IN THE KNOW

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 124, 16 August 1927, Page 10

IN THE KNOW

LAYERS OF THE ODDS KNOWLEDGE OF HORSES What knowledge have certain bookmakers operating on A.R.C. courses that they can take what appear to be ridiculous risks in running, and yet seldom make a mistake? These fielders number about half a dozen. They lay long prices about apparently certain winners during a race, yet seem immune from loss. There are always bookmakers willing to take risks. That is part of their business and is a far quicker road to affluence than the nodding manner of making a book, so that when one or two bookmakers bet wha* seemed good odds about horses in running on pony tracks some months back, it was taken by the public as an attempt to get far along that r 1. METHOD IN THEIR MADNESS But when one or two others joined them, and prices stretched to what, in the cir ustances, seemed madness, the public realised that there mus f be something more behind it tb wh appeared on the surface, espe ;i----ally as in almost every case the horses about whom the prices were laid were beaten in the straight. It is the bookmaker’s privilege «.o take a risk, but punters from experience know that a fielder is not imbued with any great amount of g~n erosit- so that their going to ext' 'ies in the laying of a good pric? in running against some horses must mean they have some big advanta r • all on their own side. The public has experienced many cases in recent weeks, but the mos’ glaring cases for some time came to light at Kensington, Sydney. In one event a horse who was well in the market, and who is one of the best performers on A.R.C. tracks, was two ler-ths clear coming to the tur i KNEW THE HORSE In view of the fact that he was going well within himself and had le j.than two furlongs to go, he looked n odds on chance, but the small coterie of bookmakers thought otherwise. Knowing his capabilities they yet ignor 1 them in this instance, and offered to bet .!:rees against him when he looked to have the race well won That horse tired in the straight and finished out of a place, a distinct con trast to his recent efforts. The second incident was such as to cast a distinct shadow over their operations, for although subsequent results proved they were wrong for once, it showed clearly that they are acting on knowledge of some kind or other. Soon after the start, which happened when most of the ringmen were still betting out of view of the track, a well-backed horse hit the front and was little more than cantering several lengths a Y ’ of his nearest opponent NEARLY CAUGHT The word went round to the ring that he was leading, and three or four of the bookmakers, without seeing for themselves what was happening in the race, rushed round to the front calling 4 to 1 about his chance, whereas he had been little better in the original betting. As matters turned out, the horse was only narrowly beaten, after leading to within few yards of the post, so that the fieldo r « bad misinformed S'. noticeable have their operations been,

however, that punters give up hope when they hear their fancies called at good odds in running, and are asking what protection they have.

Actually none, for the bookmakers can plead that they are taking a reasonable risk, and there the matter must end. There is nothing to prove differently.