THE FUTURE
PERSONAL profits in excess of £10 million have certainly compensated me for the horrendous period I endured in 1998. I’ve estimated total bookmaker losses at £20m but this is probably conservative; many of the bets involved turnover hugely greater than my stake, as my agents and their numerous sub-agents all took their share.
It could have been more, but stacking up an unlimited cash pile isn’t a priority for me. As I’ve outlined, I took the year off in 2007 and placed very few bets, making a tiny profit. I returned to working part-time in 2008 and secured a profit just in excess of half a million from a vastly reduced work schedule. These two years have left me feeling very fresh and ready for the coming years in the racing and betting industry.
I have listed the figures in full for the eight years that took me to my profit target of £10m. My profits in 2003 and 2004 were boosted by a side bet with my trading manager Geoffrey Pooley. At the beginning of 2003, I asked him to lay me a bet of £5,000 at evens that I could break the £2m barrier in personal winnings for the season, a bet he accepted. Paradoxically, the bet was an extremely wise financial move on both sides. As a matter of pride, I was determined not to be beaten and worked much harder in the latter stages of 2003 as a result. This cost Geoffrey the £5,000, but his yearly winnings increased dramatically in line with mine. I actually lost the £5,000 back to Geoffrey the following year when I ambitiously set a target of £3m in playing ‘double or quits’. I failed, but still set a new personal record of £2.3m.
If the bookmakers want to take heart from the lower profit figures since 2004, they should feel free, as by 2005 I was ready for a sabbatical after many intense years of punting. I had already taken my foot off the pedal. My recent time off has allowed me to develop new strategies. I have an entirely new betting team in place, which will allow me to hide my business better than before. Geoffrey left the business at the end of 2006. He felt that he had won enough to fund new challenges, although he remains involved with me on the ownership side.
Will the bookmakers try even harder to stop me? Not if they have any sense. I’ve managed well enough so far without having to spend too much time befriending those people in the betting world who have the largest losing accounts. If the layers make my life any more difficult, they will soon find that lots more of their losing punters will become successful after I link up with them. This would be unfortunate for the bookmakers concerned, as they would not only make losses on my bets but also forfeit the future gains from the losing clients when they are forced to make their business less welcome. It’s a simple formula. Any bookmaker that fails to act like one will find me joining forces with their best losing clients.
Will my own methods change? Yes, to a certain extent. I’ve made most of my profits from backing horses at 5-1 or bigger. During my recent time away from betting, I’ve had plenty of time to consider some new strategies. In the future, I’m sure to be backing plenty of favourites as well, now that terrific value is so readily available on the exchanges. A 5-4 favourite used to work out at 1.06-1 after nine per cent betting tax, whereas these days I’m more likely to be getting 1.46-1 with all these bold new exchange layers keen to give their money away. We’ll see what they’re made of over the next few years.
The biggest and most controversial change introduced by the birth of exchanges has been the facility for punters to back horses to lose rather than to win. This has created the risk that corrupt partners may seek to profit from ensuring that a horse loses. I am frequently asked if exchanges are a good or bad thing for the integrity of racing. In the long term, I am sure they will prove a good thing, as the computerised audit trail they provide will make it easier to locate wrongdoers.
In the early days of exchanges, the temptation of laying horses for profit proved too much for some professionals involved in racing. It is my view that quite a few jockeys were corrupted at this time and were associating with gamblers who sought to profit by laying their mounts. It is also my view that there were a few jockeys who needed no corrupting and embraced these opportunities with open arms. With a keen ear in the market, I don’t think I backed many of the horses who subsequently came under suspicion, but I was the owner of Polar Kingdom, who was found to have been advised as a likely loser by his jockey on two days when I had backed it. Hmmm.
Although the efforts of the racing authorities and, latterly, the City of London police have not been as successful in as many cases as they hoped, I am confident that the whole business has sent a shockwave through those in racing who sought to profit from breaking the rules. I have no doubt that corruption will still occur, but I am far more confident about the integrity of racing than I was five years ago.
If racing is going to be kept free of corruption, the rules need to be tight on both sides of the fence. On a general point, bookmakers’ public relations officers (PROs), I believe should avoid contact with jockeys. The authorities should also have acted when former PRO Ron Pollard published a book called Odds and Sods, in which he admitted that years earlier he had been involved in paying off jockeys on behalf of bookmaker William Hill, who founded the modern bookmaking chain. Fixing races is fixing races. I don’t care how long ago it was done.
I wish the best of luck to those in the betting industry who seem hell-bent on trying to predict what I might back and jump in front of me. After Exponential won in 2004, there have been an incredible number of mythical gambles on Stuart Williams-trained horses, and now probably the best laying system in racing, for those who want to play bookmaker, is to lay all horses trained by Stuart. Anybody following this system over the last couple of years would have shown a huge profit. The market and the press have managed to convince themselves that every horse the stable runs is a potential gamble. Unfortunately, as an owner in the yard, I’m not allowed to lay the stable’s horses, so I can offer up this method for free.
I’m sure that my ownership interests will continue to flourish. Having had two Royal Ascot winners in four years, I’m already finding that one or two substantial investors are approaching me with a view to becoming involved. My ability to spot a quality horse early in its career is a huge asset, and I suspect that over the coming years my operation may compete at an even higher level. This would allow me to use my expertise without the endless toil of studying low-grade handicaps.
I offer one last reminder to aspiring gamblers. Before you have a bet, make sure you examine all the evidence available to you, not just the easy parts of the equation. Different factions tend to focus on their own sections of the sport. If a horse wins impressively watched by a mixed group, the trainer will first note who trained it, the jockey will wonder who rode it, a breeder will point to the successful sire, and the punter will ask whether it was well backed. A true professional will assess all aspects in seeking out the underestimated.
My life, in general, has turned out better than I could ever have dreamed. Certainly, betting professionally was the best decision I’ve ever made. However, I accept that betting, though highly profitable, is a slightly frivolous way to spend my time, so over the years I’m sure I’ll diversify, although the bookmakers will need to pay me out many more millions before I’m finished with them.
From a moral point of view, I feel entirely comfortable, as my winnings are derived by reducing the profits of the major betting corporations, but in time I may also seek some more productive uses of my mind. Although it wasn’t always easy along the way, I’m now fortunate to live the life I do, and at some stage will certainly aim to do something more useful to society than relieving the big bookmakers of some of their profits. I have a friend who is a magistrate, and that is an avenue I may explore in later life.
But it all comes back to 1998. I wouldn’t have achieved half as much if I hadn’t been spurred on by what happened to me that terrifying evening in June. I still retain some of the old habits that were necessary during my months in hiding, for example I continue to automatically carefully check any car that pulls alongside me as I walk down the pavement. It’s just a habit from my former life. Just in case, I still retain my police connections.
There’s an expression to the effect that it’s better to travel than to arrive. A friend asked me not long ago whether, given my time again, I’d choose to go through that first 12 months once more if I knew where I’d end up ten years later. I turned and looked in horror at him. “No,” I replied, before a long pause. “And not for ten times the amount.” In my case, it has definitely been better to arrive than to travel.
A full analysis of the eight years it took to reach my profit target.