THE BOOKMAKER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17662, 24 December 1920, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE BOOKMAKER.

UNDER THE BAN OF THE LAW. Br h. w. segab, m.a., f.n.z. inst. At this racing seascm ire iriav well "fonder if we are to see the end of the bookmaker. Is he to be a creature of the past.' Or will he persist, like the familiar rodent, in spite of all the measures taken, and the traps laid to betray him? It will almost certainly go harder with him, and his gains will n ot be so easily earned, consequent upon the passing of the Gaming Amendment Act, which places the ba n of prohibition at all times and places upon the business of betting. ] t i s not clear whether we hare most to thank for this the moral sense of our legislators, or the desire to destroy rivals to the State gambling machine, which provides such a handsome contribution to the revenue. No doubt it Avas a very tempting poller to transfer business to the totalisator, and at the same time win applause for a great moral reform.

Ihe interchange of goods which results from trade and commerce is of advantage to society. That is why the exchange takes place. Each party to a fair and intelligently exgputgd is 3, gainer; for he receives what he deems of greater value to him than what he parts; with. Even speculation may be and often is of advantage to society. It adds tc? the world s wealth, " just as diverting a stream to work a watermill dpes, for it tends to increase the supply of things where and when they are likely to be most wanted, and to check th<? supply of things where and when they are likely to be in less urgent demaaid." But in gambling it is not so. What one party gains the other loses. And it is the richer that often gains at the expense of the poorer. In the words of Herbert Spencer, " The happiness of the winner involves the misery of the loser; this kind of action is therefore essentially anti-social; it sears the sympathies, cultivates a hard egoism, and so produces a general deterioration of the character and conduct.'" Under favourable conditions, gambling manias have often taken possession of entire peoples, destroying their morality, gravely trespassing on their application to work and business, and producing great distress.

For these apd other reasons We find gambling always condemned by moralists. All, with a due sense of national welfare, must condemn any arrangements whicii specially facilitate, or make it a profitably business to promote gambling, ~a?3 does bookmaking. This much can |>e said in favour of the totalisator—it is not sp oninipresent as the bookmaker and his fcoijts. Nor does it really encourage heavy "it investment." Increase the number of ycair tickets, and, in the event of striking a winner you have lowered your rate of dividend ; for your extra investment has not increased by one penny the money laid against you, that is, o n the other horses. But we must return to the bookmaker. Eow It's Done. The bookmaker bets, but with proper management never loses, in fact always wins. How can it be done"/ Let us consider a race between three horses A, B, and C. Let the real odds against A win: ning be Ito 1; those against B, 2 1; and those against C, sto 1. Ais the ■favourite and C the outsider. The chance of A winning will be 4, that of B will be 3, and that of C will be £. The sum of these three fractions is unity, as it ought to be, as the race must be 'won. If the bookmaker layß those odds on the horses, and secures bgtg involving the> same total in the case of each horse, he will neither 53a nor lqse>. Let him,' for instance, Iky £60 to £60 on A, £80 to £40 against B; and £100 to £20 against C. This involves a total of £120 in the case of each feoi'se. If A wins the book : maker pays out £<50 on acwuiit, qf"*A» but receives £40 and £20 on account of ii and C. If B wiiis, £80 is paid out on account of B, but '£6Q and £20 received on account of A and G. If C wips. £100 is paid out on account of C, but £0u and £40 are received on account of A and B.

But the; .ibpokmaker is not oat to i neither win or Ipse ; but rather to make ! an excellent lif ipg' out of 'his 'occiipation. To make a prpfifc, tjia.t he lias to do is to find' people iviio accept pdds more favourable tQ himself. Let tjim, for instance lay £as'jb £60 on A, £?G to £40 against B'; and £80" to' £2Q against' (J. Whichever horse now wins, the bookmaker makes a profit. He is "on velvet." If A wins, he pays out £55, but receives £40 and £20, making a profit cf £5. If U wins, he pays out £70, but receives £60 and £20, making a profit oi £10. if (J wins, he pays out £80, but receives £60 and £40, making a profit of £20. Small numbers have been used in this illustration for the sake of simplicity. The bookmaker in" real life would deal with much larger sums, leaving much greater profits. ■ The ease with which these profits are made, and the multiplicity of race meetings, account for the great worldly prosperity of the more noted bookmakers. We can see also how the bookmaker is benefited by an outsider like O winning. The odds being greater, and also less closely scrutinised, he ca.n make his odds vary more from the real chances than in the other cases. Successfully ottering £80, instead of £100, to £20 against C, would be as easily achieved as offering £55, instead of £60, to £60 against A; whilst it leads to four times the profit in case of C being successful. Conversely, the success of a favourite dees not as 'well suit the bookmaker. His Advantages. The bookmaker has advantages as compared with his clients. He knows his business. He is a professional. Proctor advised such as thought there was any large chance of an unpractised bettor gaining anything but dearly-bought experience by speculating on horse races " to follow the plan suggested by Thackeray in a similar case—to take a good look at professional and practised betting men, and to decide ' which of those men they are most likely to get the better of' in turf transactions." The clients, against whom the skill of the boo-kmaker is pitted, are often ignori ant. From the odds against the several I horses, to deduce those against two or | three horses, or to calculate the chances I of double or triple events, is probably I quite beyond their knowledge. Their 1 ideas of chance and probability are hazy. ■ They will consequently pay more than a ; chance is really "worth, especially if, as is i frequently the case, they have a great ■ belief in their own luck. In this case I they are not even disposed to inquire too j closely into the real chances. j The bookmaker usually lays the odds, i That is he bets against the horse and does J not back it. This has several advantages, j la particular it is easier to get a client to back a horse than to bet against one. ! He has a fancy, or has had a dream, or ! has been given a tip. He is eager to j make a big profit at a small risk. lo | bet against a hvrse means wagering a ] large sum for only a small possible profit ; The odds often misrepresent the real j chances of a horse. When such is the i case the knowledge of the fact usually I roaches the bookmaker before the pubhc, | probably to his great advantage, and to i the loss of that section of- the public..that | lias dealings with, ha®*