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. 

Can You Win Playing Roulette?

As readers may now, I enjoy a night at the Grosvenor at Great Yarmouth. Shadingfield Lodge used to be a place where Edward VII resided, a friend of the owner. Now this listed building is frequented by gamblers looking to make some ''easy'' cash. 

My cousin Danny, said: ''I sat on the same thrown as the King of England.'' 

I think the lavatories have changed since his day but you never know. 

I am not that keen on betting at casinos simply because they are all about fixed odds which, basically, means long term you are guaranteed to lose. If you watch YouTube videos regarding systems you'd believe that following x,y,z... if a sure-fire winner. I'm pretty sure any mathematician will tell you that it is mumbo jumbo. Even with my ''limited mind'' I've left a few comments stating it simply cannot work. Well, from a statistical point of view you can't win because the house edge means you are odds-against. As it happens, you are better playing roulette that just about any other game. In the UK, in the casino takes 2.7%. It's a minimal sum but £27 in every thousand soon adds up. 

I only bet small stakes at the casino and play roulette, which is boring as watching paint dry after a couple of hours. Well, unless you're winning then it's all the fun of the fair. 

Believe it or not, but I have won decent money. I have returned a profit the last eight or nine times I have been the Grosvenor at Yarmouth. If you get lucky and win early in the evening you can either win or lose a small amount. 

There is no logic to how I play but it does seem to work to a point. I look to see which numbers have come up in the last twenty spins and chose one and simply bet on that number religiously. I bet no more than £50. Either 50p or £1 chips. So you can see it is very low key. I could bet a lot more but I feel as though I'm tempting fate and for the most part it is just a little bit of fun on an evening after going to the races. If you get lucky early and your number comes in you are pretty much guaranteed to be a winner or little to lose. 

If you have a number pop up a few times you can easily go home with £100+. 

We have been to the Grosvenor Casino at Great Yarmouth many times and it really is a splendid location. If you take your ticket from the horse racing you get a free £5 match bet and free alcoholic drink. So, basically, it is the equivalent of being given £10 to turn up. Clearly, they hope you lose your shirt but if only betting small stakes you have turned the house edge into a small profit with a free £10 in the mix. 

Perhaps that is the reason I have made perhaps £500 profit over the last couple of years. It is something and nothing. However, I would rather be winning £500 than losing it. Considering most punters lose it is a moral victory. 

If you are in Great Yarmouth or the bordering towns and cities it is a place worth of your time. The listed building is a pleasure to all these modern casinos which sit snuggly in a box. 

If you have a story to tel about winning or losing at the casino I would love to hear. 

How Long Does it Take to be an Expert Gambler?

Psychological research has proven it takes 10,000 hours to be an expert in a given skill. 

How long? 

Just over 416 days. 

If you studied day and night! 

Broken down to 8-hour days, it would be 3.4 years. 

Considering that would be the equivalent of a full-time job (and some) you are talking more like four or five years to achieve the mantle of an expert within your ''skill''. 

However, there is a variant in the level of expertise. Consider an expert chess player. You may have someone who is a smart club player to a Grandmaster chess player. The likes of Bobby Fischer (1943 - 2008). These rare talents could be concluded as exceptions to the rule. On a statistical criterion, they would be in the top 1%, and more likely a fraction of a percent. There are 800 million chess players in the world and only 1500 Grandmasters. So the percentage chance of being a Grandmaster chessplayer is 0.0001875%. That is probably the chance of Joe Bloggs beating such a player.   

Clearly, chess is a complex game. To be a quality player (better than most) takes skill and innate biological capacity. Like so many talents, it goes beyond time spent learning. But consider this to gambling. To achieve a skill of lofty expectation you need to find a niche and hone your skills. There are many types of poker players, although all playing the same game, same cards, and percentages. But the variety of skills, to beat your opponent(s) can be many and varied. In this day and age, players view their skills including chance on a statistical level and psychology to understand tells (to know a bluff when they see one or try to hide their bluff like a master chess player).  

Horse racing is a very open-ended subject/niche from a gambling point of view. It has an improbable number of variables. But, as seen with the psychology hypothesis, you need to limit the number of variables to improve your chances of winning. That's why it is important to find a niche. Each to their own, but the approach of thinking you can bet on anything and everything horse racing is a ridiculous idea. Why? Simply because there isn't enough time to do all these things. To master a broad subject matter compared with something specific like your chosen subject on Mastermind. In truth, you don't need to know everything from a global perspective. If you know your niche subject well you simply need to double your stake rather than double your skillset. It makes sense. It is the equivalent of doubling your brainpower. 

When you consider it takes 5-years to be an expert within your chosen niche within horse racing betting, (in truth, it will take much longer) you don't have time to waste. Also, this expertise is hard-fought. You need to have a plan, idea, assumption (at least) which takes you on a journey that separates you from the crowd. You cannot afford to follow the crowd, because statistically and logically, it would seem very unlikely you can defy the odds.

Your understanding should be carefully assessed. You may wish to follow a blind approach but it is a wise decision to have an understanding of your progress. 

To be a successful gambler is similar to being a top-class chess player. It reveals itself in the confidence you have in beating your opponent or layer. You are pretty certain, if not almost guaranteed, you will win long term. 

If you don't look at your opposing number and feel you can win you really need to hone your skills or, at least, take on an opponent you are confident you can beat. 

Good luck on your journey.

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. 

Betting Strategy: Which Niche Is Best?

In this modern world of betting - there are literally thousands of ways to make money. Yes, that's correct to make your betting pay. 

To make money gambling is the same as any worker in their trade or business. They make money simply (the hard way) by learning their trade. The expert in any business makes more than the novice. They have a greater understanding by way of experience, talent or knowing someone/thing which affords privileged information. 

It is always better to be the source of your knowledge. Because if not, you are reliant on someone else and mostly they will always want their pound of flesh or cold, hard cash. If they hear you are making £10,000 a week gambling and you are paying them £1,000 for the info, don't be surprised if they knock on your door for more money. You are at their mercy. And, to be honest, most people aren't keen on making people money for nothing. 

How do you make money gambling? 

It's simple. I can imagine you are all ears. Well, the theory is simple. You need to know your niche well. You need to understand to just a level that you can buck the trend of following the crowd. For instance, instead of betting on the favourite in a given horse race, you are searching for a huge price winner whether win or each way. Now, knowing that isn't easy. Perhaps one in 20 races see a big price winner (20/1). The angle being, that if betting on the exchanges you will be getting double or treble the odds given by traditional bookmakers. You can see the advantage and logic behind such reasoning. If you can find a way to understand how to select horses that will run big races at huge odds, and one in so many wins, then you could well be in profit. In truth, it can be any sport or niche within your chosen expertise. Unless you are an expert within your niche you will not win simply because there will be a layer who knows more. 

This is the whole philosophy. 

It's the same as playing chess. If you know that old bloke down the street will give you a thrashing week in week out, you need to raise your game. In that sense, gambling/winning has nothing to do with money. In fact, the more you imagine it is about betting money the more you will lose. It is a game of knowledge first - betting second. It astounds me how little seasoned gamblers understand. They just don't learn from day one to day one thousand (I was going to say one million but the average life of a man is 29,000 days (80-years-old). Would you go to university for three years and return with the same level of intelligence as when you started? I imagine not. You would be thrown off the course before you got to the point of completion. You would be told to try harder, work harder and achieve a higher standard.

Each to their own. 

It makes no difference to me if you learn or standstill. In many ways, if you are a layer of horses, I hope you don't know as much as me. 

The best niche is the niche you enjoy and one which you follow and enjoy with a passion that sees you through the highs and lows of your gambling journey. 

I remember years ago watching a TV programme about a bloke who worked in the antique trade. He summed it up nicely when he said: ''I don't need to know everything, just a little more than most.'' 

And when you think about it, that is true for all aspects of life whether gambling, business or profession.  

If you know your niche well you have an opportunity to succeed. 

You may see any number of people working in a given trade. Consider a salesman selling iPhones. You can guarantee someone within the company sells more than anyone and makes a commission probably five times that of your average seller. They have learned what sells. They are better. Somehow, they have crafted their skills to a point that others question who they do it. 

That is exactly where you need to be. 

Dayjur: The Horse Who Jumped Shadows

Think of a sprinter...

 A horse so fast it captured the attention of fans across the globe. A class act crowned a champion but still, to this day, assessed with a measure of hard luck for an act that saw him lose a race he should have won.

For those who love their sprinters, there is only one horse who comes to mind. 

Dayjur.

He was born on the 6th February 1987. This American-bred son of Danzig out of a dam called Gold Beauty. Bred in Kentucky. Dayjur raced under the ownership of Sheikh Hamdan Al-Maktoum. An expensive yearling purchase for that decade costing $1.65M. Considering such an outstanding horse had total earnings of £327,280 it details his incredible price tag. 

The association of Dayjur went hand-in-hand with his trainer Major Dick Hern, who had been seriously injured in a hunting accident in 1984 which left him wheelchair bound. Both man and horse had a will of steel. 

This brown horse made his two-year-old debut at Newbury on the 15th June 1989. His reputation was tall - he started 8/15f. He won ''easily'' by a length. However, his second race at Listed class didn't go to plan when he was beaten by half a length at odds of 8/13f by Rushmoore, trained by Clive Brittain. 

At the end of the two-year-old season, he had a wind operation (to improve his breathing).

In a relatively short career of eleven races, his three-year-old season would be his last. 

However, this season would give him credit as one of the greatest sprinters of all time but, in the process, break the heart of his trainer and race fans around the world. 

Once again, Dayjur suffered disappointment on his return to racing in 1990. Major Dick Hern had him earmarked for 2000 Guineas (which proved to be a mistake). Racing over 7f in the European Free Handicap saw him disappointing to finish seventh of ten runners. 

Plans were quickly changing. 

Dayjur was dropped back to 6f and given a confidence-boosting run at Nottingham. However, he was beaten a head by Tod, at Newbury. 

At this stage, he looked far from a supreme talent. 

The Major hadn't lost faith. In fact, he entered Dayjur for the Temple Stakes at Sandown over the minimum trip of 5f. 

His jockey, Willie Carson, led from start to finish - winning by two lengths in good style. 

Now connections knew they had a serious horse on their hands and all illusions of him racing beyond sprint distances were forgotten.

In June, he won the King's Stand at Royal Ascot by two-and-a-half lengths although Major Hern was concerned about soft ground. The runner-up, Ron's Victory, was many lengths clear of the third and then went on to frank the form by winning the Diadem Stakes by ten lengths. 

Dayjur was made 8/11f to win the Nunthorpe Stakes (Group 1) racing over 5f at York. He won by an easy four lengths and achieved a course record of 56:16. The Racing Post comment stated: ''very impressive''. (The only horse to beat his time is Borderleescott  (56:09) in 2008.) 

The latter part of Dayjur's career was coming to a conclusion. A few races to add to his credentials as being a true sprinting legend. 

In September, connections decided to attempt six furlongs in the Ladbroke Sprint Cup at Haydock. It was a stiff race with highly-rated Dead Certain a major opponent. Could Dayjur last the extra furlong? 

He led from start to finish. Going clear at the two-furlong pole, he held the late challenge of Royal Academy to win by one and a half lengths. 

To boost the form, Royal Academy went on to win the Breeders' Cup Mile in the United States. 

Dayjur won his final race in Europe when beating four rivals in the Prix de l'abbaye at Longchamp, France. 

Winning, and being eased at the line, Dayjur appeared to jump a shadow cast across the course!

By this time Dayjur had been heralded a sprinting sensation. He would represent Europe by travelling to the United States of America to contest the 1990 Breeders' Cup Sprint, at Belmont Park. A wide draw made life difficult. However, a gutsy Dayjur contested the lead and then headed Safely Kept and looked to have the race sealed. In the closing strides of the race (heartbreaking) Dayjur saw a shadow cast across the track and jumped losing momentum. Then, unbelievably, jumped another shadow at the finishing line. He lost by a neck as the filly took advantage of his ill fate. 

Dayjur Bio: (6th February 1987 - 25 September 2013)

Race record: 

11 runs, 7 wins, 3 seconds and unplaced on one occasion

Awards: 

British Horse of the Year 1990
European Champion Sprinter 1990 

What are your memories of this great sprinter? 

Related stories: Safely Kept Sprints From The Shadows To Defeat Dayjur

Related video: Dayjur King of Sprinters