Alex Bird-Professional Investor

I have that book in my vast collection. Glad that you enjoyed it, but I found it completely boring tbh, in similar tone as Public Enemy, which actually promised a lot in the first chapter or two, but then became a braggart`s list of bets like Birds.

i enjoyed Birds but agree with Mac about " Public Enemy" , thought that was terrible.

I'm with you mac..found it boring,..so he found an edge with the photo...thats about it..''Public Enemy''..more like Public Enema....dreadful....

I have both books.
' public enemy ' was utter nonsense.

I think we all have our likes and dislikes for example I enjoyed Geoffrey Hamlyn's book "My 60 Years In The Ring" yet many other people on here disliked it.

After looking forward to reading Birds book i found it just about the worst racing book i've ever read....rubbish in my view

Read it decades ago and enjoyed it. Mainly photo finish betting and think he had a big winning bet or two on his own horses.

Most interesting part of Bird for me was when he was taking prices in the States with massive bets on Uk horses for the Breeders Cup where they werent fuly clued up on our animals. Remember he had a massive bet for the time on Dancing Brave at what seemed a crazy price however that went astray.

Antepost bet that is.

Was it Bird or Veitch or both who backed Halling in the States? It was a big story in the Life at the time but from what I remember, when you worked out the average price, they'd effectively taken under the odds.

Ken Payne`s The Coup was an enjoyable read about an interesting guy who went from window cleaner to racehorse trainer with some funny and remarkable escapades. He landed some hefty gambles at Hamilton Park in the 70s and I remember Kithairon with a deep fondness. Last I heard Ken was in Australia.

It must have been Veitch ramruna as Alex Bird had sadly passed away when Halling was racing.

i think ALEX invented the only two bets per day system at one time.and if the first one won he stopped for the day.when asked about it he said if the first lost he made sure the second won.

Good point well made re punting (or not) after death, @themightymac.

I read the book many years ago and the one bet I recall Alex mentioning was to back 2nd favourites each way in maiden races.

Talking of Veitch and Bird in the same thread, PV wrote this:

For me, Bird’s reputation was somewhat undermined by the fact that much of his winnings came from betting on the results of photo-finishes. Two people subsequently told me that he had a source signalling from the judge’s box, which may help explain his astonishing success in that sphere.

I'm not entirely sure how much I believe that, given the likely logistics. It is possible though.

By the way the book is entitled life and times of a professional punter not investor. Although a few on here like to see themselves as investors rather than punters.

*life and secrets.

From OP: [Alex Bird's] annual t/o was £2m and made a profit of under 2%

Not a big profit but remember that is after deducting "generous expenses" including the costs of travelling to the course by plane or chauffeur-driven Rolls Royce.

I actually remember Alex Bird  turning up in a World In Action programme, must have been on horse racing corruption or something, mid to late 80s.

Also does anyone have the story behind Slick Willie appearing on his autobiography front cover?  Almost as incongruous as Donald Trump making the draw for Rumbelows Cup with Saint and Greavsie.



[   This image is no longer available.   ]

I might add he appeared as a commentator/opinionist not under suspicion of anything himself.

It may have been about the Greville Starkey/Guy Harwood nag that got lasered Ile De Cyphre.

Was it Bird who was "all in" on Tromos for Guineas after his Dewhurst win??

Geoff, I thought it was Julian Wilson??

Read it years ago. He made fortunes standing on the finish line betting on photos.

I thought in his early betting days he was betting on what won in close finish before the judge called the winner, but perhaps not?

When was the Photo finish first used in UK races?

Sorry. I'm old & I should have been clearer. It was on close finishes. In modern times I always refer to close finishes as photo finishes because these days they use photos. But strictly speaking you are correct. To be stricter, one cannot bet on a photo finish, because by looking at a photo you will see the result so you are betting on the close finish at the finishing post on the course!

No worries Slicer. I wasn`t contradicting you mate. I honestly didn`t know the answer. Must have been post WWII but don`t know exactly when. At a guess I would think early 60s?

Mr Mac- only jesting with you. No offence taken & hopefully non given. You're one of the good guys on here!

Thanks slicer, you are too mate. I enjoy reading your posts. Respect.

I like reading about the old post war racing but you probably attended many big events, seen all the great post war jockeys and great horses. I would have loved to have seen Sir Gordon on the racetrack at his peak. I have his book, "My Story".

It was a different world & with what's going on today, I must say I sorely miss it.

I have said this before on here about Bird's photo finish betting.

He would have us believe that he stood on the line and shut one eye for tight finishes in order to judge who had won. Then, he would bet large amounts on the various photo-finish outcomes.

What I find so hard to believe here is that the on-track bookies would let this happen repeatedly!

Even if he were betting via other people, the bookies would soon realise that someone was on the line and judging the tight finishes. Then they would surely put a stop to it by having someone stand in front of him, or nudge him at the vital moment etc. etc

So, I do not believe that his photo-finish betting, if true at all, was due to him shutting one eye! Nope, if it did happen, he surely had someone in the various judges boxes giving him a pre-arranged signal as soon as the result was about to be announced. He'd only have a few seconds to get the money down but the judge's box could easily delay broadcasting the result for a few seconds or so.

The other thing that came to mind when I read his book many years ago, but is still relevant today, is if jockeys could give subtle pre-arranged signals to the stands about how their mounts were travelling in a race. Today, with in-running betting it could be a real factor.

Indeed, in-running betting used to exist on the tracks with some bookies many moons ago and back then with no TV, very few would ever know that a jockey was signalling something to an accomplice with binoculars in the stand. For example, three furlongs from home, a jockey still travelling well could easily pull his goggles down, or touch the horses' head as if making a minor tack adjustment. Pre-arranged signals might just give an edge to an in-running bettor that others not in on the scheme would be lacking.

Only idle speculation, you understand!

The Knight -- why would the bookies want to put a stop to Bird's photo betting which allowed them to rebalance their books? If they had wanted to put a stop to it, they could simply not bet on photos. Job done whether Bird was getting a secret signal or standing on the line with one eye closed.

Geoff

Definitely bird regarding tromos

The Knight Joined: 02 Sep 01
Replies: 121808 Feb 24 23:05 

Even if he were betting via other people, the bookies would soon realise that someone was on the line and judging the tight finishes. Then they would surely put a stop to it by having someone stand in front of him, or nudge him at the vital moment etc. etc



They did put a stop to it by employing people who were experienced greyhound punters used to betting on photo finishes.  It's all there in the book.

From Bird's book, he started photo betting in 1948 and stopped (as sparrow says) in 1962 after the dog punters were brought in.

Whether that was designed to stop Bird or just that a couple of bookies wanted to get in on a good thing is left as an exercise for the reader. Given Bird made hay for 14 years, there was clearly no great urgency.