BETTING SYSTEMS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 35, 11 February 1935, Page 11

BETTING SYSTEMS.

I have been following with great interest the letters from your various readers- on this subject, and write this to correct a few incorrect statements made, _ particularly by those favouring the win and place system. One correspondent states that Sydney has now adopted the win and place. This is not correct. The following is from an article I read recently written by a Sydney newspaper correspondent: — "During the four days at Kandwiek the amount invested on the machines was £128,190. Of this total practically 75 per cent was invested on the place machine. (The reason for this, of .course, is that the big money straight out is invested with the bookmakers, who are not allowed to bet for a place.) There is no doubt that at Eandwick this •form of wagering is very popular, for there are many just casual racegoers at headquarters." Continuing, he says: "This system of totalisator betting would not be practicable or payable at suburban meetings, where the patrons are largely ' regulars.' Club officers realise that only at Randwick, where there is a very large volume of business, is the win and place system practicable, and they are not surprised that the clubs in New Zealand are abandoning the two-pools system." When I read this article, the correctness of which I have confirmed, I was truly astonished to learn that at least as far as New South Wales is concerned the only racecourse operating the win and place machines was Randwick, and of course the total number of days' racing held there is a small percentage of the total race days in Sydney, not to mention the rest of New South Wales. Fancy the Sydney suburban meetings not being big enough with the crowds which they get there. I know what they are like, for a few years ago I took horses there and won races on them all. Outside Auckland and Wellington Metropolitan Clubs their average attendances would put the rest of our meetings completely in the shade, i Another correspondent writing to your 'paper stated that, "Taking the various meetings in New Zealand over the Christmas and New Year holidays, in every case where the win and place system was in vogue an increase was shown, whereas a general reduction was shown in those under tho single pool." This is entirely contrary to fact, as reference to the official calendar of the New Zealand Racing Conference and the New Zealand Trotting Association will show. The Westland Racing Club and j Ashburton Trotting Club under one pool showed an increase of IG.O per cent and 12.50 per cent respectively, whilst Hawke'a Bay Jockey Club, under win and place, showed a decrease of 18.4 per cent, and so on. As a matter of fact, the returns under both systems_ were very mixed. Now, the point I wish to make is this: I do not consider comparing figures, one system against the other, is the main point at issue. Giving the public, who keep the game going, what they wa*t, is the vital thing, and after hearing the freely spoken adverse comment at the recent Takapuna meeting on the win and place system, there is not much doubt that the position is still the same as when 00 per cent voted against it at the Franklin Racing Club's meeting last year, and Mr. W. J. Short, secretary of that club, in a statement at the time, said that the voting was a good representation of public opinion. Ihe \iicklancl Racing Club and the Auckland Trotting Club in reverting to the single pool are to be congratulated on being in close touch with public opinion and, acting accordingly. ] EX HORSE OWNER.