Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

that luck has very little to do with racing, and the man who trusts to it will find he is leaning on a broken staff. To the owner of a racing stud, who means to act uprightly, nothing but good management can ensure success, and even with this he has fearful odds against him, so many striving for the same prize. His horses must be well-bred, well-reared, well-engaged, well-trained, wellweighted, and well-ridden-nothing else will succeed in the long run. Still less has luck to do with betting. The speculator on other people's horses can only succeed by the help of one or the other of these expedients-namely, great knowledge of horseflesh and astute observation of public running-deep calculation-or secret fraud: and that the last-mentioned resource is the base upon which many large fortunes have in our day been built, no man will be bold enough to deny. How many fine domains have been shared amongst those hosts of rapacious sharks, during the last two hundred years! and-unless the system be altered-how many more are doomed to fall into the same gulph! For, we lament to say, the evil increases; all heretofore, indeed, has been tarts and cheese-cakes,' to the villainous proceedings of the last twenty years, on the English turf. ، Strange ! But how is it that exposures are not oftener made?' This question is very easily answered. It is the value of the prize that tempts the pirate; and the extent of the plunder is now so great, that secrecy is purchased at any price.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

6

This

But shutting our eyes to this ill-featured picture, and imagining everything to be honourably conducted, let us just take a glance at the present system of betting, and setting aside mathematical demonstrations applicable only where chances are equal, state the general method of what is called making a book.' The first object of the betting man is to purchase cheaply, and to sell dearly; and, next, to secure himself by hedging, so that he cannot lose, if he do not win. This, however, it is evident, will not satisfy him, and he seeks for an opportunity of making himself a winner, without the chance of being a loser. is done by what is called betting round. For example: if twenty horses start in a race, and A bets 10 to 1 against each, he must win 9, as he receives 19, and only pays 10; namely-10 to 1 to the winning horse. This, of course, can rarely be done, because it might not occur in a hundred years that all the horses were at such equal odds. Nevertheless, it is quite evident, that if, when a certain number of horses start, A bets against all, taking care that he does not bet a higher sum against any one horse that may win, than would be covered by his winnings by the others which lose, he must win. Let us, then, suppose A beginning to make his Derby book, at the commencement of the new year. B bets

him

him (about the usual odds) 20 to 1 against an outsider, which A takes in hundreds, viz. 2000 to 100. The outsider improves ; he comes out in the spring, and wins a race, and the odds drop to 10 to 1. A bets 1000 to 100 against him. He is now on velvet; he cannot lose, and may win 1000. In fact, he has a thousand pounds in hand to play with, which the alteration of the odds has given him. But mark! he is only playing with it, he may never pocket it, so he acts thus. The outsider-we will call him Repealer-comes out again, wins another race, and the odds are only 5 to 1 against him. A bets 500 to 100 more against him, and let us now see how he stands.

If Repealer wins, A receives from B
He pays to

Ditto to

Balance in A's favour by Repealer winning

£2000

C £1000

D

500

1500

£500

£100

[ocr errors][merged small]

100

200

100

£100

If Repealer loses-A receives from C

A pays B £100-Deduct

Balance in A's favour by Repealer losing

But is there no contingency here? Yes, the colt might have died before A had hedged, and then he must have paid his 1007.; but, on the other hand, he would have been out of the field, which might have been worth all the money to him, in his deeper speculations on other horses. But let us suppose our colt to have remained at the original odds, viz. 20 to 1. In that case, A must have betted 2000 to 100 against him, and then no harm would have arisen.

In what is called making a book on a race, it is evident that the bettor must be early in the market, taking and betting the odds for and against each horse: for backing a favourite to win is not his system. His chief object is, to take long odds against such horses as he fancies, and then await the turn of the market, when he sells dearly what he has purchased cheaply. For example, how often does it happen that 12 to 1 is the betting against a horse two months before his race, and before he starts it is only 4 to 1? If the bettor has taken 1200 to 100 against him, and then bets 400 to 100 the other way, he risks nothing, but has a chance to win 800. It is by this system of betting that it often becomes a matter of indifference to a man which horse wins, his money being so divided amongst them all. In

fact,

fact, what is called an outsider is often the best winner for him, as in that case he pockets all the bets he has made against those horses which gentlemen and their friends have fancied. There is, however, too often what is called the book-horse,' in some of the great races, in which more than one party are concerned. What the term 'book-horse' implies, we need not explain further than by saying, that it would signify little were he really a book, and not a horse:-the animal with the best blood in England in his veins, and the best jockey on his back, shall have no more chance to win, if backed heavily to lose, than a jackass.*

We

* As we well know that a huge fortune was made in the betting ring, by a certain person now deceased, who could neither read nor write, and that one of the heaviest betters of the present day is in the same state of blessed ignorance, we may safely conclude that if these two persons ever heard of fractional arithmetic, they could know no more of it than of the division of logarithms. Nevertheless, the probability of events can only be found by such help; and even then, as far as racing is concerned, although the adept in this part of the mathematician's art may be able to ascertain the precise odds that may be given or received, so as to provide against loss, yet he will find that, to be certain to win, advantage must be taken of all chances more favourable than the precise odds. In fact, it will be by advantageous bets on particular events, that he will have a balance in his favour, at the winding up of his book, and it would avail him little to work for no profit. The main point, however, on which it is indispensably necessary to keep the eye in betting, is, in a series of different events, the exact odds to be readily had on every individual event: and having made a round of these engagements, as opinion fluctuates, opportunities will offer themselves where great advantage may be gained.

It is on a plurality of events that figures must be resorted to, the chances on which must be put to the test of arithmetical solution. As everything may be understood which man is permitted to know, a few lessons from the schoolmaster will furnish this, and we now give the following simple examples, which are easily understood, and generally applicable. And let us add, that to a betting man, who speculates largely, the difference of half a point in the precise odds may win or lose a large fortune in the course of a few years.

Examples-Two horses are about to start. The betting on one is even, and the odds on the other is 6 to 4. What odds must B bet A that he does not name both the winners? The expression for the former is, and for the latter; but equal to, therefore say—

[blocks in formation]

is

hence the odds is 7 to 3. B, therefore, lays A 7 to 3 that he does not name both winners, and then hedges as follows:-As 37. is the sum to which he has staked his 71., he lays that sum even, that A wins; and on the other event he lays 6 to 4, (the odds in the example,) the same way. Now A wins both, and receives of B 71.; but B wins 31. on the former by hedging, and 47. on the latter, which is equal to what he has lost to A. It is here obvious, that had B, in hedging, been enabled to have made better bets-for instance, could he have done better than by taking an even 37. on the first event, and had greater odds than 6 to 4 on the latter, he might have won, but could not have lost.

On the same two events, what odds may B lay A that the latter does not lose both ? Set down for the former, and the latter will now be ; but is equal to ; therefore, it will be

1

2

[ocr errors]

=

2
; and 10
10

[ocr errors][merged small]

2 5

hence the odds is 8 to 2 = 4 to 1.

Proof

We now dismiss this subject, with no probability of our ever returning to it. Although the perusal of Xenophon might have made Scipio a hero, we have not the slightest intention of manufacturing jockeys by any effort of our pen; and yet we wish we had touched on these matters sooner. But why so? Is it that we would rather have been Livy, to have written on the grandeur of Rome, than Tacitus, on its ill-fated decline? It may be so; for we are loth to chronicle, in any department, our country's dispraise; but we are not without the reflection, that we might have done something towards preventing the evils we have had to deplore, by exposing the manner in which they have accumulated and thriven. That there are objections to racing, we do not deny, as, indeed, there are to most of the sports which have been invented for the amusement of mankind, and few of which can gratify pure benevolence; but when honourably conducted, we consider the turf as not more objectionable than most others, and it has one advantage over

Proof by hedging-B begins to hedge, by betting an even 17. on the first event, which A winning, he wins. On the subsequent event, B takes the odds, 3 to 2, which A winning, he also wins. Thus he receives 47., which pays the 4 to 1 he betted on A, losing both events.

Upon two several events, even betting on the one, and 7 to 4 in favour of A on the other; what odds may B lay against A winning both? The one, as before, is †, and the other is represented by 7:

7

1 7
Then X =
2 11 22

thus 15 to 7 is the odds.

; and 22 - 7 = 15:

Proof by hedging-The sum against which B laid his odds is 7; therefore he begins by laying 77. on the first event; which, as A wins, he wins. On the next event, he lays 14 to 8, or twice 7 to twice 4, as per terms of question, which he also wins; making together 7 and 8 = 15, the odds he had laid with, and lost to A. Upon the same two events, what odds may B bet A, that the latter does not lose both? Set down for the former, for the latter

;

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Proof by hedging-B bets first the sum to which he has laid his odds, namely 27., which he wins; and then, taking 7 to 4 on the second event, he wins 2 + 7 = 9, which pays the 97. he lost to A; and had more favourable odds been offered, B must have been a winner without risk of losing.

When three distinct events are pending, on the first of which the betting is even; on the second, 3 to 2 in favour of A, and the third 5 to 4; what odds should B lay A, that the latter does not name all the winners? The first is expressed by, the second by, and the third by:

1 3 2

1

Therefore,× X =(by cancelling) and 6 15:

hence the odds is 5 to 1.

9

Proof by hedging-B begins to hedge by betting an even 27., that A wins the first event; he then bets the odds on the next, viz., (3 to 2) 21 to 1. B also bets the odds on the third event, viz. (5 to 4) 22 to 2. Now A wins all three; therefore, B wins 2+1+257. which pays what he lost to A. The odds that A did not lose these three events would be 41 to 4.

almost

almost all now in any measure of fashionable repute :-it diffuses its pleasures far and wide. The owner of race-horses cannot gratify his passion for the turf, without affording delight to thousands upon thousands of the less fortunate of his countrymen. This is no trivial feature in the case, now that shooting is divided between the lordly battue and the prowl of the poacher,and that fox-hunting is every day becoming more and more a piece of exclusive luxury, instead of furnishing the lord, the squire, and the yeoman, with a common recreation, and promoting mutual goodwill among all the inhabitants of the rural district.

ART. V. The Inferno of Dante.

WE

Translated by Ichabod Charles Wright, A. M. London. 8vo. 1833.

E have, on various occasions, expressed our high opinion of the translation of the Divine Comedy executed in our own time by Mr. Cary. To say that it was on all points superior to every preceding English version of that extraordinary poem, would have been little praise: they had all been execrable-it was really excellent. Mr. Cary understood his author as well perhaps as any Englishman did at the period of his labours-and he gave us a transcript, almost always clear, generally vigorous, and in many passages indicative of warm poetical feeling in the mind of the interpreter. We speak of the substance of Dante :-of his peculiar manner, as distinct-as unlike any other-in many respects as nobly original as that of Homer or of Shakspeare-the version, masterly as it was, certainly conveyed, as a whole, no approach to a likeness. The measure alone in which Cary wrote rendered this almost impossible. The sweeping, long-drawn-out harmony of good English blank verse could reflect no livelier impression of the compact, terse, if we may so call it sculptural precision of Dante's terza rima, than Pope's heroic couplets of Homer's hexameters ; and when Cary, in the desire to come closer to Dante, flung away the guiding echo of his Milton, he produced an effect positively disagreeable. Tercets, without the grace of cæsura, and the varieties of interlinked lines, in the absence of rhyme, are indeed unmelodious monsters.

The attempt to introduce the terza rima itself as an English measure, often unsuccessfully hazarded in our earlier times, has been repeated, since Mr. Cary published his book, by a great master of versification; but although Lord Byron seems to have thought very highly of the execution of his Prophecy of Dante and his translation of an Episode in the Inferno, the public taste has not in the main ratified his judgment. The Prophecy' has the air

of

« ZurückWeiter »