" THE RUIN OF THE TURF IN NEW ZEALAND."

Otago Witness, Issue 1478, 13 March 1880, Page 20

" THE RUIN OF THE TURF IN NEW ZEALAND."

The heading printed above is the title of a well -written and nicely -printed pamphlet addressed principally to those persons who take an interest in horse-racing, and directed against the new betting automaton known as the totalisator. The writer, who adopts the norn de plume "Kosmos," is a contributor to the English Bporting Press, and deals with his subject with such confidence and vigour that his remarks will certainly carry conviction to the minds of a large number of his readers. He summarises his arguments against the totalisator thus : —

"I. Betting is essential to the existence of the turf.

"11. Owners of hor?es can bet only with bookmakers. Totalisatora are of use only to the public. " 111. Bookmakers and the totalisator cannot exist side by side. The ring cannot hope to compe'e with a co-operative betting machine. " IV. If the public deserts the ring in favour of the totalisator, then the fielderb' occupation is gone, aud they nmet close their books. "V. If the fielders disappear, owners cannot buck their bora s.

"VI. If owners cannot back their horses, they certainly will not run thorn for the public profit and amusement. " VII. As soon aa owners cease to run their horspß there ia an end to the turf."

Although we cannot arlmit the force of everything advanced by " Kosmos," we think his pamphlet is well worth reading, especially by these persons who will bet on horseracps, and who think that their chances of profit are greater when dealing with the totalisator than with the bookmaker. ' ' Kosmos " says :— "A general but very erroneous impression pro-

vails concerning the ' long odds ' afforded by the totalisator. Suppose that 60 persons invest on a race, and that 20 men back the winning horse, 19 out of the 20 (if not the whole lot) run away with the idea that they have won at the rate of three to one, on the principle that three times 20 are 60. They quite forget that L 2 of what they each receive is not profit at all, but merely tlie original stake returned. Commission reduces the amount each receives to L 5 83, of which but L 383 is clear profit. Thus what they too hastily regard as a three to one chance is in reality only at the rate of one and seven tenths to one I And there iB the additional aggravation of having to pay commission on their original stake as well as on their winnings. This^ is a most important matter, as the totalisator owes it 3 popularity entirely to the long prices it is supposed to give. And this palpable fraud seems hitherto to have entirely escaped notice. The results claimed for the totalisator have been obviously exaggerated to nearly two points beyond their real merits. A bookmaker's 3 to 1 mean a that you receive, if you win, three times your stake, clear. The machine's 3 to 1 means that you receive, if you win, one and seven-tentlis times your stake. I>«% not this a gross fraud on the public intelligence ?" There are many persons who have a deep rooted and perhaps conscientious objection to all amusements included under the generic term "sport," who would hail with delight the advent of the totalisator, if, like "Kosmos," convinced that it would " improve " racing off the face of the earth. There are many more persons who would be sorry to see the turf injured or the existence of a national sport endangered ', and there is, of course, a great deal to be said on both sides of the question, That there is room for a great deal of improvement in horse-racing and its surroundings, is a proposition that few will oppose ; but after all it may be better to " bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of."