DookumsWest Australian Racing

SLIPPERGOLDEN

BL you should write a book. Just about every post of yours on here is a chapter. :-B

Ridersonthestorm33

Didn't know that about Rising Fast being owned by Mr. Spring. Did Rising Fast also finish runner up in a Cup carrying the grandstand and the horse that beat it by a nose carry about 44kg ? A lot different from the compression of today's weights. No such thing as a lightweight hardly anymore.

bookielover

hash said:

Dark horse in reply to your comment on Asians and being bookies, my guess would be that they'd possibly prefer to keep a low profile (tax purposes etc) so being a punter would be much more effective and easier? Asians are some of if not the smartest when it comes anything that involves making/earning/wining money

Hash, we had a few bookies here who were Asian. The best known would have been Victor Ma. In Sydney, the best known would have been Arthur Sing who was a bookie there for 50 years.

JayJay

Some horse Rising Fast....in 1954 he won everything....Turnbull Stakes, Caulfield Stakes, Caulfield Cup, Cox Plate, McKinnon Stakes, Melbourne Cup, C.B.Fisher Plate...all in a row. Came back in 1955 and won the Caulfield Cup again with 9 stone 10 (61.5kg), got penalised for the Melbourne Cup to 10 stone (63.5kg) and on a wet track got flattened twice by the winner Toparoa in a tight finish...Toparoa carried 48kg. Neville Sellwood who rode Toparoa got suspended for 2 months for causing interference but Mr Spring did not protest regarding it as a racing incident. Not bad for a horse whose sire won one race on the flat and whose dam never won. A 325 pound purchase who won over 66,000 pounds.

bookielover

cisco said:

BL - what did/do you think of concession betting? Do you think bookies like Wally Scomazon would have made a decent living?

Cisco, I do wonder about your fascination with Wally. Did you know him personally?  

I think it's fair to say that back in the halcyon days of greyhound racing, the concession was a license to print money. And Wally Scomazzon was one of the concession bookies at the dogs along with Lal Scurrah Albert Maggs and a couple of others.  I think that it's safe to say that as far as Wally was concerned, the concession subsidized his losses at the races.

Dookums taught a mate of mine a valuable lesson about betting concession.

My mate gave Dooks a lift home. Dookums knew that my mate was a dog punter and asked him if he had a good thing for the night. My mate replied that such and such a dog was a run around to nothing backing it concession.

Dooks asked my mate what price he thought it would be, and my mate said "it will be 4/1 straight out", which meant that it would be 5/2 concession.

So Dookums asked my mate "do you go to the track to win"? My mate, said "of course I do". So Dookums said, "how much are you going to have on the dog"? My mate said., "I'll be having 500/200." So Dookums said, "then if you really believe it's a run around to nothing concession, why don't you take evens the place and have $500 the place on it. At least if it runs second or third you will win that $500, whereas if you back it concession and it runs second or third, you only get your $200 back and win nothing".

My mate actually listened to Dookums advice, had an even monkey the place, and the dog ran third. He never bet concession again on any dog that he felt was at the very least a certainty to either win or run first second or third.

bookielover

Ridersonthestorm33 said:

^^ Thanks...I'm still a bit vague on it but starting to see the picture....Bad but not that bad makes a bit more sense. The mathematics of betting is a little underrated and quite important.

Riders, what Shortster says is very true, and it was remiss of me not to say it.

A bloke would get a 4 place card and he'd see that Phar Lap was 2/1 the place. he knew that Phar Lap was going to be 2/1 the win, so he automatically was sucked into the great value. And on paper some of those place odds offered by Dookums were great value. The 10/1 chance which should have been 5/2 the place was anywhere between 4/1 and 6/1.

But Dookums knew what he was doing, and the fortune that he made, was testament to that.

cisco

Thanks BL no fascination with Wally - it's just that as a 16 year old going to Olympic Park dogs/Moonee Valley trots (I was not really a gallops man) there was a real buzz  on course compared to now.

Its funny I used to bet a place with a bookie called Terry Pugh (I think that was his name) at Olympic Park dogs.

They are just great memories and many thanks for all your stories. 

bookielover

Ridersonthestorm33 said:

Didn't know that about Rising Fast being owned by Mr. Spring. Did Rising Fast also finish runner up in a Cup carrying the grandstand and the horse that beat it by a nose carry about 44kg ? A lot different from the compression of today's weights. No such thing as a lightweight hardly anymore.

Rising Fast ran second in the 1955 Melbourne Cup beaten by a horse called Toporoa trained by Tommy Smith. Bill Williamson rider of Rising Fast should have protested against Toporoa ridden by Neville Selwood for interference which was blatant. Toporoa carried the equivalent of 48 kilos.

Toporoa did start second favourite. Had Rising fast won however, it would have sent doubles bookies to the wall, as he had been heavily backed for the Caulfield Melbourne Cup double and had won the Caulfield Cup.

Rumours abounded that the doubles bookies had got to Williamson to pull the horse up. And when he didn't protest, those rumours seemed to have a lot of truth about them.

Others say that, as reported by JayJay, the owner, Mr. Spring, asked Williamson not to protest describing the interference as an incident of racing.

If you ever get to see a video of the race, possibly available on you tube, watch for the interference. It seems incredulous that Williamson would not have protested unless he was on a very big quid to pull Rising Fast up.

Williamson has passed away and is not here to defend himself. Then again, if he was alive, I wouldn't be able to relate the story. You can draw your own conclusions. 

My old man, together with a few others including another bookmaker,  owned a very good horse which shall remain nameless, back in the early 60's. It was entered into a race at the Valley.

They decided to put 5,000 pounds on it. So my dad went up to a bookmaker called Jack Corrie who always clutched a set of Rosary Beads in his hand, and had the 5,000 on at 7/4. As he was walking away, he called my dad back and said, you know this is dead, don't you? My dad said, no way, it's trying for it's life. However, something didn't feel right, and he  immediately went up to another bookie  in Albert Smith, and got him to lay the 5,000 back.

The horse missed the start by 3 lengths, and made an 800 metre,  run and the jockey took it 20 wide on the turn. The horse went down by a head. Should have won by 5 and actually went to Ballarat next start and did win by 5. The "boys" got evens for their money, and after it won, sold the horse. What had happened at the Valley had sickened them and they swore never to buy another horse again, and none of them ever did.

That win was under a new trainer. When confronted, by my old man and the other owners after the Valley run, the trainer, Les Cole, broke down and admitted that he owed a certain bookie 8 large and pulled it up for him. He also paid the jockey, a thousand pounds to be in the rort

The jockey, Bill Williamson.

It was a tough hard game back then, and looking at what goes on today, nothing has changed.

Yes, the Cobalt inquiry is a terrible look for racing, and to have our top trainers here in Victoria, pending their appeals,  currently under the threat of disqualification, must affect the confidence of punters.

However, to me, there is an even bigger issue. 

Will any so called integrity department of racing in this Country, ever bother to investigate how it is that a horse can be backed for example from $3.00 into $2.50 in the ring, yet be hawked on Betfair at $4.00 or more for thousands, and run according to the odds offered on the Fair. Not only don't they win, they never even look like winning. It's not as if the horse went down by a nose, or was unlucky in the run. The horse is never in it.

How the hell, do "they" know? Do they send their mate out with 10 grand to the track with instructions to back the horse knowing it will shorten, so that they can get 50 grand out of it on Betfair and still finish 40 in front?

And how do they get the information in the first place that the horse should be $50.00 and by laying it at $4.00 they are laying it well under the odds?

It's been going on for a long time, particularly on Perth city races, and I have yet to see or hear of one inquiry where the Stewards called for the betting sheets from Betfair, asked for the names of the layers, and called them into an inquiry to explain why they were prepared to give $4.00 plus about a horse that had been backed from $3.00 into $2.50 in the ring.

Yes, I know that by watching the scenario that I have just described, "we" can utilise that information for our own benefit, however, if the money wagered on track was yours, or you are the owner of the horse and have backed it in good faith, how comfortable would you feel about the scenario then?

Anyway, I live in hope that something will be done about this in the New Year, and the Stewards will actually do their jobs. They should have one Steward monitoring the betting in the ring and comparing that with what is happening on Betfair. Then again, the Steward would have to have the ability to know what he's looking at and for.

Until they are proactive in this area, it is very difficult to bet with any confidence on Perth racing. and this stuff isn't just restricted to Perth, but I find it happens far too often there than anywhere else.

Anyway, that's my final rant for the year.

Happy New Year to all.

And let's hope that win, lose or draw, we can bet with some confidence that all races are being run on their merits.

bookielover

cisco said:

Thanks BL no fascination with Wally - it's just that as a 16 year old going to Olympic Park dogs/Moonee Valley trots (I was not really a gallops man) there was a real buzz  on course compared to now.

Its funny I used to bet a place with a bookie called Terry Pugh (I think that was his name) at Olympic Park dogs.

They are just great memories and many thanks for all your stories. 

Hi Cisco, His name was Jack Pugh. he served in WW2 with my old man, and won the medal that is second to the Victoria Cross, for bravery under fire. He was a very smart bookie. His son Wayne became a place bookie but gave it away many years ago.

Jack used to say that what he laid for the place particularly where outsiders were concerned, was the best guide on the track if an outsider had a chance of winning.

If a horse was 50/1 straight out it would be 12/1 the place. He said that if there were 6 horses at 50/1 straight out and only one of them was backed for any money for the place, you could bet your life that the 50/1 shot that was backed for the place with him, would beat all the other 50/1 shots by lengths, if not win the race.

And he was right.

cisco

Wayne Pugh was the bloke - you are spot on!!

Sorry to bring up Wally again but why would he field at the races if he struggled to make a quid???

Chariotsonfire

cisco said:

Wayne Pugh was the bloke - you are spot on!!

Sorry to bring up Wally again but why would he field at the races if he struggled to make a quid???

The old story about the bookie who lost at every meeting and bemoaned his situation.

When one of his mates suggested that he give the game away his response was "I can't its how I make my living".

bookielover

cisco said:

Wayne Pugh was the bloke - you are spot on!!

Sorry to bring up Wally again but why would he field at the races if he struggled to make a quid???

Cisco, lots of bookies in that era fielded at places where they found it hard to win. There were bookies who fielded at the Showgrounds trots which, in the early years was a license to print money. They would then go to theraces and have limited success.

I'm not saying that Wally never won at the races, but he won a hell of a lot more on the trots and especially the dogs. 

Overall, the money was much much bigger at the races. My old man who would have been about the 15th biggest out of 20 bookies on the rails back in the 70's  and early 80's, yet would have no trouble holding $150,000 a day on a city meeting, Wally held more. Not too many bookies in Australia would hold that today, and allowing for inflation, the $150 grand back then is worth at least double, if not more, today, so in order for bookies to match what was being held 40 years ago,they would have to hold at least $300,000 a day every Saturday. I don't know of one in Melbourne who does.

Mind you, the bookies from the 60's 70's and 80's, held nowhere near the money that bookies held from just after the second world war, until the credit squeeze in this Country in 1960.

For example, Ken Ranger, Sydney's leading bookie back then held over 2.5 million pounds a year every year for around 10 years until he had to give it away because of heart trouble. You could buy a house for 500 quid back then. He was laying bets of 10,000 pounds to 5,000 pounds to punters. Try to work that out on today's values. He was letting blokes on to win the equivalent of 20 houses and they were putting the equivalent of 10 houses on with him.

It's all relative, I know. But when you take inflation into account, we are living through the worst period ever, where the amount of bookmakers turnover, and the size and value of betting by punters, is concerned.

Anyway, back to the topic. You couldn't turnover that much money at either the dogs or trots, but they were far more profitable for many bookies.

It was the thrill, or the anticipation, call it what you like, of the possibility of the big win, that made them go to the races. 

I knew smart dog punters who knew the form inside out and could virtually guarantee an 80-85% success rate, yet time and again would do their proverbial's at the races, where their ability to sum up the form was not as good.

I suppose human nature has got a lot to do with some of the decisions that we make!!

8-}

cisco

Many thanks BL