On of our “system” plans had four selecions in one race the other day and there ay even have been a selection from a different set of criteria in that same race. Clearly, we could have backed them all and lost money of the winner paid less than $4 but that’s looking at things wrongly. For one particular plan the method relies on a higher dividend to make its profits and even if that results in a loss in one race in another it might provide a windfall. For example, in the Melbourne Cup we were able to build a nice dutch book around five horses and could have included more if we wished and still made a profit. That meant that Prince Of Penzance, priced at $80 when we placed the bets, got a relatively modest profit. On the other hand had we bet them all level stakes in that race the result was spectacular. hat philoso[hy applies in Doubles Treble and Quaddies. If we tried to take them accoridng to their price, there would be little point in includong longshots because the result when a longshot gets up would return little. On the other hand when we do get that longshot up AND the other leg or legs we get win our returns will be a long way over. You would be very upset if your quaddie paid $90,000 and because you “dutched it” you only collected $10,000. So in the reality of things, each “system” needs to stand alone.