Do You Have A Favourite Horse Trainer to Bet?

Horse trainers. 

Big, small, plenty in the middle. 

Why would you want to follow a horse trainer in favour of others? It's the same old story, you will have a better understanding of what they are all about. You will be in tune with the highs and lows but mostly you the opportunities which it brings. 

Know your niche. 

I follow lots of horse trainers. Studying two-year-old horse racing is very much about understanding strength and weakness especially how the trainer works. Because each has its own approach. If you don't appreciate this information you will be at a loss on all fronts. 

One of my favourite horse trainers is Karl burke. I always say if you can't make money following Spigot Lodge. I'm not going into how I make money from this outfit although it isn't particularly difficult to learn about the money trail. 

Which horse trainer is your favourite and how much success have you had?

Good luck to all. 

Would You Lay a Horse to Lose £999 to Win £1?

If you use the betting exchanges you will be aware that you can just about bet or lay any sporting event at odds of 999/1. 

For most mere mortals this would be a bet we'd push to one side and say that's a bit too rich for me. Well, the laying part of the bet. I doubt there are too many people who refuse betting £1 to win a grand (almost) if they thought the horse had a fighting chance. I'm not sure if I have ever bet on a horse priced at such huge odds. 

I've seen plenty of people betting/laying horses. 

Would you be tempted to lay a bet of £999 to win £1? How about £9990 to win £10? If your response was negative to the first two options, then I am wasting my breath asking about £99990 to win £100. 

It seems an astronomical bet. Almost a hundred grand to win ten cockles (£10 x 10). Surely, no one lays such bets? 

It's a fact they do. 

To be honest, most people don't have £100,000 in their Betfair account to consider such a wager. So who are these people? Where did they get all their money from? How much do they win? How much do they lose? 

I would love to get an interview with someone who takes these bets day in day out. What image comes to mind? 

The mind boggles. 

Clearly, they don't lack cash on the hip. The bank balance was buoyant before they got into this gambling world.

I follow the two-year-old horse racing and there is often a weak link in a race. Perhaps a small trainer with a horse which cost £500 taking on a favourite worth £1M. There are examples seen on a daily basis. 

This approach to betting intrigues me. Why? Because these people (some of them) are making a very good living from what most layers would view as crazy bets. For example, the other day I noticed a couple of outsiders in a two-year-old race which had very poor form. They came from small stables who weren't recognised as having much horsepower (so to speak). Taking a look at the betting, both had been backed a couple of hundred pounds apiece. So the layer was looking to win £200 - £300 by the time the race had concluded. They may have put the bet up in running hoping to catch a few ''mug punters'' as the horse looked to hold some hope at any stage of the race. 

When you consider these people are laying 999/1 shots like they are going out of fashion, it wouldn't be a surprise to learn they are making £4000 a day. For all I know, they could be making £20,000 a day. 

The only point of worry - if not terror - would come to dawn if/when one of these ''no-hopers'' gets its head in front. (The beast!)

To be fair the layer, if good at their job, maybe confident that the horses they take on cannot possibly win. (Perhaps a bold, if not foolish, statement) 

(You be the judge) 

Is it possible for every no-hoper someone lays to lose? That, somehow, they are correct to the end of their betting days? At which point they retire to the Bahamas to sit on a beach and think about all the money they won?

I guess some layers have done exactly that. 

But surely there is always a fear that one day the slowest horse on earth will sprout wings and shout to the crowd: ''My name is Pegasus and I'm going to f*** you over!''

Years back, I remember seeing an example of this. I can't remember the horse or trainer. It was a relatively unfashionable yard. The two-year-old had run twice and finished last on both starts and looks pretty poor. I'm sure some layers must have pinned the tail to the donkey and renamed this juvenile Eeyore. Anyway, this day the layers got it wrong as the horse ran a race of a lifetime and to make matters worse it was in a photo finish. The betting detailed it was a very close call. But it was favourite to win on the exchanges. 

It won. 

Joy for the backers who got 999/1. Horror and probably a loss which would see most layers living on the streets rather than a penthouse in Mayfair. 

Would you fancy laying a horse at odds of 999/1? 

Even if it meant you could live the life of a king (at least until that infamous horse wins).

Are You Tempted to Bet Odds On?

I guess we have all been tempted.

That odds on looks a certainty. It only needs to go up and down and the money is in your pocket. 

It's money without work!

When did you last take the plunge betting odds on? Today, yesterday, last year, a decade ago...or never ever (I promise).

Was it a good or a bad bet? I suppose that depends on whether it won or lost. Because, let's face it, betting on a short-priced favourite you need it to be numero uno. There's no hiding place. But you know the score. 

Fill your boots. 

Odds on shots are one of those subjects which sways your thoughts from one extreme to the other. We know the horse has ability, it's fancied by the majority of punter and probably 70% of all placed bets on the given race. That in itself it is a positive. If it was a popularity contest it would be a winner. From a statistical point of view, it is likely to cross the finishing line in first place. 

I don't know about you, but every time I don't bet on an odds on fancy they win and when I do they are weighed down by the burden of my pocket money and it all goes tragically wrong. 

Perhaps that is a little bit hyperbolic (I'm sure many a punter has shouted bollocks as Tommo takes pride in announcing your horse is struggling like a rag). 

You know exactly what I'm talking about. 

Generally, these days, I never bet odds on. I'm not saying I wouldn't because the whole point about an astute gambler is that you are open to any bet because working to a mandatory rule only comes back to bite you on the arse. I'm sure if we went back to the 1970s a few red-faced punters have the tooth print of Red Rum on their derriere. I'm not sure if he ever won or lost at odds on but you get the idea. 

It sounds painful in every sense: physically and emotionally. 

Following the two-year-old horse racing season, it seems to me a lot of odds on priced horses get beaten. Certainly, those priced from 10/11 - 1/3f. I think when you get to the realm of horses priced 1/4 or shorter it is difficult to get those on the back foot (although it does happen). 

The problem with betting odds on is that by definition you need over a 50% strike rate to be level. So cranking the odds to 4/9f you need a strike rate of what? (I'm terrible at maths but I know it is an incredibly high rate). 

I know a lot of people say: ''You're buying money''. 

It's probably better than putting your money in the bank! You get 5% on a 1/20f that cruises home. 

If you can make your betting pay then you have no need to grumble. That is and always will be the answer to the question. 

The problem comes into play when you hit a loser. God forbid a couple of losers. All of a sudden you are counting the number of winners you need to be back to even. How many losers can you afford? 

In this day and age of betting in-running, we have gone into a new dimension of odds on gambler. People who are happy to bet 1/100. When you consider someone betting 1/10 in-running you may think they are crazy, mad, foolish, idiots. 

The losers are exactly that. But what about the winners?

Because you can guarantee there are many punters (backers/layers) who are making a tidy profit by doing just that. 

How would you consider them? Perhaps they are simply delaying the inevitable when they get caught by a truly costly decision. 

It's an interesting question. 

Those who make money betting/laying odds on are correct. Well, as correct as they can be for the moment in time they are in profit. Who knows what tomorrow brings. 

I, personally, am very wary of betting odds on because I feel there are better options. However, it is probably foolish to tar every odds on punter with a brush which says it's a mug's game.

Have you ever bet odds on?  More important was it a good bet and are you looking to bet again anytime soon?

What's the Most Money You Have Seen Someone Bet?

It is staggering how much money some people bet. 

The first question which comes to mind: ''Where did they get all their money from?'' It may be earned, inherited or just winnings from a successful life of gambling.

With quick transactions at the racecourse, you are lucky to see any large bets placed. Perhaps if you watch the rails bookmakers like a hawk you may see a few big bets placed. Although few people in this day and age want to walk about a busy racecourse with thousands of pounds in pocket. Most have accounts or their word is good enough to say: '' One thousand to five.'' 

It makes me smile that pickpockets used to be a familiar problem at the racecourse. Some well-meaning commentators would say be careful because pickpockets had struck. You know what I'm going to say...

You noticed everyone checking to see if their wallet was still in their pocket, giving the light-fingered thief even more reason to strike.

Considering how fleeting a bet can be placed on course it is no surprise to appreciate the best chance you have of seeing a big bettor is at the casino. I have seen a couple of punters who bet significant amounts of money at Great Yarmouth and Luton Grosvenor Casino. 

The funny thing is I have seen both men betting like money was going out of fashion and they had their wives with them at the table. Perhaps they had their hand on the purse strings although, from what I saw, that was about as likely as them winning long term. 

I mentioned a bloke named Graham who I bumped into many times at Great Yarmouth. I say bumped into... I didn't have a chance to chat with him bar him commenting that I should have left my bet on number 5 when amazingly it came up three times on the trot. I wish I had left it on too but the likelihood of those potential huge winnings would have been as remote as could be in reality. We are talking 37 x 37 x 37 = 50653/1. I think I would be waiting for a long time and losing a lot of money before I collected £42,875 (the actual odds of winning). 

Anyway, those were Graham's words of wisdom. 

You can read about Graham's Luck on this post: He Won £10,000 at the Casino. Why Stop Betting?

It does make me wonder where these people get their money from. With roulette being fixed-odds it seems a given that he will be losing money long term. Perhaps these people have little interest whether money won or lost.

The next punter was very strange but not lacking in cash. 

This was my first visit to Luton Grosvenor Casino. This venue made for a good night out and entertainment. There was a music act on and a fun crowd. 

I was betting very small money on the roulette table and having some luck. An Asian man was playing, his wife perched at the table drinking a cup of tea. He covered the table with £100 chips and looked to be betting £1,000 a spin. It was hardly Las Vegas but for Luton, he was pretty much a high roller. 

Over a period of an hour or so he lost £15,000. He seemed to be the unluckiest punter in town as he didn't win a jot. I watched him play. What struck me was his expressionless face and behaviour. Win or lose (there wasn't much winning) his expression was the same. I had more emotion at the loss of my £1 chip that he did at £1,000. It seemed very unusual. However, perhaps he had so much money that it really didn't matter. I guess if you bet big money you need to keep some kind of reserve simply because if becoming irritate someone may think it was his last £15,000 rather than pocket money. 

He ran out of chips. Walked away from the table. He wasn't finished. 

I changed up my winnings to three £25 chips and walked to the counter to cash in.  As I got to the kiosk who should be there...

The Asian man getting his hands on more chips. The whole counter was covered in £500 chips, to the sum of £30,000 if not more. 

I have no idea how his evening finished but he certainly didn't lack funds. 

Good luck to all. 

Can Accumulators Ever Be Good Bets?

I can pretty much guarantee you have done this bet.

The beloved or dreaded accumulator. In all honesty, what do you think of this type of bet? They are said to be the bookies favourite. Why? Because they put most of the money in their pockets. However, we've all seen those elusive big winners where ''some lucky punter'' bets £50 each-way (5-horse accumulator) and wins £100,000. Am I being cynical thinking it's the bookmakers who promote these life-changing winners!

But what place do accumulators or multi bets play in your weekly bets? Do you take advantage of these bets to:

• Win a fortune for a small wager
• It's just a bit of fun and makes the racing more fun
• Done the right way this is a great bet
• Only mug punters are foolish enough to make this stupid gamble

Each to their own. I imagine we all have an opinion. I guess that opinion depends on your success or hope. 

So would you consider, personally, an accumulator as a good or bad bet?

As a percentage bet, they are not the best option. Simply because if you bet, let's say, a Canadian which is 5 selections which consist of 26 bets: 10 doubles, 10 trebles, 5 four-fold accumulators and a five-fold accumulator. One loser equates to a loss of 15 bets, which is a disaster.

So would a professional gambler make use of accumulators or multi bets? You may think not. However, Jack Ramsden, a renowned pro gambler in his day was said to use accumulators to make huge sums of money. 

From my experience, even betting each-way trebles, and four-horse accumulators it is hard work. 

The problem with most punters is that they use multi bets as a reason to chance their luck. This is a terrible idea. As can be seen by the loss of one selection in the Canadian bet. That is over 57% of your bet gone with one of five selections. 

So here's the answer to the problem. You have to be even more exacting with each and every selection in multi bets/accumulators. 

Is this possible when we are betting on five horses? I would consider it is hard work with three horses let alone more.

I have won decent money with each-way trebles but I am really playing on the fact they will win or (the safeguard) they are all placed. That being the insurance policy to get my stake back if not a little more. This is the sideshow to the major plan of coining it in with a major win. To, let's say, have a £10 each-way treble, which pays 200/1. In truth, you may be better off considering these as three each-way singles rather than an each-way treble as you are not stuck with the bet. At least, with the single bet approach (bet to make an each-way treble in a chronological manner) you can stop and think or try to take advantage of opportunities or problems which may arise (such as a non-runner, your horse bolting to the start or a marked drift in the betting).

Would I consider an accumulator or a multi bet as the way to go? I think if you use them selectively they can be an ok bet. Each selection needs to be very confident. However, how many times do you have three cracking bets going on a day?

Seldom.

What do you think? 

Do You Bet Odds-On?

It's an interesting question. 

In some respects, you need to be a brave soul to bet odds-on. Or is that a lot of mumbo jumbo? 

Let's think for a moment about backing the jolly at short odds. What do you have on your side? For starters, there is a lot of confidence in your selection. Does the might of the populous bolster your opinion? It's a walk in the park. A sure-fire certainty. I'm not buying money. Honest!

From my experience, those odds-on winners seem to happen when I'm watching the box in the corner of the room. Tommo shouting the commentary like a man possessed. I say that, slightly, with tongue in cheek. But, you know what I mean. The odds-on shot has just one stumbling block. 

That's the six-foot wall in your head which means you have to go round Will's Aunts to persuade yourself it's ok to bet. 

If you are like me, that six-foot wall is more like an obstacle that literally touches the sky. Even if you could climb to its peak, the closer you get to the top, the sun burns your money to a crisp as you pass your wedge to a bronzed bookmaker, satchel in hand, with a sign detailing Honest Joe.  

I remember going to Great Yarmouth with my brother. We were in our teens. We decided to bet on the odds-on favourite Wajna trained by Henry Cecil (before his knighthood). It was back in 1989. 

To be fair, we knew our two-year-old horse racing at that age. I can imagine Wajna received a few Group entries, so we come to the conclusion it was a ''certainty''. We bet £100 to win £50, which amounted to a lot of money for us at the time. My brother and I couldn't afford to lose that bet and, by all accounts, it was a way of making some ''easy money''. 

There's a bookmaker at Great Yarmouth who always shouts: ''Money without work!''

I'm pretty sure he took our bet that day...

Anyway, we were like the classic odds-on punter. One side of the coin: confident by the odds-on tag; while half traumatised by the fear of losing a significant sum of money with little to gain. 

We placed the bet. There was no going back. I had a bad feeling about the bet but the deal was done: win, lose or draw. 

If you want to put yourself out of your misery, you can see the result here. 

Did Wajna win or lose?

As it happened, Wajna won by a length and proved to be a fair horse in her five career starts including a Listed race victory, by an easy six lengths. A loss at Group 1 saw her finish 6th when competing at Longchamp, France in the Prix Marcel Boussac, losing by just over three lengths. 

Watching her first victory on debut at Great Yarmouth was an enjoyable experience at the finishing line. But in my mind, it was a real battle with the second, Varnish, trained by Lord Huntingdon, in the ownership of the Queen. The pair was eight lengths clear of the third. Wajna led from start to finish but never far enough clear of the second to feel comfortable at any part bar crossing the line. 

We were pleased with the result. The money added a little padding to our pocket. However, I can tell you, I was more happy to just get my money back than the addition which seemed hard work. 

That was one of the first odds-on bets I ever placed (to decent money). I think - even though winning - it put me off betting short odds. 

Over the years, I have seldom bet odd-on. I find it hard to justify such bets when I can see other options that look better value. 

The negative to not betting odds-on, even selectively, is that you see a good few easy winners go by the way unbacked. I frown at those bets which win. Then, smile, at those which lose, making me appreciate, fleetingly, that my ''opinion is correct''. 

So would I bet odds-on to decent money?

I do struggle to justify betting short/short odds simply that the win rate needs to be so high. A couple of losers would be a problem. However, I wouldn't knock anyone who bets short prices. In ways, I applaud their bravery. 

I remember reading Dave Nevison's gripping autobiography: A Bloody Good Winner. He detailed a renowned odds-on backer who lumped on thousands at a time. The shorter the price the more confident of victory. When the bet was placed, the bloke looked as pale as a ghost, hardly able to watch the race in fear of a loss. I'm not sure what happened to him...

But I can imagine every penny in his pocket was hard-earned. 

If you venture to Great Yarmouth and hear a bookmaker shouting: ''Money without work...'' 

Walk away...

Fast. 

Why Do People Bet On The Horses?

In many respects, this sounds a ridiculous question. 

People must bet to win. But when you consider that most punters lose when betting on the races you have to question what are the other reasons beyond making money from your daily gamble. 

I'm not sure the exact percentage of punters who make their betting on the horses pay. It must be a small percent. They do so by being better than most layers, whether bookmaker or random bloke playing the exchanges. 

So if it isn't for the money why do people bet?

Often for the buzz. You go to the races and it adds a bit of fun to proceedings, especially if you back a 100/1 winner. It does happen. In fact, if lady luck walks your way, you can win a fortune with a small win accumulator. 

I know you won't be betting like this or very unlikely to win but did you know if you had a £1 win accumulator of 20 even-money favourites, you would be a millionaire. 

So many people bet for the buzz. Betting for fun can be just that but it can lead to problem gambling and ruin people's lives. For that reason, I would always say to be careful when betting and question your reasoning for doing so. 

Boredom is another reason why people bet. In this computer age, you can bet on your laptop, mobile phone or just walk to the bookies. Whatever suits you can place a bet (often) far too easy. 

Whether you bet for fun or profession it pays to build your knowledge before getting stuck in with real hard cash.