What remains, after a probable or possible winner is found by handicapping procedures, except to let fly with a bet of some sort? Something most certainly does remain, and a player who has sense enough to find out what that is, and self-control enough to apply his knowledge, is the only type of bettor who has any real chance for success at the tracks.

Intelligent betting involves three questions. The first is what to bet, and the answer, in the abstract at least, is easy—always bet the best horse. The second question is when to bet, which involves consideration of price or odds. And the third question is how to bet, which involves con­sideration of the finishing positions for which horses should be backed, whether to win only, to place, or to show, or even some combination of the three positions or any two of them.

I. WHAT TO BET

The question what to bet necessarily becomes—what horse and what amount.

Any betting operation with an intelligent aim at profit and not a mere haphazard hope of profit involves a series of bets over a month, six months or a year on horses so well placed in their races that the percentage of success­ful transactions secured, at the average price on all winning transactions, will yield an appreciable gain. Any such success must depend upon securing a reasonable per­centage of winners at a fair average price. In other words, whether a player succeeds or fails depends on the average of his play. If he bets in variant amounts, now $10 on a long-shot that he fancies, then $100 on an apparent sure-thing at a short price, he destroys any possibility that aver­ages work out for him and simply gambles that enough of his large bets will be successful. Occasional long prices secured by stabs here and there will not pull him out if most of the larger wagers go down.

All bets on horses should be flat, in the same amount, until accrued profits have raised one's available capital to a point where heavier play may be maintained through inevitable periods of loss. And the first bet, that is to be repeated on succeeding horses, should not be so large in relation to reserve capital that a sequence of losers would exhaust that capital too quickly. In my opinion a really good handicapper should have $200 or thereabouts be­fore he undertakes $10 betting. Of course he may get off on the right foot and secure a succession of winners, but it is best not to count on that. Five bets or more in a line may go down, and if he has only $50 he is out of the run­ning at once.

I repeat—all bets on horses should be flat, in the same amount, and an increase should not be ventured until profits have built up one's betting fund.

The next matter—what horse to bet—requires some discussion. The answer in the abstract is simple enough— always bet the best horse in a race. But there is more to it than that.

In a very large number of races the best horse is such only by a shade. He can be worked out as best, but it takes some sweating and straining to do it. And with rac­ing around oval courses so full of possibilities of accident, it is unwise to rely upon split-hair advantage. Any horse should be seen as having a substantial advantage before he is bet, for this alone can be relied on by a player to-* overcome the many misfortunes that may be experienced during the running, from getting left at the start to be- ing interfered with in the stretch.

If a handicapper finds himself spending an unusual amount of time over any race, checking and re-checking class, consistency, weight, present form and speed, the mere fact is the best sign in the world that the race should be passed and nothing in it played.

I could take a series of racing sheets and demonstrate that at least half of all races programmed are so close on paper that only a rash person would back the chances of any particular horse. And yet each newspaper selector will hang up a choice in such a race; the public will make something the favorite; and there will be just as much money wagered on the contest as on other more playable affairs. It's all part of the general lunacy at race tracks, but no intelligent person need be part of it.

In the average case a man at a race track merely acts like a dunce. He is not foolish just because he went there to bet, provided he knows something about the game he is bucking. Men who can handicap horses, who spent some time with a racing sheet the night before, and who know definitely that at least half the races on the card are im-1 possibly close, will wind up glaring at the past perform­ances five minutes before post-time for one of the im­possible races, trying to squeeze a bet just to have some­thing riding. They can reach no attitude of certainty as to the chances of any single horse. They know the records of all will not permit them to prefer any one. Yet they will end by buying a ticket on something, more often than not throwing away their money.

The Godlike certainty of public selectors is of no as­sistance to the man trying to find the best horse in an I event so close that there is no best horse.

Absence of any best horse whatsoever is involved not only in races that are too close to permit a choice but also in events for horses so cheap that they cannot be figured on any basis. Nearly all races for maidens, except two-year-old maidens that have started only two or three times, fall into this category. All entrants in claiming events at the small courses—the $700, $800 or $900 platers—are so inferior, erratic, and unsound that it is pure folly to attempt to pick them. Whether through physical infirmity and unsoundness, they present no characteristics of qual­ity, performance or speed enabling a handicapper to esti­mate their chances.

Horses of this type cannot be compared on the basis of class because they possess not the least trace of class. They cannot be compared for consistency in winning and running close by for they are wholly inconsistent. They cannot be compared as to weight, for weights become un­important when half the field is so unsound that pain may stab the leader into stopping at any moment. Nor can they be compared in point of present form because they arc raced too often to have any form.

Some players wager on cheap horses because they— the players—grope about after names they remember from prior races as having won and paid long prices. The cheapies do pay long prices when they win because only sucker money is on such fields.

Once in a while a handicapper will note in a cheap field a horse which seems to have something. Usually these are aged animals of former class, who retain enough of that quality to spot years to those they now oppose, and beat them. But such cases are exceptional, and an aged horse may break down in any race or lose his lick forever.

If a player will just get into his head that the cheap races at major courses are put on merely to fill out eight-race programs, he will put himself in position to exercise the discrimination between races that may be playable—and races almost certainly not. Tout? tip the cheapies in hope of a long price increasing their bit from the sucker who happened to get the horse- Tip-sheets cover their pages with the names of cheap horses—in hopes of being able to advertise half a dozen long-priced winners. But a-really smart player lets the cheapies run for Sweeney, not for him, because he knows that such races can't be fig­ured. And he does not bet money on races so close that no one can point out a winner with any assurance.

There may not be any predictable best horse even in a race for good ones; it may be so close that a. selection is merely a guess. And hardly ever is there a best horse -| in a bad race for cheap animals. But good races now arid then do present predictable winners—horses at substan­tial advantage in relation to the field in class, consistency or weight. These and these only are proper media for betting. Of course a player must be a handicapper in his "J own right to detect them; the selectors that hang up a choice in each race cannot do that for him. And a player -must have great self-control if he is always to limit his wagers to animals properly placed in their races. But if he does operate in this way he is very apt to make some money—which is impossible otherwise.

II. WHEN TO BET

The only time a bet should be made on a horse that is at detectable advantage is when the price is right. And a price is right, to a hard-boiled professional player's mind, , j only when an animal is going to post at odds longer than. ^ his real chances of winning. If that is the case he is what % is known technically as an "overlay." 10

10 A horse which has one chance in two of winning his race, i ji a sound analysis of the field, should be at odds of even money, I/I, H the price is to be an exact expression of his chances. Now if the viewpoint is shifted from a single horse so placed to visual.

Overlays usually result from most of the public selec­tors' going wrong on a race. Say that they have indicated some one horse as probable winner and for insufficient reasons, such as his having happened to win his last start although he is basically inconsistent and rarely shows a good effort following a preceding good one. Say too that the race includes some other horse, much more steady against the particular type of opposition, which the se­lectors have passed by. Since the public follows the selec­tors the probabilities are that most of the money will be on their choice and the other more consistent horse will be somewhat neglected in the betting. Under the mutuel system of computing odds the result inevitably will be that the second animal will go to post at a price considerably longer than that against the selectors' choice. And if in fact the second horse, whose recent failures canize one hundred horses identically placed, other implications of the situation can be developed. Of one hundred natural even-money shots, about half, or fifty, ultimately will win. Therefore if a player wagers on all of them at even money, he merely will break even, or lose money. But if he passes all natural even-money shots going to post at even money, and refuses to back an animal so placed unless he is going to pay 6/5, 7/5, 8/5 or even higher, then he is bound to make money over a period through backing a considerable number of horses whose prices are longer than their real chances of winning. By definition about half of his bets will win, and each win will pay more than $1 for $1. Horses whose prices are longer than their chances of winning are overlays, and a series of flat bets on a series of overlays is bound to pay. No other type of wager can beat the take and breakage of the mutuels. From what has been said it should be obvious that a single overlay means nothing when bet on; any horse can lose a race in any one of a thousand different ways. But a series of overlays, if a player is smart enough to confine his wagering to them, is something else again. The series is long enough to permit the averages to work out, and bets cashed yield more than enough to compensate for inevitable losers. Of course all these concepts are beyond realization by players who break their necks to win single successive wagers without regard to price.

Being attributed.to bad luck,, bad' rides, or anything o than a loss of basic class and consistency, figures with a" sound handicapper as best in the race, he will be an over­lay and a most solid bet. The point is not that he is certain to win the race, for no horse is dead certain to win any race. The point is that a player who makes a hundred or a. thousand wagers on horses similarly placed is almost certain to win. money over the series because the prices he secures when he does win will be of the fair, good or long order, and in the aggregate will more than suffice to compensate for the total of the losing transactions where individual bets have gone down.

It is hard to make a simon-pure amateur grasp these matters in their entirety. He is always trying to get a win­ner in the next race, whether hopefully Or hopelessly, and this effort to get a winner at any price leads him to forget the importance of price in any betting operation. He takes what he thinks to be the best horses as they turn up> no matter how short the odds at which they go to post, and he seals his own fate. He is almost certain to make a high percentage of his bets on horses that are going to post at odds less than their real chances of winning. And in playing these as a practice he is certain to lose money. No one can get more than about 40% winners in play involving two or three bets a day. Certainly an amateur, with his limited handicapping talents, cannot secure any such percentage of winners strictly on his own. And if he is following some individual selector the probabilities are that the winning percentage will be 30 or less. Even a child can compute the net financial result of winning 30% of flat bets at an average price of $1.20 to $1, if indeed the figure works out so high.

The selectors keep on picking and they do the best they can. There are hundreds of them in practice all over the United States,, on newspapers, racing sheets and scratch-sheets. Also hundreds of good handicappers are scrutinizing the races for real betting spots. With all races each day subjected to so intensive an analysis for prob­able winners, it is hopeless to expect to find five or six overlays in an eight-race card. Overlays result when the selectors by-pass a horse because they are blind to his merits. This does not occur often enough to yield a great deal of action at one track or even at all tracks to a player who confines his wagers to genuine overlays.

It often seems like a waste of time to spend hours over a racing sheet only to wind up with nothing to bet. And when a player goes to the track, unless he is in position to do so daily, he is tempted to make wagers just to get ac­tion.

But there is a solution for the problem of confining wagers to overlays and yet getting sufficient action. If a player can't find an overlay for the particular day, let him make a bet on the most certain winner he can dis­cover, disregarding the factor of price. On the aggregate of such bets made in course of a year he will show no appreciable profit, and may sustain a small loss. But, pro­vided he has also bet his overlays, and has not been frightened off them by the adverse opinion of selectors who have made them overlays, he will have made money from his transactions. Favorites, sure-things and short-priced animals can be bet when nothing else with a chance can be found offering a respectable price. No player of chalks is ever going to make an appreciable profit over a period, although he will have occasional streaks of win­ners and consequent prosperity; a player who divides his wagers between real overlays and chalk-horses is going to find at the end of the year that all his profits came from the overlays. On the chalks he merely was marking time.

This talk about making money on overlays and losing little if anything on short-priced horses presupposes that a player is a first-class handicapper on his own. If he is not, he can't tell an overlay from the man in the moon, and if he merely follows selectors he will lose money surely as the sun rises. Only a very fine bandicapper can play favorites and avoid losing his shirt. And if such a one plays nothing but horses of the type he will make very little money over a period.

I have suggested in this section that an amateurish player who would become a professional must break his habit of disregarding price and everything other than the | desire for a win. Only if he does so can he attain the neces­sary poise in the face of occasional losses. An overlay is such because a series of bets of the type is bound to re­sult in profit; a cold-blooded professional who sees, one bet of the sort go down is not disturbed because he knows that enough of the series will stand up to put him out in front. But an amateur who loses a bet begins to doubt his own judgment. Why didn't he bet place instead of straight? Why did he bet so much? Why this, why that? He is tossed between sixteen devils of doubt, and winds up by betting too little too far back on the next horse that wins, or too much too far front on an infirm selec­tion that loses." All this results from inability to view bets as a series from which only modest average results are to be expected, with losers necessarily more frequent than winners. The professional's attitude is wholly different. In­stead of being shaken by a loser he is entirely calm if not exactly pleased, because he knows that the occurrence of that inevitable loss here and now has brought him closer to the equally inevitable later win.

The real betting spots in a day's card are always created by failure of the experts who guide the public to detect superior chances. Therefore all the pre-race chatter as well as the silent testimony of the odds-board is in favor of the experts' choices, and when the overlooked but well-spotted horses win at mutuels like $16.20 or $12.40 the public is stunned and can't figure it all out. They never see the light, dump the experts, and try to learn to figure horses for themselves. And the after-race discussion is as silly as the pre-race chatter. The winner won because Jockey So-and-so was up, or because he had drawn post 3, or because the wise money was on him, or because the favorite was stiff, being an educated horse which could read the short odds against him.

These things have been going on ever since there first were race tracks, and will continue to go on. But a per­son is not necessarily a fool merely because he likes to play horses. One can get a lot of fun out of watching races and even can make a percentage profit by betting them, if one is temperamentally adapted to the game, studies racing intensively enough to make himself a good or expert handicapper, and follows correct procedures in wagering. But ability to handicap or figure fields for one­self is an absolute prerequisite to success; the man with an armful of scratch-sheets is merely displaying the badge of his own incompetence.

A player can succeed if he can get the horse best placed in a race in basic class, consistency, and weight, and if, after he has detected the animal, he is not to be frightened away by the adverse opinions of experts and the adverse betting of the public. A player of this type will have his money on overlays in a sufficient percentage of all his bets to put him ahead of the game over periods of months or years.

III. HOW TO BET

There is only one justifiable way to bet a horse which figures to have a definite advantage in his race, and that is straight, to win only.

Mathematical proof of this statement is available, and I shall set it out in a moment. Such proof cannot be shaken by loose arguments about the advisability of "in­suring" straight bets with additional wagers to place and/or to show, or by other claims whose root is uneasiness on the part of the player about the quality of handicapping ok" timidity which lead* him to try to as safe as possible.

I will assume a five-horse race in which the same, amount of money is bet on each animal to win, to places] and to show. Say that the amount on each for each posi­tion ,is $5,000. With such an even distribution of money ■ on each entrant in the race, each will go to post at the same mutuel to win. Also each will pay identical place mutuels and identical show mutuels if the particular horse-does place or show, which would not be the case if dif­ferent amounts were bet on each to place and show.

The following table illustrates the natural odds (in­volved in the distribution of money) against the chances of all the horses in the race to win, to place and to show. Since they are all at the same prices for the three posi­tions no separate figures need be given for each of the five horses. Also the table shows the odds for all bettable posi­tions at which each will go, under the mutuel system in a state having a 10% take, and the percentage of diminu­tion of natural odds that the mutuel price involves.

Natural odds Mutuel odds  % decrease
Straight price ..... 4/1 3.50/1       12/2

Place price             1.50/1        1.25/1 16 2/3
Show price              66/1           .50/1   24)4

The natural odds to win in a five-horse race with $5,000 bet on each of the entrants are .established by the fact that $20,000 are bet on any four to beat the fifth animal as against only $5,000. The actual mutuel odds have been computed as shown in a previous chapter after a 10% take of $2,500 has been subtracted from the gross straight pool of $25,000. The natural odds to place against any single horse are established by the fact that $15,000 are. bet on any three horses to place as against $10,000 on the other two—whichever ones they may be. The odds to place, under the mutuel system in a 10% state, have been computed as previously explained. And the natural odds to show in this race are established by the fact that $10,000 are bet on any two horses to show as against $15,000 on the other three. Mutuel show odds developing in a 10% state have been explained.

I have assumed that the same amount is bet on all horses, not only straight but place and show as well, be­cause only thus could I get the same straight, place and show prices for all and exhibit the decrease in mutuel odds from natural odds as a single percentage figure for straight prices, place prices and show prices for all horses. The assumption does not invalidate the table; the same showing, that place betting necessarily involves acceptance of a smaller proportion of natural odds or winnings than does straight betting, would be made by a table based on a race where variant amounts are bet on different horses for the various positions, only the table would be more complicated. No horse, where different amounts are bet on each, ever goes to post at a fixed place or show price in the mutuels, because what he will pay for placing or showing depends on how much is bet on the other horse or horses that place or show with him.

In the case of this particular race, a straight bettor, if he is successful, sacrifices only one-eighth of his natural winnings (i.e., adequate compensation for his risk). But a place bettor fails to receive about one-sixth of natural winnings, and a show bettor very nearly one-quarter. The farther back a horse is bet the less the proportion of nat­ural winnings (called for by distribution of the money among all) is received by a player who has won his bet. In the long run this constant whittling away of part of the profits necessary to compensate for the risk of betting at all is going to affect seriously the results of any bettor, whether he wagers straight, place or show. But the whit­tling of profits is least serious in the case of win betting, so that any other style of wagering is unsound in com-? parison. It is most serious in the case of show betting; therefore that style is the most vulnerable of all, if adopted as a practice and over periods of time.

In the face of these figures it is mere chit-chat to argue the advisability of backing long-shots to win and to place, or to win and to show, on the theory that a good place price or a good show price may be realized even though the horse does not win. By "good" price a dunce who argues thus does not mean a price that will really com-, pensate for the risk inherent in the straight bet and the other; he merely means that the place and show mutuels on a long-shot probably will be somewhat larger or higher than are usually paid by really solid horses. Questions about how to bet horses cannot be settled soundly by argument framed in general terms; one must come down to the mathematics of it to reach any conclusion.

Procedures adapted to winning single bets with least chance of loss on the one transaction are not adapted to winning money in a series of bets over a period of .time. Of course a player of any horse has a better chance to . win a place bet or a show bet than he has to win a straight bet, but what of it? The fact is irrelevant to the issue of whether he will make money through a series of such bets over a period of time. Success in any series of wagers depends strictly on whether the average profit se­cured on winning transactions, multiplied by the number of bets won out of each hundred or thousand, will exceed the loss incurred on the losing transactions. And the bald fact is that the average place and show prices paid by horses good enough to be bet at all and for any position are not high enough to work out a profit over a material .period of time. Of course a player may go to the track, make a show bet on each of the eight races, cash them all, and come out with a profit. He may do it for a week, perhaps even for a month. But he never will do it for two months, six months or a year. Each price he pockets will have been chewed too heavily by the machines. And he may make place betting work for a time, because di­minution of natural prices is less than in the case of show prices. It is possible to make a trifle over prolonged periods by place betting, and for the same reason. But even so, more money would have been made by backing identical horses to win and in the same amounts.

I will take another assumed race and look into the question of prices for the three bettable finishing posi­tions—first, second and third. Say that horse A has $5,000 on him to win, horse B $3,000, G $2,000, and horses D and E $1,000 each. The natural price of A, straight, is 7/5, since there is $7,000 bet against him and $5,000 on him. This is equivalent to a $4.80 mutuel. If he does win, in a state taking 10% of the pools, he will pay only $4.30, which represents a diminution of natural profits of about 17.8%. Natural profits of $2.80, in the case of a $2 bet, have been diminished by 50c to $2.30 in the mutuels, which represents a real take of about 17.8%. And less heavily backed horses would also show a diminution of natural profits in excess of the authorized take of 10%, though not so much as in the case of A, the favorite.

Assume that the same amounts were bet on these sev­eral horses in the place pool. If A wins or places with B, A's natural place price, without any take deducted from the pool, would be a mutuel of $2.80. But with 10% take and breakage out of the pool it will be only $2.50, a figure involving diminution of natural profits by 37}4% (.30/.80). No one can go up against saber slashes of this order and show a gain.
The following table on the race assumed, with amounts bet distributed in the place pool among the several horses as indicated above, shows the natural and actual mutuel prices of A to place, whether B, C, or D or E place with him, as well as the percentage of decrease from natural to actual profits caused by a legal take of 10% plus break- age to the last dime.

Place horses    Natural price

A (B)   2.80
A (G) ....          3.00
A (D/E) ...... . 3.20

The cut of natural profit effected by the mutuels is even more extreme in the case of show prices. If such prices are considered that will result from the above dis­tribution of show bets on a five-horse race, it will be found that A will pay a show mutuel of only $2.10 (5c on $1 bet) if B and G show with him; $2.20 (10c on $1 bet) if B and D or E do so; $2.30 (15c on $1 bet) if C and D or E do so; and $2.50 (25c on $1 bet) if D and E do so.

The following table gives the natural show mutuels that would result on A if there were no take and break­age, the actual mutuels payable in a 10% state in the several contingencies indicated above and in the table, and the diminution of natural profits they represent ex­pressed as a percentage.

Show horses    Natural price Actual price % decrease

A..... (B, C)                              2.26     2.10     61.5
A..... (B, D/E)                           2.40     2.20     50.0
A        (C, D/E) ......                  2.53     2^30    43.3
A..... (D, E)                              2.66     2.50     24.2

The distribution of money among the five horses in this assumed race is representative of a good many actual contests. But even if it were otherwise, the same rate of diminution of natural to actual profits caused by-take and breakage would develop—heaviest in the case of show prices, less heavy in the case of place prices, and least heavy in the case of win or straight prices. Where A's straight price is cut from natural winnings by 17.8% un­der a 10% take, his place price is cut by 37.5-25% (de­pending on which horse places with him), and his show price is cut by 61.5-24.2% (depending on which horses show with him).

The following table is based on the same assumed race, with $5,000 on A to win, $3,000 on B, $2,000 on C, and $1,000 each on D and E. It gives the natural and actual mutuel prices for each horse in the race if he wins, to­gether with the percentage cut of natural profits effected by a 10% take and breakage to the last dime on a $2 bet. It should be noted that the percentage cut in the case of D or E, the most lightly backed horses, if either wins, is slightly in excess of the statutory 10% take.

Horse   Natural price Actual price % decrease

A ...... 4.80             4.30            17.8
B ...... 8.00             7.20            13.3
G..... 12.00           10.80            12.0
D/E ..........            24.00            21.60  10.9

Above I gave a table showing the various place prices that would be paid by horse A, depending 6n which other horse in the race runs first or second with him. The follow­ing table makes the same showing for lightly backed D or E, depending on which other horse (indicated in pa­rentheses) runs first or second with either. It should be noted that even in the case of lightly backed horses per­centage slashes of the take are quite substantial when prices to place are involved.

Horse                Natural price  Actual price     % decrease

D/E (A)                                      8.00  6.80     20.0
D/E (B)                                      10.00            8.80     15.0
D/E (G)                                      11.00            9.80     13.3

The next table shows natural and actual show prices for D or E, the horses most lightly backed to show in the race with distribution of money as assumed, and the percentage cut of profits effected by an authorized 10% take plus breakage to the last dime. The letters in pa­rentheses indicate what other horse or horses are assumed to have run third or better with D and/or E.

Horse   Natural price

D/E (A, B)        4.00
D/E (A, C)        4.66
D/E (B, G)        6.00
D, E (G)            7.32

If the reader takes the trouble to check these tables he should remember, with respect to the percentage col­umn, that I am concerned with diminution of profits of bets. All mutuel prices, quoted on the odds board, by the newspapers and these tables, are the stake of a $2 bet plus the profits. Thus, in the last line (1st column) of the last table, the natural mutuel of $7.32 represents $2 staked . plus $5.32 profit. Reduction of this profit to $4.50 (in­volved in the actual mutuel of $6.50, which represents $2 staked plus $4.50 profit) is equivalent to a decrease of 15.4% as shown in the last line (last column) of the table.

It all comes down to the fact that the profits of bets on all horses, whether heavily or lightly backed, are least seriously cut by take and breakage in straight betting, more seriously cut in place betting, and most seriously cut in show betting.

A second disadvantage is inherent in place or show bet­ting in comparison with straight betting. When one at the track backs a horse to win near the close of betting one knows, within narrow limits, what price one is going to get in the event of success. But in the case of a bet to place or to show the odds are not posted on the board because they cannot be known until the race is over. What any single horse will pay place or show depends not only on his finishing as bet but also on whether the animals which placed or showed with him were heavily or lightly backed. If large amounts were on them, the pay-off on the horse sharing the pool with them will be light. If they were lightly bet the pay-off will be much higher. And, of course, the probabilities are that the more heavily backed horses will run in the pool with the one wagered upon and so reduce profits of a place or show bet. It is not sensible procedure for a player to accept the double risk of this sort: first, of the event; second, of the size of the pay-off if the event is favorable.

There is a third disadvantage in place and show bet­ting, at least for a player sensible enough to figure his own horses. The thought that a particular animal may place or may show, although not a confident risk to win, may influence a player in the direction of sloppy handicapping, not only in the particular case but also in many cases thereafter. As sloppiness infects his handicapping, his re­sults will get worse and worse, developing a tendency to bet place and/or show chronically. And that, to put it briefly, will mean the end.

It is hard enough to get winners. I am not denying that. But winners do a player some good, because unlike place and show horses, their prices have not been so extensively cut by the mutuel take and breakage. Betting of any type is no easy road to wealth, as anyone of the least experi­ence knows. But betting horses otherwise than to win is a delusion and a snare. Just because it is easier to win single bets to place or to show than it is to win straight bets it does not follow that it is easier to make money over a period through such types of wagering. Everything that looks easy at the tracks, to an uninformed observer, embodies some kind of fallacy. It looks easy to make money by confining play to apparent cinch horses going at odds on. The player tries it, and they promptly stand him on his head. It also looks easy to a player to make money by betting place and/or show. He tries it, and same result follows.

All that glitters is not gold, and the fact that a theory, is plausible does not make it true and workable. A race track is a little world in itself, and there, just as in the . greater world outside, too often what seems the easiest ' way turns out to be the hardest.

A player who once makes up his mind, on mathematical . grounds, that place and show betting are never advisable J as a practice, will gain considerably in peace of mind and certainty of viewpoint. If he sees four or five horses in a line run second or third although he bet them straight, he will not be tempted to recast his whole scheme of wager­ing just because in that limited streak he would have made a little money. But a player without a fixed attitude against place and show betting is apt to do just what the other will not. If a couple of straight bets run second ., or third he will start betting his selections place or show, so that he pockets practically nothing even if he does cash| the wagers. And if one or two of his horses bet place or show do manage to win, he will not benefit financially to any real extent but may be led to reverse his prior pro­cedure and jump his sights to the straight level, at least for a few bets. So he will stagger back and forth from one type of betting to another, following no reasoned sys­tem of play. If he happens to make money he cannot ex­plain why it happened and therefore has established no basis of analyzable experience on which to plan future operations. And if be happens to lose money, he cannot clearly see why, will flounder around haphazardly, and, continue to lose money.

Are You Ready To Move Onto The Next Lesson? Click Here...