It may be interesting for many who have no knowledge of pool room practices, and will better illustrate the devices by which the “sucker” is snared, to have a few illustrations of actual proceedings that have transpired. Here, for instance, is what is called a “book” taken from the blackboard at the Imperial pool rooms, Chicago, June 12, 1890:

THE MUTUAL POOL.

PURSE $400—WEST SIDE TRACK, CHICAGO.
First Race, Maidens, Seven Furlongs.
20Emma McDowell1051
10Dora Morne1051
10Jack Staff1061
50Norwood1071
40Flora McDonald981
10Jennie Gronnod1051
10John Clarkson1031
3Corticelli1101
20Imogene1052
30Council Platt1005
2Later On1061
5Jack Batcheler1071
10Tall Bull1101
20Arizone1055
50Miss Longford1051
10Jasper1071
15Rock1112
315 27

In explanation it is to be observed that the bookmaker never bets in favor of any horse. He invariably offers odds against every flyer on the programme. The first column of figures gives the odds offered; the second the weight carried by each horse, and the last the figure against which odds are offered. For instance, the first line means that the bookmaker offers twenty to one against Emma McDowell. Now, if this horse should win, the bookmaker would pay out $20, and having won all the other bets he would still be the winner, because he would receive $26 against the loss of $20. It will be observed that on Later On he only lays odds of two to one, and on Corticelli three to one. These are the favorites—horses which offer tolerably certain chances of being winner, and on which the book maker will take the smallest possible limit of chance. The favorite won the race and the book maker has to pay the winner $2, so that he is the winner by $25, counting out of the pool of $27, $2—$1 of which was his stake and the other that which had to be returned to the winner. If the horse Norwood had won the book maker would have been out $25. But no such contingencies are to be dreaded by the gentleman who presides over the pools. He is kept posted from sources that are always inside and unquestionable, and in offering the heavy odds knows that he runs no risk. This computation of winnings is based on the supposition that only one bet at the figure of $1 named was made, but the probability is that instead of this being the case the actual winnings may be safely estimated at $2,500 instead of $25. In this business an important figure is the “tout,” who, while actually the bookmaker’s agent, assumes the role of a gentleman who, by some means or other, has procured a “cinch tip” (meaning a sure thing), but is unfortunately short of money. “Now,” he will confidentially inform the sucker, “give me $10 to bet on Norwood, and we’ll divide the pot.” The money is produced, and, of course, goes to swell the book maker’s wad. These touts always induce their victim to bet on the “short horses”—that is, the horses against which the heaviest odds are laid, for two reasons. First, because the money more certainly goes where he is employed to steer it, and second, because in the rare and unprecedented event of the tail-ender on the blackboard becoming the winner on the track, the tout’s share of the winning will be so much larger. The tout will ply his vocation so industriously that on a board like the above he will have given a “tip” and got a bet laid on nearly every horse on the board. In this way he is almost certain to have one winner out of the lot and when the latter receives his stake the tout says, “There, didn’t I give you a straight tip!” He gets a liberal share, and his reputation for inside information is spread among the crowd, and his chances of increasing his victims in succeeding races are immensely increased. As for the losers, no one pays any attention to them. Even the tout won’t take the trouble to condole with them, and realizing that the mob of a gambling room do most heartily despise a “kicker,” they will probably sneak away to kick themselves in private. To illustrate the wisdom of the tout in always deluding his dupes to bet on the “short horse,” it may be mentioned that once in a great while, through some influence not comprehended by the book maker and his crowd of sharpers, the “short horse” will be a winner. This generally happens when the horse has been managed by some professional who, having discovered his qualities, has played a game on his brother gamblers, kept his pacer’s capacity a careful secret, probably has had him “pulled” by the jockey to make a bad record in a preceding race, so that he can gather in heavy odds in the event in which he intends to show his hand; and so the book maker becomes a victim in the game of “diamond cut diamond,” and the tout is made happy by a liberal share in the chance hit. We say “chance” hit because the tout never gives an honest tip, and if he really had the knowledge of the “short horse’s” prowess he would have informed his patron, the book maker, and the long odds would never have been given. As an instance of this kind of luck it may be stated that recently during a St. Louis meeting, at Roche’s pool-room in that city, a book was made in which the odds against a certain horse were laid at 100 to 1. A tout persuaded a man from North Missouri to let him have $50 to bet on the race. The tout bet 100 to 1 on the horse, and to his own astonishment, the amazement of the book maker, and of everyone else, his horse won the race, the result being that the book maker lost $5,000, while the tout received a bonus of $2,000 of the money.

THE COMBINATION BOARD.

This board enables you to have an opportunity to select a winner in three different races. The board is arranged as by this diagram:

Third Race—6 Furlongs.
Handicap. Purse $500.
1.{Wrestler,
Prophecy,		108
114
2.Copperfield,100
3.{Bonnie Annie,
Lady Blackburn,		90
96
4.{Gilford,
Vatel,		106
106
Fourth Race—5 Furlongs.
Purse $400. Selling.
1.Laura Doxey,110
2.{Ferryman,
Katie J.		98
105
3Irma B.,97
4.{Bert Jordan,
James V.		102
105
Fifth Race.—Steeplechase.
Purse $400. Full Course.
1.Irish Pat,138
2.Ascoli,138
3.Elphin,178
4.Gov. Hardin,120
11112141423272331403248534212
2112115143102823414133110544223
31131161441292411423321554231
41143172111302422433334564241
51214182124312433443345574312
612251921330322444453416584321
71231202141333115463421594332
812412122123431211473432604343
913122222233531310483441614414
101321232231363141494113624426
111331242241373211504121634431
121341252312383222514131644441
13141226232139323352414165
25604544 27
Total, 201

We will assume that in placing the bet you put your money on Gilford or Vatel for third race, Irma B. in the fourth, and Ascoli in the fifth. The number of your ticket would be 58, represented by the figures 4, 3, 2, these latter numbers indicating the horses named, as numbered on the score card. If your judgment has been correct, being the only purchaser of ticket number 58, for $1 you would receive the proceeds of the sale of the other tickets, or $201, less the percentage to the bookmaker, who pockets $30.15, or 15 per cent. thereon. But as a matter of fact, Copperfield wins the third, Laura Doxey the fourth, and Elphin the fifth. These horses being “favorites,” thirty tickets were sold on them, and the bookmaker having abstracted his $30.15, each winner receives only $5.69. In this board the bookmaker relies solely upon his percentage, and if the amount set forth be amplified to correspond with the sums usually bet at the race tracks and pool rooms, it will be seen that the profit is not only a handsome one, but it is the only one on the board that has the least “possible, probable shadow” of chance in its favor. The combination on the short horses won’t win once in a thousand times, while the winner on the selling combination gets only a sixth as much as the cosy and certain profits of the book maker.

FRENCH MUTUALS.

In these pools, the board is made up for each race as it transpires, and is set forth in the following manner: