Dookums

BobbyDavis · December 2015

Ok you lot I have clearly missed something along the way.... I keep seeing the term "Dookums" being thrown around and I have to be honest I have no friggn idea what anyone us in about. Ploise explain????

BobbyDavis · December 2015

That should have read "is on about". Can't seem to edit my post sorry

LuckyLongshots · December 2015

@The falcon and @bookielover know the whole story - as does the entire punters club! :D

Correct me if I get anything wrong.....

Basically an old placecard bookie (nicknamed dookums) (4 places in 4 races) in Melbourne used to do well, with suckers taking him on. Basically he drove a nice car, so he won more than he lost, therefore anyone that bets a multi or quaddie or allup is a sucker - is that the correct meaning guys?

All good, pretty funny actually!

JayJay · December 2015

Jack ("Dookums") Humphries, an interesting Melbourne bookie that owned more than just a nice car!!!

BlacksAFake · December 2015

Falcon will be in the building shortly ;))

rustyh · December 2015

#-o

Oh no......far ken dookums!

:-@ :-@

Here we go......Bookielover is writing a post that will be the size of War and Peace! ~X(

>:P

Wait til Falc and BL get goin Bobby!

b-(

Reckon you be a full bottle in no time ol son.

[-(

BlacksAFake · December 2015

If your quick Bobbie,u can delete thread?
Trust me :>
They're coming

bookielover · December 2015

Just for Rusty, I'll try and keep this brief, Bobby.

Firstly, many thanks to Jay Jay. Even though I had the pleasure of meeting Dookums, or Dooks as everyone called him, many times when I was in my teens and early 20's when Dooks would come to the races, I never ever heard anyone call him Jack, and therefore, never knew his first name. I always though that Dookums was his first name.

I'd love to know, JayJay how you know his actual name!!

My dad knew him very well, and even though he never admitted it, I sort of got the feeling that my father could have been one of the "young blokes" who distributed Dookums illegal four place cards. If I was incorrect in that assumption, then I am absolutely positive that prior to my father becoming a bookie, he would have been a client of Dooks, as Dooks would always come up and say hello to Dad when he was working at the track.

Dookums looked like a well worn hard worker, very craggy face, who looked like he didn't have two bob to rub together, yet it's fair to say that he was a very wealthy man.

He made money out of bookmaking, but made loads more out of the 4 placed cards, and would often win thousands in a week when money had real value.

You would never have known looking at him, as he did not flout his wealth and was very understated. But if he backed one on the track, you could bet your sweet bippy that it would be fighting out the finish or winning.

The reason that Falcon who knew a similar person called bookie Bill in Sydney, and I refer to Dookums, is that experience has taught us, that you have to be very very lucky to be successful betting all up the place, let alone the win, as some punters on here do.

We consider a multi bet to be on three horses or more, although the 4 place cards were just that. By the way, the odds for the 4 place cards were added, not multiplied, another way that it became difficult to get a decent return. So if four horses were 2/1 the place you got 8/1 for your money.Back in the pounds shillings and pence days, if you had a shilling on you won 8 bob. Considering that 10 shillings a week was the wage in the 1940's, it was a very nice win if you could land the 4.

Most punters of that era though, would go for the big lick of the ice cream and have three pence on horses that added up gave them 25/1 for the place and would return the around 6 shillings for the small outlay. The problem was, they destroyed the three pence every Saturday, and Dooks had thousands of clients, so add it up and you can see how much he would win.

I reckon that in general, punters are much better educated today, including those who belong to this web site. So if any of you are taking all up multi's, you should and would, actually be aware of what you are doing and should know and understand that the odds are against you.

However, I can fully understand that the temptation is there to do it, because you can get a very nice return if you are correct.

To anyone who is a multi bettor, and I'm not talking about quaddies, just all up win and place, I'd be interested, and perhaps you would be too, if from January 1st 2016, you kept a record of the multi's you took, your outlay and your return if any, and let us know by June 30, that's after 6 months betting, if you are in front.

Now, an admission of sorts from me.

As Falcon knows, I have a mate whose father in law owns quite a few horses.

About 6 years ago, he had 3 horses in at Wagga on the last day of their carnival in May. He told me that they could all win. From memory, and believe me, I'm trying to forget, Jim Cassidy rode all three. He definitely rode two of them. I had $100 on each at 8/1, 5/1 and 9/2 so I had a good day when they all won.But then it hit me. $100 all up even at tote odds would have won me an extra $24,500, maybe a bit less as my all up would have affected the final dividend. I didn't take the all up, because of my knowledge of Fkn Dookums!!

I suppose that I comfort myself by believing that had I taken the three horses all up, I would have tumbled in and continued doing so, and by now would have been a regular at the Brotherhood of Saint Lawrence looking for food coupons.

Still another $24 large would have been nice, even if the missus would have got the lot!!

P.S. Sorry Rusty, not so brief after all.

;)

hash · December 2015

Bobby Davis said:
Ok you lot I have clearly missed something along the way.... I keep seeing the term "Dookums" being thrown around and I have to be honest I have no friggn idea what anyone us in about. Ploise explain????

dookums is a myth mate, don't believe anything you hear about him!

just ask rio and h-bomber for their all up betting history and see how successful they have been maybe then you'll realize dookums was just a fictional character made up by our falcon as a scare tactic for the punters club

:P

thefalcon · December 2015

BL, I think jayjay just googled "Dookums Humphries"......he lives on, even to this day.

i'm sure he'd be chuffed to know he on world-wide google.

there they refer to him as jack.

bookielover · December 2015

Hash, you can count the number of punters that have consistently won at the caper on the fingers of one hand.

The same applies to those who venture into multi betting.

That doesn't mean that over the years there haven't been any punters who have lived off the game over a long period of time.

Nor does it mean that some punters, you mention H Bomber and Rio, haven't done well taking multis.

Unfortunately 99% of punters who bet over a long period of time, be they straight out, each way, or multi bet punters, lose.

That's why I have great admiration for punters that have stood the test of time no matter what their mode of betting, along with bookmakers who actually retired having done well out of the game.

They too, are and have been, very few and far between.

hash · December 2015

sorry mate I stopped reading your post after the "same applies to multi betting" sentence.....

but then I realized how short this post was compared to usual....

I would have thought from my limited knowledge that majority or most than most bookmakers have retired and done well out of this game

:-/

youknowit · December 2015

Milky Evans and Lucky Kalaf who were very big bookies in there time didnt pass away with a lot of money left in the tank.

thefalcon · December 2015

I was friends with Rod and have nfi where the money went.

Manny lost the plot when Joy died and the casino got most of it...sad really.

bookielover · December 2015

Hash, stick with me here if you can.

With great respect, your comment re "MOST", I have deliberately italicized that word, bookmakers having done well out of the game, is unfortunately misplaced.

In the 50 years that I have been involved in the industry either directly through my late father or indirectly through my personal knowledge of a large number of bookmakers, just like successful punters who have made money out of the caper over a long period of time, at least 25-30 years, you can also count the number of bookmakers who made a book for that length of time and finished with money out of bookmaking, on the fingers of one hand. At a real stretch, maybe two hands, but that's it.

If my old man didn't have a good business to support his bookmaking, he would have finished up stone motherless broke. Unfortunately, many of those who made a book during the same period of time that my dad did, finished up without a cracker and on at least one occasion that I sadly recall, the hat was passed around at Flemington one day so that a bookie who had passed away could receive a proper burial. That bookie actually died owing my old man $6,000 but my old man still contributed $300 to the funeral. I can tell you that the bloke had a great send off.

What killed most bookies financially, and I have stated this before, was the iniquitous turnover tax. And had my old man not had his business outside bookmaking, paying the $4,000,000 that he did, would have destroyed him.

When it was first brought in, many big bookies of the day resigned, saying that it was impossible to beat the punters and the tax as well. You could beat the punters, but the tax would eat up the winnings. And they were right.

My old man, and his fellow bookies would complain bitterly about it, and when asked why they stayed in the game, they told the truth. Their answer was that they loved the challenge. They loved the gamble. It was a disease curable by death only.

In those days, bookies gambled. They stood horses for thousands. Today, at the so called "ordinary meetings", bookies go to the track to try and earn. You cannot get set for a decent bet in Melbourne. One bet with one bookie of $2,000 on a horse at $4.40 will see the horse shorten all around the ring into $3.60, because the bookie who took the bet will put $1,000 back, particularly if it's shorter on Betfair. The other bookies runners will tell the bookies at the other end of the rails about the bet, and those will wind it off without having written a bet. But you will still have the commentators telling the public about the so called plonk on the horse.

I don't blame the bookies. Aside from the Spring carnival and a few decent meetings in the Autumn, they are playing to an empty house. And even as careful as they are, they are still finding it hard to win.

About the only bookies that I know who finished with any money during my old mans career,were those that had an outside interest away from the track and didn't allow the two to mix.

Of all the bookies on the rails that worked in Melbourne from around 1960 till 1990, I can only think of two who actually made money out of the game, but when it's all said and done, they too, invested their winnings when they were having a good trot, in property.

There maybe one or two others. If there are, I don't know who they are.

Nothing has changed. Putting aside the effect of the Tote, Sky Channel, Corporate Bookmakers, the loss of a generation of punters, and the changing face and pastimes and interests of society, generally speaking, bookmaking is just as hard today as it was back then. The big difference is the volume of money and the inability of bookmakers to take a big bet even if they want to, because they can't lay off. Especially if its "smart" money.

I reckon Diva would say it's the competition from the Corps, Betfair, the Tote, and the lack of support for bookmakers from the authorities.

All true. But the bookies in my old man's day had competition from the tote, and SP bookmaking was huge. You could back horses with the SP's to win hundreds of thousands all around Australia and I include Tassy in that where there were some very big SP bookies. The authorities gave bookies no help at all. And that 2.25% turnover tax was a killer. Today they pay 1%.

However, in comparison to today, there were huge punters on track and you could get on for millions, particularly in Sydney. That betting duel between Bruce Mchugh and Kerry Packer in 1984 is legendary. I reckon that in Melbourne during the early 80's at the Carnival you could back a horse to win a million very easily when a million was actually worth something.

A mate of mine had a horse in on Metropolitan day in Sydney. However, his horse was in at Bendigo. They didn't touch it in the Bendigo ring. Bendigo raced on the Monday to coincide with the Metrop.

He and three others flew to Sydney with 50 grand. They got 7/1 and Bob Blann the big Interstate bookie who worked alongside Bruce Mchugh, Harry Barret , Charlie Damore and Porkie Wylie, took the lot in one bet. The horse sh!!t in. That's how you could get on then on a crappy Bendigo meeting in Sydney on a Monday.

Mchugh, got out after that Packer duel because he didn't want to go broke, Barrett was a huge car dealer and made his fortune out of that. Lost plenty at the track, and cut back his betting a lot before he gave it away. Damore gave it away because he could see the writing on the wall, and as far as I know did finish with money and I heard that Wylie wasn't that financial when he passed away.

Another huge bookie at the time, Roger Manning went broke. You could back them to win 200 grand with him. Wayne Mcdonald had to give it away just a few years ago. He was the leader of the ring. That's just a few Sydney bookies. All of whom bet in hundreds of thousands.

I was in the Victorian Club when Mark Read backed Black Night to win the Melbourne Cup with Mike Faulkner. at the call of The card. One bet was $360,000 to $30,000 Another was $240,000 to $20,000. I think he backed it for a bit more as well. That was huge money back then. Granted it was on the Melbourne Cup, but that money bought 4 very nice homes in some very nice suburbs. You'd be lucky to buy one home in an outer suburb here in Melbourne for that $600,000 today.

Tom Waterhouse supposedly backed a horse to win 5 million at the call of the card. I think he had 50 grand on. Lets see, that's $500 tax. Worth about $10,000 in free publicity for his Company. Anyone think the bet was genuine? They would have recorded it, and the tax paid, but I'd be stunned if the bookie who took the bet was paid the 50 large when the horse lost.

The fact is that you CAN have a decent bet in Melbourne and Sydney and even Queensland when their carnivals are on. There are more people, the bookies can lay more horses, and the volume of money held is bigger. Plus the facility to bet back on the Fair which has a massive turnover at these meetings, means that the bookie can minimize his risk to a certain extent. But at ordinary meetings, forget it.

Which really brings me to the point that I am making Hash. At the end of the day, most of the current crop of bookies will either go broke, or give the game away because it's not viable.

As Diva pointed out in a post a while ago, there are no new bookmakers entering the system in W.A, and in Melbourne, the only way a new bookie comes into the game is if someone wants to buy a license. A rails license in Melbourne used to change hands for $250,000 a few years ago. Now a bookie would be lucky to get $80,000, and that's if there are any takers.

The game is tougher than ever.

So Hash, if you have bothered to read this far and are still awake, I can tell you that any bookie who has a 30 year career as a bookmaker only, without an outside source of income and retires with any money, is a genius. If they have another business besides the bookmaking, they will only retire with money provided they have the control not to mix the two and allow the business to fund the bookmaking.

One last thing, Hash.

Yes, blokes will stay in it, because they just love the game and that dream that tomorrow will provide 8 skinners and they will take home the track. Just like punters who do no good at punting and that's the majority, but they keep coming back for more because today just might be the day.

The reality however, is this. If something is good, your job or your business, not only don't you give it away, but thousands of others will clamour to try and get into your line of work or start a business just like yours so that they too can make the big bucks.

No one wants a bookie license, and if the truth be told, even though a few new bookies came on the scene in Melbourne, no one has really wanted one since about 1990.

And that says it all.

thefalcon · December 2015

well said, BL....

=D>

Darkhorse · December 2015

Asians in general seem like they are always punting, but I have only ever seen one with a satchel.

No racism implied just an observation.

Are they too smart to take up a bookies license.

Ridersonthestorm33 · December 2015

@Bookielover...I can't work out how the all up place cards were added and not multiplied...that's ridiculous! No punter worth his salt should fall for that. Would hold those bets any day of the week. Four horses @ 2/1 returns a miserly 8/1 when it should be 80/1... Blimey you wouldn't have to be Einstein to work out you were getting ripped off to the max. :-B

bookielover · December 2015

Riders, the all up win was multiplied and you could get all up win cards, but they weren't as popular.

When you consider the times, the 40's 50's and 60's when a quid was a quid and money was hard to earn, but had real buying power, I suppose the punters looked at it as a way to get an extra few bob for a small outlay.

Just to give you an idea, my grandmother in the early 50's would go to the Victoria market and would buy a chicken for sixpence. That's five cents in today's currency. So if a bloke won say six shillings, you can imagine that he'd be able to feed his family for an extra few weeks over and above what his wages would do for him.

In today's world, it's incomprehensible for us to think that way.

Ridersonthestorm33 · December 2015

Thanks yes I understand...but if you are selecting 4 horses a place at 2/1 each which is $3 a place in today's decimals.... Then that's still 80/1....whether win or place it still should be multiplied...shouldn't it ?? I think I'm missing something here!!?? :-? I can't work out how a bookie got away with adding instead of multiplying. Though I do vaguely remember my dad talking about it many moons ago and to stay away from the adding bets!! I know what he was talking about now.

cisco · December 2015

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

Shortster · December 2015

Ridersonthestorm33 said:
Thanks yes I understand...but if you are selecting 4 horses a place at 2/1 each which is $3 a place in today's decimals.... Then that's still 80/1....whether win or place it still should be multiplied...shouldn't it ?? I think I'm missing something here!!?? :-? I can't work out how a bookie got away with adding instead of multiplying. Though I do vaguely remember my dad talking about it many moons ago and to stay away from the adding bets!! I know what he was talking about now.

The odds added weren't the actual place odds. If it were a $3 chance to place 6/1 would have been posted on the board or something to that effect giving you 24/1.

With a $6 chance ($2 to place) 3/1 would be up on the board.

So it was bad but not that bad.

Ridersonthestorm33 · December 2015

^^ 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.

runyon · December 2015

bookielover said:
Riders, the all up win was multiplied and you could get all up win cards, but they weren't as popular.

When you consider the times, the 40's 50's and 60's when a quid was a quid and money was hard to earn, but had real buying power, I suppose the punters looked at it as a way to get an extra few bob for a small outlay.

Just to give you an idea, my grandmother in the early 50's would go to the Victoria market and would buy a chicken for sixpence. That's five cents in today's currency. So if a bloke won say six shillings, you can imagine that he'd be able to feed his family for an extra few weeks over and above what his wages would do for him.

In today's world, it's incomprehensible for us to think that way.

Whoever owned the winner of the 1954 Melbourne Cup could have bought 420 000 chooks with the prizemoney.
:D

Darkhorse · December 2015

Whoever owned the winner of the 1954 Melbourne Cup could have bought 420 000 chooks with the prizemoney

Must have been one of the Inghams.

JayJay · December 2015

Winner was owned by Mr Spring......420,000 Spring Chickens!!!!

Ridersonthestorm33 · December 2015

JJ that's shocking! X_X ...reminds me though of Colonel Sanders answer when he was asked...Why did the chicken cross the road ? He replied... ' I missed one ? '

hash · December 2015

So in summary BL neither punters or bookies could make a decent living and finish ahead at the end and the reason they all still do it is for the love of the game but as we all know that love can come at a cost unfortunately.. Some more expensive and worse off than others

hash · December 2015

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

JayJay · December 2015

Sorry Riders....but seriously, Rising Fast won the Cup in 1954 and was owned by one Mr Leicester Spring.....couldn't help myself on a very slow day of going through the Catalogue for the Gloucester Standardbred Sale...thinking about an optimistic purchase of a yearling.

thefalcon · December 2015

think again, jay jay..... ~X(

G'day Punter!

In this Discussion

Who's Online

Dookums

Comments