UNIQUE BETTING PROBLEM.

NZ Truth, Issue 150, 2 May 1908, Page 2

UNIQUE BETTING PROBLEM.

Views of " Truth " Readers.

Shoals of Replies.

Under the above heading particulars of a bettings-tangle that took place at the recent' Burrumbeet (Vie) races were published m last week's "Truth," with an invitation to readers to suggest a way out of the difficulty, We have received quite a number of replies from different parts of the. Dominion, hut 'singularly enough, while many of our correspondents declare the thing to be "dead easy," their sanswers vary considerably, and m some cases are as wide apart as the two Poles.

It would be too much of an undertaking to set out the views of all' our correspondents m detail, even supposing that we had the space at our disposal $o do so, but the letters of "Sport," "Old Sport," "Subscriber," and "Spreader,"

SELECTED PROM 'THE BUNCH, and published hereunder, will give some idea of the replies, as a whole. "Sport" especially has gone very fully into the matter, and he is one of a dozen who writes that ''the thing is as clear as daylight." Briefly put, for the benefit of those who may not have studied the question as published last week, the position was. this : — ,

A backer took from a bookmaker 30s to. 20s. The Sailor for the Hurdle Race receiving a ticket for 50s. The Sailor is beaten by Master Jack, against whom a' protest is entered. The bookmaker takes 2 to 1 on the protest, and the backer putting m his 60s The Sailor ticket, together, with 10s m cash, lays £3 to 30s on Master Jack, receiving a fresh ticket for £4 10s. The protest is dismissed, but notice of appeal is given, ?ind the bookmaker announces his willingness to divide. The backer agrees to the division, and handing m his £4 10s Master Jack ticket, receives £2 ss.

WAS THE BACKER OVERPAID, and if so, where did the mistake arise, and how much was he overpaid ? Sir,— ln this week's edition of "Truth" among your sporting notes, I saw wbero you presented your readers with- a rather unique betting problem and also invite them to try and solve it. Well, my opinion, is that the bookmaker m question paid the backer £1 2s Gd too much, and the way I figure it out is this : First of all we have to find out how much money | the backer has given the bookmaker, and the answer is £1 10s,' made up as follows : £1 being invested on The Sailor m the first bet and 10s over the protest. It is over the protest that the mistake is made, beoause the bookmaker m accepting a £3 to 30s bet at odds of 2 to 1 on took a £2 10s ticket and 10s. cash:- Now, as this £2 10s was not won as there is a protest over the matter, "the bookmaker -is accepting 30s of his own money. The backer cannot claim £2 10s, because he has not as yet won it as The Sailor got beaten and i! he were to cry the bet off all he could claim would be £1 of his own money. So that it is only £1 he is entitled to on the ticket 'and this pound along with another ten shillings of his own makes £1 10s, and the odds being 2to 1 on, it is a£l 10s to 15s bet, and the half of £2 5s is £1 2s 6d. Therefore, I consider that the backer . received £1 2s 6d ioo much. If The Sailor had won the race first it would have been correct, but as The Sailor got beaten the backer cannot claim £2 10s. So that the bookmaker is m reality only holding £1 until he gives him another 10s when he •makes the second bet. ' But I cannot understand the. bookmaker letting a man lay him 30s of his own mpney (the Bookie's) . To get at it easier, after the first race you have pnly to cry the bet off when the ■Sailor gets beaten and the protest is entered. The bookmaker gives the backer back his pound and he' puts another half sovereign to that pound and then bets 80s at the rate of 2to lon, 30s to 1.55, £2 5s altogether, and this haired amounts to £1 2s 6d, and that is what the punter should have got instead of £2 sa. It is as clear as mud.— l am, etc., SPORT.

"Old SporV' argues .m a -different strain and says the backer received £1 17s '6d too much. Here is his letter :

Sir,— ln yesterday's issue of "Truth" you ask your sporting readers to solv« The Sailor-Master Jack problem. Backer takes 30s to 20? The Sailor, receives

ticket for 50s. Master Jack wins with I The Sailor second. Protest against Master Jack. Backer of The Sailor hands the 50s ticket with 10s cash to bookmaker, who is taking 2 to" 1 on protest, and lays the bookmaker £3 to &l 10s and receives a£4 10s ticket. Protest dismissed. Book wishes to settle on course, and agrees to divide with backer, who receives £2 ss. Bookmaker says he gave, him too much and cannot explain. Both m a fog. When Master Jack won The Sailor's 50s ticket was of no value as it was the ticket of a beaten horse. Backer really laid 10 to 5 or 15 if Master Jack won and should get 7s Gd. Consequently he receives from bookmaker £1 17s 6d too much,— l anj, etc., OLD SPORT.

"Subscriber" thus attempts a solution : —"The backer was overpaid. Instead of receivine; £2 5s lie should have p*id the, bookmaker 5s to square his liability. The mistake arose through the bookmaker taking the 50s Sailor ticket as part payment of the Master Jack wager, if the backer had given three pounds m cash he would' have lost 15s over the transaction, but as he only put m 10s (he was the gainer of £1 15s, so therefore he was overpaid £2 18s."

"Spreader" is a valuable correspondent to these columns, and his almost weekly contribution on sporting matters is always full of interest. His latest this week touches on the Victorian Racing problem, and on that subject he has the following to say :—

The senior wrangler at Oxford University would have looked with envious eyes, at the writer's .first solution of that in-teresting-problem m mathematics. Sixteen sheets of foolscap,? covered with Algebra, Euclid, and Barnard SniitU's-iPet bobby brought the question to the. same heading, "As it was m the beginning."; The technical point as to what amount each should have drawn under the circunv stances depends entirely upon circumstances of the flimsiest. The bookmaker showed such a want of common sense m taking the 50s ticket at face value, as pact and parcel of the first bet, that any old foolish thing he did at the finish of the transaction is not worth considering or :lpsing any sleep over. The backer should "undoubtedly have had the bag on ; it would have seemed more natural. Perhaps m Victoria the Books work things • different to the way they do m ;New. , Zealand ;■■ "a bit to nothing is such a raro thing to be obtained from the leather-' lunged gentleman m this country- that; there would be danger if an intelligent man with a weak v heart stumbled across it. Had this philanthropic tommy (small t) shown any ordinary horse or' raceCourse sense, he would have cancelled the wager at. the last lap and given the guileless bagman his thirty bob back again, The thing that strikes, one most, m ttark r ing the whole joke into consideration, is iyjw the book came to give the, bearer of the brief "only" £2 5s ? There should have been all sorts of possibilities m a man of such devil-may-care ways. In cases of this kind all contingencies likely to arise should be carefully weighed by both parties about to contract. . In the present case it might have been conjectured what would the backer have done had the book dropped dead, or what would the book have . done had the backer laid half the 50s off on The Sailor and lost 5s of the other half he'd never collected, and backed a double with the odd quid ? ; Which was scratched before the nominations appeared? Or, well, to make ,a long story short, what would each have done, had the two horses run a dead heat and m running it off both bolted off the course, or—? (the problem wins easy).