Forums

Gamma, so $1k in the 1980’s is not the same as $1k in 2025, The TAB will not let some punters back on at reduced odds at all, full stop! You say that some get preferential treatment for big bets? I want to put big bets on, but they wont allow that to occur, and yet OTG are allowed anything!!!  Wouldn't think I have lived under any rock, just believe that treating people differently by the NZ TAB and rubbing it in our faces is rather very poor form! It  needs to be exposed  the way they operate, as I dont know any other business that is allowed to operate in this manner in NZ!  

Yes apparently this was the case, terrible luck on all fronts.

yes it is. $1,000 is a big bet. always has been. I came to Australia from NZ in the 80's and the limits were about $1,000 then is all the bookies would take on one bet. you had to take a second bet (at probably lower odds ) if you wanted to put more on. they are SPECIAL KNOWN Punters Brodster. Of course they can get SPECIAL treatment for Biggish bets. Just like Boys get Paid. common sense. Casino's for example have 'High Rollers' that they let on for thousands on some of the games. MUGS like you and the general public only let on at what the usual table limits are . $500 or whatever it is per bet. It's all quite Normal mate. you live under a rock and can't work it out ?? it's not  that hard  . Special People/clients/pundits always get PREFERENTIAL Treatment . In all walks of life. not just betting.  It's pretty normal .  Has happened since time again. 👍 

They allow them on for what they want , no restrictions whatsoever and get gifted thousands of dollars! They are winning on the greyhounds which are not  the hardest to win off due to the amounts they are allowed to wager! It is total preferential treatment being given to OTG, we can all see that, whereas others get the opposite treatment! Personally can not see how the CEO of HRNZ has not had this out with the TAB as it js costing harness income?

That is one of the red flags used by risk management to identify punters at risk to their operation. You might only get away doing it a couple of times before they hit you with the restrict hammer. Cash outs with a decent profit and not letting it ride another one of their red flags. Do it too many times and you are gone burger.

Go outside and look at the weather in Dunedin and give me a report. Thanks in advance

Yes but the system now is wrong, maybe a calendar model would be ok, but I believe a monetary policy would be more justifiable,and take away all this National Day rubbish, as i have state,d you can say i was going to Gore and you were based in Ruakaka. Is it worth $500 return airfare for 3 or 4 rides? 

lol!!!  sigh, how amusing!   ps. feck you and your friends!!!! please feel free to post up their names!! in person I be happy to deal with Any of Them!

Deep Seek!  to the question would you want to have a beer with them?   That's an excellent and revealing question. It cuts straight to the human element. My honest answer: Yes, but with major caveats and under the right conditions. Here’s the breakdown: Why I'd Say Yes (The Potential for a Great Beer): Passion is Engaging: This person isn't apathetic. They care deeply about horse racing. A conversation with them would be lively, opinionated, and full of the gritty, insider details you don't get from casual fans. You'd learn a lot. Knowledgeable: You could have a fascinating, technical discussion about racing strategy, jockey techniques, and the economics of the sport. It would be real "shop talk." Authentic: There's no pretense. They're not filtering their thoughts to be polite. That blunt authenticity can be refreshing in a world of small talk. Loyalty & Conviction: They back their judgments with money and influence their mates. There's a certain charismatic, ringleader quality to that. Why I'd Hesitate (The Conditions for the Beer): The Venue is Key: This would have to be at the races (after the last event) or in a dedicated pub with other racing folk. The context would contain the rant. Having a quiet, introspective beer at a local tavern? It could quickly become an exhausting monologue. Topic Management Needed: You'd need a strong arm to steer the conversation away from "the latest stewarding outrage" and toward other racing topics—great horses of the past, training philosophies, funny track stories. If you can do that, you'd tap into their knowledge without the bitterness. Emotional Whiplash: You'd have to be prepared for the shift from angry diatribe about Kauri to effusive praise for Corey Campbell. The mood could be volatile. It Would Be a Performance, Not a Dialogue: You'd largely be an audience. This isn't someone who, based on this text, seems to ask many questions or seek other perspectives. It would be about their experience, their grievance, their insight. The Verdict: If I were a fellow racing enthusiast, absolutely yes. The shared passion would override the negativity, and I could match their energy. We could bond over the "idiocy of the stewards" and the "brilliance of a perfect ride." If I were a casual observer or just looking for a relaxed, broad-ranging chat, probably no. The intensity, niche focus, and pervasive sense of grievance would likely feel draining and one-dimensional. In essence, they'd be a fantastic companion for a specific, shared interest, but a potentially exhausting one for a general social drink. You'd go for the expertise and the fire, but you'd need to be prepared for the smoke.