THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1880.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1893, 18 March 1880, Page 2

THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1880.

Thb merits and demerits of the totalisator have of late taken up a good deal of public attention. It is probable that, as is usual in the case of a novelty, more prominence has been given to the subject than the actual facts of the case can justify. The upholders of the instruments claim that its introduction will abolish bookmakers, and purify the moral atmospere of the turf to an extent perfectly marvellous, while its detractors call it a betting instrument, and declare that its use on the racecourse is demoralising, and that no legislature should dream of giving a logal sanction to its permanent introduction. Both upholders and detractors are, we think, altogether taking too strong a view of the case. While, on the one hand, the totalisator is not a pure and simple betting instrument, but a mere calculating machine, on the other hand its use is little likely to abolish betting in other forms. Amongst the literature evolved by the discussion on the machine, there is a pamphlet entitled " Tho Ruin of the Turf in New Zealand," written by a gentleman under the nom-do-plume of " Kosmos," which deserves some consideration, because the author is evidently a man of considerable sporting experience, and at the outset claims that his essay is no bookmaker's attempt to crush the totalisator. He takes boldly the stand point that betting is necessary to the existenco of the turf, and the sequence of his argument is as follows: Owners cannot afford to pay long prices for their horses, or to go to the heavy expense of training the said horses for the mere profit to bo derived by winning the stakes to bo run for; owners cannot therefore do without bookmakers; bookmakers and totalisators cannot exist side by side; therefore, if totalisators are to be legalised, the owners will throw up the sponge, and the public will be de-

prived of racing altogether, or will at least be dependent on racing of a very inferior order. "We will take it for granted that the pamphlet is not written in any way to benefit the bookmakers, but there is another body also in whose interest it has certainly not been compiled, and that body is—the public. The public are apparently looked upon by the author as a constituency who, as long as they see a number of well bred and thoroughly trained horses in a row at the starting post, should be perfectly satisfied. They should not bother their heads in the slightest as to whether the best horse is likely to win, but should rejoice in the fact that the breed of horses is being improved. They certainly have paid heavily to get up the races which they have come to enjoy, but the moaey should naturally be paid for the benefit of the owners, and the many - headed should rojoico with an exceeding joy that in its humble way it can be useful. This utter ignoring of the public runs through the pamplet to such an extent as to become positively amusing. That the public can have their rights never seems to have entered into the head of the author. That the true interests of the turf must naturally bo best served by consulting the interests of the public, its patrons, is self evident. It is no use blinking the fact that the turf of Now Zealand has at present a very bad name. There is absolutely no confidence felt in the genuineness of the running. There are honest owners of course, but the public most certainly labors under the impression that the owners, with but few exceptions, form a ring whose mission it is to bleed the general purse, an operation rendered comparatively easy by the limited number of the owners. Indeed the surprising liberality of the confiding public in the present state of affairs is wonderful. The man who refuses to subscribe to a race meeting because he does not believe in the fairness of the running is the exception, not the rule. "The Ruin of the New Zealand Turf" is not at all likely to arise from the introduction of any mere calculating machine, however ingeniously contrived, but from the inherent rottenness of the whole concern. That is certainly the present cry in England, and it is equally, if not more, applicable to this country.

But with regard to the power of the totalisator to break the bookmakers, we hold that the author of the pamphlet has entirely misjudged the state of the case. It may indeed abolish the list-men, the "minor metalicians," as they are facetiously termed, and a very good thing too. The gentlemen with red hats and campstools may for the future disappear from our race-courses, and the public will certainly shed no tears; but the race of book-makers proper will be but little influenced by the introduction of the totalisator. Moreover, the public will not, as " Kosmos" falsely asserts, naturally give up backing horses before the day of the race altogether. His bias against the new instrument has evidently entirely misled "Kosmos." He says, for instance, " the public are not such fools as to run the risk of their favourite going wrong or being scratched if they can possibly help it, and so they will save up their notes for the totalisator, and make sure at all events of a ' run for their money.'" That may be true enough of that section of the public who are not addicted to general betting, and who are usually the dupes of the list men, accepting odds far from the true ones, but it is not at all tiae of those whoso operations are more extended. In any case, the former seldom bet except on the course, but the very principle of the totalisator prevents it being of use to the latter, and that for two reasons. In the first place, long odds against any horse are not obtainable at any time through the totalisator. Take the case of the English Derby. The horses are entered as yearlings, and the betting at that timo is usually about 100 to 1 against any individual horse. Consequently, any man who has firm faith in any particular colt, and who trusts in its power of standing training, can lay on it at these odds, a chance he could by no possible means obtain through the totalisator. Then, again, take the case of a man who lays on a horse at the odds of ten to one on the course. Say there is a run on this horse, and what is the consequence. The odds against this horse immediately diminish, inasmuch as the number of shares into which the sum total will have to be divided will have increased by so much. Had he operated with a bookmaker, however much the horse might have gone up in the public estimation from his appearance when stripped, he would always have obtained £lO to his one pound in case of the horse winning. There is no stability in odds given by the totalisator, and therefore for large operations the instrument is valueless. It is evident, therefore, that, as regards the public and the larger bookmakers, the new implement will not much affect their mutual relations. As regards the owners, the same alignments will apply. Where there is a demand in reason there will always be a supply. Any owner who wishes to back his horse will always find somebody to give him the odds. A clever bookmaker is not likely to be put out by the fact that, on the course, the totalisator will be at work, inasmuch as he doe 3 not depend for his profits on what he is likely to pick up on the day of the race. In point of fact the importance of the totalisator ha 3 been altogether over-rated. It has no chance whatever of regenerating or ruining the turf ; it will merely drive off the field certain noisy and objectionable individuals whose presence is an eyesore and a nuisance.