264 BETTING AS IT MIGHT BE. 



taken of owners by the public, together leave little for the 

 stable commission, which generally has to go unexecuted, 

 and the horse be struck out : to the injury of the owner, 

 who thus loses the chance of winning the stake (which 

 may be a large one) ; to the detriment of the backer, who 

 loses his money ; and to that of those of the bookmakers 

 that have not laid against him. I think if bookmakers 

 would fall back on the old system and make a genuine 

 book and bet to it, and it alone, they would oftener 

 get " round " than they do now ; and though perhaps their 

 profits might not at times be so large, they would be less 

 problematical, and the result better for themselves and for 

 backers of their own horses. But whilst they continue as 

 now to employ questionable characters in every direction to 

 tell them what this, that, or the other horse is doing, so 

 long will they act on erroneous information. They will 

 refuse to bet against many bad horscs that are thought to 

 be good ; and they will back others which are said to be 

 good that are hopeless as though they were already struck 

 out : whilst they will refrain from betting against other horses 

 because they learn from the same doubtful authorities that 

 "they are sure to reach a short price "—rwhich they never 

 do. Thus what might have been a good book is now 

 turned into a losing account, and it is no wonder that we 

 hear complaints of the badness of the profession. 



These suggestions however are only offered for what they 

 may be worth. I do not profess to teach bookmakers their 

 business, being myself but a novice at it. But the system 

 seems feasible, and for the reasons given, it would be better for 

 those that backed horses of their own and for the bookmak cr 

 themselves. 



Recurring to the proposed system of nominations. I append 



