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 horses 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 ’—which 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 bookmakers 
themselves. 
Recurring to the proposed system of nominations, I append 
