THE FORTHCOMING HANDICAP

On Monday next will commence, at the Guildhall Tavern, Gresham-street, a billiard handicap that bids fair to be one of the most successful of the many good ones that have taken place of late years. The deserving popularity of W. Cook has increased rather than diminished of late, and probably the, to him, unfortunate result of the last match for the championship will tend to make his old admirers flock around him in greater numbers than ever. The public, too, are a shrewd body, and they, judging from experience, well know that on all occasions when Cook has had the sole management of entertainments, and has been unfettered by others, he has invariably consulted their comfort and convenience.

This sort of policy resembles "Charity," which the well-known poet has declared to be twice blessed, as it blesses both the giver and receiver.

In the management of all public entertainments, and, in fact, in conducting all business where the comfort of the public is of paramount importance, there is but one sound principle on which to proceed, and that is, to take for granted that, within certain reasonable limits, the more we consult the comfort of others the more shall we profit ourselves.

The result of the good management of the London and Manchester handicaps that took place last year will probably tend to fill the benches of the Guildhall Tavern on Monday next and during the week. The result of the bad management of the late match for the championship will probably show itself in the next one of the kind that will take place.

We, will, however, turn to the handicap itself, and proceed to discuss the several chances of some of the competitors engaged. There seems to be a general impression abroad that the handicap we have made is very favourable to the men who receive a long start—viz., 220 points.

There is one curious feature in all handicaps, and that is, that those who give points are almost invariably the favourites.

Now if we take the present one we shall find it no exception to the rule. First take Cook, and suppose him to play with either Stanley or Taylor; we believe that Cook would be the favourite.

Again, suppose Taylor were to draw with either Kilkenny or Alfred Bennett; Taylor would almost be certain to be most fancied by the betting men.

Once more, let us take Kilkenny or Alfred Bennett, and let them give 50 points to even Collins or Shorter, who are supposed to be the best of the next lot; the betting will again be the best test as to which is the real favourite. "Were Stammers, again, to draw with any of the men who receive 220 points, there can, of course, be no doubt but considerable odds would be laid against that popular City veteran. Yet a good many say that it is absurd to handicap Cook to give so many points; that giving 270 points in a game of 500 up to a player like Stammers, or still more 220 to Shorter, Collins, or Harry Evans, virtually puts Cook out of the handicap. Yet taking each class of players in detail, each of which concedes 50 to the one below it, it appears that Cook ought to be first favourite.

Persons are too apt to judge of the play of what may be called second-class professionals by individual games, instead of their ordinary average play. For instance, some will say, How absurd to handicap a man to receive 220 points in 500 who can make 200 or 300 off the balls! These persons should bear in mind how often such a large break has been made, and under what circumstances?

It would be just as reasonable to judge of Cook's play simply by saying a man who can make 936 off the balls can give almost any points.

Top-weight men again have an advantage over those handicapped lightly, owing to the fact that they, as a rule, are far more accustomed to play in public.

There are many professionals whose public exhibitions have never been exhibited beyond what in reality amounts to a private circle of friends.

Now a set match at the Guildhall Tavern before a large assemblage of strangers, is very different to an ordinary match at an hotel, where the only difference to playing an ordinary game is that half-a-crown was charged at the door for admission, instead of the room being open to all.

Players like Cook, Stanley, and Taylor, who probably play more often in public than in private, have a great advantage in meeting those who may be said really never to have played in public at all.

An experienced old barrister who has been accustomed to speak in public for thirty years, would probably demolish an opponent in a public contest, who might in a private conversation prove to be his superior. It is for this reason that we prefer the chance of the first six men in the handicap to the last six, though we know that there is a general impression the other way. Cook's play is too well known to need commenting on; probably when it comes to the point there will be found men willing to back him, and even lay slight odds on him, every game he plays. Next Taylor and Stanley: look at the public form both these players have at times exhibited; for instance, Taylor's play in the London handicap last year, or Stanley's in the handicap that took place at the Montpellier Tavern in the Walworth-road. Public play, when money is really at stake, is the best criterion after all by which to judge of a man's chance. The next two on the list are Alfred Bennett and Louis Kilkenny. The latter of these players ran second to Cook in the very first handicap played at the GuildHall Tavern, and the former very nearly won the first great American Billiard Tournament, both being handicapped at 160. Should the extra ten points they now receive enable either of them to win the handicap, we feel sure no victory would be more popular.

With regard to Fred Bennett, we have not had sufficient opportunities of seeing him play to be able to judge of his merits beyond that he is reported to be quite equal to his brother. Whether he will be able to show that this is the case in public remains to be seen.

In the next division, which seems to be the favourite one, Shorter and Collins seem most fancied, and Harry Evans is also talked of. However, the latter player is proverbially uncertain, and is quite out of practice, we are informed. *In public, and the money on, Hunt can play a fine game, and were we obliged to select we would rather pick him than any. Richards, again, with, such a start, ought to have a fair chance; but then he also plays an uncertain game. Still he is an old stager compared to some of his opponents, and has often played in public, and his chance seems to us quite as good as any of the rest.