(CHICAGO, IL – May 17, 2010) This is not how stories about becoming a horseplayer begin. They are usually about sitting on your father’s knee, booking bets for your classmates in high school or falling in love with the Black Stallion book series. But on Saturday, Chicagoan Joel Thomas - which for purposes of this story is the alias of a real-life protagonist - walked into an off-track betting shop on Weed Street, made several wagers totaling $1000 on the Preakness, went home to watch the race on his living room television set and looked on as three horses he backed - Lookin at Lucky, First Dude and Jackson Bend – crossed the finish line ahead of the pack.

The Preakness was not the first time Thomas scored a 130 percent profit with a $1000 wager. It was the second. Two weeks ago, he bet $1000 on the Kentucky Derby, hit the Super Saver-Ice Box exacta and landed up with about $2300. In both races, his method was to bet $100 on a few horses the experts expected to win, a few $20 exacta boxes combining his choices with longshots, and $20 across the board wagers on a smattering of runners whose names simply “stuck with” him. After two races, and roughly four minutes of tension, the fortune-blessed Thomas is up $2600.

Now, you may think that a score of $2600 is insignificant compared to the $900,000 won by the guy on TV who gambled $100,000 of somebody else’s money. But Thomas’s accomplishment is eye-opening. He had wagered on a horse race before, maybe 20 or 25 times in his lifetime. But, each time he purchased a betting slip, the cost of his ticket was $5 or $10 – not more. To say the least, Thomas was an unlikely patron to visit the Weed Street bookmakers with a g-note in hand and anti-freeze for blood. He knows little about horse racing, also.

“I think I was bored,” the retired ad executive said about why he tried his luck at horses. “The amount got my attention and allowed me to enjoy the Derby more than if I had simply watched it. I was willing to lose the money for the thrill,” Thomas said.

Thomas has respect for the Triple Crown as an American institution, in the same sense he watches the Indy 500 despite not being an active fan of motor sport. And so he concocted his plan to address boredom by searching for excitement on the first Saturday in May. Regardless, this past weekend meant even more to him. “I found myself very involved in this second leg,” Thomas said. “The Preakness was a sit-down occasion. I enjoyed every minute,” he added.

Lacking experience, Thomas wasn’t able to comprehend from the telecast where his horses were until they were strung out in the homestretch. But when he heard Tom Durkin call First Dude’s name in contention with Lookin at Lucky, he became focused. “I knew that if I didn’t win, the exacta would be the only way for me to get my money back,” Thomas said. It was the exacta and an across-the-board bet on First Dude that paid off for him.

Thomas bet $100 to win on First Dude, Jackson Bend and Aikenite. He had First Dude boxed with Lookin at Lucky and Super Saver for $20. Unlike experienced handicappers, who knew that the Preakness was a race that could favor a front runner but that First Dude’s fractions didn’t favor the horse staying on for 1 3/16 miles, all Thomas was concerned about was that what he was seeing was indeed what was happening. But Thomas made up for his lack of abilities pertaining to race watching with a significant understanding of how cash allocation can result in positive result, even in the toughest market.

Like managing a financial portfolio, Thomas spread his risk over several wagers. He pulled the trigger on 11 different transactions and scored with only two. But those two reflected trends he knew about – that 31 of the last 37 Preakness winners competed in the Kentucky Derby and that five of the last eight Preakness exactas averaged a $122 payout, which portended a favorite in combination with a longshot. “I feel a little better about myself than if I just came back from a blackjack table with the same result,” Thomas admitted.

Thomas’s warm feelings about his wagering experience represent the main contention of many horseplayers that horse racing has come up short in promoting the positive nature of gambling on horses. These frustrated individuals cite the game’s intellectual challenge, its reliance on analysis and fascinating complexity as clearly superior to other opportunities for risk-taking. But Thomas’s success, attained without the appurtenance of perspective, also leads to other controversies. For example, what really is the connection between knowing the game and being proficient at it?

Notwithstanding this issue, it would be truly unusual if the story of one anonymous punter would change anything in the type of coverage horse racing receives in the media or the kind of respect horseplayers get in relation to other practitioners - the horses, owners, trainers, jockeys and breeders. But the feelings and conclusions expressed by Thomas taught at least one hack who, as they say in the press box, buys ink by the barrel, that there is human interest, if not news, to be found in the consequence of luck. It’s ironic that the winner was Lookin at Lucky, when Thomas has been lucky beyond what he has earned.

“For this level of betting, I think I’ll remain a Triple Crown bettor. Had I lost the thousand in the Preakness, I might have bet all my Derby winnings ($300) on one horse in the Belmont,” Thomas confessed, delighted, of course, that it hadn’t come to that. “But I’d be very much surprised if I didn’t find myself out at Arlington Park this summer,” he predicted.


You can read more from Vic Zast on facebook.com and twitter.com.