The Dutch Betting System
The system is very often used in dog and horse racing, where it permits the arrangement of bets in a way that favours a profit. Many critiques of the system say that it robs from the activity of gambling all its excitement and passion; that it, at best, facilitates a painfully slow method of making money. There may be some truth in this, but any system that can lead to a profit certainly has value.
The etymology of the term is uncertain, but is highly likely that the name comes from its creator, one “Dutch” Schultz. This infamous character was an associate of Al Capone and Lucky Luciano, being like them involved in numerous illegal activities. Schultz was born in 1901, and after a full and varied life, with numerous altercations with the law, he was assassinated in 1935. He is remembered, if not for his betting system, for his rigging of the Harlem numbers racket. Being in possession of a keen intellect, Schultz had worked out a method of placing bets at the very last moment, which allowed him to manipulate odds.
It was during his time at the track that Schultz devised his eponymous betting system. He knew of course the odds of the horses he was choosing to bet on. For example let there be two horses, with odds of 3.0 and 5.0 – Schultz would then choose the amount of money he was prepared to risk on the bet. His system would split the stake, so that whichever of them won the same winnings would be yielded.
If his stake was £100 this would lead to betting £62.50 on the first horse, and £37.50 on the second. If the first horse wins the prize will be 3.0 x £62.50 = £187.50. Subtracting the £100 staked gives a profit of £87.50. If however the second horse is the winner, the prize will be 5.0 x £37.50 = £187.50. Once again subtracting the initial stake gives us the same profit of £87.50.
Such was the success of Schultz’s method that he soon applied it to more than two horses, spreading the total wagered stake, which effectively made it even more successful. The drawback of this method, as previously mentioned, is that any potential wins will be small. Since there can only be one winner, you are guaranteed to back losing participants! These losses will obviously deplete the amount won from backing the winner.
When employing this method to back multiple participants you obviously have a fairly good chance of picking the winner; but there is of course a very real possibility that all the chosen horses will lose. In this eventuality the player can lose almost their entire gaming stake. The system demands that you will always be betting more than the net win will recompense you, which is why the wins can seem incremental – but if all your choices lose you can be set back three or four Dutch systems.
The patient and sober headed player will not let these setbacks deter them however. They know that The Dutch system relies on a lengthy betting session. It is not unusual for those employing the practice to play for many hours at a time. They do not expect the quick fix euphoria that other players around them sometimes experience: they are employing the long game, and will stay true to their course as their winnings gradually increase.
