Finding the “Pay Streak”

Finding the “Pay Streak”

“Pay Streak”  (a new, and highly profitable, handicapping method)

In today’s world, more than ever before, ‘time’ has become extremely important to us.

Not talking about race times here – referring to our personal time, and how we choose to use it. 

Most players don’t like to spend a lot of time handicapping the races, and most of us who do put in the long hours – still don’t particularly like it!

Time is, in fact, precious.

We’ll never have enough of it, and we’ll never get back any of it – which makes the time spent doing tedious things particularly irksome.

In our newest method, we have stripped away much of what was previously considered necessary to handicapping a horse race –  and got it honed to the bare bone.  It allows handicapping a race (between races if you like) in less than 3 minutes! 

We’ve uncovered a ‘zone’ of concentrated profits.   We have found a . . .

Pay Streak\ 1. (In mining) The zone, parallel to the walls of a vein, in which the ore is concentrated. – From Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary

In our last post, we quoted Tolstoy – about “washing away” all the extraneous material in order to find gold/truth.  We hinted that we had been doing some new research – and we now have something very good for you . . . something many of you have been looking for – for a long time.

Some of our previous methods – though profitable to those players with the time and inclination to apply them as suggested – require too much time for most ‘casual’ players, and even for serious players who though also have other jobs or activities that are important and/or unavoidable.

As an aside here . . . Horse Racing Gold customers often request that we program our various methods into a piece of software – so that the data input and the decision-making output is automated. 

It’s not that it’s a bad idea – it’s just that, well – two things:  1. The price would go from $27 or $57 – to around $500 or $600, and    2. Nothing is learned from a “black box.” A player’s skill level in the game is not increased . . . if the software is lost, or malfunctions – the player’s game is foundered. We always lean towards independence – in whatever circumstance.

But the idea of saving time is right on.  Our research here at Horse Racing Gold is continual – and always with a predilection towards ‘simplification.’ 

The “Pay Streak” method is the most recent result of that research.  It has been developed over the last couple of months (lots of back-testing the HRG data base first, and then lots of $real money test wagering).

1. What you get:  a method that has been refined down to a unique combination of a very few positive-percentage factors only, and that takes less than 3 minutes to handicap a race.

2. What it’ll do for you: “Pay Streak” will focus your handicapping to a quick and sharp, no-frills approach, and have you betting only in the kinds of races that produce consistent profits.

3. What you need to do: As always – grab this method, do your initial read through, do a dozen races on paper (that’ll take less than 30 minutes!!), then get serious experience using a small starting bankroll (that very soon won’t be so small anymore).


So . . . we feel you’d be wise to stake a claim here. 

This method is showing more than just ‘color’ . . . we won’t declare that it’s the mother-lode just yet, but you’ll start turning up profitable nuggets beginning with day one – and . . . you are going to do that with an absolute minimal investment of your precious time.


Order Now  ($47 USD)


  1. Hi Gary,
    Hope you had a terrific holiday.

    Well, I had asked you for SIMPLE…..and you gave me simple!!

    To say I was underwhelmed at reading the pdf would be an understatement….I thought….whaaa??? I already do most of this… I set it aside in disappointment.
    After a few days a thought popped into my thick head…..”has Gary let you down before????

    NOPE! So I re-read it and applied it without changing anything….

    Results ? : 48.5 % ROI. !!!! over 55 races….

    So once again I (humbly) say……NICE JOB!

    • Joe – Appreciate the comments – and I’m glad you gave it a good go! It is a simplified little method that though is based on a solid handicapping foundation. – Gary

  2. Hi Gary,

    I would appreciate it if you could send me that same email clarifying the tie breaking guidelines 2 & 3… Thanks!


  3. trevor haydon

    is the pay streak method suitable for Australian horse racing,thank you trevor haydon.

    • Trevor – I am unfamiliar with the past performance data format that would be available to you, but I don’t think there would be any problem at all. – Gary

  4. Tom – I guess I was putting too much emphasis on the ‘Finding’ part of “Finding The Pay Streak” (?!) I made a couple of changes in the order process – thanks for the heads up. – Gary

  5. Gary, this method is not listed along with your other methods on your list of products for sale. I stumbled onto this by accident while reading your blog. In other words, most people don’t even know it is for sale. Just a heads up.

    • Tom – Thanks for watching out for us, but yes it is listed on the order page – the first listed under category “Methods.” – Gary

      • Sorry for any confusion Gary. What I mean to say is that most people will click “horse betting products”, they will then further click “horse handicapping methods”. They will then be redirected to the “Horse Racing Gold” website. It is not listed for sale there. The average person looking at your arsenal of handicapping methods for sale misses “Pay Streak” entirely. Only the avid reader of your blog notices it for sale. Maybe you planned it that way as a reward for readership, lol.

  6. Glenn Waller

    I’m also confused on tie breaker 2 please help

    • Glenn – Hmmm . . . I guess I didn’t elucidate what I meant to convey clearly enough?! Private email sent. – Gary

  7. paul anderson

    Hi Gary…Been looking over the info, questions and comments on you new method.If the average mutual is around 11.00 dollars and the method has the winner 80% of the time in the top 3, then there is a profit to be had playing all 3 horses, correct? 100 plays would cost 600. dollars at the 2. bet level. Win 80 at 11.00 av. is a return of 880. dollars.,a nice 40 plus% r.o.i. I would be happy with that. What’s your comment on playing 3 horses per race with this level of profit.?Thanks.

    • Paul – You are kind of mixing apples and oranges in your assumption. The 80% hit rate refers to ALL winners in the top three. The 9/2 average mutuel refers only to the winners, by the rules of the method, in the top three.

      Since the betting guidelines call for wagering the highest two odds of the three qualifiers (almost always). If you then also average in the low paying (favorites) that won – many at $3.2, $3.6, $4 – etc (the ones you would also be hitting if betting three) – then that average mutuel will go down substantially.

      Now – having said that . . . I was going to leave it as a discovery thing for those so-inclined – but – if one is willing to accept all those races where betting three loses some money (like when the winner pays anything less than 2/1), and willing to accept a smaller ROI because of that – then the hit rate would be unheard of (the same as the ‘winner-in-the-top-three’ percentage) . . . yet still profitable!

      – Gary

      • paul anderson

        Oh yes, of course, that makes sense. Still, as you mentioned, a slight R.O.I. none tne less, as mentioned, something to think about.Thanks.

  8. john anderson

    gary thanks for sending the email yesterday ihad success with it yesterday at the races regards john

  9. john anderson

    hi there everyone real new to the pay streak the horse elimitnation rules very simple . . . very simple tiebreaker 1 also simple. i am kinda hung up on tiebreaker 2 and 3 i will not wager on the races i am not clear on i hope the the light bulb will turn on tie breaker 2 and 3 regards john

    • John – rather than expose the method here – I have sent you a private email addressing your questions. – Gary

      • Gary, I too do not clearly understand the 2nd and 3rd tie breakers. Would you mind forwarding me the note sent to John.

        Thanks, Bill

      • Bill – Done. A private email has been sent. – Gary

  10. Gary,

    In regards to your new method(pay streak).
    You say the winner will be in the 3 qualifiers(by the rules of the method)approximately 80+% of the time w/ROI in the D/D.

    What is the average mutual one can expect with this method?
    Is it up in the comfort zone like in the double-digits also?

    It sounds good and i’m giving it some thought about ordering. I have tried a bunch of them. Still looking for one that works.

    Anyway, that’s about the size of it for now. Take care Gary!


    • Len – Average winning odds will hold at 9/2 to 5/1. My own average mutuel for wagers placed during money-testing stands at $12.20. – Gary

  11. Just to be sure, under Elimination Guidelines, I’m thinking the win% is the lifetime record. Correct? And if so, would you eliminate, say, an 8 year-old who tore it up as a 4 and 5 year-old, and hasn’t done anything lately, but still qualifies on his lifetime win%?

    Don’t you just hate these obscure what-if questions? ;]

    • Dave – Yes, for the horse – it is the lifetime percentage. And yes – I will qualify a horse like that for the preliminary round. The other later filters in the Tie-breaker round will take car of things pretty good. I.e – if it “hasn’t done anything lately” – it will likely be DQ’d right away by Tie-Breaker guideline #1.

      But, for me in my dotage 🙂 – jaded as I am after 36 years of doing this . . . if I don’t feel right about any handicapping situation – I just skip the race and go on. There are so many races offered up at the various tracks during a racing day that I feel no pressure whatsoever to force a race – neither in the handicapping stage, nor the betting stage. – Gary

  12. Raymond

    Just finished 64 races, 46.4% ROI, longest losing streak 4. This will be my last post on the method since I plan on tweaking it as per qualifiers(so future results will not reflect on original factors) I looked at my losers, and one group(I know small sample) stood out; a wire to wire winner going up in class 20% or more( a DQ under simple money method) so I plan on using that as a DQ factor, also going to be looking at speed ratings and 2nd call position to try to separate those close in odds. Also for those interested in an easy way to get the win% qualifier just multiply the number of wins X 7, if # races higher than that figure DQ, should be called the “Holy Grail” method! Can only see my ROI increasing thru regression analysis.

    • Ray – As always, thanks for the ‘report from the field.’ By the rules of the method, it would be fairly rare that any horse going up 20% or more would qualify anyway (unless most in the race were also), but you’re idea to add the w-to-w types as an automatic elim. is a good one.

      The method’s guidelines were intentionally kept at a minimum – so as to be able to handicap quickly between races. Additional factors could be added that might increase ROI a bit – at the expense of adding back into the process ever more handicapping time.

      If a player has that time to commit, one of the very best things he can do towards improving the decision-making process when there are close-calls and needed additional tie-breakers . . . is to keep a model of the track/s being wagered – by surface and distance (route/sprint). Where have the winners been coming from? Where were they at the second call? What was their running style? What was the maximum lengths they could be back and still win? – etc. – Gary

  13. Hi Gary,

    I’m always looking for ways to eliminate non-contenders, so I really like that foundation with the method. However, I’m wondering whether you use Projection Rhythms with this, since it seems to focus more on consistency rather than longshots.

    • Dave – With the betting guidelines the way they are – I wouldn’t recommend using Pro Rhy as a concurrent filter. There may be ways to tweak the betting parameters so that Pro Rhy could then be used to advantage, but again – not with the method ‘as is.’ – Gary

  14. Raymond Strommen

    question, when you end up with 2 qualifiers, one less than 8/5(no other horse less than 2/1 to dq race) would you pass the race or just bet the single at higher odds? I am finding this scenario losses more than the 2 horse betting, so like with the L&B betting parameters, I am going to pass a race unless I can bet 2. thoughts?

    • Ray – You will get either 1 or 2 qualifiers only (as opposed to 3 or more) about 10% of the time. Of course you’d expect to lose more of those where you are only betting one than those where you are betting two . . . If you feel better simply passing those races – do so. Meanwhile keep records on what the results of those types of races are, and after you have 30 or 40 of those – you can make a better comparison – and then decide whether to include them back into your mix. – Gary

  15. Gary,

    Is this a download? Or snail mail?

  16. Raymond Strommen

    Wasn’t going to post again until a weeks worth of results, but today was awesome, so decided to post it.
    8 races were bet, 14 horses bet. 5 races won, 2 of the losers were single qualifiers. At the $2 test level invested $28 for a return of $55.60! 98.5% roi. Prices: $6.10 $11.00 $20.20 $10.00 & $8.30. Hadn’t had this much fun in awhile!

    • Ray – Thanks for reporting. You’ll have lots of good days with this one . . . and it is fun – not so much drudgery or time involved. – Gary

  17. Raymond Strommen

    Just got the method, again very logical. Looked at 2 races at mountaineer last night, both won $6.20 & $11
    Not why I am writing this. Since win% is a qualifier I made a chart of #wins/#races to qualify; so instead of using a calculator or figuring in your head, just look at the chart, again with the mantra of simplification.
    Wins. Races
    2. 14
    3. 21.

    • Ray – Good – good. I like the chart, the mantra 🙂 and the initiative. – Gary

  18. The winner out of 3 contenders 80% of the time seems more than reasonable. Can’t wait to see this one.

    • Dave – One thing here: as I state in the method material – all my testing was done on medium to major tracks/circuits (the ones I handicap for the HRG Index). The guidelines of the method favor those, and as well the number of plays (3 to 4 per track per day average) would go down substantially at the smaller venues. – Gary

  19. SwanDawg

    Gary –

    It’s there a money management technique tide-in with this method?


    • Swanson – There are suggested Betting Guidelines for win, exacta, and trifecta betting. I don’t go into how to increase wagers as the bankroll builds . . . we have discussed that in several past posts. – Gary

  20. Hello,
    I like to use the “BRIS-condensed PP’s whenever possible-

    Is this method compatible with them?


    • Walter – Will work fine with any pp’s. Speed figures are not part of the approach, so the hang-up with comparing differing speed figures and variants is not an issue,

      – Gary

  21. Do you have a win % and ROI for this method for the past year or any reasonable long term time frame?

    • Mike – I tested against a large historical HRG Index data base – then wagered real-time in 100 races. I don’t agree with those who feel a sample of thousands of races are needed before jumping into and using a method. The factors used in this approach have themselves been tested by others against 10s of thousands of races, and have held solidly for decades. Your ROI will be in the double digits (and not the low double digits!. The winner will be in your 3 qualifiers (by the rules of the method) approximately 80+% of the time. – Gary

Leave a Reply

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