WHO SETS THE MARKET f 201 



mcnt, there has hcen 'place hctting.' At one time in 

 the history of the turf, there was a good deal of betting 

 ' one, two ' — that is, that a given horse would either be 

 first or second in the race. For that contingency half 

 the odds were betted ' one, two,' that were offered for 

 a win — if the price against a horse winning was 20 to 1, 

 then 10 to 1 would be ofiered against a horse being 

 first or second. If it be these odds against a horse 

 being first or second, why should only ' a fourth ' of tlie 

 odds to win be ofiered aj^ainst the chance of a horse to 

 be first, second, or third ? And why, in the case of the 

 rJerby, and one or two other races, should, as has been 

 the case in some years, only about a sevt nth of the odds 

 be offered against that contingency ? In place of being 

 so ' nippit,' the odds against a horse obtaining a place 

 ought really to be liberal, seeing that, in general, only 

 two or three of the horses running in a race try for 

 places, especially in the early part of the season. A 

 jockey generally gets orders not to ' bustle the h>rse,' 

 if it becomes obvious during the race that he has no 

 chance of winning. Under all the circumstances, the 

 odds for a place ought to be one-third of the odds 

 ofiered for a win, seeing that the backer has so small a 

 chance on his side of gaining his mone}^ ; as to the 

 place prices now offered on the Derby, none but very 

 foolish people accept them. 



A few necessary remarks on a favourite mode of 

 betting in which the backer has usually the Avorst of 

 the bargain may now be offered. The prices of double 

 and triple event bets are effected by the multiplication 

 of the current odils offered against each horse. For 

 instance, it may be that the quotation against Sin for 



