be put down, euthanased,
and the jockey is injured. My opinion, my opinion only is that these
big runners have earnt a place in a paddock, please let them live in
warmth and green pastures for the remainder of their days. I worked at
a station once that had about 60 retired horses, they loved the life,
you can tell when  a horse is happy and content, it's behaviour
becomes inquisitive and childish, horse childish anyway.
Lew, on the other hand he has gone weeks without a bet, still
enthusiastic with form study and watching races and reading everything
about them but just not betting, he said he thought there was some
corrupt activities going on, drivers liasing type of things, runners
not running on their merit, but he stopped thinking that when there
was just no evidence to support it. You can have those thoughts right
but there needs to be some corroboration too, and perhaps some betting
activity to support your thoughts. In fact, he says, there is about
the tenth of suspect behaviour taking place that people imagine there
is. Horses get prepared for races, to win races, they are secretly
trained and schooled and run in races unsuitable for them all to get
fitness and ability to perform on their day. Their day often coincides
with other runners prepared likewise, that is racing, that's what
trainers do and have always done, they don't get up at 2.00am because
they like that, they get up and work their horses because the big
punting day is approaching. Its good to be part of that, let me tell
you, their expectancy and their vocal protests,vocalityness (yes,that)
when you have their runner at a price less than they anticipate or
more likely, some cowboy has also entered the ring and taken all the
early odds on this one and another often, sometimes 30 bets at top
odds on two horses and the owners and trainers are annoyed. Lew has a
bet limit, there is a sign on the stand that directs punters to what
that limit is, he may allow one bet to the limit from one punter and
not want to write anymore for the runner until or unless he can write
up some business for others. This annoys punters no end, but they can
move next door and get set with that man too if they choose to, or Lew
may invite them to come back in 10 minutes or so, just call by and see
me and we will talk a price for you, often a price greater than what
you got written up for now. Lew was famous for that, just harnessing
or corralling all the ring money he could for runners in the market.
Sounds dangerous but that is bookmaking accounting for you and that's
why he has odds. He once said he has never assessed a horse as a
certainty, never priced a horse at even money, 1 dollar out, one
dollar back plus your stake. He has displayed runners at evens, lots
of times, but his price, his mental calculated price is probably 3/1
or may be 5/1, its just that the public, the punters are wanting to
take your odds, your evens when the chap next to you is in the red or
further but not Lew, if it was a sizeable bet he would give you evens
all day, seriously, while the other fielders are protecting themselves
Lew can see other runners that are capable of winning this and is
prepared to take your bet on that basis. He has had horses at short
odds and told Stewart, and Stewart agreed that they should be 8's or
12/1 in actuality, read that again, he has written horses as bets at
3/1 when there assessed chance of winning are much longer, but the
public wants to back them and he wants to lay them and the public will
accept 3/1 or less about a runner that is middle pin or worse on the
probability scale, calculated from exposed form of itself and the
other runners in the race. That's why we have odds. But no, favourites
were favourites because of the weight of money and because of their
exposed form or the form of their rivals in todays race more like it.
The favourite is the perceived best runner in the race, the should win
runner against which all others are gauged. There are many reasons why
favourites, runners with prices separate and remote from other
runners, favourites at 1/1 and the next runner is 3/1 or more, good
hard favourites lose because some of them are over rated, you got it
wrong simply, the runner did not deserve to be favourite or the runner
is having a bad day, it happens or your driver has had a brain fart,
common. Those three items can account for 50% or more for failures
with favourites. The other factor is that the other runners are under
rated, you assessed them wrong and together they have ganged up to
beat your runner essentially. Lew can price his races with this
information in mind, he sets his prices then allows for errors, some
runners get a lot of allowance and some get a little, his favourites
as I have stated previously are rarely short short, they are fairly
priced with a margin built in, this is something he can control, if
you want to do business with us then you will accept the prices and
the price on offer will be the best available in thering, the Tote
might be better occasionally, but for true favourites, the out and out
stand out runners can be beaten because you have not assessed their
opposition correctly, or they have a bad day, or their driver has a
bad day or you have your favourite over rated. Note that those two
factors are vastly different, the over rated favourite and the runners
opposing it that are under rated. You can skew the market and include
most runners to run for you and still make 20% in each race, provided
yours wins and this means you have to win 5, or 6 or 7 to accumulate
140% then lose a race to lose 100% so that you are 40% in front, can
you do that? No punter can, a punter using his money will peel off and
stop betting when he has lost, either one or three or some thing in a
row. But a bookmaker fronts up every race because he can see and he
knows that his money is going to come back to him, its just longevity,
staying in the game for this day or a couple of days and you are in
clover again. The best, and indeed the only way, to make money on the
punt is to identify a couple of hundred true favourites every year, so
twice a day or twice a meeting perhaps, you assessment is so good you
can pick the true favourite, the deserving favourite and you back that
at the best price, either with us because we have the best prices or
unknown on the Tote (although Tote prices are widely known now but
perhaps not quite so in the time line context of when Lew was
bookmaking) Like share traders, some winning punters are privy to
information not widely known otherwise and perhaps the price reflects
this. A runner priced at above 7/1 say and less than 9/1 in 99% of
occasions which is capable of causing a boilover may have ability or
information attached to it that the ordinary public are not aware.
Don't worry, the money coming for it will have it shorten into
observation or a watch on it in the book, your assessment has put it
out there at half the field odds, a chance but there is now something
new that you don't know that causes money to run for it, these win
sometimes but usually at half their quote or longer, so a 9/1 runner
with the information traits described here might win at 5/1 or 5.5/1
because of the weight of money. Lew may have assessed this runner at
those odds then built some comfort into the price. It works both ways
too, a punter sees the 9/1 and takes it and we have secured the field
money for that runner, chances are, and Lew would leave it at that
price but if further money comes he might take some of the field money
and bet back through the tote, Marie would leave her pencilling and go
to the tote and back it at the $20 window. In actuality she might go
into the tote building at a country course and the supervisor would
accept the bet on her console, issue the ticket, they would talk about
common interests for a time, and Marie would return, harsh but fair,
and in the meantime I would call the bet and run the book and Lew
would be Lew, standing above us all, looking around the ring, looking
for a barracuda amongst the minows more like it. Its allowed, this
built in safety measure in the prices, people more often now are
pricing the runners on their merit, their exposed form and backing
those over their assessed prices, so taking 2 or more a race with
their money, in effect being a bookmaker with a bookmaker. It works
for and adds to the enjoyment of the day at the races. It is easier to
pick horses that will lose than those that will win. Universally,
everybody who is serious about form study wil conclude that 2 or 3 or
more runners will contend the end of the race and that any of those
can win if the driver of it is capable of accepting a win. It is often
brave decisions before the turn which determine the race result, an
easy energy burn to get into position is often not attempted because
the driver fears ridicule if his tactic does not work and the runner
folds to run 4th or worse. The fact that it ran 4th may be because of
his brave move early otherwise the animal is boxed up back in the ruck
of struggling 6 wide after the fan, it looks impressive but it is so
energy sapping, sometimes a runner cannot produce its form in
subsequent races if it has been pushed wide and asked for past
exhaustion exertion to provide a show for the owners and stewards.
Horses that have figured in wide running and good times for the race
distance can be a danger in later races. A punter may spend 10% or
more of his punting bank backing runners from some personal belief he
has, so he has backed his researched horses then he over spends on
others that may just beat his selections. It all adds to a loss, or a
spend not required. Its important to know how to bet, staying at a
comfortable output level until a bank is retained or increased then
having progressively bigger bets on subsequent races as the profits
come in. Look for the best prices, always. And bookmaker prices may
add 5% to your profit over time as compared to betting with the
machine. I know I have written that long priced horses frequently pay
better on the tote, but they have to win too and they don't do that
commensurate with their odds, a 20/1 runner does not win every 20
races for instance, but every 170 races perhaps and in those 170 races
there may be 4 runners all at 20/1, so , using my supplied figures
your 20/1 runner wins after 680 tries, which is not strictly correct
but it does show the folly of betting out past 9/1. Horse ratings, a
numerical value calculated from past form for each runner may win you
50 betting units over time, over at least 150 bets minimum ans this
will be for provincial, country and metro racing too. The betting
market is the true representation of runners capabilities, sure there
are exceptions where people know more than the market does but over
time they lose too and the market continues with its relentless 112%
book for most races over time. Often specialist skills can be used to
select in particular races that are repeated from card to card, like a
distance race for horses that have won more than 3 races liftetime,
for instance but there are many more categories you can use. Often the
runners in each race have contested previous races together so that
form line ups all marry as well. But, as I said, it requires
specialist skills. 
To summarise that big paragraph there:
Favourites A: Don't win because of the jockeys, just bad or a bad
decision, say 25%. Don't win because they don't desrve to be
favourites, over rated, say 25%. Don't win because the horse is having
a bad day, 20%. Don't win because the others are under rated, and not
just one, a few of them are under rated by you in your form assessment
30%
Form Efficiency: Others, not you though, may have access to
information about a particular runner that is not reflected in its
assessment nor its rating. Most probably the information is that the
horse has regained it's A game and is serious about running. Of course
this can affect other runners in the race too, they all get the urge
to run career best on this day and none of this is reflected in their
exposed form leading up to this run.
Market Efficiency: The Market is efficient, all the variables, all the
knowns and unknowns have been factored in and the market may be the
best indicator of performance over a large number of races - it is you
friend and is friendlier if arbitrage or even hedging is your thing. 
Todays Runners: it is easier to pick them to lose than to win.
Suggestion, stay inside 9/1 ($10) runners in selecting.
Favourites B: The easiest method may be identifying several hundred or
so true favourites every year. True favourites are readily identified
and will firm into favouritism. They firm into it. 
The Quiet Firmer: This runner is dropping price points during betting,
from +7 until +2 minutes. There needs to be more written about these,
more assistance in identifying them, they are invariably inside 9/1 at
all time but the $250 to $1000 bets consistent with a stable attack
will see them shorten, in league with a favourite often to mask its
inwards progress. Sometimes, but this in not a rule, it is the second
stable horse or the horse that the favourite jockey switched from for
today run. It has to have a negative against it, it must have a minus
aspect, a wide barrier, an apprentice, an apprentice in a non-claiming
race, below the half field weight niche, a first time at the distance
longer than its performance best, weight off. Essentially, this horse
is the most dangerous to encounter, some fielders recognise them late
and skip their price rolls several times, so a 7/1 (56/8) runner now
might move to 32/8,(4/1) without a writing because the man has sighted
it wallowing mid range even after a series of $100 writes. This busts
his percentage too and his book cools for a while, the smarties go
elsewhere for their 7/1 and he watches those movements while his book
hovers around 140%, hardly competitive but its not a game it's a
business. You wll write the bigger bets for the outsiders at this
phase too, punters backing a couple for themselves will have seen the
stagnation and calculated that now was the time to bet, before theirs
shorten, besides that runner just had its price slashed and this might
happen to mine. It's a business, creating a demand and providing a
solution to the problem, salesmanship 101 almost.
Money Management: Having a bet because you can but have not assessed
this race. This is giving your money away. I mean I am urging you to
lose your money scientifically, after earnest assessment of a runners
merits and not because the horse is named after somebody in your
family, or something like that. I had an Uncle who won a quadrella, a
big one too, by single picking horses with strange names, no girls, no
apprentices, and blue and gold in their colours. He chose Andrew,
Carlotta, Raspadora, and Steven Burridge. He had family members
Andrew, Dora, Carl and Steven (who rode How Good in the first leg from
memory) and won 18000 dollars plus. He estimates he has since then
spent that looking for the next winning combination using his
selection method. Apparently he got 4 seconds next week and he spent
about 300 dollars losing that. He backed Coolgardie in the Steeple at
50/1 and got $5.70 place when he had $500 on it. He lived in
Coolgardie, he backed Cindys Mate in the Tatts Plate final, he is
related to Cindy and had a winning saver on Captain Filou at 7/1 (paid
$7.10) and he backed Airmond in the Hurdle which it won but he meant
to back Blue Beacon but called it wrong at the death because he used
to work with a Ron and Ron Hall rode this loser.
Ratings: Calculated ratings perform similarly in all spheres, Metro,
Country Provincial and are simply better than nothing, and probably
better than betting a horse or jockey because you have some kinship
with it or its name. 
Form: Be careful to apply study to all runners, not just those who
finished within sight of the winner last start, other runs this
campaign are important, rate this runner in those races and a bet may
show despite a fail in its last few runs. I forgive one bad run in the
last four, over any time span so that it may be a dipsy run before a
spell. A good series of run andthen a spell can indicate a good horse
too. There are so many variables, perhaps close to 88 that have been
identified. Every indicator of a good run has an opposite indicator
too. There has been talk, and study done, of horses cycling up after 3
runs. So a good run, followed by 2 more runs of moderate strength may
mean the runner today is ready to repeat that good run again. I would
be cautious with this approach though. The instigator of the theory
now disclaims its strength and value but there is plenty of
demonstrations of it in runners past form and there are often a 120
runners at a meeting.
A runners true odds is often longer that it's indicated odds. It can
be calculated of course, start with the number of runners in the race
and assign a value to that, so 13 runners the odds of any winner is
12/1 - 1 dollar out, 12 dollars back plus your stake = $13. Divide 100
by your assessed div (100/13 = 7.7) and each runner is then assigned
this per centage and each runner has percentage added or subtracted
according to the list of value below. The equation always sums to 100
(per centage points). Its often more accurate, more real life I guess
if you work on may be the best 8 in the field, and allocate 1% to each
of the remainder, so form rank 9 to 13 each get a point, total 5% and
this leaves you 95 % to be spreads amongst you other 8, there
individual points modified by their form and other datas that affects
them in todays race - see below. In effect each runner, the remaining
8 has an equal 95/8 = 11.87% of winning and the quotient 11.87 is
modified and added to or subtracted from depending on the list below.
In the Tatts Plate Final, mentioned above in relation to Uncle, the
final calculations showed Captain Filou assessed at 25.6= $4.00, it
won paying 7/1 and 7.10 on the Tote. Lascivia was priced at 5.70 and
no profit possible, KaysiBoy likewise, Paignton at 6.90 was unders,
Rangers Son and HowFast, Quiet Snort and Sandau were unders. Favourite
Space Odyssey was the very proper example of a quiet shortener, see
description above and was backed accordingly as a saver, it ran third,
it was out of the mix formwise and somebody knew something and it
dropped in price from the 17 minute mark and the odds call then and
continued to shorten at each call, spaced about 2 minutes apart, it
either maintained its price or shortened marginally. Space Odyssey
raced again a few weeks later and won easily at 5/2 although its tote
price was 6.10. Quiet shortener in this race was Ghost Dancer, it had
contested the earlier race too, and Ghost Dancer finished just out of
a place here but won at 7/2 next start. These are form features that
will pay you back in spades, these horses that disappear in one race
andthen front and win, more often than not, in a similar race a couple
of weeks later. Its just part of the big picture of racing I assume.
The distance a horse finishes from the winner is a strong indicator
too, especialy over several runs. A horse with a beaten distance total
of less than 7 lengths over 4 runs is a strong contender always. I
allow a runner one bad run in that sequence, so I deduct the beaten
lengths of that perceived worst run and total the remainder and work
with the several in contention after that. Remember that horses
winning and included in the sequence of 4 runs will have their winning
margins deducted from the total, this can cause them to be strong
contenders in the final summing of all beaten distances, remember tis
as it can cloud theresult occasionally. Almost all races, at least
those you would be doing form study on, wil have last start winners
included. Winners last start is a strong indicator however two wins in
four races can sometimes not be a strong indicator, although it is a
good horse. To choose between finish position or beaten distance over
the last four starts it has been found that the beaten distance figure
is stronger formwise. It is sometimes not possible to get the beaten
lengths, some form guides are wrong, and in the big scheme of things,
what is a length, it is an observed estimate of where the horse was
relative to the winner at the end of the race. To remove the estimate
it is better to use the much more readily available finish position.
This is again observed but the guessing of the distance from the
winner has been removed. To use both values, the numerical finish
position and the beaten distance, could be considered a strong value
and, in fact, a runner finishing, say, fourth but within 3 lengths of
the winner is a strong contender. Any runner finish within its
numerical finish position can be treated likewise. So, an indicated
3rd numerical but within 2 lengths estimated or and indicated 6th but
within 5 lengths estimated, those types of runners are strong formwise
always. I could give examples of all of them but I think you
understand now.
Lew and Marie took early retirement and moved back to warm Queensland.
Poor Marie, a mixed race girl from up that way had missed her island
home, her church, her family, the sun. Lew and his manager Sid had
made a few tough decisions regarding the fuel supply business and 7
service stations he had purchased, changing suppliers and re badging
was part of this and by using a different holding company Lew did get
freehold ownership of these sites. He sold these in subsequent years,
Sid and his wife had retired from the business, and as always he
maintained, it's just business. I see him occasionally, you have to
travel to get there, he is still fit and shadow boxes and really is a
multi millionaire in a poor mans t shirt, he is never far from the
beach, has been taking drumming lessons. Stuart has died, and there is
a story about him and his life, and more on that soon.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com