The Dominion. MONDAY, JANUARY 8, 1912. THE TOTALISATOR.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1331, 8 January 1912, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, JANUARY 8, 1912. THE TOTALISATOR.

The New South Wales Commission which is inquiring into the merits and demerits of the totalisator as a medium of betting on horse-racing is not likely to bring to light very much that is The subject has now been threshed out along the lines of the evidence that is being given before the' Commission again and again, and the main arguments pro and qiiite*Tamiliar to the New Zealand public. On one side aro arrayed the bookmakers, the iuiti-garabling.advocates,-' and a few 6f the racing people, who'prefer the bookmaker or who want him as an adjunct to the totalisator because for various reasons they desire to ben away from tho- coifrsc. It may be that these people who champion the bookmaker want to back a horse some time prior to the date of the meeting at which it is going to race, and so secure longer odds than is possible on the race clay. They cannot do this with the totalisator, which is only open on the day of the races, and then the bettor has to be on the course to make.his wager. It may be that the supporter of the bookmaker is a heavy bettor, and is afraid that if he puts all his money on the totalisiitor it will reduce his dividend to small proportions; or it may be that he is fond of backing doubles, which he cannot do on a totalisator. There aro indeed many reasons why the habitual—we might say the professional—backer of horses wishes to have the bookmakers operating, but practically, every 'one of those reasons is opposed to the public interest. The bookmaker unquestionably brings in his train moro evils than the totalisator, and in making this assertion we are quite ready to admit that there are many bookmakers who can be relied on, to fulfil their undertakings as faithfully as the average man ,of business.

Those who'attack the totalisator as an evil undoubtedly have some strong arguments on their side. Far too much gambling takes place on horseracing. The figures recorded on the totalisator are certainly misleading to those who fail to recognise that the total recorded each day at a race meeting is made up mainly of the samp money going through again and again. 'For instance, there may be £30,000 handled by those working thc_ totalisator at a race meeting at which eight races are on the day's programme. Say £3000 is invested' on tho first race, this amount, when the result is known, is all paid back to the public, less the usual percentage taken by the club, and is available for reinvestment on' the next race; and so it goes on all dav. At the close of tho day the totalisator total may be,' as stated, £30,000, but the actual capital on the course might not be more than half that sum, and with five or six thousand people present this would not average out a very large amount per head. But even conceding this, it is not surprising that a good many people should find cause for concern in the betting which goes on on horse-racing. The abolition of the totalisator, however, is not going to stop it. If any doubt existed on this.point it should be removed by the inability of the police to stop the illegal betting which goes on in practically cvorv town in the country at the present lime through bookmakers. The police no doubt arc aware of what is going on, but it is most difficult, and in many cases well-nigh impossible, to .secure sufficient evidence against the offenders to ensure a conviction. Better then the totalisator, which is confined to the racecourse, and which has many obvious advantages, than the spread of--the evil of secret and illegal gaming, with its attendant vicious growths and its demoralising effect on public morals.