286 LIGHT SCIENCE FOR LEISURE HOURS. 



papers as a * great blow for the book-makers,' while the 

 success of a rank outsider will be described as * a mis- 

 fortune to backers.' 



But there is another circumstance which tends to 

 make the success of a favourite a blow to layers of the 

 odds and vice versa. In the case we have supposed, 

 the money actually pending about the four horses 

 (that is, the sum of the amount laid for and against 

 them) was 140?. as respects the favourite, 126?. as 

 respects the second, 105?. as respects the third, and 

 90?. as respects the fourth. But as a matter of fact 

 the amounts pending about the favourites bear always 

 a much greater proportion than the above to the 

 amounts pending about outsiders. It is easy to see the 

 effect of this. Suppose, for instance, that instead of 

 the sums 84?. to 56?., 84?. to 421., 841. to 211., and 841. 

 to 6?., a book-maker had laid 8400?. to 5600?., 8401. to 

 420?., 841. to 21?., and 141. to 1?., respectively then 

 it will easily be seen that he would lose 7958?. by 

 the success of the favourite ; whereas he would gain 

 4782?. by the success of the second horse, 5937?. by 

 that of the third, and 6027?. by that of the fourth. 

 I have taken this as an extreme case ; as a general 

 rule, there is not so great a disparity as has been here 

 assumed between the sums pending on favourites and 

 outsiders. 



Finally, it may be asked whether, in the case of 

 horses having unequal chances, it is possible that wagers 

 can be so proportioned (just odds being given and 

 taken), that, as in the former case, a person backing or 



