53

118. It is unthinkable that bookmakers should be licensed, with all the disadvantages and evil consequences which would accrue from licensing them, merely to convenience this type of bettor. As it is, they will be able to bet on alternate races, and if the off-course totalizator system develops in efficiency, as it doubtless will, then the limitation of betting to one and a half hours before the starting-time of any race will be reduced appreciably. In England, Tote Investors, Ltd., accepts bets up to five minutes before starting-time, and gets them to the course. If a similar degree of efficiency is achieved in New Zealand, then those who wish to bet on each race after hearing the result of the preceding race will be able to reassume the dubious character of progress bettors, and will be able to bet on race after race in succession as they do now. Incidentally, we are not impressed with the assessment of this type of bettor as representing 80 per cent, of all off-course bettors. We are disposed to accept the evidence that a very substantial part of the bookmakers' business to-day consists of doubles betting. 119. There are two other classes of bettors whom a totalizator system, from its inherent character, will not suit. These are owners and trainers who do not want, by betting on the totalizator, to depress the dividends their horses or those with which they are concerned will pay, and those bettors generally who want to back favourites and do not wish to depress the dividend. Both these types of people prefer the bookmakers for obvious reasons ; but here again we are not disposed to support an undesirable system merely for their benefit, and it may well be that the benefit they seek is not realized in as full a measure as they believe, because bookmakers are quite competent to match ingenuity with ingenuity and to have means of limiting their possible losses by getting money upon the totalizator when they have accepted heavy bets on favourites or on horses so obviously expected to win that they are supported by owners and trainers. 120. For the rest, the criticism of the system was chiefly directed, apart from matters of detail, to the question of the possibility of its effective installation. In respect of the details, it was said that, unless dividends are published, bettors will seek the knowledge from the bookmakers and, being thus thrown into contact with them, will feel some ■obligation to bet with them. We" feel that there is validity in this argument, and it is for that, amongst other reasons, that we later recommend that dividends be published. 121. Then it was suggested that the delay in the payment of dividends might induce winners to bet on credit with bookmakers, knowing that they have their winnings from the totalizator to rely upon for the discharge of their obligations. That difficulty, we think, will be overcome by our suggestion that bettors be enabled to bet against their winnings. Generally, it was said that it would be difficult to establish a system and difficult to administer it. For instance, it was contended