Straight-Out Machine Not Wanted Just Yet

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 670, 23 May 1929, Page 14

Straight-Out Machine Not Wanted Just Yet

The Canterbury Jockey Club has framed a remit for discussion by the Racing Conference delegates in July, and, if carried, it will have an important bearing on the sport. It is a proposal to .give clubs the right to instal a totalisator on which dividends will be paid only on the winner. It is not intended to interfere with the present system of paying two dividends, in the proportion of dividing three-quarters of the investments among backers of the winner and one-quaf'ter among supporters of the second horse. This arrangement will continue as at present, while the straight-out machine will be an extra, for the benefit of backers who prefer that method of betting. There is no suggestion of compelling clubs to instal a straight-out machine, but an alteration of the Rules of Racing in the direction suggested will allow any club that chooses to provide this method of totalisator betting. That is all right so far as it goes, but what about the double totalisator? With tho 1-2 machine, another for firsts only, and a double machine, backers are liable to become confused. The public generally will ignore the-one-dividend machine, to a large extent at any rate. This has been shown time and time again, in the case of a five-horse race, where there was no second dividend. Then the pool has been below the average for the day. The average backer prefers two chances of collecting. In classic races the one-dividend would hold advantages, but it must not be forgotten that in many of these the runners are not numerous enough to give a second dividend. Apart from this, in a case where a horse stands out —as Supremacy in some of his races—as a certainty” (even although there is no

"««en lost. Her stud record, according to the Australian Stud Book, is incom-. plete, and no yearlings have been offered at the last two sales. This side of the Prince Humphrey question will be closely followed by racegoers ever on the lookout for the unusual. And if Mr. John Brown’s youngster wins good races, it will provide further argument against the advisability of paying a big price for a youngster merely because of the deeds of a relation.

such thing) it would be better for the backer to go on the one-dividend machine. Then the difference in the dividends (to again quote Supremacy) would be considerable, i.e., 25 per cent, more. But before the one-dividend machine is discussed, one would preefr to. see the double totalisator back on the courses. That would attract much money that is now irretrievably lost to the racing clubs and the Treasury (which must have its pound of flesh). At present double takers—and their number is legion—have to go outside the law to back their fancied double. Double betting represents a tremendous amount of money annually. Indeed, so popular is it that for one not to participate is the exception rather than the rule. The installation of the double machine and the telegraphing of betting investments to racecourses would deviatp much money now going "astray” so as to pass through the proper legal channels. And, what is more, it would place many sportsmen (including owners) on side so far as the laws of the land and the Rules of Racing are concerned. What the Racing Conference should aim at with its first barrel is the right to telegraph investments, the publication of dividends, and the installation of the double totalisator. The onedividend machine could well stand over in the meantime. The South Australian Jockey Club recently tried out the one-dividend totalisator —and thudded heavily, for only .€347 was invested for six races against €28,142 on the ordinary machine. Of course, it may become popular when the public gets used to it, but jn the meantinfe there are the more important matters referred to above to be considered.