Many who desire to become rich with rapidity think the turf a smooth
road to fortune. Every few weeks an appetising paragraph "goes the
round," telling the world that another fortune has been won on the
racecourse, that Mr. So-and-So has "landed" £25,000 by the victory of
a horse in one of the popular handicaps! Such an announcement excites
the cupidity of hundreds, and so a rush takes place to back many horses
for the next important struggle. Very few who try succeed; fortunes,
they soon find out, come only to the fortunate, and in time many of
the eager fighters for the favour of the blind goddess find themselves
_hors de combat_, and then retire disgusted from the arena. A few
doughty combatants fight on in the hope of ultimate success, one of
them, perhaps, to find, after many days, that he has become enriched
during the struggle.
Some who think themselves wiser than their fellows come early to the
conclusion that the indiscriminate backing of horses, or even tipsters,
or newspaper selections is a blunder, and so resolve to try a "system,"
feeling sure that by speculating on a well-defined principle they must
make money. In due time the cleverest think out for themselves or
are put on a plan by some friend, which is morally certain to prove
successful. It may be one of the many systems known in connection with
turf speculation, "following the favourites," or backing one's own
fancies, or it may be the following of jockeys.
To back the horses ridden by certain jockeys has for years past been
one mode of speculation on the turf. It was first brought to the notice
of the public by a Mr. John Denman, who acted for a time as a racing
commissioner, and who maintained (he published an elaborate essay on
the subject) that it would prove profitable to back horses ridden by
men who were always winning.
In persistently following Barrett, Watts, Woodburn, Canon, or Loates,
or any other jockey, the plan of putting down a given sum on each
mount, win or lose, may be adopted, or a particular jockey may be
followed in sequences of six or seven trials, or even a lesser number
at pleasure, the stake being doubled on each occasion of a loss, till
the end of the sequence, and in cases--no uncommon occurrence--of
a sequence running out before a win has been secured, beginning
again. There are many, some even well versed in turf affairs, who
probably think it almost impossible that Loates, Canon, or Barrett
or some equally clever horseman, could be unsuccessful for seven
consecutive turns; but should the jockey selected prove unsuccessful
even four times running, and then at the fifth trial score a win, the
very meagre price usually offered against a popular rider proving
victorious--indeed, the horse entrusted to him very often starts with
odds betted _on_ it--renders the winning account, on most occasions,
anything but profitable. It is not sometimes a very easy matter to
invest a large sum on a comparatively small race, and in connection
with the mounts of the more popular jockeys the investment of £320
would not often cover previous losses; it might happen on occasion that
£100 would require to be risked to win £30, so that in the event cited
a loss of over £224 would be sustained on the run of six non-successful
mounts in the sequence, and it is needless to say that a series of such
misfortunes would speedily exhaust a pretty well-filled bank.
To the uninitiated in turf mysteries, for whom this book is more
immediately intended, it may be necessary to explain that a "sequence"
may be arranged to extend over any number of mounts from two to twelve,
or even a greater number if that were practical, which it is not,
because in such case the sum to be invested could not be "got on,"
it would have become so large. The sum fixed upon as a stake may be
for any reasonable amount from £1 to £20, only it is not desirable
to fix it at a very large amount for the reason just given--it would
swell to an unmanageable size. Taking £5 as a representative sum, it
will be seen that before the seventh trial, should the six previous
efforts have failed, a smart sum of money will have been expended--the
following amounts, in fact: £5, £10, £20, £40, £80, £160, or a total of
£315. The next stake invested, in the event of none of the six having
proved fruitful, would amount to £630, and if that also should be lost,
it would, of course, swell the total. On the other hand, £630 invested
on a race at 2 to 1, would yield a return of £1,260, and thus, after
deducting the money lost, yield a capital profit.
The vicissitudes experienced from time to time by backers of horses
would, if related at length, fill a volume. Many anecdotes are in
circulation of men who have been ruined by backing horses, as well as
of others to whom the turf has proved a stepping-stone to fortune.
I remember when there used frequently to be recorded a suicide over
the Derby, which was said to be the result of losses sustained over
that highly popular race, but such narratives were usually taken _cum
grano salis_. It is not over such races as the Derby that the common
run of backers come to grief, because that race does not present such
favourable opportunities to speculators as the popular handicaps.
The Derby is a race for which the general public evince much
partiality, and on which a large number of persons who never bet on
any other race risk a sovereign. Professional bettors, of course, bet
on the result of the Derby as they do on all other contests; but the
"form" of the horses which take part in the struggle having generally
become well known, there is not the same temptation presented to
speculators as in some other events where the odds obtained are more
liberal. On the other hand, some men prefer to back the favourites for
such races as the Derby and Oaks, being contented with the twos to
one and sevens to four which can be procured from the bookmaker; but
persons who like the twenties, thirty-threes, and forties, which can
often be obtained against handicap winners at some period before the
race, do not readily accommodate themselves to the large expenditure
involved in accepting small odds. I remember a well-known betting man
who is a keen hand and speculates in large amounts, taking £2,000 to
£1,000 that Bend Or would win the Derby, and every person knows what
a very narrow squeak he had for his money. The same person, incited
by his success in backing the winner of the Blue Ribbon of the Turf,
backed Versigny to win him £2,000, and by doing so required to risk
about £1,200, so that he had only £800 of his Derby gains left, a
portion of which was lost over Master Kildare in the Gold Cup.
The person here alluded to, who is well known by his nickname of
"Public Form,"[4] is a very heavy bettor, putting down at three out of
every four of the race meetings which are held stakes of from £50 to
£200 on even the smaller races, whenever in fact he thinks he has got
hold of what is called "a good thing." In some seasons "Public Form"
has been very successful, although from the state of the odds against
the horses which he backs he seldom "lands" a big win; but if he thinks
the chance an extra good one he will not scruple to give odds, but
will put down £700 to win £400, or he will take even money against the
chance.
It will be obvious enough that a person betting such large sums runs
heavy risks, more especially as he so seldom goes for big odds. Risks,
however, are comparative, and it should be easier, therefore, to
realise a 7 to 4 chance than to obtain a win when the odds are at the
rate of 66 to 1; in the latter case the bettor only requires to risk
£15 to win £1,000, while in the former case to win a similar amount a
sum of nearly £600 will require to be risked. Some bold spirits on
the turf, when they think the opportunity has befallen them, "down
the pieces" in the most fearless manner, or rather they go in for big
money at the risk of those who will give them credit. On some occasions
a lucky coup will be made that may prove to be the precursor of good
fortune. A man may bring off a double event or may win a few hundred
pounds over a handicap, and so be able to inaugurate a successful
career on the turf. On the other hand, a person may bet for a season
with all his might, and with fair knowledge and experience, and lose
more than another man may pocket. Numerous instances of such being
the case might be cited. It is not long since the sporting journals
related the downfall of a backer who in one season made a tolerably
nice little fortune by backing the mounts of the chief jockey. In a
few months the thousands which that person had realised had taken unto
themselves wings and flown away, and so he became "broke," like similar
speculators.
There are, however, men on the turf at the present moment who are worth
money, and who earned what they possess by betting. The persons here
alluded to have proceeded on the lines that "small fish are sweet," and
have been contented with modest profits, taking care to keep carefully
what they gain. "Old Thatchem,"[5] who is the happy possessor of a
whole village in a well-known racing county, made all the money with
which he bought or built his houses at the race-meetings held in his
own shire. His first bit of luck--he was then a day labourer--was
in realising a bet of £10 to 10_s._ on Princess for the Two-year-old
Stakes at Doncaster, in 1843. A sum of £10, forty years ago was thought
by a labouring man to be "money," and such was the opinion of "old
Thatchem." Not a penny of the £10 was parted with till next year, when
a sovereign invested on Kedge for the Champagne Stakes doubled the
sum, whilst £2 invested on Bee's Wing for the Gold Cup added £16 to
the hoard. In three years the old man was worth a cool hundred, which
he invested in the purchase of a house. His ambition being stirred, he
continued his careful and successful career, and soon became an adept
at his business; not that he was always successful; oh, no, many a time
he felt the frost of speculation; on such occasions, like a prudent
general, he wisely desisted from business for a brief period that his
_luck_ might have room, as he was wont to say, to turn itself round.
By way of contrast to this prudent Yorkshireman, take the case of a
young fellow who a good many years ago flashed upon the turf like a
meteor. Winning £300 when Caractacus won the Derby, he followed up his
success at Epsom by bagging a large amount at Ascot, and the like good
fortune attending his efforts at Goodwood, at the end of the year he
left off with an addition to his bank account of £2,700. Extraordinary
to relate, he was equally successful in the following year, but a
change of fortune overtook him at last, and from being a swell of the
first water, constantly in luck, always feasting on fat things, he
gradually fell and fell till, in a few years, he was glad to earn a
shilling or two at race meetings by acting as a peripatetic tipster.
Many stories of a like kind are doubtless known to persons who are
acquainted with the ever-changing incidents of our race meetings.
Apropos to betting for cash, one of the most singular utterances
that has ever appeared against the "principle" of betting for ready
money is that of Mr. William Day, published in one of the monthly
miscellanies, and in which he describes that mode of betting as a
"pernicious system," as "the greatest pest of society, the current evil
of the day." Further, Mr. Day says the practice of ready money betting
is "a blot on the nationality of every Englishman!" Unfortunately for
himself, Mr. Day stultifies his own arguments against ready money
betting by his advocacy of the Pari-mutuel plan of backing horses,
which is a ready money system of betting _par excellence_, the adoption
of which Mr. Day thinks would put a stop to reckless speculation, as,
indeed, would ready money betting conducted through the medium of the
bookmakers (who ought to be licensed).
The writer of these pages, as is obvious enough, is quite of the same
opinion as Mr. Day, that "so long as a man can go into the ring and
bet his untold thousands upon race after race, not having as many
hundreds to pay his losses with, so long as he can find usurers to
supply him with the needful to be paid on the Monday after, then so
long, too, will he continue to bet, little caring what he pays for the
convenience; as things are he is compelled to raise funds to save his
credit and his respect among his aristocratic associates, but in the
other case (of Pari-mutuel betting) there would not be such pressing
necessity for him to have the money."
A very excellent reason was recently given for the adoption of a ready
money system of betting by one of the "big bookmakers" of the day; it
was pithily expressed to a gentleman who was complaining of the small
odds now laid to bettors. "Look you," said the layer of the odds, "I
have thirty-three per cent. of bad debts to contend with every season,
and so have some of my friends. When we have ready money betting there
will be no bad debts, and the odds will then extend by twenty or thirty
per cent." An extension of the odds, say all backers of horses, is
certainly much needed; of late years prices have been growing small by
degrees and beautifully less.