Horse racing is a game of numbers, where every dollar bet at the racetrack only returns about 80 cents to winning bettors. This $20 difference, known as the track take, has contributed to the decline in consumer interest over the years. In comparison to other forms of gambling, a 20% take is considered too high. However, this money goes towards covering expenses, purses for winning horses, taxes, profits, and other related costs.

The constantly changing payoff odds are designed to ensure that only 80% of the total amount bet is returned to the winning bettors. Therefore, on average, a bettor can expect to receive back 80% of what they risk. This is not an opinion but a mathematical fact.

So how does one actually win at horse racing? The key is to develop a predictive theory that yields higher returns than the 80% average. For example, if someone wanted to make just a 1% profit on their bets (meaning collecting $101 for every $100 bet), their predictive model would need to be 26.3% better than the average race gambler’s predictions. This translates to a calculation of 101/80 = 1.263, or being 26.3% more accurate than the average bettor. It all comes down to having a solid and effective strategy in place that outperforms the rest.

As a young teenager, I was already calculating and translating my thoughts into betting theories and strategies. I knew that the average bettor hit on about 30% winners, so in order to see success, I needed to hit on at least 38% winners – a staggering 26.3% higher than the norm. But as I delved deeper into the world of betting and horse racing, I quickly realized that this simplistic approach was not enough. The real question was how to make money, not just win more bets.

I soon learned that it wasn’t about hitting a certain number of winners per week, but rather about growing my bankroll and increasing my returns. It didn’t matter if I had 15 or 5 winners a week at the Chicago tracks – what mattered was whether my bankroll was growing. And to do that, I had to focus on odds and finding what is now known as “overlays” – horses with odds that offered greater potential for profit.

But there was another factor at play here: the size of my bankroll. As a teenager working at Kmart in Elgin, Illinois, I realized that being even 26.3% better than the average gambler meant nothing if my bankroll was too small to handle normal variations and fluctuations in results. To truly see success in horse racing, I needed either a significantly better predictive system or a much bigger bankroll.

I also quickly saw the flaws in betting on every single race. Not all races were created equal – some had better odds and therefore presented better opportunities for profit. So why waste my time and money on races with lower odds and smaller potential returns?

Despite my knowledge of racing form and ability to out-gamble even the most seasoned veterans, it all came down to one simple fact: in the land of losers, I may have been a king among them, but without a larger bankroll or a more advanced predictive system, I was just another one-eyed man in a world of the blind.