TURF FRAUDS AND TURF PRACTICES.

Observer, Volume 7, Issue 226, 10 January 1885, Page 9

TURF FRAUDS AND TURF PRACTICES.

BOOKMAKER,

Like all otter men, the members of this' calling are liable to make mistakes. It not unfrequently happens that they " stand tp win" too heavily upon one or two horses, so that, to use their own expression, "the pot boils over.' At the Derby of 1867, many of the bookmakers were " sold " when Hermit won. The following season the dead heat run at Newmarket by Formosa and Moslem was most unexpected. ' Formosa was the favorite, and the profession looked upon the race as won before it was run. Just before the horses started the betting was seven to two against Formosa, and one hundred to eight, or twelve and a half to one against Moslem ; and yet the two ran a dead heat, consequently the shakes and bets had to be divided. There are two rules which a respectable bookmaker seldom or ever breaks. The first is, never to risk a single shilling over and above what he can pay down, in hard cash, twenty-four hours after the j ace; the second is, never to stand ; too much upon any one horse without hedging his money. It will hardly be believed what perfect confidence betting men among the general public— and in these days, particularly among what may be termed the lower middle classes, to bet is the rule, and not to bet the exception — will repose in bookmakers whom they know. It is an everyday occurrence for a small tradesman to put a fiver or a tenner into the hands of a bookmaker on the eve of a great race, and to beg the professional to lay it out for him to the best advantage, not even telling him what horses to back. The bookmaker generally returns the money with a fair profit next day, deducting his own commission of a shilling in the pound. The " welcher" bears towards the respec-* table bookmaker much the same relative positions that the keepers of silver hells in former days used to hold towards those who ruled at Crockford's and the great gaming houses. The ' ' welcher, ' ' improperly so called, takes the money offered him to back a horse ; but when he has pocketed enough coin from his dupes, he departs from the scene of his labours, and trusts to his luck, a dyed wig, or a pair of false whiskers, not to be recognised. A " double event" is to back two named horses to win two named races. As the odds against this coming off are necessarily high, the temptation to the outside public is necessarily great. The way to calculate a double event bet is to multiply the odds against the other. Thus, let us suppose that the betting against Blue Gown winning' the Derby were ten to one, and the odds against Lady Elizabeth winning the Oaks were twelve to one. Ten times twelve makes a hundred and twenty ; therefore the odds against the two horses winning the double event were a hundred and twenty to one. We know that the first event came off right, and that Blue Gown did win the Derby; it follows, as a matter of course, that the whole bet depended upon Lady Elizabeth's winning the Oaks ; and thus the total amount of the odds, a, hundred and twenty to one, were laid against her. If the bookmaker believed there was any chance whatever of the second event turning against him, he would either hedge his money — which, of course, he has every possible facility of doing — or he would buy the bet from the backer for a comparatively small sum. Among the outside public there is an idea that the whole betting world regulates its financial operations very much by relying on information obtained from training stables, through persons who betray the trust reposed in them, and who divulge secrets respecting this horse beating: his stable companion at a trial, that filly breaking down at exercise, or the oth;er colt goingwrong in his fetlock. Thisjiaeans of gaining information, however, '^^^imbstC gether a thing of the past. A"sk"%ny. bookmaker what rule he observes in his betting throughout the year, and he will reply that he "follows the money." He means that the market price of each horse guides him in all his speculations, and that of the quality or qualification of the horses he knows little or nothing. The said "ononey "or " market price " — the betting odd's, in fact— are much more influenced by the owners of the horses wanting to push up or pull down their horses in the betting than by any capabilities, or want of the same, in the horses themselves. Of course, when the owner of a really good horse thinks that the animal has a fair chance to win a certain race, he backs him, but rarely without making his money safe by hedging upon some other horse in the same race. And in the same way, when a horse is considered quite unfit to run, he is generally " scratched" out of the race, or allowed to start merely to make the running for some other horse. It is only when the competing horses are actually at the post, .just before starting, that their condition causes any change worth speaking of in the odds ; and even then tHe cautious betters prefer bookmaking upon figures to betting upon the horses. Eacing as now conducted is a pure matter of money-making, and races might just as well be run by costermongers' donkeys as by the best blood in England, so far as it is conducive to any improvement in the "breed of horses, apart from racing purP° SeS - ■: • j2&- ■ 'V^