BETTING SYSTEM DISCUSSED

Evening Star, Issue 21639, 7 February 1934, Page 2

BETTING SYSTEM DISCUSSED

The all-important question regarding winners having been satisfactorily settled, the still more important question as to how to back them naturally crops up, and in reply to inquiries made by “ St. Clair ” during the past few days a number of opinions have been received, from which he has selected the following ; The President’s Opinion. At present my opinion is the system to be in use to-morrow and Saturday afternoons —i.e., “ win and place,” is the best from every point of view, but when it has been tried out long enough to enable comparisons to be made between meetings this year and corresponding meetings lust year I shall be prepared to reconsider the opinion I have now expressed. A. C. HANLON, President. Mr L. C. Hazlett’s Views. I am of opinion that the present system, “ win and a place,” is preferable to the previous two-dividend one, but think that straight-out “ win,” conjointly with “ place with two dividends ”—75 per cent, and 25 percent.—would be the best system. Three dividends are apt to divide up the money into too small portions. _ A number of speculators —including many owners who place considerable sums on the totalisator —like to have the opportunity of betting for a straight-out win. L. C. HAZLETT, Vice-president. Mr J. M. Samson Favours W. and P. I certainly think the “ win and place ” system is tho only one t hat racing and trotting dubs can carry on successfully under. So far as tho general public, and small bettors are concerned it is much better than ihe old system. As far as those big owners, who do most of their betting with bookmakers are concerned, they preier tho 75 per cent, and 25 per cent, system because if the horse they have backed fails to win, but runs second, they get some of their money back. Bookmakers will not bet under the “ win and place ” system, as they have to pay out oh four horses, and allege that under this system they cannot make the game pay. Since the “ win and place ” system was first installed in the dominion, a little over a year ago, there have been only three instances where a placed “ red hot ” favourite has failed to return the amount of the original investment on tho “ place ”

totalisator. Ladies and small bettors lilie this system as they have throe chances of'backing a dividend payer and are .always pleased to.be a winner no matter how small their profit may be. The real opposition to the “ win and place ” system comes from those owners who want to hack their horses with bookmakers, the bookmakers who will only bet on the 75 per cent, and 25 per cent, basis, and the totalisator contractors who arc put to a lot ol extra expense, which is not covered by the small extra commission they are paid. J. M. SAMSON.

A Big Owner Speaks. Your question is a vital one to the sport at the present time. The “ win and place ” totalisator has unquestionably made good in Sydney and Mel-

bourne, but in those two cities there arc racing populations that would make any system a success. If we could have pools'of, say, £5,000 on each machine each race the system would be a huge success even at W ingatni, but - with limited hotting on the lotnlisaor many owners are tempted to place their bets where their investments do not reduce their dividend. OWNER OF SIX. How a Trainer Views the Matter. “ I am not a bettor myself, hut both of the owners I train for generally back their horses for £5, £lO, or £2O when.l tell them I think they have a chance. If either puts £lO on under the “ win and place” system they have to split their bet, £5 to win and £5 for a place.

This does not appeal to them, and they would rather invest the £lO on a totalisator that would give them ‘75 per cent, if their horse wins and 25 per cent, if placed second.” ' LICENSED Til AIN Ell. A Ten-shilling Punter’s Ideas. “ The ‘ win and place ’ totalisator has cost me nearly £IOO since the Dunedin Jockey Club installed the system just a year ago. Place dividends do not appeal to me, and thirteen consecutive bets 1 made on the 1 win ' machine were on horses that finished second. Two of 'these would have paid over a tenner a piece for second had the dividends been computed on the 75 per cent, and 25 per cent, basis. Give me the old system every time.” TEN 808.

A Lady’s Opinion. “ Your inquiry as to which system of betting 1 prefer seems to mo a silly one to ask. I don’t care whether it is 1 win ’ or ‘ place ’ so long as 1 get a dividend. But 1 do hope (he chib makes enough money to put a roof ou the grand stand before the June mcet‘"g' VICTORIA ROAD. An Unemployed Gives His Opinion. ■‘.lt is now three years since 1 have had am- money to invest on the totalisator, 'so from a betting point of view I have no opinion to express. Since the ‘ win and place ’ system came into vogue Mr James has had to employ more hands, and, with three others who, like myself, are dependent on casual jobs and Air Coates’s dole, I

have had fifteen clays’ employment at big wages in the totalisator. We are glad that the chib has decided to retain the ‘ win and place ’ system.” NOT AN OVAL ORATOR. The “ Grouser ” Growls. When the ‘‘ win. and place ” betting system wa's first ioisted on to an impotent racing public it was assumed that it was in the nature of an experiment. Now that a very short trial has conclusively demonstrated that it was an extremely ill-advised experiment, what are the racing authorities going to do about it? It is about time they stirred themselves from their inertia and restored the old system, which is both popular and sensible. The two irrefutable arguments against this present iniquitous

system arc quite obvious—it minimises the chance ol ; securing a win one way and minimises the dividend the other—and achieves no purpose except in pandering to a lew women who should be attending to their domestic duties and not squandering their one and three polices on a racecourse. DISCIIUNTLED PUNTER. The Secretary’s Figures, In reply to your inquiry as to my \ieu.s on the respective systems of hotting, I, would like to state that 1 have an open mind on the question. I realise that wo must cater lor what the public wants, but in view of the great success which attended the adoption of the “ win and [dace ” machine I cannot feel that the present agitation to revert to the old system truly reflects public opinion, in Dunedin. Wo

installed the “ win and place ” machine at the Cup Meeting last year and continued that system of betting throughout the year. Every meeting showed an increase on the previous year and of the total sum invested on the two machines 51 per cent, was on the place machine and 49 per cent, on the win machine Right throughout New Zealand the majority of bettors leave their investments until the last minute hoping to hear something straight from the “ horse’s mouth.” Jt is probably then too late to back a horse both ways and if the “good thine” runs second the> “ win and place ” system is condemned. Talking about so-called “ good things,” how many of them win? An argument used against place betting is that the dividends are too small. 1 have taken out the place dividends for the whole period during which tlic “ win and place ” system has been in operation at Wingatui, and the average place dividend works out at £2 10s. Go to the races and see if you can find anyone willing to lay you a £2 10s dividend that you can’t pick first, second, or third. The place totalisator paid that figure at Wingatui for the whole year. The average win dividend for the year at Wingatui was £7 9s. Since the win and place system was inaugurated there lias been only three occasions in New Zealand on which place dividends have been less than £l, and 1 understand the dividend in each case was 19s 6d. As I said before, the patrons as a whole are the ones to satisfy, and if future meetings clearly show that the win and place system is not wanted then it will scrap itself. Until that happens, and in view of the apparent success of the present system, 1 personally am in favour of win and place betting. L. G. HILL. " St. Clair’s ” Opinion. I am sorry that space does not permit more of the opinions to be published, and I am indebted to Mr L. G. Hill for quoting the statistics relating to dividends at Wingatui. Personally, I do not think it would matter what system of wagering clubs adopted if all the owners in the dominion would confine their wagering to the totalisator. Every £IOO invested on the totalisator would moan about £7 added to every £IOO of the stakes given, and if owners only wagered through the legitimate channels stakes would quickly be restored to the 1929 standard. ' ST. CLAIR.