From the golden age of horse racing systems…The author here explains the procedures completely and advises you must be temperamentally suited to ‘play’ a system, or else never attempt to operate one in the first place. Systems operation is no sport for the chicken-hearted, he says. You must have tenacity of purpose, he says, and the rule book repeats it four times. Then there are usually examples of bad runs, and straight away, good runs, demonstrations.
The XX Longshot Plan – you work on 7 races throughout the year.
(a) Grand National Steeplechase – the selection is the runner which finished 4th or 5th or 6th in the Kensington Steeplechase a week earlier. If the runner who came 4th is entered, it is the selection. Disregard other entries. If there are no runners from the Q race there is no bet on the GN.
(b) Footscray Steeplechase – if there is a runner in this which came 4th or 5th or 6th in the Kensington Steeplechase then it becomes the selection. Disregard other entries.
(c) Australian Steeplechase – the selection is the horse which won the Godfrey Watson Steeplechase or the horse which ran second in that race.
(d) Spring Stakes – the selection is the top-weight.
(e) Caulfield Guineas – same selection as the Spring Stakes, but only if it won the Spring Stakes.
(f) Melbourne Cup – the selection is the runner which finished (3rd/Third) in the Caulfield Cup.
(g) Sandown Guineas – the selection is the filly who did best of the 4th, 5th, 6th in The Oaks. A 400 pound bank is suggested and 10% of the highest level the bankreached as the stake.
1953 (a) won 11/4, out 40, in 150, win 110, bank 510
1953 (b) won 5/2, out 51, in178.5, win 127.5, bank 637.5
1953 (c) unplaced, out 63.75, bank 573.75
1953 (f) won 14/1, out 63.75, in 956.25, bank 1465.75
1954 (a) won 16/1, out 146.57, in 2491.69, bank 3810.87
1954 (b) 3rd, out 381, bank 3429
1954 (c) won 3/1, out 381, in 1524, bank 4572
1954 (d) won 6/4, out 457, in 1142.5,bank 5257.5
1954 (e) won 10/1, out 525, in 5775, bank 10507.5
1954 (f) unplaced, out 1050, bank 9457
1955 (a) unplaced, out 1050, bank 8407
1955 (b) won 7/2, out 1050, in 4725, bank 12082
1955 (c) won 4/1, out 1208, in 6040, bank 16914
1955 (f) unplaced, out 1691, bank 15223
1956 (a) unplaced, out 1691, bank 13701
1956 (b) won 12/1, out 1691, in 21983, bank 33993
1956 (c) won 9/4, out 3399, in 11046.75, bank 42640.75
1956 (f) won 15/1, out 4264, in 68224, bank 10660.75
1957 (a) won 11/8, out 10660, in 25264, bank 146041
1957 (b) unplaced, out 14604, bank 131440
1957 C won 4/6, out 14604, in 24388, bank 141224
1957 (d) won 3/1, out 14604, in 58416, bank 185036
1957 (g) won 10/1, out 18503, in 203533, bank 370066
1958 went unplaced ,won 6/1, won8/1, unp, unp.
1959 went unp, unp, won 7/1, won 2/1, won 20/1, unp, won 6/1
1960 went won 25/1, won 5/2, unp, unp, unp
1961 went unp, unp, unp, unp, won 20/1, unp
1962 went unp, won 9/2, won 4/1, unp ,unp ,unp
1963 went unp, unp, won 1/1, unp, won 25/1
1964 went unp, unp, unp, unp
1965 went won 7/1, unp, won 6/4, unp, unp, won 5/2
1966 unp, unp, unp, unp, won 14/1.
It got skinny towards the end, and off a million pound bank you were betting 100,000 each time – that is tenacity of purpose.
Summary:
(a) GN Steeple, 14 bets, 5 winners, 11-4, 16-1, 11-8, 25-1, 7-1
(b) Footscray Stakes, 9 bets, 4 winners, 5-2, 7-2, 12-1, 9-2
(c) Aust Stple, 14 bets, 8 winners, 3-1, 4-1, 9-4, 4-6, 6-1, 7-1, 5-2,4-1
(d) Spring Stks 10 bets, 6 winners, 6-4, 3-1, 8-1, 2-1, 1-1, 6-4
(e) Caulfield Gns 4 bets, 2 winners, 10-1, 20-1
(f) Melbourne Cup, 13 bets, 4 winners 14-1, 15-1, 20-1, 25-1
(g) Sandown Gns, 8 bets, 4 winners, 10-1, 6-1, 5-2,1 4-1
An assessment after a couple of years in would have resulted in you wanting to drop the MC bet, wouldn’t it?
I don’t know the basis of the selection rules. I don’t vouch for the correctness of the results, and I can’t follow the betting arithmetic, but I include and quote what he wrote. A bettor looking to buy a price with 100,000 pounds would not be getting 25’s, 14’s, 12’s or much else over evens but we can dream. For whatever reason the scheduling of races these days does not allow operation of the system. These are metro races, and steeplechasing is a memory only, and some races listed may have been moved elsewhere on the racing calendar. I like (d) the way they wrote their spiel too, ‘tenacity of purpose’ and if it fails, it’s you, not the scheme.
My comment to re-think the use of the MC is wrong. The winners total prices totalled to 61, and this figure improved over several years.
To return to our Footy Almanac home page click HERE.
Our writers are independent contributors. The opinions expressed in their articles are their own. They are not the views, nor do they reflect the views, of Malarkey Publications.
Do you enjoy the Almanac concept?
And want to ensure it continues in its current form, and better? To help things keep ticking over please consider making your own contribution.
Become an Almanac (annual) member – click HERE.
About Tony Moffat
Retired in Pemberton WA with Anne and (today) a non-going SUV and a m/c 01/02/26 update: We have a new Hyundai now
Recall there was a Melbourne Cup system 30 years ago that took place getters from 3 lead up races and you ended up with multiple runners on the big day – but it had selected the winner in 9 of 10 recent Cups. I paid for a long shot system in the 1970’s that promised a long term return (a fool and his money).
All these systems and the one you describe are “retro fit” systems where some shark surveys recent results and divines patterns that they sell to mugs like me. It is a retrospective system that produces very different results when applied prospectively.
Gambling for fun is never profitable. Gambling for profit is never fun (long hours of analysis and risk management for small % profit on turnover).
Bookies give bonuses to the 99% of mugs and ban the 1% of smarties.
Selection criteria for Melbourne Cup should be “2nd in Caulfield Cup” not 3rd as I wrote
Mechanical betting systems seek to use race results as if they are
causes.
Systems operate generally on the premise that yestedays results will
cause todays results in terms of yesterdays conditions.
There are limits to how systems can work. Perhaps some cleverly researched and
designed systems do succeed *, but most fail.
Systems must fail because they are pale and inferior examples of
rating methods, which generally fail also.
However, there are amusing and instructive anecdotes in the racing
literature on the claims and methods of systems.
The patois utilised is that of positivity of purpose with your
method.
If it succeeds it is expected.
If it does not succeed there is a reason in the rules.
*The Money Mine Method is a system that works – search for it online or/and I may disclose it here sometime
The Solo Pacific Plan is another that works although it is a moving feast of stable runners that you add or subtract as their past and future races are compared – micro managed is a description that fits
My new horse has his first trip to town today.
R 3, No2, @ Flemington: Black Frost, trained by Craig Weeding. Anyhow hopefully he runs well, using anyone’s punting system. If you’re not in it, you can’t win it.
Glen!