was once carried out for some two months with complete success. The
method in question was successfully worked by a gentleman (known to the
present writer), who owing to the illness of a relative, was obliged to
remain at Monte Carlo for a rather lengthy period of time. He was, it
must be understood, very well off, and by no means a gambler. His plan
was this: every day he put a hundred-franc note in his pocket, which he
changed into five-franc bits in the Casino. With these twenty coins he
commenced to play. His stake was usually but one or two of these coins
at first, though sometimes he would lose his whole capital in a few
moments trying to back winning numbers.
If successful, any notes he might receive were put in his pocket-book
not to be used for play. It was no uncommon thing for him to leave the
Casino with a profit of a thousand francs.
On the other hand, it would often occur that for a number of days in
succession he would lose his hundred francs without hardly having won
a stake at all. In the long run, however, he was a very considerable
sum to the good, a comparatively small number of winning days having
far more than compensated him for the large number of those on which
the hundred francs had been speedily lost. Under no circumstances did
he ever risk more than a hundred francs in one day. It was, of course,
the system of putting all paper money in the pocket which caused this
method to succeed. It should be added that when the hundred francs had
rolled up into twenty or thirty louis at roulette the player often
tried his luck with them at trente-et-quarante. The essential advantage
of this method of staking is the limit imposed upon loss; under no
circumstances can more than one hundred francs a day be lost, whilst
when in luck a very large sum may be won.
The method described above is not a bad one for any one who is making
a prolonged stay at Monte Carlo, and is not desperately anxious to
indulge in serious gambling; a better course to be adopted by those who
are, is to decide exactly how much they are prepared to lose, take the
whole of sum in question into the rooms one morning, divide it into
a certain number of stakes, and with these play a limited number of
_coups_ on the even chances. If successful, repeat this operation the
next day with the winnings alone, and so on until a fairly substantial
sum has been amassed, when the wisest course is to cease all further
gambling for that visit.
It must never be forgotten that the fewer _coups_ which are played the
more chance there is of winning.
Long sittings at the trente-et-quarante or roulette table are
absolutely certain to end in loss, besides being inexpressibly tedious,
trying to the eyes, and destructive to health.
A man who plays a great part of the day and all the evening after
dinner must certainly end by being a loser; whereas he who merely plays
for a few minutes at a time has a very fair chance of ending up a
winner, always provided, of course, that the fates are propitious.
In the long run nothing is to be gained by making a toil of gaming, the
only justifiable defence of which is that in moderation it affords a
good deal of pleasurable though generally costly excitement.
There are good methods of staking and bad methods; but there is not,
and, so far as can be foreseen, never will be, a thoroughly reliable
system. The best is that which minimises loss, acting as a check in the
case of an unfavourable run. All complicated mathematical calculations
undertaken with a view to defeating the bank are vain, for none of
them take into consideration that most important and mysterious
factor--_luck_--which so often seems to shun serious gamblers.
"If I were resolved to win," said a lover of systems, "I should go very
soberly with a hundred napoleons, and be content with winning one."
"That would never do," was the reply of a player well versed in the
fallacies of gamesters' calculations. "Better go, after a good dinner,
with one napoleon, resolved to win a hundred."
XI
Difficulty of making money on the Turf--Big wins--Sporting
tipsters and their methods--Jack Dickinson--"Black
Ascots"--Billy Pierse--Anecdotes--Lord Glasgow--Lord
George Bentinck--Lord Hastings--Heavy betting of the
past--Charles II. founder of the English Turf--History of
the latter--Anecdotes--Eclipse--Highflyer--The founder
of Tattersall's--Old time racing--Fox--Lord Foley--Major
Leeson--Councillor Lade--"Louse Pigott"--Hambletonian and
Diamond--Mrs. Thornton match--Beginnings of the French
Turf--Lord Henry Seymour--Longchamps--Mr. Mackenzie
Grieves--Plaisanterie--Establishment of the Pari Mutuel in 1891--How
the large profits are allocated--Conclusion.
In the course of some remarks on racing made by Lord Rosebery at the
131st dinner of the Gimcrack Club he said:--
"I don't think any one need pursue the Turf with the idea of gain."
This statement, though a discouraging one for sportsmen, is nothing
more than the plain, unvarnished truth, as any one who cares to look
into the matter can find out for himself. A quicker and more convincing
method, open to those with plenty of funds, is to own race-horses.
The Turf, as a means of making money, is indeed not to be considered
seriously. Certain bookmakers, of course, have made, and do still make
fortunes, but bookmaking cannot properly be called going on the Turf.
Owners have also existed who, for a time, have reaped a rich harvest by
the success of their horses. Over Hermit's Derby Mr. Chaplin is said
to have landed an enormous stake, something between a hundred and a
hundred and twenty thousand--he never received the whole of the amount
which he won. Mr. John Hammond was also at times very successful in
winning large sums. He is said to have cleared over £70,000 by the
victory of Herminius in the Ascot stakes of 1888. This horse he had
bought for two hundred and forty guineas! A singularly lucky owner was
Mr. James Merry, who is supposed to have cleared over £80,000 when
Thormanby won the Derby. Another big win was that of Mr. Naylor, who is
supposed to have won £100,000 over Macaroni for the Derby of 1863.
Nevertheless, from a financial point of view betting on horse-races is
almost without exception disastrous, and, whether they know too much
or know too little, men who systematically indulge in it to any great
extent stand an excellent chance of being left with empty pockets.
As for the general public, a number of whom are more or less given
to risking an occasional bet, their chance of winning is absolutely
infinitesimal. An individual who bets throughout the year is indeed
very lucky if he loses only two-thirds of the money he has risked--as
a rule he does far worse than this. The sporting papers, on which
many rely, are of course genuinely anxious to assist their readers
to find winners, but do not pretend to be infallible guides. Sporting
journalists themselves, who should be in an excellent position
to obtain reliable information, are not infrequently peculiarly
unsuccessful in their own bets; probably few end the year on the
winning side. The most expensive guides of all are, of course, the
advertising tipsters, some of whom make quite large sums by issuing
thoroughly unreliable vaticinations to a touchingly confiding
clientele. Some time ago one of these men very cleverly took advantage
of a newspaper competition, when a prize had been offered by a sporting
paper for naming the most popular tipster of the day. Purchasing some
thousands of coupons he put his own name on them, of course varying
the writing to prevent suspicion. As a result of these tactics he was
eventually adjudged to be the prize tipster, and, though the scheme
cost him a good deal of money, it eventually brought considerable grist
to his mill.
The circulars and letters issued by these prophets are generally
admirably calculated to increase the number of their followers.
Not infrequently they adopt a high-flown style. One for instance, moved
by purely philanthropic motives, declares that "when he casts his
practised eye on the broad surface of struggling humanity and witnesses
the slow and enduring perseverance or impetuous rush of the many to
grapple with a cloud, he is seized with an intense desire to hold up
the lamp of light to all." Another adopts a bluffer style and writes:--
DEAR SIR--DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY. Let me entreat you not to miss
to-morrow's GOLDEN PADDOCK WIRE; it will be honestly worth a £10 note.
My RELATION connected with a certain WELL-KNOWN STABLE says, "Frank,
my boy, get your money on at once; this is another 20 to 1 chance." A
GOLD MINE is before us--miss this and you will miss a pile of GOLD and
silver.
OWNER and TRAINER HAVE planked their money down; both will travel with
the GRAND ANIMAL (the name of which I will forward for 5s.) to-morrow
by special train.
Send a postal order and secure the name of the smartest three-year-old
that ever came under the starters' orders or romped past the judge's
box lengths ahead of all the favourites, winning clients and myself
many HUNDREDS OF POUNDS.
Yet another offers infallible information if clients will merely put a
small portion of their stake on for him. As some of the horses he gives
must win he probably does fairly well. Whilst most of such tipsters are
but sorry guides, some are undoubtedly honest men and try to do their
best for their clients.
Such a one was Old Jack Dickinson, a thoroughly honest sporting
tipster, who will be remembered by all race-goers of some years ago.
This well-known character, who was a fine sprint runner in his day,
bore a quite unblemished reputation, though a backer of horses and a
professional vendor of tips. Old Jack was a regular church-goer in
his own parish, where his death caused genuine sorrow. Though in his
capacity as a Turf tipster he was at times compelled to issue his
circulars on Sunday, this he did not like, and by way of salving his
conscience in the matter he is said to have made a practice of devoting
all the money he received from the Sunday information to church
purposes, it being put into the collection box.
On the Turf, exclusive of betting men, jockeys, and trainers, there
are three classes--men of large fortune, with well and old-established
studs, fixtures as it were; sporting men of moderate fortune, who
confine themselves to four or five horses at a time, and run merely in
their own part of the world; and lastly, men of small or no fortune,
who run for profit more than amusement. It is the conduct of many of
this last class which has at times been injurious to the Turf.
The sporting owner, who has to pay large trainers' bills and meet the
other inevitable charges incident to the sport of which he aspires to
be a pillar, cannot reasonably hope to make a profit on his racing;
even the sharp betting man is in many cases out of pocket at the end of
a year. Expenses, such as travelling, hotel bills, and the like, amount
to a considerable sum, and for this reason every supporter of the Turf
is greatly handicapped before he even makes a bet.
Layers as well as backers have large disbursements which they cannot
avoid--as a matter of fact the vast majority of bookmakers who have
died rich men have made their fortunes through commercial enterprises,
though, of course, the moderate capital originally invested was made in
the Ring. To acquire any considerable sum in this manner is by no means
an easy thing. Much is heard about successful bookmakers; little of
those who fail and disappear.
If betting can ever be made profitable, it must be carried on in a most
systematic and restrained manner. A few points in the odds make the
difference often of some thousands; and it will require a man's whole
time and attention to take advantage of any turn in the market.
A young man who goes racing with the idea of making money is of
necessity quickly disillusioned in the most unpleasant of ways. If he
knows no racing men he is, of course, hopelessly at sea; but should he
have means of obtaining really good information, his fate is generally
even more deplorable, for some untoward incident almost invariably
happens when a big _coup_ is on and the good thing goes down.
Not a few, in despair at continual losses, make up their minds to wait
for "absolute certainties," and lay heavy odds on some horse which it
would seem cannot possibly be beaten, a method which usually proves
very expensive in the end.
Of all meetings Ascot seems most fatal to gamblers of this description.
A particularly disastrous meeting was that of 1879. In the Vase,
Silvio, 9 to 4 on, fell before Isonomy; Peter, 5 to 2 on for the Fern
Hill Stakes, was beaten by Douranee; Victor Chief, 7 to 4 on, was
fourth to Philippine for the Seventeenth New Biennial; Valentino second
for the Maiden Plate at 5 to 4 on; Silvio, 6 to 4 on, was beaten in the
Hardwicke; and Aventurier, 2 to 1, was defeated by Royal for the Plate
of one hundred sovereigns, which concluded this woeful meeting.
Another "Black Ascot" was that of 1882. 8 to 1 was laid on Geheimniss,
which could only obtain second place in the Fernhill Stakes; 9 to 2 on
St. Marguerite, third in the Coronation Stakes; 11 to 8 on Rookery,
second in the New Stakes; and 9 to 4 on Foxhall, second in the
Alexandra Plate. An appalling series of disasters for the unfortunate
backer!
Layers of odds on again suffered at Ascot in 1894, when 5 to 1 was laid
on Delphos for the All Aged Stakes, and 5 to 1 on La Flèche for the
Hardwicke on the Friday. The odds in each case were upset, both being
second.
At Ascot this year backers as usual did not fare particularly well, for
notable upsets occurred in the Coventry Stakes, won by the Admiration
colt at 20 to 1, and in the All Aged Stakes, in which 100 to 15 was
laid on Hallaton which succumbed to his only rival Hillside.
When everything is said and done, there can be no doubt that the
individual who starts out, either as bookmaker or backer, with the idea
that he is going to make a fortune must, as an old racing character
(Billy Pierse, whose father fought at Culloden) used to say, "want it
here."
This expression was very popular with "T' au'd un" or the "Governor,"
as Billy was commonly designated on the Yorkshire courses. Once at
Doncaster, when Sir John Byng had to decide a dispute as to jostling to
the prejudice of a horse trained by "T' au'd un," the latter insisted
that Sir John could not distinguish between a race and a charge of
cavalry, and that he could by no earthly explanation be made to
comprehend in what a "jostle" in racing consisted. So cantankerous was
Billy on the subject that he accosted an old gentleman, whose erudition
he held in high esteem, in the following manner: "Tell me, sir, wasn't
this Sir J. Byng's father or grandfather hanged?" "No, Mr. Pierse,"
was the reply, "not hanged; probably you allude to the Admiral, who
was shot." "I thowt," rejoined Billy, "it was sommat o' t' sowort, an'
it's much of a muchness between hanging and shooting; but I'll uphoud
ye that this Sir John Byng will never do for the Turf--he may be well
enough for a General, but he'll never do for the Turf! He wants it
here, sir," added Billy, putting his finger in a most expressive manner
on his forehead, "he wants it here!"
The maxims of "T' au'd un" were held in great respect, and the Duke of
Cleveland, for whom he won several races on Haphazard, used frequently
to ask the old man (who had had his last mount in the St. Leger of
1819) to Raby. Concerning these visits Billy used to say, "I never
forgot that I was Billy Pierse--I was useful or I wouldn't have been
theer." This was to some extent true, for the Duke had a high opinion
of his judgment in Turf matters. A favourite saying of Old Billy, and
one which afforded him much comfort, was, "I've done as many as have
done me." Nevertheless he was straight enough, according to the Turf
ethics of his day.
Within the last twenty-five years there have been many changes in
connection with Turf speculation. Ante-post betting, for instance, is
now practically obsolete, whilst starting price betting, unknown in old
days, has come into vogue; and, finally, the huge wagers formerly quite
common have become things of the past, a state of affairs which would
be little to the taste of men of the type of the fifth Lord Glasgow
did they still exist. This nobleman's love of wagering enormous sums
excited attention even in an age when high gambling was not generally
viewed with anything like the severity which prevails to-day, when
Stock Exchange speculation is the favourite mode of attaining complete
and speedy impecuniosity.
The evening before the Derby of 1843 Lord Glasgow, then Lord Kelburne,
was at Crockford's, when Lord George Bentinck inquired if any one would
lay him three to one against his horse, Gaper. Lord Kelburne said he
should be delighted.
[Illustration:
(THE PRINCE REGENT.) (COLONEL O'KELLY.)
BETTING.
By Rowlandson.]
"Remember," said Lord George, "I'm not after a small bet."
"Well," rejoined Lord Kelburne, "I suppose £90,000 to £30,000 will suit
you."
This staggered the owner of Gaper, who was obliged to admit that he had
never dreamt of taking such a large bet.
Lord Kelburne was rather annoyed. "I thought you wanted to do it 'to
money,'" said he sharply; "however, I see I was wrong."
As early as 1823 this sporting peer had created a sensation at the
Star Inn at Doncaster, by offering to lay 25 to 1 in hundreds against
Brutandorf for the St. Leger, afterwards repeating the offer in
thousands.
On the St. Leger of 1824 Jerry won him some £17,000, but three years
later he lost £27,000, Mr. Gully's much-fancied Derby winner, Mameluke,
being beaten by Matilda. The victory of this filly, which was very
popular with the Yorkshire crowd, is commemorated at Stapleton Park,
near Pontefract--where her owner, the Hon. E. Petre, lived--by a
chiming clock placed over the stables, known as the "Matilda clock,"
which is appropriately surmounted by a "race-horse weathercock."
Lord George Bentinck is said to have won no less than £100,000 by
betting in one year (1845), but his racing expenses amounted to an
enormous sum. He won £12,000 by the victory of Cotherstone in the
Derby, and it is said would have profited to the extent of some
£135,000 had Gaper proved the winner of that classic race. His
successes as an owner, though considerable, hardly compensated him
for the immense amount of time, thought, and money which he expended
upon racing matters. Crucifix, it is true, won the Two Thousand, the
One Thousand, and the Oaks in 1840, but Lord George never won the
Derby, though if he had not parted with his stud in 1846 he would in
all probability have done so, for Mr. Mostyn in his purchase acquired
Surplice, who became the winner in 1848. The victory much agitated his
former owner when he heard of it.
Sir Joseph Hawley was a very heavy better in his time, though at
the end of his Turf career he began a crusade against the evils of
plunging--nevertheless, not very long before, he had taken £40,000 to
£600 about each of the fillies he had entered for the Derby.
The enormous bets made by the ill-timed Marquis of Hastings are
notorious. Now and then he hit the Ring very hard--when Lecturer
won the Cesarewitch, for instance, he was a gainer of no less than
£75,000--and his Turf winnings in stakes were also considerable for two
or three years. In 1864 they amounted to £10,000, in 1866 to £12,000,
and in 1867 to over £30,000. Hermit's Derby, however, in the same year
is said to have cost him £140,000; and even had Marksman, who was
second, won, he would have lost £120,000.
This spendthrift nobleman was anything but shrewd as a plunger. He had
made his book so badly that, though he stood to lose heavily, he would
only have profited to the extent of a few thousands had Vauban, which
was his best horse, been first past the post. In 1868 the Marquis,
a broken-down, ruined man, passed to his grave at the early age of
twenty-six.
There was very heavy betting in the old days. Davies, the celebrated
bookmaker, for instance, more than once made a Derby book amounting to
£100,000. As a matter of fact he is said to have generally lost money
over the Derby and Oaks, and won it over the St. Leger. When Daniel
O'Rourke won the Derby he lost about £50,000 (some say almost double
this sum), having laid a great deal of money at 100 to 1. Catherine
Hayes also hit him hard, and over West Australian he lost £48,000, of
which £30,000 went to the owner, Mr. Bowes. In his latter years Davies
rather avoided ante-post betting, especially on the Derby. The victory
of Teddington in 1851 took something not far short of £90,000 out of
his pockets, one cheque alone sent out by him to Mr. Greville being for
£15,000. The Derby in question was very costly to the Ring in general,
which lost something like £150,000. The most considerable sum, however,
ever won by the great racing public of small means was when Voltigeur
won the St. Leger in 1850. The excitement during the deciding heat with
Russborough was probably the greatest ever seen on any race-course;
and on the evening of the following day, when he won the Doncaster Cup,
beating the Flying Dutchman, many of the Yorkshiremen caroused all
night. As one of them said, "Who'd go to bed when Voltigeur's won the
St. Leger and the Cup?"
Whilst racing possesses some claim to be considered a serious sport
owing to the undoubted improvement which it has effected in the breed
of horses, its most ardent supporters have been men of pleasure. The
founder of the English Turf, indeed, was the "Merry Monarch," though
there had been horse-racing for bells long before his time.
Charles the Second did everything he could to improve horsemanship
in England. He it was who induced a celebrated French riding master,
Foubert by name, to come over and settle in England. This Frenchman set
up a riding academy near what is now Regent Street. His name is still
perpetuated by "Foubert's Passage."
Charles, who knew a good deal about most things, possessed, it is
said, much knowledge of horses, and was himself an experienced and
able rider. He became a great supporter of the Turf, gave many prizes
to be run for, and delighted in witnessing races. When he resided at
Windsor the horses ran on Datchet-mead; but the most distinguished spot
for these spectacles was Newmarket, a place which was first chosen on
account of the firmness of the ground.
Remains of the house in which Charles lived at what became the
head-quarters of the Turf still exist. It was originally purchased by
the "Merry Monarch" from an Irish Peer, Lord Thomond.
Here it was that Nell Gwynne is supposed to have held her infant out of
the window as Charles passed down the Palace Gardens to his stables,
and apostrophised him to the effect that if the child was not made a
Duke upon the spot she would drop it.
When the King went to see this palace, as it was called, which he had
caused to be built at Newmarket, he thought the rooms too low; but the
architect, Sir Christopher Wren, who was of small stature, did not
agree. Walking through the rooms he looked up at the King and said,
"Please your Majesty, I think they are high enough." The King squatted
down to Sir Christopher's height, and creeping about in that posture,
cried, "Aye, Sir Christopher, I think they are high enough."
During his visits to the little town Charles usually spent the morning
in coursing or playing tennis, repairing to the Heath about three to
witness racing, it being the custom for the King and his retinue of
courtiers and ladies to ride alongside or after the contending steeds,
which on their arrival at the winning post were saluted with the blare
of trumpets and the beating of drums. Most of the races in Charles' day
would appear to have consisted of matches to decide wagers previously
laid.
The Whip which is annually run for at Newmarket has sometimes been said
to be the identical one which Charles II. (not George II.) was in the
habit of riding with, and which he presented to some nobleman, whose
arms it bears, as being the owner of the best horse in England.
The whip itself is of very antique appearance, and by no means "a
splendid trophy." The handle, which is very heavy, is of silver, with
a ring at the end of it for a wristband, which is made of the mane of
Eclipse.