THE BETTING SYSTEM

Taranaki Daily News, 18 December 1933, Page 12

THE BETTING SYSTEM

SOME CLUBS CHANCE MINDS RESULT OF WOODVILLE VOTE. SUCCESS OF CHANGE IN TARANAKI.

(By

“Childers.”)

The wide range of opinions held by followers of racing on the merits of the “win and place” system of betting is receiving plenty of publicity at present, and is placing many of the clubs holding meetings shortly in somewhat of a dilemma as to which method might be adopted with most success. Since being inaugurated almost a year ago now, the “win and place” tote has been wonderfully successful and until about a month ago has been remarkably popular. Since then however there has been a surprising number of persons expressing adverse opinions against this system, culminating in the taking of a vote on the matter by the Woodville Jockey Club at the meeting on Saturday. The result of the polling, an easy victory for the dissenters, was rather unexpected and was greeted by some enthusiasts as a fore-runner to a general change, but judging from the results of the second, day it is unlikely that this will take place for some time at least. Paying three dividends on a basis of 70 per cent first, 20 per cent second and 10 per cent third, the totalisator returns for the second day at Woodville showed an increase of approximately 39.5 per cent, compared with the corresponding day last year. On the first day the win and place” tote registered an increase of 39.8 per cent, but the slight difference in these percentages would no& warrant a change in the systems. It was regarding the dividends on the second day that complaints arose, and even the staunchest advocate of the “three dividends" could not consider that its prices compared favourably with those yf the opening day. They undoubtedly did not and the fact that on two or three occasions investors received less than their money back on horses filling minor places will not find favour with the public. As the New Brighton Trotting Club, the other body last week to abandon the “win and place,” met with a decreased turnover, when practically every other club has experienced substantial increases, there seems to be very little hope of the “three dividend” pool replacing the present method. However, the voting at Woodville clearly showed that the “win and place” is not as popular as was previously supposed, and it will come as no surprise to find a few of the clubs reverting to the “first and second dividend only” system during the next month or so. Until this happens it is unlikely that the discussion will be definitely settled, but the use of the old method once or twice should clear the air.

EXAMPLES IN TARANAKI. Recently there have been many grievances expressed against the “win and place," and while the very weight of opinions against it proves that they are not all “hot air,” many of the points mooted seem to have little to uphold them. Time after time the statement has been made that the general upward trend rather than the new system was responsible for the turning of the comer by New Zealand racing last season. To a certain extent perhaps this was the case, but the successful meetings of the New Plymouth and Stratford clubs using the new system for the first time, compared with the more or less unsuccessful fixtures of a host of other clubs racing on the same dates with the old style totes, proves what a tremendous fillip the “win and place” gave to the sport. Others admit this point only to say that, like a child with a new toy, it was more the capricious nature of the New Zealand racing public than advantages of the system to which the “win and place” owes its swing into favour, and that once we became more accustomed to it the same results will not be obtainable. It is hard to see this line of reasoning, for there seems little doubt that as the public becomes more familiar with the system, it will overcome its former natural hesitancy about wagering with a slightly hazy knowledge of proceedings, and lodge bets with considerably more confidence, now that it is fully acquainted with the working of the system. The necessity of betting both ways appears to be by far the most prevalent argument against the “win and place,” it being stated that a backer has to risk double the amount that he usually wagered before. For the large and moderate bettors there seems for no necessity to do this as by splitting his usual bet and placing half on each way he will obtain practically the same results as formerly. Of course the extra amount extracted for the share of the third horse in the place pool will make the dividend a trifle smaller, but the majority of people are quite willing to forego this amount as they have a chance of receiving compensation in the event of their horse running third, that was hitherto denied them under the old style of betting. The main disadvantage is that of the small bettor who .is forced by investing each way to risk more money than he really desires. As a large proportion of racegoers belong to that class it seems that when this objection is overcome the “win and place” will have many more supporters. The likely solution of the trouble, seems, to be for clubs to reduce their betting units, and it is difficult to understand why they have not done so. In introducing the five shilling tote the Taranaki Jockey Club realised the necessity of catering for the small fry and is to be commended for giving a lead that most clubs could follow to the satisfaction of all concerned. While the “win and place” may be dropped temporarily by some of the clubs there appears little likelihood of it being completely abolished. The three dividend system does not offer nearly as much scope to investors, while once having received dividends from the third horses, few people can be found likely to desire a change back to first and second dividends only. The great advantage the “win and place” has over the other systems is that it can be made to suit the requirements of everybody. The more venturesome may use the straight-out machine alone; the medium sized supporter may invest on his choice each way, and the small bettor, unwilling to take a risk, can back for a place only.