Claiming Gold!

Claiming Gold!

Read on below to find out about our new method offering – Claiming Gold!

Being successful at the race track, i.e. betting the ponies, is kind of like trying to walk a straight line taking heel-to-toe steps with the added pressure of a police officer watching (some of you older players might remember having to take that pre-breathalyzer test a time or two during your misspent youth!?).

 How so?

Well – it’s easy to get “drunk” on all the information out there – then to get off balance by giving too much weight to some factors, and not enough to others. And – there is always the constant ‘pressure’ of friends, racing buddies, and family (read – wife or husband!) watching and judging.

It is tempting to just throw up ones hands and either quit, or turn the whole handicapping process over to the latest software that does all the “thinking” for you.  It’s easy to say, “Hey, there are so many factors to consider, and I just don’t have the time to consider all of them for every race – I’ll let the computer do all of that for me.”

But horse players were making money at this game a hundred years before computers. How did they do it?

. . . Basics.

They understood the basics of the game, focused on those, and applied them consistently and in ways that the ‘crowd’ wasn’t applying them. And they narrowed their game down (more focus) to the plays that were most profitable (for them) and concentrated on only those. Of course, during most of the history of race betting there were only  win, place, exacta, quinella wagers – that was it – so the handicapper concentrated on those and figured out a way to profit from them.

Old-time handicapping wisdom has always been that it is easier to predict the outcome of a claiming sprint for older males on the dirt – than any other type of race.

Okay.  And before complex pace analysis, and intricate form and condition cycle analysis what were the very basic factors of consideration for handicapping a race?


– Speed (and even that is relatively recent as a measured handicapping factor)
– Trainer/Jockey
– Surface, distance

I was thinking about all this a few weeks back. I’d just got off the phone with a customer who was asking some ‘clarifying’ questions about one of our products, and realized – again! – that the average player just wants a simple, straight-forward approach to the game that is easy to understand and apply, and that makes him/her some money.  Can’t get much more basic than that!

So I went back and checked a half-dozen factors (massaged in various ways) against a large data base of HRG, SPG, and HO Index issues to see if I could hone down to a bare bones method that would suit the pencil-and-paper player – the kind of player that wants to be able to jot down some figures and do the very most basic calculations in the last 10-12 minutes before a race using nothing but the past performance data and maybe a calculator. I.E. a method anyone could apply.

I dug for a good long while (1000 races), started getting some “color” in the pan fairly quickly, but didn’t strike gold until I stumbled onto a certain ranking formula that brought it all together ever-so-nicely.

Order Here

The method focuses on only claiming and optional claiming races for 3 yr. olds and up. No maidens, no allowance races, no stakes races . . . thus the name of the new method, “Claiming Gold!”

Here is what you can expect;

– It will get you about 4 races per track per day if playing the major tracks – more if playing the minor tracks where there is a higher percentage of claiming races.

– It will have a win-hit % of around 55% – betting two horses in approx. 60% of the races wagered, and a single horse in approx. 40% of the races wagered.

– Average mutual will pay at 3-1

ROI / profit will be around +30% for win betting, and around +45% for exacta betting


Those are powerful stats – and remember:

pencil and paper only

–  fifth grade math skills sufficient

– you can handicap a race starting 10 minutes before it goes off, and still have plenty of time to get bets in.


For those of you who believe handicapping and betting the races profitably should be difficult, and/or complex – this might not be your cup of tea . . . but even those types will get an eye-opener that should help simplify their game and get it back in line with the basics of old-time handicapping wisdom.

For others – newbies, and those seeking an easy-to-understand method that will put them into the black and keep them there – “Claiming Gold!” will fit like a glove.

Included will be all the claiming races from the recent Labor-Day weekend (4 racing days) for the tracks that were being issued in the SPG Index; Saratoga, Arlington, Monmouth, and Woodbine. Blow-by-blow description of applying the method ‘rules’ and the full results for those 58 claiming races will be shown (Excel file provided to those who want it for their records and/or further testing).

Four ‘sawbucks,’ and a ‘fin’ will get you in. 

– The price for “Claiming Gold” is $45.00

During the money-test weekend (you will see all races that were wagered in the material offered), we win-bet $20 on single qualifiers, and $30 dutched when two horses qualified. For exactas, we bet five combinations at $4 tickets in races where there was a single win bet qualifier, and six combinations at $4 tickets when there were two win bet qualifiers.  The profit for the four days was $1323.40.

All four days were profitable. The high day was +$673.60, the low day was +$26.50

You won’t be long in getting your investment back.


Claiming Gold!

Order Here


Good Luck and Good Wagering       – Gary  / Horse Racing Gold


  1. Gary,
    ocess. I am excited aboutthe future. based on your copy for Claiming Gold LOL! I really enjoyed our talk last night. you helped me crystallize my thinking and decision making process. Do you feel that Claiming Gold would be easier to apply then BBM? I would really like to whip through race after race using nothing more than pencil and paper. thanks!


    • Frank – CG is most definitely less time-intensive than the BB method. As well it niches down, and thereby allows one to get a better feel for a narrower part of the game. Becoming more of an ‘expert’ in one niche (rather than a dilletante in many) is a very valid course to success in this wide-spectrum challenge. There have been some very good comments and suggestions in various of the post comments from others using and modifying CG – I suggest going back through those as you begin your use of the method. – Gary

  2. Using about the 4 race per day base, does horses coming from different tracks, distances, race types, conditions (both physical and class), claiming prices, etc. factor into the selection/omission procedure? That would likely limit the races to smaller tracks.

    Thanks for the review!


    • Charlie – Thanks for the comment. The CLGLD method does indeed work very well at the smaller tracks, but is in no way limited to those. – Gary

  3. Gary, did you happen to track the results again from this past weekend for Claiming Gold? Would love another update.

  4. John Sullivan

    Thanks, Gary. Just to partly answer my own question, I tallied up (from your results chart) all plays at 5/1 up. 27 plays, sometimes betting two in a race. 7 hits, better than 25%. Total return: $113.10, for a more than 100% profit.

    Of course, one doesn’t know if this is typical, or if some very long losing streaks would happen occasionally. (By my experience, a virtual certainty).

  5. John Sullivan

    In looking over your results alongside the DRF charts, I’m surprised to find such a broad variety of claiming categories. The introductory material states, “Old-time handicapping wisdom has always been that it is easier to predict the outcome of a claiming sprint for older males on the dirt – than any other type of race.”

    I thought therefore that the method would focus on the same. I’m not questioning the results for the days given; I’m just wondering how it can be equally effective with turf as with dirt/AW; with sprints as routes; with females as males.

    Is it possible that limiting the types of claiming races might tighten it up? It just seems too general, and I’m skeptical about its longterm prospects.

    I also question the wisdom in dutching 80/20 for 1/1 and 8/1. Sure, if the 1/1 hits you’ve got a profit for the race. But if the 8/1 hits, you’ve just missed out on really boosting the bankroll. Why not bet jus the 8/1, put the Fav on top in EXA? What about scrapping the two-horse betting approach, and simply WIN bet at a minimum odds of perhaps 4/1 or 5/1? Would this make a difference in the overall ROI?

    • John –

      The idea here is a “method” – not a spot play. If one limits to sprints for older males, the avg. races per track per day will
      drop radically (from 4 to likely 1).

      All of your other points are good. Any approach can always be “tightened up.” The thing there is – that it needs to be adjusted
      according to an individual’s own actual records. And these records need to be kept for a large sampling of races.

      Your last point on betting one horse rather than two . . . As I’ve written about many times – the psychological aspect of this
      game is of far more importance than players give it. If by catching 55% winning tickets and sacrificing – say a third of one’s
      profit over the long term a player can stay in the game . . . that is, preserve the bankroll, and preserve their equanimity . . .
      then it is a valid approach. If, on-the-other-hand, one is an old salt with ice for blood – if one can handle losing streaks of
      18-20 wagers, then one horse betting can be more profitable – particularly in the situations you mention.

      As well – I would go so far as to say that the bottom-line of ANY method can be improved by raising acceptable mimimum odds, and
      those with patience (again a reduced number of plays will result) should consider and test against thier actual betting records.
      Another weakness of many players, however, is to make too many “side-bets,” “fun bets,” – whatever they like to call the usually
      thrown-away money that results from boredom, or frustration waiting for just the right play at just the right odds to show up.

      Another point is that with some players getting very good rebates – loosening the odds downwards (as well as number of horses bet)
      can be better than might appear – to the tune of 5-15% better just on the rebates (win-exacta).

      Regards – Gary

  6. John Sullivan

    Perhaps as customers try the method, they’ll get back with some feedback.

    • well John ,

      if it works as well as the Bank Builder method (another of Garys)
      then it WILL produce as described..

  7. looks like another good system Gary…..those numbers look pretty
    awesome for 4 days …..4 tracks …..does that look like its
    repeatable? You kinda got me spoiled with my “non-handicapping right now …hahahaha ….really …however sometimes its fun to go back and “figure”. Simple is good ….!

    • Joe –

      Absolutely repeatable. As I said, it’s based on solid, old-time handicapping. As a further example (not included in the stats given for the method) . . . I was using the method on Fri, Sept 7th – while ‘tweaking’ it a bit by weighting the value of one of the ratings included in the method just a bit. I wagered in 12 claiming races from three tracks (Ap, Wo, Lad). Almost unbelievably – one of the top two rated horses won every race! I didn’t hit every race because of the odds being too low to bet both horses in 2 races – and unfortunately the second ranked horse won each of those. But total results were;
      Ap 1 $3.40 / singleton / exacta paid $12.20
      Wo 4 $5.50 / singleton / exacta paid $50.70
      Wo 6 $5.90 / two-horse bet / exacta paid 20.20
      Wo 7 $7.80 / two-horse bet / exacta paid $62.80
      Lad 2 loss (top ranked at 9/5 – 2nd rank won at 3/2)
      Lad 5 $9.20 / two-horse bet / exacta paid $42.00
      Wo 8 $6.50 / two-horse bet / exacta paid $10.80
      Lad 6 $14.40 / two-horse bet / exacta paid $44.60
      Ap 5 $4.00 / two-horse bet / exacta paid $34.80 (2nd rank at 7/1, so I dutched 80/20 for the small return)
      Ap 6 $5.60 / singleton / exacta paid $55.60
      Lad 7 loss (top ranked at 4/5 – 2nd rank won at 3/1)
      Ap 8 loss (top rank at 7/5 – 2nd rank won at 9/5)

      Total in win $300 Total out win $462.90 = ROI +54.3%
      Total in exacta $264 Total out exacta $472.20 = ROI =78.8%

      – Not all the exactas listed above were hit because of the way the betting rules for exactas are set – but they all could have been hit for the player willing to invest more per race into the exacta pools. And too, the way the mnethod betting rules are structured (betting only on horses at less than 9/1) – days with lots of longshots (in the claiming races) won’t produce a profit.

      But – otherwise, the method will roll along for you and do quite well.

      – Gary

  8. John Sullivan

    Can the BRIS PPs be used as well as DRF for the new claiming method?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *