Dutching
in gambling, betting on more than one outcome
In gambling, Dutching is sharing the risk of losing across a number of runners by backing more than one selection in a race or event. One needs to calculate the correct stake to place on each selection so that the return is the same if any of them wins. Although not foolproof, because handicapping is still involved, there have been successful bettors throughout history who have applied this system. This is not to be confused with what constitutes a Dutch book which is when a bookmaker goes overbroke (the opposite to overround).
It is thought the strategy behind Dutching was originally conceived and employed by Arthur Flegenheimer (also known as Dutch Schultz) alongside various rackets he had running at the racetrack. The system has since taken his name.
The strategy can pay dividends when gamblers successfully reduce the potential winners of an event to a select few from the field or when information about runners not expected to perform well does not reach the market (so as to affect the odds), making it profitable to back the rest of the field.
Dutching can also be used to reduce the price of the commission you would pay at a betting exchange by dutching at two bookmakers (normally Asian style) instead.
Profitability
A Dutch or an arb is profitable if the sum of the reciprocals of the decimal odds of each selection is less than 1, and each bet is sized such that the payout in each outcome are the same.
Additionally, the profitability of a Dutch/arb can be expressed as 1-R, where R is the sum of the reciprocals.
The public source identifies “Dutching” as in gambling, betting on more than one outcome. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Dutching, gambling and betting.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Dutching”, the useful work is to connect “in gambling, betting on more than one outcome” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 30, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5317496. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Dutching”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Dutching primary sources, Dutching archive and Dutching research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Dutching”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Dutching” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.