Part 8

In the first place, there is what is termed the “law of averages,” by which the backer’s chances to win are for ever against him; that is to say, in nearly every race there are a large number of horses running, otherwise the races are termed non-betting races. Now you back one horse out of say seven or eight running, thus you have at once six or seven chances against your winning. Look how very greatly this works out against the backer when larger numbers of horses are in the race—say 10, 15, 20, and even 30. You back one horse to win, so there are 9, 14, 19, and 29 absolute chances against you, and so on. Never mind about the favourites, the complete outsiders, and so on, there are (and there is no mistake about it) so many absolute chances against your winning, and of course on the other hand so many chances in favour of the bookmaker. But! but! but! listen! ye deluded, cocksure backers! The law of averages against you is nothing to be compared to other and far greater chances against you. I had already written, explained, and set out a number of them, but a newspaper correspondent has very thoughtfully and very carefully embodied them, or some of them, together with others, in a capital letter which appeared in the _Sun_ newspaper one September, and I cannot do better than set them out. The _Sun_ has recently permitted a public debate in its columns upon “Is Betting a Sin?” The debate by correspondence has been most interesting. The religious element, of course, dominated with silly arguments, and in so doing “forgot the subject altogether,” whilst on the other hand many letters were strictly to the point, were eye-openers, and logical. The result was announced by the editor, who decided that “he would give it up,” _i.e._ the correspondence compelled him to say that he could not say whether betting was a sin or not. My candid opinion is that certainly “betting is not a sin,” but I _tell you what_ it is, it is a pernicious and fascinating vice of the worst kind, and is intimately connected with if not the direct cause of the worst kind of various sins. However, more of this anon. Now to give the letter referred to; it is as follows:—

ODDS AGAINST THE BACKER

Sir—I do not profess to enter into the pro or con of this vital question, which is increasing in force and imperativeness with each succeeding year. But to those of your readers—and I fear they are greatly in the majority—who, in spite of experience, fondly believe that it is possible to make money by backing horses, I append a list of 22 chances against the backer in every race that is run.

1. The regular percentage of odds, ranging from 2 to 1 up to 20 against one in every race. There can be only one winner.

2. The horse may be fit and capable of winning, but not “wanted.”

3. “Wanted” by the owner, not “wanted” by the trainer.

4. “Wanted” by owner and trainer, not “wanted” by the jockey, who has his money on another runner.

5. Owner, trainer, or jockey in debt to a bookmaker. In either of these three cases the horse runs to suit the layer’s book, irrespective of the backer.

6. Horse tried to be a certainty—money on. Something wrong with trial horse. All calculations upset. Again the backer loses.

7. Race lost by a bad start.

8. Long delay under a hot sun. Horse irritable, nervous, wears himself out at the post.

9. Some fractious brute who has no place out of a selling race kicks the “certainty” at the post.

10. Jockey disobeys orders, and throws the race away, or goes to sleep.

11. Tiny light weight, caught by steel-knit veteran, fails through weakness. More grist to the bookmaker.

12. A lends B his best trial horse—say Bluebottle—to try Broomstick. Result of trial makes the race a good thing for Broomstick, but a still better thing for A’s old sprinter, Juggler, who has got in with a light weight. A quietly works a starting price job all over the country, and with Juggler just nips Broomstick on the post.

13. Brown lends his crack jockey to ride Jones’s Malaprop, and price shortens. Brown’s money is probably on Gay Deceiver. Jockey obeys orders, and rides Malaprop in Gay Deceiver’s interest.

14. Horse certain to win. Stable forestalled at the last moment. Jockey honest. No help for it. Give the colt a nice refreshing drink of water before the start.

15. Everything lovely. Mount winning easily, when he stumbles and nearly comes down.

16. Jockey makes his effort too late.

17. Jockey secretly owner of horse, other than his mount, running in the same race.

18. Short sprint. Bad draw for position extinguishes chance.

19. Public back the favourite. Stable wins with outsider. See Dieudonne and Jeddah.

20. Crowding at a turn. Jockey hopelessly shut in.

21. Jockey skilfully shuts himself in. “Couldn’t get through, sir.”

22. Horse knocked out of his stride by a cannon during the race.

A famous trainer of the old school said, “I have been in this business through a long life; there is little that anybody can teach me in training. I can do all things in this world with a horse except—be inside him.”

SCEPTIC.

What a splendid letter this is! How true indeed are the 22 reasons! What thought each one gives to the backer if he is a sensible man and will but think over them. How we bookies know full well the absolute truth of them, as do also the jocks, trainers, and owners. We have referred in conversation to the _Sun_ correspondence. What care we for it? It won’t stop the fascinated backer. No fear; we persuade ourselves that nothing will stop him except “running the length of his tether.”

It is almost amusing to read in the newspapers the excuses given by the “Racing Prophets” for the predicted horses “not pulling it off.” Almost daily you will find some of the above reasons given. I have just picked up the _Daily Mail_. Racing at Nottingham is described as “an unsatisfactory affair.” For whom? The bookmakers? Certainly not. For whom then? Why, the backers of course. Then comes the usual and oft-told excuses—amongst others—why such and such a horse did _not_ win, as follows:—

_Excuse No. 1._—“The well-backed Shot Gun ... threw no resolution into his work.”

_Excuse No. 2._—“Eileen Violet too ... ran a snatchy race throughout.”

_Excuse No. 3._—“Reminiscence having missed a race at Newmarket through the imprudence of her jockey in leaving off riding too soon, she yesterday, when heavily backed to square matters, had her chance entirely destroyed by the falling of Lady St. George.”

_Excuse No. 4._—“The Bestwood Nursery ... demonstrated how fluky was the victory of the Asteria Filly at Newmarket.”

The above are cuttings from one paper only—we get such excuses to “soothe the backer” almost every day in one paper or another. In a case reported in the _Daily Telegraph_, the judge of the Clerkenwell County Court made this remark:—

I don’t profess to be any authority on horse-racing, but I know it depends upon what the odds are and what the jockeys have been paid as to which horse wins. (Laughter.)

I guess that judge knows more about racing than he would wish us to believe.

What is the impecunious backer? Why, a fool of the first order. A fascinated idiot. A sharp, flat, and very often a thief, _i.e._ he steals other people’s money in order to “put it on.” If the above cogent reasons and facts won’t decide him to stop backing, then nothing will, except ruin. Let him carefully think over all I have said. Let him think over his own experience—that’s the thing. Has he made money at backing horses? I mean, in the long run. How much has he lost? That’s the point; let him ask himself the question.

The backer of horses, as a rule, takes to it as a business by which to make money, as in every other business. Every business and profession (for a master man at any rate) is a speculation. Betting is a business, but a speculative and, I should say, the most speculative kind of business there is. There is nothing wrong or sinful in betting. But it is a business so very speculative, so very much against the backer, that, as I hope I have proved, it is a fool’s game, and for business considerations only it is best left alone.

In addition, however, to the reasons before set out, why the backing of horses never will pay any one (let “the sportsman” be never so clever and cunning), there are in addition other and more potent reasons of force. Yes! forcible reasons why the _respectable_ person should not meddle with it, at least, until the greatest reforms have taken place.

Look, for instance, at the class and character of those regularly participating and taking part in betting pursuits and attending race meetings. Think for a moment who and what the majority are. I advisedly say the majority, and I wish to emphasise it. Ask the police; ask the railway people; ask any one who has to come in contact with them. Betting and the race meetings collect together huge assemblies of the lowest and vilest scoundrels on earth—thieves, cheats, ruffians, highwaymen, vagabonds, returned convicts, castaways, ne’er-do-wells, welshers, card-sharpers, tricksters, foul-mouthed quadrupeds, villains, and the worst form of humanity that it is possible to get together—many of them superbly clothed and well dressed—all, all, in some way or other preying upon the thousands upon thousands of the fools of backers in one way or another. This is truth; deny it who can! Can any one name an attraction that draws together one-tenth of this scum of the earth? No; we all know it. Don’t let me be misunderstood, for goodness’ sake! I am not inferring that all who attend race meetings are to be classed in the above frightful category. Certainly not. We have the very best people—the most respectable, the politest of persons, from the highest in the land to the lowliest—in their thousands also; but I should say that for every respectable person there are fifty otherwise.

Every decent sportsman will, I am sure, corroborate my remarks and join me in protesting against the apathy that exists in not clearing the race meetings of the human filth and vile scum and villainy that they now attract. Every respectable bookmaker desires it, for he is a great sufferer in consequence. He goes about in fear and trembling; he has always to be on the alert against assault and robbery; he has to pay heavy expenses to protect himself, and, above all, his occupation is universally condemned by “society in general” (I mean by those who do not enter into sporting matters) as a low, detestable one, and he is looked upon as a doubtful character, as a pest to society, principally through the doings of the army of scamps I have referred to. A respectable bookmaker sees a welshing job going on—a downright robbery taking place. He sees welshing in its various forms; he would like to expose it and the parties taking part in it, but he positively cannot do so. He must silently acquiesce; he must not on any account open his mouth, or—or what? Why, his life would not be worth two penn’orth of cold gin, as the saying goes.

“Yes,” you say, “how can all this be altered? What is the remedy? Tell the Royal Commission now sitting and inquiring into this subject. They will thank you!” Well, I will answer these questions simply and at once.

1. You must make every race meeting “a place,” and abolish betting there as it is now openly carried on.

NOTE.—The law as it at present stands is an absurdity. If it is illegal to bet in a house or street, it should be just as illegal to bet at a race meeting or elsewhere. Such a simple alteration of the law would at once sweep away much of the human filth, and be of inestimable benefit to the honourable bookmaker proper. There is no mistake about it; it must be done if the present awful state of affairs is to be done away with.

2. Betting you will never stop; but it can be controlled for the benefit of the community at large, and so you must license the bookmaker. In so doing you must not give a license to any one who thinks fit to apply for one—such as an auctioneer gets his license, or a person keeping a horse or dog gets his. No! no! no! The licensed bookmaker must be a highly respectable man—never been in trouble; and he should be required to deposit in Somerset House or some other Government place a sum of money—say £500 or £1000—to prove his responsibility, which should be attachable for any proved unpaid claim against him. The licensed bookmaker should then be permitted to make bets on the race-course only. His license should be subject to revocation for misconduct.

3. All bets should be in writing, or rather tickets should be given similar to a pawnbroker’s way of doing business, and amounts due to either party should be recoverable at law.

NOTE.—The suggestions 2 and 3 would, I believe, positively abolish welshing: would be welcomed by all honourable sportsmen, and, above all, would positively purify the various race-courses, and put a permanent stop to the hundred and one forms of abused and nefarious betting which now are rampant throughout the land.

4. A law should be made abolishing clubs, or offices, or houses kept by starting-price bookmakers; and it should be illegal to carry on a betting business either personally, by letter, or by telegram, except on a race-course by a duly licensed bookmaker.

NOTE.—My brother bookies will open their eyes in abject astonishment at this suggestion, and all kinds of awful anathemas will be heaped upon my poor old anonymous noddle, quite unnecessarily and too soon, for they would soon see that such a step would be to their benefit. Again, be it observed, that unless betting is to be absolutely abolished altogether, the small sportsman, with the harpy, the welshers, and the villains, must be got rid of to make betting a respectable business, and to rid it for ever of the fearful and deserved disrepute that now surrounds it. Well, do away with the stay-at-home S.P. bookmaker, and there is the remedy! All good S.P. men can as well carry on their business at a race meeting as at home; and if they cannot—well, turn it up! Starting-price bookies are the great sinners with the small backer; it is with them that the workman, the clerk, the shopman, the small tradesman—to sum up, the impecunious backer, all go or do business with, and it is principally and mainly with them that the betting is done; it is they who foster small betting, and thus indirectly are the cause of nearly all the disrepute which hangs around betting revealed from time to time in the police courts and in other ways. Abolish the stay-at-home S.P. bookmaker, with clubs, his offices and houses, and the very greatest blessing will at once be conferred upon the bookmakers generally, and upon the community at large. It is positively astounding to think of the thousands of S.P. bookmakers—large and small—mostly small, miserable, moneyless beings, scattered all over the country everywhere; these are the men who do the business with the men and persons who have not the means to and certainly have no right to bet. Do away with this business, and the atmosphere will be enormously cleared.

5. Now something must be said about the newspapers, for they are very great sinners in encouraging small betting. I am, however, more particularly concerned about the small backer, the ruin he brings upon himself and those connected with him, and the discredit he brings also upon the legitimate betting business. The man who can attend the various race meetings, and there can see for himself what is going on, the number of the horses running in a race, the jockeys riding, and knows the odds for and against, is, of course, in a far better position than the stay-at-home backers, or in other words the “small sportsmen” who have neither the means nor the knowledge to bet on horse-racing, and simply do so almost in the dark, on mere chance, or mere newspaper tips, naps, and advice written the day before the race. The morning halfpenny papers, of course, get much of their information from the large daily papers. “Morning betting” has been proved to be (as we of course know) entirely fictitious, and so is much else referring to sporting matters and supposed ante betting. The small stay-at-home sportsman absolutely relies on newspaper recommendations, good or bad, to guide him, and so if the publication of betting prices is prohibited, and also it be made illegal to give “selections,” and to recommend any horse or horses to bet upon, the “good thing of the day,” “to back it win and place,” and the many other ways in which backing horses is publicly and openly and in many cases suspiciously advised and recommended, is made illegal and prohibited, such a step would be welcomed by the good bookmaker, would cut away much nefarious doings, and would confer a lasting benefit on the small backer in general, although possibly he might not at first see it. There need not be anything to prevent the usual reports of race meetings, including the betting thereat, with the starting prices and the usual reports of horses entered for the various races, with their chances of winning; that is all right enough, but it is the wanton and mischievous system of “selections,” “naps,” and recommendations to bet that does the harm to the small backer, and to racing in general.

Another matter is that “tipsters’” advertisements should be entirely suppressed. Of course many of the large daily papers refuse them altogether. Unfortunately, however, they are permitted in other papers. How any person with a grain of sense can send coin to any of these advertising tipsters is a marvel to me. Still they flourish on fools’ money. Read through the said advertisements and form your own opinion. Let any sensible person put it to himself. If these tipsters are so sure, why don’t they themselves back their predictions, and secure the easy fortunes they advise others to get?

Turf commission agents’ and Turf accountants’ advertisements should also seriously be revised. I am, of course, not condemning the well-known firms doing business under the above designation, but for every safe, respectable man there are many “wrong uns,” so the only plan seems to be to seriously revise the advertisements, or reject them altogether. Besides, every one knows that the descriptions are incorrect. What is a Turf commission agent? What is a Turf accountant? Generally a “starting-price bookmaker.” But such descriptions are also used by suspicious persons having no genuine occupation of the kind, simply to hide their identity. Thus my suggestion will be, I am sure, welcome to the _bona fide_ firms.

The Jockey Club do not now settle betting disputes, nor do they openly countenance “betting.” The races are _supposed_ to be run on the same lines as athletic sports are conducted, viz. the prizes offered of themselves are expected to be of sufficient value to induce owners of horses to compete. Oh, what a big farce! Of course, many of the wealthy owners keep race-horses solely for the sport and honour of winning races, and do not care a fig for betting, whilst of course, on the other hand, a vast number of owners of horses look to betting as the means to recoup their heavy expenses, and to “win a bit” besides—in many instances vainly so—for it is admitted all round that owning race-horses is a very expensive sport, and can only be indulged in by persons having “lots of coin.” It is, however, quite impossible to disassociate horse-racing from betting. Stop the betting at race meetings—give prizes only—and what would be the inevitable result? Why, the race meetings would almost cease to take place.

Now, to all interested in a business way with racing, viz. the race-course company, the trainer, the jockey, the bookmaker proper, the newspaper proprietor, and many others, it must be apparent, that unless something soon takes place, legally, to “clear the course,” and to prevent betting by small impecunious backers, that an Act of Parliament will be passed to stop betting on horse-racing altogether. Make no mistake, it will assuredly come, unless the small sportsman who has no means to speculate in betting is got rid of. It is the small backer who really has caused and is causing all the mischief. It is he who supports the host of vagabonds and thieves I have referred to, and so, in conclusion, I sincerely hope and trust that all my respectable brother bookies will take all I have said in good meaning, and as being written for the best. Let them unite with me to bring about the reforms hinted at in this scribble. I have pointed out, I think, clearly to the small backer that in backing horses he can but lose his money. Let the thousands of them all over the country seriously consider, with common sense, the remarks I have made, then I am certain that they will “turn up the game.” Leave betting to those with money to rashly speculate, and then the small, petty sportsman will do himself a good turn, and would very much oblige the legitimate bookmakers, who would then cease to designate him “The Deluded Sportsman.”

Finally, I am egotistical enough to say that if the alterations and reforms I have sketched out above are resorted to, that the Turf scandals which so frequently take place would not and could not arise.

GAMBLING AND CITIZENSHIP

By J. RAMSAY MACDONALD

The devotees of the Goddess of Fortune are found in all societies, from the Kaffir tribe to the sensuous coteries of our own civilisation. The moment of uncertainty which lapses between the casting of the dice and the discovery of the result, between the dealing of the cards and the examination of the hand, between the starting of the ball and its settlement in a pocket, is an alluring experience which rules conduct in proportion to the weakness of the moral character and the disorganisation of the intellectual life. The unknown must always have a fascination for men, and that fascination, centred on trivial things and joined with cupidity, marks the low state of intelligence and morals in which gambling flourishes.

I

Almost every observer to-day agrees that betting has reached colossal proportions and is still increasing. At the street corner, in the newsagent’s and tobacconist’s shop, in the barber’s saloon, in the club, in the public-house, in the factory, the bookmaker or his agent is ready to receive the money of men, women, and children, and victims of the habit are at hand to lead astray the novices still uninitiated in the worship of the seductive goddess.

The chief characteristic of the present outburst of the gambling habit is that it is becoming a class disease. People of experience seem to be pretty much agreed that those living on the marginal line of poverty and those on the marginal line of respectability are specially liable to fall victims to the habit. Both of these classes have in common a feeling that their lives are profoundly unsatisfactory. The dreary drudgery of the life of a wage-earner who oscillates between 15s. and 25s. a week, with an occasional turn of nothing at all; the unsatisfied craving in the life of a man too proud to take his place amongst the working classes but too poor and despised to be received in professional ranks—can only lead astray those doomed to them.