The Totopoly Kid

Bets on Sat Jan 27 2007
OUTCOME: BASIC PLAN -44 (within OVERALL -14)
PROSPECTS (as they seemed yesterday): Five short-listed [0W-2PL-3L]: BLACK JACK KETCHUM/LOST & OPENDITCH/3RD (Row 2), PREDESTINE/LOST (Place Only I), FISHERMAN JACK/LOST & BACK ON LINE/2ND (Place Only II). My Majority stats are encouraging of the win about them all but the Odds stats are poor on Fisherman Jack born out in one case (the other just 50/50-ish), 50/50 and a little less about Predestine, less in one case and a lot less in the other about Back On Line. Looks quite a "Laura Luck" day to me: I'm definitely inclined towards caution.
Apart from the major tip, the above involve stakes that have computed to fairly modest levels (except the Capped 'To Place' bets - which make me vulnerable to significant loss). I've had good days on worse Majority stats than these. But my gut feeling is a shade negative. I face the day fingers firmly crossed.

Summary (Day 298) C/F to Sun, Jan 28th (Day299Month10Week4.7SPhase06CDay87) E&OE:
BASIC PLAN (Phase 06C only wef 01/11/06) surplus = +95 points net @ an average this Phase of +c1 point/day .... within OVERALL Phase 06C deficit of -253 points gross @ an average of -c3 points/day. Gain-days in Phase 06C: Jan '07: *21 B/PL (*19 O/A) Dec '06: 16 (11) [-300] Nov: 19 (15) [-218] *Break-Even days count as Win ones on the basis that if I haven't lost, I must have won.
PLUS B/f BASIC PLAN (Phase 06B: 01/08/06-31/10/06) = +204 points .... within OVERALL (Phase 06B only) = +41 points gross (Gain-days in Phase 06B: Aug:- 14 Basic Plan (Overall 15) [-105 O/a]; Sep: 15 (13) [-201];  Oct: 17 (18) [+347])
PLUS B/f BASIC PLAN (Phase 06A: 01/04/06 to 31/7/06) = -366 points ..... within OVERALL (Phase 06A only) = -2656 points gross (Gain-days in Phase 06A: In Apr: Overall 11 from 29 bet-days [-957]; May: 15 from 31 [-174]; Jun: 15 from 30 [+408]; Jul: 15 from 31 [-1938])

 My Glossary on the Philosophy is at the base of this entry.

Row 1 - No qualifier

Row 2
210 Chel. BLACK JACK KETCHUM/LOST F/c 4/6 Min value odds according to my Odds Config. stat + 20% = 1.96 (not likely to be avail but you never know) New odds stat stakes enhancer (Row 2) x 1.56 Old stat stakes enhancer x 1.31
415 Utto. OPENDITCH/3RD F/c 4/7 Min val odds + 20% = 1.96 (unlikely to be avail) New odds stat stakes enhancer (Row 2) x 1.56 Old stat stakes enhancer x 1.95
Bets: Basic, FS (opening with 1st rung, went to 2nd on Openditch) + Capped Mop Ups, 2-Row 'Treble' (with Row 1 normally, today a Token Seq. Double), Capped Place Only, Capped 123 Combo (enhancement of the existing Seq. Double), Total & Xtra Combos (both Capped) + Xtras, Short-list (Place Only) 'Combo,' Ad hoc Supplementary Mop Ups on the above two (Capped) + Predestine (not Capped), Mistake (Negligible), Discrepancy (Negligible)     BASIC PLAN -32 plus OVERALL -33

Row 3 - No qualifier

Place Only I - Row 2 and
Utto: PREDESTINE/LOST
Bets: Basic, Capped Xtra Combo + LateXtras     BASIC PLAN -13

Place Only II
Sout: TIDAL FURY/WON - FISHERMAN JACK/LOST
Utto: BACK ON LINE/2ND
Bet: Basic     BASIC PLAN +2

Naps I - No selection
Naps II
BLACK JACK KETCHUM/Lost &, Double stake, BACK ON LINE/2nd
Bets: Capped Total Combo + Xtra     BASIC PLAN -1

My Lay bets - Discontinued (for the time being)

Fancy - Potentially worthy reject from Place Only II
Sout: TROMPETTE/FELL
Bets: Basic (Place Only)     OVERALL -3

Tips
1) Main tip was FLYING ENTERPRISE/WON F/c 9/2 135 Chel
Bet (most often against advice, as this is a Win, or occasionally EW, tip): Split Small Win/mainly Place Only, to grand total of ? points (for a 'small/large' field) Today a win bet In Running as I was late. Worked out: 11 pts @ 6.2-1. Timely result, OVERALL +65]
2) Endorsements over obstacles (Good words) today, including my dedicated stat for this bet category, at
Sout: TIDAL FURY/Won/ECHO POINT/Lost/ARCHIE BABE/2nd (64W57L) - no match on Archie Babe
Utto: BACK ON LINE/2nd (32W48L) - LESDREAM/WON (64W57L)
Bets: Basic Place Only     [OVERALL +1]
3) Other tip/s for fun (at negligible risk):
GATHER Fc 20-1 817 Gulf(USA/VOIDED - yesterday
HONOUR SCORE F/c 28/10 535 Newm(RSA)
709 Gulf(RSA) No 1 RESCUE PARTY F/c 4/1/Late result - see tomorrow
1045 Gulf(USA) No5 SILVER WAGON F/c 6/1/Late result - see tomorrow
Sout: ARDAGHEY/2ND
Chel: NEPTUNE COLLONGES/LOST
Bets: Miniscule Win     [OVERALL EVEN (-0.10)]

Diversity is intrinsically good.

OVERVIEW
This blog details the fortunes this financial year of a betting format I have evolved during my first three years-plus of punting - a stable and fairly comprehensive one (if rather fiddly) that, in my opinion, is much better than, to the superficial eye, it appears. I expect it to look a lot healthier to that same eye before too long.
What I like about it particularly is that it seems to work well psychologically. It is absorbing from start to finish, gives me an interest in a lot of races without risking a great deal; alerts me to when I might invest more; damage limitation is generally good; allows of experimentation while at the same time pointing to what bet types should be in line ultimately to form part of one possible viable professional approach; allows the size of bets to be weighted and adjusted according to performance, and historical experience, to keep risks to a minimum on dodgy days and to enhance the potentiality of good returns on less dodgy days.

POSSIBLE POINTS OF INTEREST TO VISITORS OF THIS BLOG
(1) Apart from academic interest (on how NOT to do things, even, I often think, when I remind myself I am still a green-horn), this blog should be useful to novice punters visiting this site in that, for "Basic Plan," I rely on a careful, and particular, analysis of the Selection Boxes in the Racing Post on the assumption that their contents arise from thorough studies of form by experts to a standard far better than any of us novices could begin to emulate. (I used to major on the Naps Table but came to find the Selection Boxes much more useful.)
Anyone who looks at these boxes might like to see which selections I have chosen on a given day to qualify. I do believe I find the likeliest prospects, for the most part - my search biased towards identifying winners, I must admit, rather than value bets. Even Place Only qualifiers are chosen on likelihood to win as opposed, strictly, to finish in the frame. I don't indulge in EW 'thievery' except indirectly in 2x2, 3x3 multiples.
(2) Then again, for stake levels bet by bet, I maintain a set of statistics which I devised to provide clues on how strongly individual runners might be backed. Value is meant to be obtained by betting more on races showing good stats, less on historically chancier races, broadly speaking. My sharing of adjusting factors in the blog might be of interest to those who, like me, adjust stake levels horse by horse, race by race. It is fair to say this blog is not for staunch believers in "level stakes" betting.
(3) My "Overall" accounting includes selections from a couple of tipster services (and promising free ones that come to my attention from time to time), but I don't back these if, by reason of negatives thrown up by my research for Basic Plan bets, I am unhappy with them. My remarks, if delivered in time, may be useful to visitors who are thinking of backing any of these.
(4) I much prefer to 'go with my numbers' but I'm currently in Phase C of an enforced time in what I call "The Delta Quadrant" (see the Glossary) and can't act on my preference, at least not often. Phase B was, & C is, a period of dour dependence on my most reliable bet types, the preparatory work for which is concentrated chiefly upon finding qualifiers for my multiple bets. So, this blog is also potentially interesting to visitors who go in for short-odds multiples in the hope that value is obtainable via combinations of banker bets (rather than win singles on them) through the higher strike rate one achieves at short odds. This blog is partly a history of my test out of this theory.
(5) My general advice to myself is that "bets on runners that have not qualified for Rows 1, 2 or 3, Place Only I or II are committed at my peril; likewise, lumping extra cash on runners that are not in Rows 1 or 2." Novice punters might do worse than follow this two-fold advice to myself - if I may make so bold.
(6) Also, the qualifiers/selections in this blog are generally to be avoided as Lays, perhaps (but, if gone for, will likely constitute 'value').

Wealth is time left, divided by state of health, multiplied by hope.

IS MY "STAGE 1" AS A PUNTER OVER NOW?
Sometimes I think I may have been missing the point about horse racing; I mean, by making 'achieving a profit' my main aim. I speculate that my priority may change over time, gradually leading to fewer bets, and these, mainly, to add interest, and to spice up the challenges of the sport as a sport (as opposed to using it, soulessly, as a profit making opportunity). Be this as it may, initially you HAVE to achieve betting policies that steer you towards at least successful 'damage limitation.' The performance of my Basic Plan bets does seem to be close to having achieved this. I can ask is my Stage 1 over? If it is, Stage 2 involves, perhaps, identifying the fun in horse racing rather more precisely, leading to the eventual elimination of time-consuming chores associated with the regular pursuit of punting gains.
I speculate that betting on horses will come to seem to me more art than science. After (1) arriving at a collection of rules of thumb for making selections on runners (and bet types) that have shown themselves, over time, to be 'conducive,' (2) your general trend of outcomes feels right, and (3) you are betting knowing that, in routinely exercising your judgements, you are not going to put yourself into deep financial trouble, then, you can concentrate on improving the quality of your judgements on border-line decision-making. Maybe, after betting stops being 'a needlessly expensive hobby' is when the fun of horse racing more properly begins?

Finances should not have to depend upon a horse!

THE GRAND WRITE OFF
Many of my non-punting friends, acquaintances, relations, have the greatest difficulty in distinguishing spending on gambling from other spending such as in pubs or stores. In many people's perception, the word 'gambling' seems to mean 'losing money.' Actually, only when deficits are written off has money been lost. Until that time, brought forward deficits are akin to a single rolling speculation that may or may not yet bear fruit. Wins offset against losses, losses against wins, on and on, on and on, until "the grand write off" is effected (if it has to be). At that point, yes, you have indeed spent money and it was expenditure on nothing, so to say, except for the fun it bought. In this, I believe, we find the rationale behind the biggest lie in racing: that one should 'never bet with more than one can afford to lose.' It should read, truthfully: 'Never lose more on gambling than you can afford to spend on entertainment.' The rub is that it can take you a while to work out how much to write off. I myself have yet to write off a single penny in over 3 years of daily punting. Whilst I regard the brought forward deficit as recoverable, in theory I've spent nothing.
Usually, given sensible punting, the write off will be surprisingly small as a percentage of the total invested since the previous write off, if any. One of the conclusions I came to quite early on about betting on horse racing is that, paradoxically, it is founded on success not failure. If it were the letter, who would go on? If you lose, and keep losing, you stop. Admittedly, success is overall mostly enjoyed by the bookmaker. But, to work out what to invest yourself, it is essential in my view to keep good records on your gambling in order to pitch the general level of your staking. I mean, if your see that you tend to lose £10 in every £100 invested, and this is supportable, you can 'afford' to continue investing £100 to get back £90 on average.
Bad as my record was in the early part of this financial year, it was caused by only 3 or 4 disastrous days. It is these few wipe out days that do the principal damage, I have found. My solution to try to avoid them is "capping." Because this also caps the level of winnings, however, it remains to be seen what the overall effect will work out to be using this more cautious approach.

FURTHER OVERVIEW
Under "Overall" I indulge in experiments and regularly ring changes; but not so within "Basic Plan."
The main differences between Phases 06A & 06B are (1) single win bets are fewer in Phase 06B and (2) my stakes (subscription tips excepted) in Phase 06B were, and still are in Phase 06C, @ stats-adjusted token or capped levels commonly (true also of the latter stages of Phase 06A - the period leading up to my decision to draw a line under it for now).
Phase 06C, distinctively, begins overtly to show Basic Plan as the predominant side on my format. I hope this phase will see off my period in "the Delta Quadrant," ideally before the end of this financial year. I must admit, though, that this time-scale is beginning to look on the short side. But, in racing, things can change dramatically, dynamically, for the better when the wind sets fair for long enough.

NOTEWORTHY
Surplus & deficit figures (as guides to performance) get distorted in "the Delta Quadrant" because gains/losses from earlier standard stats-adjusted stakes are inadequately counterbalanced by those from later non-standard (depressed) stats-adjusted stakes. It's like the account is manfully see-sawing away as best it can after the other end has, so to say, been vacated.
It would be wrong, for example, to view Phase 06A as a failure. It is by no means certain that its fortunes would not have turned right around had I been able to continue 'going with my numbers.' A bad run dropped me off scale and put me into "the Delta Quadrant." By over-betting inadvertantly, and unsuccessfully, I lost "Scope." It was my big lesson learnt this financial year: never to allow this to happen. I'd been in the same situation before, several times, but I finally recognised it as avoidable.

I hate losing money, but I never mind having had to pay for not knowing something yet.


The Overall account position appears disproportional alongside that of Basic Plan. Weeks ago I had thought to make some adjustments to the 'knobs' of my metaphorical "Dashboard" (to redress this imbalance over time) but changed my mind. The disproportion, I concluded, despite the relatively long period of time it's been there, is regardable as temporary - arising from over-low stakes on Basic Plan rather than over-high stakes on non-Basic Plan. As Basic Plan bank sizes increase, the disproportion should diminish, then disappear. I prefer to let them increase organically, rather than raise them, as one might say, artificially, at a stroke. Betting policies are best left to prove themselves from a next to zero start point I have found. If they are not working on pennies, they are going to fare no better on pounds.

AMD - an alphabetical monitoring device for non-level stakes betting
If the metaphorical 'dial' on Supplementaries 'reads' "ZH," the next day's gain, in this bet category, would take it to "ZG," or, if a day's loss, to "ZI" i.e., it rises up the alphabet with a day's Supplementaries loss and falls back following a day's win. Having reaching "ZA, then "Z" (i.e., at this point the 'A' is dropped - of course, only after a gain), then on from "Z" to, finally, "A" (the aim) which, once achieved, will have squared off the Supplementaries account as regards gain v. loss days from when the sequence had begun. Why express it this way? Well, it has the same advantages that you get with algebra. I used to get lost when only using figures if, for example, banks were artifically adjusted several times. To illustrate: at a glance, the sequence was at its worst this year on 26th April @ "ZW." At its best (until recently) I had brought it 'down' to "ZC" by 10th September. Today, it stands at "R." This tells me the trend was slowly positive on Supplementaries from 26th April to 10th September, 2006, but had been painfully static subsequently - until an encouraging acceleration towards the good occurred wef the start of January, 2007.
 
Supplementary betting has been this year's biggest disappointment, it must be said: it contributed significantly to a big deficit in Phase 06A, undermined 06B, is doing likewise so far in 06C. But, non-Basic Plan bets, being chancier and more speculative than proven Basic Plan ones, have to be expected, in a poor period of results, to perform least well of the two categories all other things being equal. This said, I have been tempted for some time to discontinue the non-Basic Plan bet types. Should I do so?
My reluctance to cut them is based on the knowledge that this is the side of my betting that can, given a fair or ill-wind in my sails, quickly bring about sea-changes in my cash-flow situation. Also they add education, variety, interest and enjoyment to my racing days. I guess, at the moment, they are a drag upon of my successful involvement with gambling on race horses, one might say its 'cost.' But, for a judgement on what to do about this immediately, this is where my alphabetical monitoring device comes in. It tells me that Supplementary betting has been winning its battle for results, albeit slowly, since its low point on April 26th, at least in terms of gain days vs. loss days. Whilst winning days are more numerous than losing days, the states of the banks, seem to me, less significant. I mean, a deficit may have accrued in this period since 26th April, but it would be misleading, taken on its own, to use as an argument for discontinuing the Supplementaries. Despite appearances, my AMD 'says' I may have myself the punting equivalent of a winning team on those and that now isn't the time to discontinue them.

Magic is only real to magicians.

GLOSSARY ON THE PHILOSOPHY
-/A: When a bet has had to be repeated with an error corrected. The suffix is applied to the original wrong bet i.e., having been replaced as the substantive bet. Accounted within "OVERALL."
123 COMBO: Multiple bet consisting of runners from Rows 1, 2 & 3 in, usually, EWDoubles if the odds allow (otherwise Win Doubles), plus an EWAccumulator (or equivalent i.e., Single, Double or Treble) If the stats look especially strong, I might add EWTrebles.
2X2 Pair of selections from two races in the hope of picking up one extra good Double from the four runners.
3x3x3 Three selections from each of three races in the hope of picking up one extra good Treble (more usually done as a 2x2x2).
4321 SINGLE: Win bet on a runner that has finished 1, 2, 3 & 4 within its previous six races.
BASE STAKE: The start point for stats-adjustment of stakes. The sizes of the "BASE STAKES" depend on the state of banks that I maintain under various headings. My policy on banks that are in deficit results in a situation whereby, as the deficits approach zero (i.e., improve), the stake sizes actually reduce. The hope is the bet sizes will increase as the banks leave zero balances behind and move into growing credit. Resolutely, I resist the temptation to bump them up, so to say artificially, in a good period. I allow myself, in this way, to suffer extendedly, as a caution to husband my betting from these banks to better effect in future such that I won't have again to endure the torture of doing well, results-wise, on miserably tiny stakes.
BASIC PLAN: Bet types I depend on. These will first have been tested and proven within OVERALL.
BASIC: Stats-adjusted single bet.
CAPPED: E.g., when multiple bets consist of 6-10 runners inclusive, I slice 1/3rd off the computed stake; when more than 10, 2/3rds, etc. But I also CAP other bets at any time for any reason.
COMBO: Bet that includes runners from more than one "ROW." Notional stake contributions are calculated per runner exactly as on single bets but the stake to be committed is arrived at by totalling the contributions, averaging and adjusting for, usually, Doubles (half), sometimes Trebles (1/3rd) if the runners are extra strong &, always, an Accumulator (or equivalent i.e., Single, Double or Treble).
CONSENSUS FAVOURITE: The most popular selection in the Racing Post’s Selection Box.
DELTA QUADRANT: Borrowed from Star Trek as my name for when I am betting from within a poor cash-flow position and cannot freely ‘go with my numbers.’
FANCIES: Backed despite being non-qualifiers for other bet categories. Accounted under "OVERALL."
FLAT: A stake that is at its BASE STAKE level i.e., non-adjusted.
FS: A supplement to a "BASIC" bet in Row 2 added when my stats look extra favourable (though I take liberties with this @ token or capped levels). Note: The letters FS originate from "Fibonacci Series," a loss recovery staking system that I experimented with some time ago but have discontinued except in a severely diluted form - see 'Remedial Supplementaries' within the entry on "SUPPLEMENTARIES."
INFILTRATION: See under "NAPS."
LateXtra/1 COMBO: If a runner in the "XTRA COMBO" fails to win, I sometimes re-back the remaining runners in a further Accumulator. (".../1" would be the 1st of these.) Though the runners reduce in number, usually I commit the same stake as per the Xtra Combo (though I will un-cap capped levels if indicated by the reduction in the number of runners involved in the LateXtra/- Combo bet/s).
The "LAURA LUCK" day: When clear "CONSENSUS FAVOURITES" are thin on the ground and, generally, a 'lorra' (lot of) luck may to be needed to achieve a profit.
MAJORITY STAT: I make a note of the size of tipster majority that qualifiers enjoyed in the Racing Post Selection Boxes over the second most favoured runners. (9 or more, with certain reservations, has proved significantly more reliable as a guide to likely winners than 8 and less.)
MISTAKES: Accounted under "OVERALL" (as quasi-Supplementaries) unless they are tied-in elsewhere in my accounts due to some complicating factor.
MY LAY BETS: Experimentally, I confined myself to races with 6 runners F/c @ under 14/1 of which 5 are F/c @ under 8/1 - accounted under "OVERALL." But I have learnt to restict lay bets to when my cash flow position is excellent (through recent gains, preferably).
MOP UP: Place Only bets made along with, usually, major win bets @ the same stakes level as per "PLACE ONLY I" (i.e., not reflective of the 'parent' major win stake level) to help nudge returns up a point or two towards profit/extra profit (or mitigate slightly against loss) by the end of an accounting period. Note: Success depends, of course, on a favourable Place Only strike rate.
NAPS: I follow the tips of 8 tipsters from the Naps Table but reject selections that are too far from having qualified for other Rows. Commonly, Naps that are already qualifiers elsewhere in BASIC PLAN will be considered for Naps I. Near-qualifiers for Rows 1-3 go into Naps II. However, if 2 or more tipsters have Napped the same non-qualifier, I consider elevating that runner to Naps I on this ground alone. Additionally, from the tipsters in the Selection Boxes, sometimes, by "INFILTRATION," I add Naps/NBs to Row 3.
NEW ODDS STAT: This stat is restricted to Rows 1 & 2 qualifiers and has two elements:
(1) A record of qualifiers' results according to (a) which Row they were put into and (b) the number of runners F/c @ under 14/1 that were forecast to be competing; and
(2) a stat (that I call "General") which combines the results of the two Rows into one total for each size of field F/c @ under 14/1.
I use (1) as part of the process of computing the adjusted stakes for "BASIC" bets for Rows 1 & 2.
I use (2) (the General stat) for 'add on' bets like "STAR," "FS," "AD HOC REMEDIAL SUPPLEMENTARY" and also for "ROW 3" & "PLACE ONLY." These are stats-adjusted in other respects exactly as all bets except, obviously, Singles within Rows 1 & 2. Stats that record outcomes for Rows 1 and 2 qualifiers separately are confined to the New Odds stat at present.
ODDS CONFIGURATION STAT: My present standard for this stat is "the number of runners F/c @ under 8/1 and those F/c @ 8/1 or above but under 14/1," a separate stat for each configuration e.g., one category, alternatively expressed, is "4 runners F/c @ under 14/1 of which 3 are F/c @ under 8/1." This stat shows the number of wins and losses which past qualifiers for, solely, Rows 1 & 2  experienced in races with the same F/c "ODDS CONFIGURATION." It is used (along with 2 other stat categories, plus the F/c odds ('odds-on' disregarded i.e., I treat all these as Evens), plus the number of runners F/c @ under 8/1) to adjust the "BASE STAKE" for the relevant bet category to arrive at the stake to actually commit.
REVERSE STATS STAKES ADJUSTMENT: The computation I use for adjusting the stakes sizes on non-qualifiers (i.e., ones not in Rows 1-3 strictly by qualification) reverses the impact derived from my stats. Instead of multiplying by the win record I have to hand, I divide: instead of dividing by the loss record side, I multiply. I have found these steps prevent stakes sizes from computing ridiculously tiny - for, being on non-qualifiers, the stats are generally unfavourable (or the - otherwise worthy - runners would quite possibly be qualifiers). I would struggle to justify this arithmetically, I must admit! But I can attest that it does seem to work. I've never felt the need in the slightest degree to discontinue this element of my staking method as it applies to non-qualifiers that end up in Row 3 by "INFILTRATION," and, by selection, in "NAPS I & II," "PLACE ONLY I & II," "FANCIES," & "TIPS."
SCOPE: Freedom to 'go with the numbers' on stats-adjusted wagers.
SEQUENTIALS: When there are few qualifiers/selections in a multiple, I proceed singly, deducting the original stake as soon as I can and committing only the gain from that point on in the sequence. I don't do "sequentials" when the races are due to run with just a short interval between them.
SHORT-LIST COMBO: Including all the runners in my short-list. Accounted under "Overall."
SHORT-LIST (Place Only) COMBO: A misnomer. Enhancements, really, of existing Place Only single bets, stakes adjusted @ Place Only I levels even when the main Place Only bet is located within Place Only II. (Note: stakes can be higher in Place Only II than they are in Place Only I - separate banks, y'see.) Accounted under "Overall."
STAR: A supplement (usually) to the Basic Bet in Row 1 but sometimes on its own instead of the Basic Bet.
SUNDAY MODE: Major stake levels halved because the information from which qualifiers are identified is less complete on Sundays. Does not apply to major tip inspired bets or when the general level of stakes is low.
SUPPLEMENTARIES: Non-"BASIC PLAN" additions (usually) to basic bets - including staged REMEDIAL SUPPLEMENTARIES (10 rungs of a remedial ladder, applying an escalation factor per rung of 1.6) intended to recover a small percentage of past losses. Supplementary additions to bets are accounted under "OVERALL."  A winning 10th rung bet is followed by a 9th rung one. If the 9th rung bet loses, I am back at the 10th rung, and so on. Current policy is to restrict these to Row 2 (or Row 1 sometimes) qualifiers. If I extend beyond 10 rungs, I reduce the escalation factor. As the Supplementaries are stats-adjusted, it follows that the stakes actually committed do not rise/fall uniformly through the ladder rungs; they can jump from a few points right up to a large number, or vice versa, from rung to rung.
SUPPORT: The preponderance of opinion re Naps & NBs drawn from the Racing Post’s Selection Box
TOKEN: Standard bet using a much-lower-than-standard level of stake.
TOTAL COMBO: Multiple consisting of all runners in Rows 1,2&3, Naps I&II, usually EWDoubles plus an Accumulator. If the stats look especially strong, I might add EWTrebles.
XTRA (adjustments): As per "LATEXTRA"
XTRA COMBO: Multiple bet consisting of runners in Rows 1,2 (& sometimes 3) and Place Only I. An EWAccumulator or equivalent, usually.