To the Editor of THE BILLIARD NEWS:
SIR,—In the recent handicap promoted by W. Cook, after the conclusion of the second round three players were left in—Kilkenny, Bennett, and Hunt. The two former were drawn together. The result was in favour of Kilkenny by 110 points, Hunt having scored a bye.
The question is, therefore, Why should Hunt, because he was fortunate enough to win the draw, be sure of second prize? Had Bennett scored a bye he would have had second prize, or a different result. Why should a man, because he wins the draw, stand a better chance of winning the handicap? Three players were left in with equal chances, but one immediately has a sure chance given him. If Hunt had been drawn against Kilkenny, he would probably have been defeated, as he was in the final; or had he been drawn against Bennett, it would have been no certainty for the Londoner. I must admit, in every sport there is a great thing in drawing—e.g., a man drawing against a favourite might be defeated in the first round; but had he drawn against an outsider, there might have been a far different result. Taylor, for instance, by drawing against Stammers, secured an easy victory, where, had he drawn with Kilkenny in the first instance, he would have had no second chance. But when the limit is reduced to three it is different. Now why should not all three players left in have the same chance? Hunt and Bennett were in turn defeated by Kilkenny, and neither were beaten till they met the Yorkshire champion, Their chance on paper seems equal. Why should not Hunt and Bennett play a game for second prize? for if the drawing had been different the result would have been different as regards second.
Apologising for trespassing so much on your space,—I am,
Sir, yours, &c., A. G.
(Newcastle-on-Tyne)
[We will allude to the above letter on a future occasion— ED.]
To the Editor of THE BILLIARD NEWS:
SIR,—Can you explain to me the reason why a billiard handicap for stakes of several pounds is allowed in London, whereas the police in the country will not allow us to have one for stakes of a few shillings? Is there one law for the town and another for the country?
Yours truly, PROPRIETOR.
[We have much pleasure in publishing the above letter, but our knowledge of the law is not sufficient to answer it with accuracy this week; we will, however, take a good opinion on the subject, and refer to it at far greater length in a future issue. Probably pool or any game for money in a licensed victualler's premises is illegal, but it is a crime committed in a thousand cases every day in London with impunity. London magistrates and police, as a body, are so far superior intellectually to country magistrates and country police, that we may expect the former often to take a broad and common-sense view of a subject, where we should naturally expect to see exactly an opposite view taken by the latter class. However, we will refer to the subject again.—ED]