Chief Stipe

That's it. You're on moderation.

That's it Mehe that's the last time you post this crap.

I've split the posts in this Topic that relate to TAB NZ betting restrictions and put them under the following topic. This Topic is now closed along with all the crappy bits. Be warned I won't take kindly to anyone sidetracking the new Topic! I think it is an important discussion to be had.

NZ TAB. It didn't last long at that price.

FFS then you go and blow it with this dumb post!!!! HE IS RESTRICTED just like Garrick Knight is - neither CHOOSE to be restricted!

LOL LOL - are you for real? Suddenly you have seen the light and have gone from being a naive betting ignoramus to a betting genius!!! LOL.

He never said he couldn't bet!!!!! Finally I think you are starting to see some light! What he said was he was restricted in what he could win and they did that by limiting the amount that he could bet!

So is what Jonny posted wrong? Is it not possible that Brodie is one of those punters that are heavily restricted on Fixed Odds? What Jonny is saying is that YOU as a mug punter can put $200 on at $5 the night before and win $1,000 but Brodie can't if he is a restricted punter!

FFS you are just back tracking now and not willing to admit you were wrong.

An excellent post. A couple of questions - Do you think that the new system applies these restrictions programmatically when betting through an account? I.e. over time the system records your strike rate and progressively applies a % limit? Is this aggressive approach reflective of the size of our pools? Or just a very risk averse trading desk?

FFS have you read what Jonny Longshot has just posted? That very good post describes exactly what happens!!!!!

Well you are wrong in saying "Brodie isn't a restricted punter he has restricted himself" because you don't actually know. You've said that yourself - you don't know! The only thing you think you know is that because someone at the TAB told you that they only restrict problem gamblers and they have to ask to be restricted. So you infer that that is the case with Brodie! Which it isn't because Brodie is referring to having his winnings limited by the TAB by them restricting the size of his wagers and/or offering him lower odds than anyone else and/or limiting the total that he can win. All three methods are used as proven by other punters and are within the Terms and Conditions, Betting Rules and the Laws in NZ. Brodie may well be one of those successful punters that have their winnings limited. He isn't stopped from betting like the restricted problem gambler punter is he is just limited in how much he can win! Do you get it now? Or is your blind obsession going to continue to overpower your ability to comprehend? Oh and I'm not "defending Brodie" - I don't even know who he is. However I do have an interest in how TAB NZ operate because in my opinion they are an inefficient operation that tries to operate from a monopoly position in the NZ market. The reality is that with alternative online options they actually have a "leaky" monopoly. I find it objectionable that the TAB encourages losing bettors to lose more while restricting the amount that winning punters can win. Accepting though that all gambling operations involving skill have the means to limit their losses. Here is a question for you Mehe - in your opinion should NZ have a Minimum Bet Law like those in operation in the States of Australia?

A friend of mine got 12's! I didn't believe it until he showed me the ticket!

No self control Mehe? Oh the irony of you questioning my literacy! I'm not calling you a liar but you are clearly wrong in your view that the NZ TAB doesn't limit some punters winnings. You seem to be on your own in your view. Get this in your head no one agrees with you when you say no punters are limited in what they can win.

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of Race 7 (Team Wealleans Matamata Cup), Information No. A12948 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It alleged that Mr Hashizume allowed his mount RONCHI to shift in near the 1050m when not sufficiently clear of BURGANDY BELLE (D Johnson) which was dictated into the line of OUR ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Mehe you are 100% wrong. The TAB DOES limit what punters can win and they limit some punters more than others. There is no law in New Zealand, unlike Australia, that forces the NZ TAB to accept a minimum bet. The NZ TAB uses a number of methods to minimising their losses. Now stop your obsessive crusade against one poster, stop your vulgar language and abuse and focus on what is an important topic. Or I'm afraid you will be put on moderation and if you don't change you will be banned.

$1.8m actually for the first 3 years with a right to renew. Some slot holders don't trade - they have their own horses. Regardless in terms of the best sprinters in Australia this years field certainly is a good gathering of the best available in Australia. So what is your point? Has it reduced the opportunities elsewhere in the industry for the non-elite? No. You would argue that it is no less elite than the Karaka Millions but they are NOT entirely self-funded. They are subsidised. From a marketing perspective it is HUGE for racing. It is generating lots of interest and is entirely self-funding. That's a win win is it not?

Why does that matter? The discussion is currently on whether or not the TAB restricts/limits the amount that some punters win. Mehe's position is that the TAB don't do that therefore Brodie can't be restricted. Don't tell me you are suddenly wearing a tinfoil hat as well?

The yearly slot fee and associated events pay for the total stakes. I don't see where the dutch auction comes into it. Slot holders can trade their slots in the lead up to the race. What "saved dosh"? If The Everest funds itself then if you don't have it you aren't "saving" anything!

OK so we have established that you don't know if Brodie is "restricted." It appears you didn't ask the right question. Which is - "Are some punters limited in what they can bet/win?" There is ample evidence that some punters ARE limited in what they can win. Punters like Brodie aren't "restricted" in the sense they CAN'T bet (like a problem gambler) they are "limited" in how much they can win. The way the TAB does that is by limiting the amount they can put on a fixed odds bet. Please can you at least try and understand that?

What Industry funds? Isn't t self-funded? i.e. a Sweepstake race?

Horse's can. There have been various levels of interstate restrictions for jockey's and trainers. Currently if a Victorian Jockey wishes to ride in NSW they need to undergo 14 days self-isolation. More details at the link below: https://mdata.racingnsw.com.au/FreeFields/latest_news_full.aspx?ArticleId=61375#link3 Going the other way NSW to Victoria - 5 days isolation and a negative test.

Given that this subject has raised a lot of angst, ire and "robust" debate let's put together a list of questions for TAB NZ. I know for a fact that they read BOAY. I'll start the ball rolling: Do you limit the individual bet amounts for some punters? Do your bookies or risk management system adjust downwards the Fixed Odds available to individual punters based on their win profile? For example if the online advertised Fixed Win Odds for a horse is $18 do you reduce this to $15 for some individuals? Do you limit the amount that can be won (similar to 2) by applying a fixed total? Your betting rules give you the right to Lay Off bets. Do you lay off Fixed Odds bets on the NZ Totalisator? If your answer is yes to 4 - do you do this at a certain time before closing betting? Do you Lay Off bets through other Betting Agencies? I.e. does the TAB NZ bet offshore?! These are rough questions done in a hurry so excuse me if they don't make sense. Feel free to add your own.

Easy Brodie - one of the aims of BOAY is to "educate through rational dialectic debate"..... I think we should set up a separate topic on this matter and ask some direct questions of TAB NZ.

Mehe - your obsession is becoming harming. You are making an idiot of yourself. Firstly THERE ARE BETTING RESTRICTIONS applied to some winning individuals - FACT! Secondly - you do not know if Brodie is one of those individuals. IF the TAB told you that he wasn't then Brodie is in the money - bring on the Privacy Commissioner! Thirdly - you are either a liar or you were misinformed by the numpty that you spoke to at the TAB. For your sake let's say it is the latter. Unlike the Australian State rules as far as I'm aware there is no Minimum Betting Limit in New Zealand. Now you probably don't understand what that means. In Australia there are LAWS ensuring a bookmaker must accept a bet up to a certain amount. WHAT ARE MINIMUM BET LIMITS? A minimum bet limit (MBL) determines the lowest amount a gambler can bet to win before a bookmaker is allowed to refuse a wager. These limits apply to the amount a punter stands to win, excluding the original stake. For example, let’s say the MBL for a single bet on a horse race is $2,000. If a runner’s odds of winning are $5, we can stake up to $500 on the nose for a total collect of $2,500 and a net win of exactly $2,000. These laws were introduced for a simple reason: so bookies would no longer have the right to refuse any punter with a winning record. Corporate betting operators are notorious for turning away successful gamblers and knocking back large wagers, but minimum bet limits ensure that anyone who is eligible to have a bet can do so. NEW ZEALAND HAS NO SUCH LAW! Now the Australian Bookmakers use a number of ways of getting around this with online gamblers. But we will leave that discussion for another day. There is ample evidence that the NZ TAB is limiting how much can be bet as well as, on an individual basis, lowering the odds for specific punters - call that a reverse rebate if you will. https://horsebetting.com.au/minimum-bet-limits/#:~:text=NSW%2C South Australia%2C Queensland and,on country and provincial races. NOTE: The MLB laws vary per code. Presumably because the pools are smaller Greyhounds and Harness have lower MLB's (if any) than Gallops. So there is every reason to believe Brodie's assertion that winning punters in Harness racing in NZ are particularly targeted.