Chief Stipe

Provide evidence to the contrary. Let's face it you have no idea what TAB NZ's business practice is. Now given their performance comparative to other wagering outlets one would be justified in thinking that TAB NZ DOESN'T follow "standard business practice." Who knows what "the TAB gains from treating Brodie any different to any other punter" - you don't know that he isn't treated any different - perhaps if they do treat him differently that is because he costs them too much. In fact we do know that the TAB treats some punters differently than others. You yourself have confirmed that. Some VIP punters get rebates and most do not.

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)Following the running of Race 9, the Racecourse Hotel & Motor Lodge Rating 65, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Davidson, against Jockey (Class A), Mr B Murray, alleging that, as the rider of TOP OF THE STRAIGHT in the race, he struck his mount excessively prior to the 100m. Mr Murray ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of Race 9, the Rating 65, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Davidson, against Class A Rider, Mr L Callaway, alleging careless riding in that he permitted his mount LADY VERAWOOD to shift outwards when not sufficiently clear forcing WHERE’S WALLY onto MISS CURIOUS, ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 648 (3)This Request for a Ruling was filed pursuant to Rule 648(3) and arises following the running of Race 5, the Vector Wero Whitewater Park 2100. The Informant, Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr M Williamson, alleged that the rider TE AKAU CALIBURN weighed in 1.7 kg underweight. Rule 648(3) provides that: If, ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 869(3)(b)Following the running of Race 8, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S Renault, against Open Driver Mr J Dunn alleging that “Mr Dunn drove carelessly near the 500M when allowing his runner to strike the wheel of FRANCO NIVEN resulting in his horse breaking briefly and losing ground”. ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)This is a defended hearing arising from the running of Race 2 the JP & Associates 1300. Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Williamson filed an Information pursuant to Rule 638 (1)(d) alleging the rider of GAS MONKEY (K Asano), permitted his mount to shift in when not sufficiently clear of ROCKLAND which was ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Actually I have but can't prove that. I know when a horse I had a share in won most of us got on big at 17's. Eventually it was backed into 6's and favourite. The TAB hurt that day. Recently though didn't we have the BGP place a large bet? Sure the odds weren't high but their potential win was considerable. But obviously they are the type of losing punter the TAB likes and doesn't restrict.

Yes but you could argue that they often get the price wrong. That's why Mardigras spend their entire day looking for value.

Now you are contradicting Mardigras who has posted that the TAB wouldn't do that.

Except he is selective in what he chooses to answer. He still hasn't answered why wouldn't the TAB override a restriction when the punter puts up a decent size bet on a horse that the TAB has priced as the rank outsider.

So you are saying that those that are restricted are treated equally in the sense they are all restricted under the same process. Brodie says they are not treated equally because the restricted amount varies. Geez Mardigras you'd get a job in this Government!

There should definitely be an investigation into the Openbet and Randall Broadcasting company setup.

FFS we've covered this ages ago - keep up!

There is nothing new in this article that the more astute BOAY posters haven't been posting since its inception.

Right so you're content with trolling rather than debating the substantive issue. All good. Each to their own I guess.

That wasn't the question. Why wouldn't the TAB take his bet of $1,000 to win $80,000? You say they won't because they (or the system) don't consider individual bets just the fact that punter Brodie historically has been a winning punter.

So if Brodie pitches up next week and puts $1,000 to win on the Spitfire at 80 to 1 should the TAB take his bet or restrict him?

Semantics is it not? Supposedly what you are suggesting is that the system identifies a winning account and flags it for future bets. I would have thought that the risk of an individual bet relative to the pool should be determined regardless of what account holder makes it.

I wouldn't be surprised if they pulled it out of their arse. Technically their flash new system should be able to do it automaticallt without human intervention. However if you believe that and that their is no human intervention then I would consider you gullible and potentially clueless.

So you consider that for example a judicial system that determines a crime deserves a prison sentence is equal but those that commit the same crime should be treated differently in terms of the quantum that they serve. That in my opinion and many others is not an equal system.

You have no evidence to support that assertion.

The issue I have Mardigras is that the Politburo is getting more inefficient and getting to keep more and more of the pie while taxing the Proletariat more and more to pay for their largesse.

I can understand Curious how you support the new policy as it is a kind of socialism isn't it.

Do the Trainers and Jockey's get a % of the stake paid to horses beyond 4th? If so the Jockey's now get not only their riding fee but a % of the stake that they wouldn't have got previously. Either way the Owner is getting screwed!

Yep - do you agree with the double dip that is now happening? The winning owner is not only getting screwed now if their horse wins but all the way down the chain. Still has to pay jockey fees but now a % all the way down the field no matter where the horse finishes!!!