THE TOTALISATORS AT RICCARTON.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9438, 9 June 1896, Page 2

THE TOTALISATORS AT RICCARTON.

To the Editor. Sir, —In a leading article of last week you refer to the Chairman's statement re the working of the totalisators at Riccarton, and you say :—" The Chairman's remarks on this head at the annual meeting do not, however, appear to be altogether agreed with, if we are to judge by the amount of correspondence that has taken place in the daily papers. The only correspondence I hare seen on the subject is a letter signed * A Member of the C.J.C. , in the Press of 23rd inst., and on the following Monday, in both the Press and Times, another anonymously signed letter. As iiio latter two were obviously written by the same person, your suggestion re the correspondence borders a little on exaggeration to say the least of it. You also go on to say in your leader ' It is held by some that the odds are much mor,e easily ascertained at other centres than is the case at Riccarton. This is the only phase of the C.J.C's machines that backers find fault with, and we by no means agree, that in this respect the totalisators at Riccarton are yet perfect.'" If you wiil afford mc the space, I will try and prove to you that, even if it were possible for a person to see the odds he i is getting when backing a horse, the information is of no value to him, on account of the investments continually altering the odd 3. The most important item in the success of working the totalisators is, that the public should have absolute confidence in those who are employed in the management and working of the machines ; and I presume, Sir you will agree with mc, that .this confidence is not likely to be misplaced when the machines are worked under the control of the club's officers, as it is in our case. While on this subject, it may be of some interest to your readers to know something of the system I introduced two years ago. In the first place, I am very particular in only engaging men whose character is absolutely vouched for by their einployera. Each man employed in receiving or paying cash is of course responsible for it, but every man's work is checked by other officers, and the accounts as a whole are re-checked by the accountant, and finally audited by myself at the conclusion of each meeting. No tickets can be issued after the windows close, aud no ticket is issued or paid but what I can tell at a glance who issued or paid it. Now as to the question of odds. It is apparent, whether you have automatic machines or not, that the odds on any horee at a given time before investments cease, are of little or no value. You may have seen that the odds on a particular horso were 10 to 1 on the macliiue, and rushed to a window to procure a ticket, but on your return it is quite likely, say in the space of a minute, that the odds were either reduced to 5 to 1 or increased to 15 to 1; the man in front of, or following you, may have pub sufficient on to reduce it, or the backing of other horses increase it. You must confess that no automatic machine in the world could alter that. With ten or twelve horses in a race we can, and do, show the investments on each hor3e, and the total within one minute of the investment being made ; in cases of favorites it is less, as we take calculations on favourites twice to the outsiders' once. The totals are always complete (with the exception of very large fields) within one and a half minutes of the ringing of tho starting bell. It is really only in the cases of four, and sometimes five, furlong races, that the totals are not complete bsfore'the public return from witnessing the race. An automatic machine, even if it had none of the objections I allude to below, could do very little better than this. Now for automatic machines. I confess that before I undertook the practical management of totalisator working, I was imbued with the idea that an automatic machine wa3 an absolute necessity for the successful working, but I found out my mistake right at the beginning of my experience. There are three objections, two of which are fatal. The first is the expense, and as you have alluded to Mr Macdonald's machine in a leader of the same issue, I may be pardoned for addressing my remarks to his machine, although it would apply to others. lam hot sufficiently a mechanic to say that Mr Macdonald's would be a success or failure '• I have only seen a rough model, and I inoline to the former, bat I doubt very much whether Mr Macdonald, or any one else, could build an absolutely automatic machine for twenty-four horses with figures of sin by 3£in and 6in by 4in totals with connections to twelre windows, for £1000, or anything like the amount. When you compare the cost of such a machine with the one I introduced, I think the richest clubs would hesitate on that account only, leaving out the fact that such complicated machinery would require great care and expert supervision. The whole of the machinery and plant necessary for working under my system, for a club turning over much the same as ours, can be supplied for about £500, with a subsequent ., annual expenditure of abont £30. The other two objections which I consider fatal to automatic 'working are, first, the mistakes made by the public or the clerks at the windows, which in an automatic machine could not be rectified while the machineVas working. It may be newe to you, sir, that thei'e is seldom a race takes place at Riccarton, but that at least a dozen tickets have not to be replaced in the racks j owing to persons asking for the wrong number of the horse they wish to back. This doe 3 not, of course, apply only to £1 tickets, as in one case I remember twenty-five tickets being asked for at the £5 window;- the purchaser before leaving the window found that it was not the horse he wanted to back and the tickets were exchanged. We had conclusive proof that the purchaser was in the wrong, but there was no time to argue. With an automatic machine, this would not be possible; the correction could only be made after the windows were closed, which would be bound to create dissatisfaction with the public. The second objection, to my mind, is the most fatal. From what I can gather Mr Macdonald's machine will not issue more than one ticket at a time. Now, sir. it is a notorious fact that at least 70%0f themvestments are made in the last ten minutes before starting the race. Owners and backers may have a good reason for leaving it so late, but I have not yet fathomed ife. However, it is so; and therefore it is necessary that the greatest possible work shall be done in the shortest possible time. Taking the inside machine on the last New Zealand Cup, the sum of £3365 wa* invested. I have proved that, with my smartest hands, thirty tickets a minute at high pressure is as fast as the work can be done; this would ind&a for six window* £1300 worth of

tickets sold iv ten minutes, but we sold nearer £2800 worth, and the reason of this is, that, although the same average of tickets was sold at tho £5 window, the value was £1400 as against £400. I can sell £100 worth of tickets an>\ get them on to the total in half a minute : an automatic machine could not do it untlei , three and a-half minutes. I can assure you that at least £500 of the investments at tho £5 window in tho raco mentioned was put on in the last five minutes prior to the start. An automabio machine wotild take over a quarter of an hour to do the same work, and the numbers would be going on, probablythe winner, eight minutes attar the ra.ee was over. How does it strike you the public would stand that ? No, sir, all the public ask for is that the working of the machines shall be in reliable hands, and that they should know their odds and receive their dividends in reasonably quick timo. My whole object has been to attain those ends, and although, as the chairman put it, the working may not be perfect, I have bsen tokl both by critics and friends, that I have fairly succeeded. If you or an}' of your correspondents can suggest any practical improvement in my working, I am not too proud to take advantage of the suggestions,—l am, &c, W. H. E. Secretary Canterbury Jockey Club.