Have You Ever Placed An Ante-Post Bet?

I can't say I have placed an ante-post bet for a hell of a long time. 

It was about twenty years back, a filly of Sir Michael Stoute's, probably before his knighthood! (He was made Knight Bachelor in 1998 for services to tourism in Barbados). 

The same year I won a gonk from the traveling fair.

I'm almost embarrassed to talk about the horse. It will remain nameless because although she got to the 1991 1000 Guineas, backed to 9/1 (I think I got 20s) this daughter of Darshaan finished 7th, some seven lengths behind Shadayid, trained by John Dunlop, ridden by Willie Carson for Hamdan Al Maktoum. 

The filly, I backed, was called Dartrey (see, I'm far too honest). 

In truth, I was dazzled by her three-length victory on debut at two. She looked an ideal candidate to shine for (Sir) Stoute and Sheikh Mohammed. We live and learn. 

For me, I don't feel confident anticipating a horse to win a race several months in advance. Obviously, an ante-post bet can be a few days to the race being run. But even before the final declarations, you are the mercy of someone's decision.

My brother, Tony, had much more luck with his ante-post bet when he backed Finsceal Beo to win the 1000 Guineas back in 2007. He bet about £500 at 7/2 or so because he was pretty sure Sander Camillo, trained by Jeremy Noseda, looked a weak link. It proved correct as she didn't get to the race and Finsceal Beo was seriously backed and won the 1000 Guineas priced 5/4f. 

Anyway, that's me dusting down a couple of old betting slips from memory at least. 

As you have probably gathered, I'm not keen on betting ante-post. The main reasons are common sense:

• Often betting on potential rather than proven form
• The fear of injury, regression or change of plans leading to a non-runner
• No idea of the going on the day
• Is there any good reason why the horse will be backed (they often drift out)

In this age of betting exchanges, at least gamblers have the option of bailing out or taking a few points profit if their horse is backed. In the days of betting with no opportunity to trade it really was a matter of do or die. 

If there is any race I would bet ante-post it would be the English 1000 Guineas simply that there isn't likely to be too many surprises. However, you really are on a loser if an unraced three-year-old pops up as a major contender. 

Do you bet ante-post and if so which races do you fancy your chance of winning?

Does the Betting Indicate the True Chance of Winning?

One thing all racing pundits love to mention is market movers.  

You know the score, horses which have been heavily backed or those big drifters. Is finding winners and losers as simple as watching the market? Well, clearly this is a very complex subject and one most punters have little understanding. I say this, because, unless you have statistical data to back up your opinion is it worth a jot?

Being a graduate in Psychology I learned enough to remember this simple maxim: ''Without objective testing theories are only guesses however good.''

Like it or not, that is 100% true. 

Without question, the betting market is telling us something. However, to what extent? Is it enough to make us cold, hard cash or just another one of the many promotional/marketing techniques to sway punters up a blind alley? 

I worry about any information promoted by bookmakers or horse racing publications as most of their revenue comes from bookmakers who are far from unbiased. They have many wonderful ways of addling the mind. 

So what do I know? In general, I have little idea about market movers. It is such a broad topic of conversation that it is difficult, if not impossible, to make a judgment based on fact. I'm sure if someone has the data to back up their opinions. 

My niche is two-year-old racing. 

I'm big on data because it is objective. I'm often surprised what an hour or two of research details. I'd rather understand the chance of XYZ if it saves me wasting my cash on a poor bet. And until we understand what the data is saying we are at the mercy of someone who knows better. Can you afford to be the naive punter who is waiting to be taken advantage of by an informed layer? That's the reason for knowing your niche. You cannot know it all for two reasons:

• There simply isn't enough time.
• Why do you need to know everything when you can double your knowledge by simply doubling your stake.

Each to their own, but I think punters are selling themselves short by betting on everything!

From studying two-year-old horse racing I've learned a thing or two (I still have lots to learn). From what I understand, the majority of horses are priced by the trainer. Clearly, this is related to the level of horse they train. However, each horse is (and must) be judged on its own merit. Even the smallest trainers get a good one if they train long enough. Often they are short in the betting. 

But do they win or lose?

However, there are exceptions to every rule and it is a mistake to consider that every short-priced horse means it is a winner waiting to happen. In particular, one trainer comes to mind. Brian Meehan is an intriguing trainer of two-year-olds and especially debutantes. Meehan's two-year-old debutantes at short odds are poor bets. I'm not saying they can't run a race and be placed but the chance of winning is unlikely. They are, without question, not priced to chance whatever the market may tell you. 

In contrast, Michael Dods is one of those trainers who can spring a surprise with his two-year-old debutantes at huge odds. They go very well at big odds, especially when racing at auction class on testing going. 

So does the betting indicate the true chance of winning? 

It does to a point (probably). To understand the truth of the matter you need to find the data to back up your opinions. It is remarkable how few punters do their own research. This is a mistake and reason why most gamblers are betting on hunches or flawed opinion. If you follow the crowd you will most likely lose. When most people lose at gambling you need to keep away from the opinion of the populous. 

To win at gambling you cannot afford to follow the crowd. For that reason, I would steer away from market mover (backed) unless you have the information to assess this data. In truth, I would rather consider those horses which drift in the market. Once again, this should be backed up with statistical data. 

Research is the key. Very few people bother to dig a little and find that golden nugget of information which sits in the pay dirt just below the surface. 

Good luck to all.

Betting Strategy: The Recipe to the Secret Sauce

Of course, it's important to find winners. Without those, you will struggle to make your racing pay. If your racing doesn't pay or at least break even you really should question what you are doing. 

A small loss per annum may be considered a fair price to pay for an enjoyable, enthusiastic hobby. 

However, if betting costs your big money, then give it up as a bad job. 

It's a funny thing but the understanding, discipline, and method of how you bet can make a big difference to your profits. This new season, I am looking to use the exact information and make much more money. You may say: ''How is that possible?''

Well, it is if you understand your medium. Am I going to tell you how to do it? 

No! 

A few of these posts have been submitted to Reddit and I have received comments requesting a little more data to taste the secret sauce. I don't wish to be mean, because I am a very generous person, but if you have a way to make money are you, honestly, going to reveal it in an article for the world and his wife to take advantage? 

I don't think so. Don't expect me to be giving anything of real worth away in these posts. 

I'm sure many readers will view those words with contempt and question why do I want to read your post. 

However, most understanding comes from a seed of thought. And that, alone, can be worth its weight in gold. 

If you keep losing, those losers are trying to tell you something. Those words aren't meant to be cruel or deceiving. They may seem a little blunt and hard but they are similarly honest and true. They are saying you are looking in the wrong direction. 

You see that winner in the 2:40 Haydock, look and learn why that horse won and you will begin to understand what makes a winner. Refine those skills and you will be looking in the right direction. 

So if you want to taste the secret sauce, I suggest you start making your own recipe or find one from your old gran hidden in a dusty, old book. 
  

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. 

What's The Most Money You Have Bet?

It's one of those questions people love to ask. 

Whether betting small, medium or large sums of cash you need one thing on your side. 

Knowledge. 

At the very least enough knowledge to take advantage of the person who is willing to lay the odds. It may be a given day, month, year, a decade or a lifetime but winning is your goal however easy or elusive. It may come early, in the middle of your life, or at the end. This journey will be littered by a million foolish, brave, seemingly triumphant souls who bet they knew more than the person who was willing to say: ''That's a bet!'' 

If you are wise enough you will win. 

As I often say: ''Knowledge is power.'' 

Consider for a moment the person who takes your bet. Who are they? What do they look like? What life do they lead? How talented are they? What do they know about the subject you wish to bet? In truth, you are unlikely to know but that shouldn't stop you from thinking about this imaginary, often hard, competent and probably wealthy foe. Your knowledge needs to be the mirror image of what they wish to be. You need to consider this person is opposing you to a race to the line. They are not your friend or enemy just an opponent you need to beat. They are just like you.  

For most punters, they don't give two hoots. The main reason being they bet for fun or they have given up hope of making their betting pay. 

Yes, I'm slowly getting to the point. 

Imagine if you were a chess player, would you fancy taking on the old bloke down the road for a bet of £1000. 

If you are just a fair player I would worry who is your opponent. 

However, much depends on your ability. If your name is Bobby Fischer you would be knocking on his door, cash in hand. 

Remember gambling is betting a pile of cash against another person and not just a horse in a race. 

Some people get lucky and win a fortune. But they are simply extremes on the statistical bell chart. 

To hold any hope of winning, your wager needs to be based on skill. If you are more skillful than your opponent you are odds-on to win. If you are better than the general population you are odds-on to win. By the very statistical criterion that we live or die - you don't need to be the best on planet Earth (although it is a bonus if you are).

Always be careful of your opponent because there is a chance you will bump into someone who knows more. 

Personally, I have placed a number of large bets. I'm not going to say too much about the bets but they were within my niche of two-year-old horse racing. I was confident I had the odds in my favour. That factor was proved correct because the majority of the time I won.

I placed several bets up to £2000. Each and every one of those bigger bets won. That may sound very impressive. However, if I told you the full story you would probably think the bets were bordering on insane. They were very logical - the key being knowledge. My insight was proven correct because they made a profit. At times, I was literally on the edge of my seat. A tide of emotion that flickered between winning and losing. I bet with the confidence I would win. It wasn't misplaced.  

To be honest, I felt uncomfortable at times. 

That's the nature of the beast. 

Over that particular year, my bets totaled almost £400,000. 

I suffered a few losses; the biggest being £700. Losing brings a mixer of emotions. Thankfully, I could afford to lose that sum. After a loser, I was always fearful of the next few bets just in case another inflicted more pain. The confidence growing daily until it was back to business. With time, those losing bets fade from the memory (just a little) mingled with good wins, bad losses and days of indifference. The journey continues. Forever a work in progress to keep ahead of the game.

These days, I don't bet so much although next season will be a time to press forward once more. 

Knowledge is power.  

Betting is and should always be a serious business. 

Even after years of experience, polishing that stone, until it shines like a diamond, I am prone to the layer who knows more. Long term, it is very unlikely they will know more but on a day-to-day basis, there can be a limitation. Each loss a good reason to work harder, to understand what went wrong and invest time to nullify aspects of weakness. 

Know your niche. Understand your subject to a point you are confident you know more. Bet with confidence. Look at your opponent whoever they may be and appreciate the journey you have endeavoured. 

Take their bet with the knowledeg that long term you are confident you will win.   

Do not bet for fun. 

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. 

Are You A Heavy Bettor?

The title of this post may have suggested we are talking about betting a big bundle of cash. 

In truth, it's about whether or not you like to bet on extremes of going. Bath, mid-summer, has been one of few courses to race on firm ground. They don't have a watering system to take the sting out of the ground so you know what you are going to get. 

If your horse loves lightning-quick ground it's right up your alley. In these days of health and safety (animal welfare) you can understand why horse trainers sway on the side of caution unless they are happy their horse has legs of steel. As tough as a coffin nail. So to speak. 

But what about testing going? This last month in the UK it seems to have been raining cats and dogs. I feel compelled to wear wellington boots. The rain has led to a number of meetings being abandoned. While others have been declared after early-morning inspections. 

I don't know about you, but when I see the word HEAVY in a going description, I hear bells ringing in my ears. Alarm bells. Perhaps I am being a little bit sensitive in my old age. Tinnitus gone wrong! I mean, if your fancy loves soft/heavy ground surely it's a bonus. In truth, that could well be the case. 

Following the two-year-old racing, there isn't, generally, too much soft-ground form to assess. Sure, if a horse runs a couple of times later in the season, it is possible they will show a bit of form by splashing around in a puddle or two. I'm no expert on breeding, so assessing whether a horse is likely to run well on testing conditions is a question I usually avoid by taking the no-bet option. However, that can lead to frustration when a fancy wins and you blame the ground for your shortcomings. 

For many punters who follow the National Hunt, testing going must, literally, be par for the course. 

My good friend Eric Winner enjoys his sprint racing and he is very successful at it too. However, he isn't keen on betting on testing going on the turf because it doesn't usually favour fast horses or makes the tactics employed even more problematic. Go a stride too fast and your bet is in trouble. Too slow away or off the pace, and they struggle to claw back the ground. Also, and I'm sure you have all had a moan about this, these going reports (stick readings) are bordering on something you read from a comic. Many punters watch the first two races and assess the times to make their own assessment not keen on those descriptions of the so-called ''professionals''. 

I have seen a number of scandalous going descriptions. The times have no reflection on the going description or the racecourse has one almighty change of description after the first race where the mythical ''good'' going changed to ''soft''. 

There is no easy way of assessing the going on an undulating course or even a straight mile. However, you would think technology has an answer or two beyond pushing a stick into a square inch of turf at random points on the course. 

So how do you feel about betting on heavy going? Is it a plus or a minus? Does it bring you out in a cold sweat? 

Horse trainers should have a better idea than most. I remember some old sage saying to look for a horse with hooves the size of a dinner plate. While others say some nimble-footed horse skips through the mud like Pegasus without wings. 

For me, betting on heavy going always makes me question betting at all. Funnily enough, I often associate big-priced winners with soft/heavy going. 

What's your opinion?   

Should You Bet On More Than One Horse In A Race?

It's an interesting question.

Betting on a single horse in a race or an each-way wager can be a tricky business. The number of variants becomes complex and opinions varied. It's funny how punters either love or hate betting each way. So what are we to make of betting on more than one horse in a race? 

I can only speak from my perspective of betting on two-year-old races and even with over 30-years experience it is a topic of conversation which tumbles about my mind. 

Should I or shouldn't I?

I bet the other day and backed two horses in one race. To be fair, thinking about the result, I am a touch annoyed with myself although, as so often, there were mitigating circumstances. 

I can't go into details about the reasoning for the bet but it did bring about a few moments of thought, assessment, and consideration.  

Betting on more than one horse is the same as cutting the odds of the winner in half. Whether this is a good bet, again, depends on the point of winning or losing money. Because I bet on the exchanges, I often lay my bets in running at shorter odds (so another variant on a complex topic). So betting on two horses in  given race doesn't mean I cannot win on both. This wouldn't be the case betting with traditional bookmakers.  

The answer to whether betting on more than one horse in a race is a good idea depends on profit or loss. If you are in profit, then, unsurprisingly, you are making the right decisions. Betting on more than one horse isn't anything new. When you think about it, it's very much like a traditional bookmaker who lays potentially all horses to lose. 

Whether you bet on one, two, three or every horse in a race (if you have the odds in your favour) there needs to be continued assessment. Betting is always about learning what makes a profit. It is trial and error. It is the best way to learn.

For most gamblers, the option of betting on more than one horse isn't taken. I would put this down to the level of gambling success and whether it is taken as a professional endeavor. 

Have you ever bet on more than one horse in a race? What is your reasoning for this type of bet and are you in profit?

Should Children Gamble?

It's a controversial topic. 

Without laws, would we see small children walking into Ladbrokes and placing a bet? I think little Eddy, a budding pro gambler if I ever saw one, had a Lucky 15, which consumed his pocket money £1.50. 

I wonder if he won or lost?

By law, it is illegal to bet until you are 18+. By all accounts, it is a good idea because like drinking and smoking it isn't the best life for a young, impressionable mind. Not that stops children from betting, smoking or drinking. 

I feel as though I should recite The Lord's Prayer. 

As a child, I remember going to the pub with my parents. It was a Buffalo Club. No one seemed to mind us being there although I can imagine a few wondered why on earth two kids aged 10-years-old were having a night on the tiles! It was a dreadfully smokey place. It was in the day and age where people could smoke inside and the ventilation was nonexistent. I think it ground to a halt with nicotine tar. The ceiling was stained bright yellow and at peak occupancy, it was like walking in a fog. You couldn't see very well at all as it was a mist of pure nicotine. I can't remember coughing, but sure my eyes must have been running and if you walked in and out your clothes smelled like you had smoke 100-cigarettes a day. Thinking back, I felt sorry for the bar staff. I'm sure their health suffered. 

To be honest, we loved the place and the drinkers, smokers, and gamblers loved us too. 

I didn't drink alcohol but was certainly a passive smoker and gambler even at that tender age.  The fruit machine with its flashing lights and clatter of coins broke the noise of the crowd made my eyes pop out. 

I loved that machine. 

I wasn't old enough the play but that didn't stop me from being close to the action.  No one cared too much if a child played the one-armed bandit or not. I would stand at the side of whoever played and after a while, I would be pressing the start button for them. I would suggest which things to hold. Those two melons look good. One more will give a payout of £5, two more £25. My uncle Roy, my parents, everyone seemed to be playing the fruit machine. It was a good reason to go out. Uncle Roy loved to gamble his winnings. I was a little more prudent and before he got a chance I would collect much to his frustration. 

''Don't do that!'' I told you before.'' 

I just couldn't help myself. Uncle Roy loved me so my collective nature was soon forgotten. 

Anyway, those formative years didn't lead me to be a raving alcoholic or smoker. Although I did become a gambler but not of fruit machines. Horse racing took centre stage and still does to this day for business. Unlike the majority of punters, horse racing has become my job which is more of a hobby which makes a living than hating every second of the working week. 

In truth, I believe most adults, as well as children, shouldn't gamble because they lack understanding and naive. They are simply too experienced to appreciate they are betting with the devil. When you consider the majority of punters lose money it really is a pointless, expensive if not potentially dangerous past time.  

Don't gamble for fun. Unless you view gambling as a profession - which most don't - you should be wise and keep your money in your pocket.