Welcome to "On the Punt" with the Optimist

SECOND STAR TO THE RIGHT AND STRAIGHT ON TILL MORNING.

Yes, however.

Again we are faced with comparing apples with oranges. Horses of a different period.

On one scale of argument, how could anyone argue that a mare that won the Cup three times in a row was anywhere but Number One? I'd find it difficult.

True it's a handicap. But three times???

On another scale, the handicapping one, well, none of us saw Carbine but his record speaks volumes. And I have only known three people who saw Phar Lap. Two of them I knew really well.

Reg Maloney was my close friend for many years. He knew and watched the great horse. He said Peter Pan was better.

Arn Rogers was a great racing man and known to many of my readers. He said that Peter Pan was the best in his time.

By a street.

And Phar Lap and Peter Pan were virtually contemporaneous and therefore to an extent comparable.

And the second star to the right? Many of you would recognise it. It's Peter's direction for Wendy, to get to the Never Land. Straight on till morning.

Opinion, of course.

I don't recall ever asking the third person the question. Sorry!

But let's be very, very rational here.

Galilee at 5 and Light Fingers at 22? She wins in '65, then runs him a decent race for second in '66 with the grandstand on board.

Doriemus at 23 and Might and Power at 11? Hang on there. Doriemus wins in '95, wins a Caulfield Cup and lips another, then lips the '97 Cup to Might and Power giving weight and nobody knows which horse has won. And Might and Power is 11, and Doriemus 23???

The Barb splits Saintly and Dalray. Well, Dalray's win was one of the all-time great big-finishing wins (rather in the Kiwi mould). Saintly's was a wonderful demolition job. The Barb? My goodness it was 1866! I don't know how you start to compare them.

Malua? Up there with the mighty Makybe, that's for sure. An all-distance champ, if my memory of the stats holds up. But frankly I'm not going to check it.

I know a great judge who maintains that Rising Fast, winner in 1954 and "shoulda" in 1955 when the rider and trainer failed to protest (it remains a major mystery of the turf as to why, since the horse, it is reported was a certainty to get the race in the stewards' room), was a champion, a GREAT horse. Look at his record some time and nod. Of his time he was the king.

The assessor never had a hope of being "right" and he did a grand job. But if one thing was established, it was that the task set was an impossible one. Handicap or not.

HERE THEY COME!

The "champions" will emerge after this weekend. One or two per week for the next five or six weeks.

Several will never amount to much.

Maybe, just maybe, one will actually be a champion.

Maybe.

But you shouldn't hold your breath.

The press needs stories and they can always find a trainer ready to tell them he/she "has a champion that is the best one they've ever trained etc etc..."

The price, the next time this one steps out, will be below what it ought to be.

That, in fact, is the one thing you can be sure of about the horse.

THE JURY IS OUT

And as I said, it's out. Maybe it will be hung, meaning it cannot decide.

We really fancied a horse at the weekend, and its early odds were tremendous. It firmed at every stage of the betting. It started at a more than decent each way price anyway, but better still was attainable quite freely on the Friday evening and the Saturday morning. It won as it liked.

The whole thing is debatable, because while what I call "swings and roundabouts" comes into play here, there is an argument for the really aware punter to place (say) half his stake early. if this is what he believes is the likely best price, and then to place the other half of his stake at either "Best TAB" or "Best Fluctuation" (both are readily available online).

Some bookmakers also offer a service that guarantees the starting price, if it is greater than the price you take during the main betting period. That can be a big help with short priced commodities, where the TABs are all paying unders anyway.

This involves more work, and frankly it might end up amounting to no discernible advantage over the long period. Sorry to hammer that "over the long period" thing, but it's the very backbone of all our racing investments. On the other hand, I'm starting to think it's something to use on the right occasions, perhaps with the longer priced horses.

It isn't something that we can stand up and pontificate about: I can get it wrong and so can you. But it bears careful watching and there will be times when it looks a fair risk. Maybe the jury will settle for that?

JUST A THOUGHT

What I know, what you know, and what they know.

So say there's a market up.

Your strong fancy is Number One.

It's mine too.

We've both done the form.

The prepost newspaper market offers tight odds. Let's say $3.50.

We agree that's about right but we'd like fours.

So we check online and the bookies are offering Number One at $6.50.

Amazing. What do we do?

The bookies know what the papers have suggested.

They know we're probably keen to back the horse.

Yet their odds are way over what we'd have been delighted with.

We MUST have a go.

But... hang on there...

WHAT DO THEY KNOW THAT WE DON'T???

Think on that.

I have been, but I'm bamboozled.

I'll tell you more when we chat again next week.

NO NOTHING THIS WEEK.

Sorree! Yes of course you can get "something," if you want.

But what I really wanted to ask you is if you'd ever gone a week without deciding on a bet.

Many punters haven't.

Here's a "something" to try in this fairly ordinary month:

Stick with any fixed method you have in place (eg. a designed system, BB's PPD, etc)

But don't do any of your own picking.

Yes, just have a rest from selecting your own.

For a week.

Sometimes in that week things happen. You see them from a different and (for the future) possibly profitable angle. Look on the Sunday, and ask if you might have backed X or Y, and so wonder how your own selecting process might be tweaked.

And, as well as this, I know some hardened pro's who now and then try to find the winner of EVERY race on EVERY program, to keep themselves sharpened. To ensure themselves that their selecting processes haven't gone off on a sidetrack.

On paper, of course, but meticulously analysed and decided upon.

I try to follow the second path at least once a year. It really works!

AS LONG AS WE WANT.

On Saturday the Queensland Cup is run.

All 3200 metres of it.

Fun to watch? Agreed.

Worth a bet?

Decidedly not.

I know some diehards (hard hearted might be closer according to others) who won't bet on that big one at Flemington for the same reason.

No guidance available, outside form over shorter trips and possible previous form in the same race.

I guess they have a point, although I love the race and the challenge. And, of course, get it right and the payoff can be delightful.

It's perhaps not a race for hard and fast professionals though. A matter of opinion, again.

But this one coming up is pretty ordinary. And it's probably the best chance some of these very ordinary stayers will ever get of a big win.

Good luck to them and may the last man (well, horse anyway) standing be the victor.

But not with my money.

JUST THE FACTS M'AM, JUST THE FACTS

As I wrote on the intro, George just wanted the facts. No embellishment.

That suits me fine today because I want to make just one point which might make you some extra money. Oh yes, and me too.

The two marvellously gifted riders Corey Brown and Nash Rawiller are neck and neck and the press is writing this up to the skies. We have four saturdays and various other lesser days remaining for them to fight out this tense premiership battle.

In that time many, if not all, of their mounts will be under the proper odds.

Because the bookies know they can offer that and still get the punters' money. These odds will be reflected by the unders on the TAB.

So...

Seek out situations where SOMETHING ELSE looks the logical winner.

Something that is not being supported as it ought to be, and as it WOULD be under different circumstances.

Of course this won't happen all day. It may only happen once or twice a day.

But, the gods willing, that might be enough!

ANSWER: A PINEAPPLE!

Johnny Tapp used to say the answer was a pineapple when there really wasn't one, or only one that you accepted because you couldn't find anything better.

And when the punter came through the gate he cloaked his head and put on a pineapple.

Or was it a pumpkin?

Anyway, that's the answer to the query I posed for you last Friday. That horse didn't win, so the bookies creamed the lot. And there were reduced odds owing to scratchings. Bad luck bettors!

As to unlucky? No it didn't look to be. Just not good enough to reel in the winner.

And we're left wondering about the strength of the plunge. Still, we might just a little bit wiser!

By the way have you noticed the filly (one word) Alittlebitofmonica? She has now won three on end, the third being last weekend.

A cute bit of naming indeed. Check out the dam.

This weekend commences the month many punters dread.

July, the dead month, they say. No big names and no big races.

Let me remind you of something:

A $15 winner at Woop Woop pays exactly the same as a $15 winner of the Melbourne Cup.

And although it won't do as much for our egos, it will be a darn sight easier to find!

A BIG BELT - OR A BIG CON?

I just watched an unraced two year old backed from around fifteens to $2.35 for the first at Flemington on Saturday.

I guess every mug in town will now hop on the bandwagon.

And be so smug about it if the horse wins,

Well, good luck to it and the connections, and especially anybody who did get the $15. I love a successful sting as much as the next punter.

But I'm a hardened old bettor, you know.

I missed fifteens. And twelves. And I have never heard of the colt anyway.

His mum went to stud a maiden.

Well all right, they all do, but you know what I mean.

Two babies, one a winner.

Mum had a great Dad (Flying Spur).

Dad is the fantastic Lonhro.

No worries on those scores, then.

But I've never seen him, and more to the point you haven't either.

SO... don't back him at 6/4 or less, whatever you do. You've missed the price.

Let's just watch and see what we learn from this.

Oh yeah and that "con" bit I started with up top...

Would you be all that shocked if it's a bookie-inspired job? Like, would you faint?

That's just a silly thought, mind. Of course these things don't happen, do they?

ECONOMY DRIVES

On my way to the Rosehill races I stopped off near Parramatta to have a coffee and thought I knew the bloke sitting at the next table. I walked up to him and we recognized each other as old pals from years back. In another life, you might say.

Was he too going to the track? Yes he was. So we had our drinks, then I gave him a lift to James Ruse Drive, where he got out and we agreed to meet up later on.

He had promised to find me another pal from the old days and we could have a chin wag. At around 3 o'clock, just after the ordeal of the two miler, we met up and watched the Ipswich Cup. Then we found a chair and I was delighted to see another mate from the past turn up. We'd been thick as thieves at one stage then lost touch when I spent those years overseas. But we were all racing types, through and through.

Joe (let's call them Joe and Bill, not their real names) had been a teacher and Bill worked for the mines. Both were retired or close to it. Of course the talk turned to horses.

Joe has followed PPM since the second issue. He hadn't connected me, even with that flattering photo. Bill was his own man and followed nobody. Joe had specialised in trifectas for many years, with saver quinellas and occasionally exactas when he thought they were value, or likely to be. Just a few in a day.

Bill was the original "on the nose" man. "If it can't win, I don't want it", I can remember him saying way back, and nothing had changed.

Two a day, he backed, on the nose. Always favourites.

"Let the bookies and the public do all the work. I just assess their findings, and if I really, really agree, and the price is OK, I go with them. But never against them."

Both men had economised their betting. I recalled their strong willpowers: we'd had many a tussle where we all wanted to do different things and we rarely ever compromised. We just all did our thing. It was a friendship that suited us and for years we were close pals.

It was a good meeting, and we all parted with the usual promises about Christmas meet-ups and the like. Yet I think we all knew it was a one-off, and that it had nevertheless been a nice time for us all.

Driving home I found myself wondering what had ever gone wrong. Why did we split?

Then I remembered in a blinding flash.

Bill had asked for a loan.

He'd asked Joe, then he'd asked me. Embarrassed (as we had later admitted to each other), we'd both lent him money.

Then I found out that for Joe it was the fourth or fifth time, and the "loan" was in fact a "gift".

I'd been bitten for two lots, promised it would all come back soon. and I'd thought I was the only one being asked.

On the racetrack, that's a lethal blow to a friendship. I found myself inadvertently nodding my head as I drove the car, and thinking of all the friendships that must have been put at risk in this manner.

The solution is so easy. It's such an old piece of advice that I won't insult you by preaching it here.

But it had ruined our relationship. Fractured the whole trio.

Bill had obviously recovered his willpower, but you know nothing can ever be the same.

If you haven't got it..... No, I said we don't need to say it and let's not. But I found myself feeling so sad that what is one of life's greatest pleasures can be such a dangerous enemy, if you let it.