The Racing Horse was officially launched in June 2011, and built on a disciplined philosophy, promising incremental gains fashioned from high strike rate within a no-risk framework. Our style of wagering makes it virtually impossible to lose a betting bank. However, ours is not a strategy the vast majority of bettors deem sexy. The vast majority of bettors seek instant gratification over long-term accrual.

Instant gratification is fleeting, long-term accrual is a warm glow.

The rationale behind the strategy is sound and has historically produced a first or second placing over 75% the time. The inherent nature of the wager suggests the nomination will win or just fail, with very few bombing out, and there is a reason for that. We take this opportunity to explain why we record the finishing positions of the Green Flag nominations.

Races of interest are especially selected to foster and make sharp the strategy. Our nominations are usually favourites, the price that accompanies them can be short, sometimes very short. This means that although the strategy is proven, the profits are tight and we have to be vigilant, smart, whilst understanding the true meaning of value to stay ahead of the game.

Though a subjective matter, value is absolutely everything in a wager, and our understanding of the market place in which we engage, is proven to members within the common sense rationale.  Pricing up the top three or four in a race has become second nature to us, this crucial element represents a skill set and an edge in the wagering process!

How do we approach staking a Green Flag nomination? We begin with a simplified framework: 1pt equals 25 units, or £25, and we operate within four defined staking options. Once a provisional rationale is drafted and the decision to wager is under consideration, we turn to the market in search of perceived value. If value is found, we proceed with a straight 1pt, 1½pt, or 2pt win stake. If not, there is no bet, discipline overrides impulse. The draft itself has already identified the probable winner, the contenders, the pretenders, and those without a realistic chance. Only then do we evaluate which of the four staking options best aligns with the opportunity.

• • WIN STAKING (25 units)
  • WIN STAKING (20 units) & STAKE SAVER (5 units)
  • WIN STAKING (20 units) & PART-STAKE SAVER (5 units)
  • WIN STAKING (20 units) & COMPUTER STRAIGHT FORECAST (5 units)

Due to argument weighting, these figures are rarely precise, but they represent the essential stake components of our wager. The SAVE portion is strictly capped at no more than 20% of the total stake, ensuring it never undermines the integrity of the bet or its profit potential. The core intention is that the perceived value embedded within the GFN will, more often than not, partially or fully offset the SAVE element.

Stake-saving options aren’t always designed to recover the full original stake. Their purpose is broader: to provide strategic protection and psychological comfort over time, while still allowing for regular incremental gains. This safeguard supports the long-term integrity of the approach, helping maintain composure and discipline in pursuit of medium to long-term profit.

When a Green Flag Nomination (GFN) is beaten, it’s almost always by our documented main danger, or failing that, by a contender already addressed in our rationale. Even in defeat, the GFN most often finishes second, underscoring our strike rate of over 75% for first or second placings. This consistency is no accident; it reflects the precision and depth of our selection process.

To summarise: our strategy delivers outright winners in over 50% of cases. When including both winners and our chronicled main dangers, that figure rises above 70%. And when we account for winners, main dangers, and contenders, the success rate exceeds 75%. These numbers are conservative, reflecting disciplined selection rather than inflated optimism. They speak to the consistency and edge built into the GFN framework.

Most of the bets we advise to members are straightforward 1pt win stakes, with no saver involved. Privately, however, we assess each wager daily, typically considering 1pt, 1½pt, or 2pts, and occasionally 3pts. As the race approaches, we may adjust the stake depending on how the situation evolves. Due to time constraints, these adjustments can’t always be communicated in real time. But we believe a bet can, and often should, change shape from conception to post-time, if doing so offers a tactical edge or maximises the value of the transaction.

We never view wagers as isolated events, they’re part of a broader, disciplined strategy. That said, we recognise that not everyone has the time or inclination to engage at that level.

The second and third categories are self-explanatory. For example, we might deem it prudent to back a 6/4 favourite with 20 units (£25 per point), anticipating the price will shorten before the off—yielding a potential return of +30 units. Alongside this, we may back the second or third favourite as a part-stake or full-stake saver at 3/1, returning +15 units. If the saver shortens and wins, we incur a 5-unit loss on the overall 1pt stake (20 out, 15 back). However, if the danger drifts to 4/1 (best price guaranteed), the saver now covers the full stake—resulting in a break-even position (20 out, 20 back).

COMPUTER STRAIGHT FORECAST & EXACTA: Forecast bets are rarely the hallmark of professional wagering, yet they hold a purposeful place within our strategy and its mathematical foundation. Their inclusion isn’t primarily profit-driven; rather, they serve to cushion the stake and support long-term sustainability. In this regard, they’ve proven effective, offering tactical protection and psychological reassurance without compromising the integrity of the core wager. 

The fourth category is often misunderstood. Because the GFN finishes first or second over 75% of the time, we’re able to profit from that consistency. In a typical 8-runner Novice Stakes Class 5 race, two or three horses can be confidently eliminated, they simply cannot win. That leaves the GFN with three or four genuine rivals. We then place small stakes on those select runners to beat the GFN in a COMPUTER STRAIGHT FORECAST or EXACTA. Typically, two of these bets result in a minor loss to the original stake, but the other two offer a realistic chance of turning a profit, even when the GFN is beaten. We rarely cover all four, but occasionally the race dynamics demand it.

This approach ensures that the full stake is exposed fewer than three times in ten, a level of certainty that aligns perfectly with our risk-versus-reward temperament. Most importantly, it protects us from long, debilitating losing runs. We fully acknowledge that this strategy is unique to the author; no two individuals share the same appetite for risk or definition of reward. But we hope it’s clear: this is a no-risk-first strategy, designed to deliver incremental gains over time. If you’re still reading, thank you for allowing us the space to explain, it’s appreciated.

Most bettors dismiss this mathematical style of betting as boring or laborious, we understand that. But for the author, it has quietly built a third pension while deepening a lifelong passion for horse racing. In an industry where 98% of bettors lose, we stand firmly in the 2%.

∼