the galah

i never said divert peoples spend from ff to the tote. That wouldn't work and i don't come up with suggestions that won't work. What i said was encourage resticted punters to take advantage of the rewards they would get if they spent X amount of $ on the tote.. The reward being allowing those punters to win higher amounts on the ff. The tab covering the cost of the higher risk to their ff book with the levies the tab receive from the higher tote spend. Besides even winning punters have the odd lean run so if the tab implemented my policy,then they would make more money at the same time as increasing turnover. Neither of which they do with their current policies.. Its not a scheme that would appeal to all winning punters ,but i know it would work for many. ill take a note of a few roughies prices tomorrow and give you a few examples.

I agree,you wouldn't ,hence the bookies policies are discouraging people from betting on the tote. So maybe you can see why i have been saying that for over a year now. My point is the closing prices displayed on ff for roughies is not the price you could have bet them at. Its all an illusion.

thats because the tab bookies do not offload into those pools. Also you have to factor in the levies per $ invested taken out on exoctic bets can be up to 10% higher than those invested on the win totes. I think if you were going to have a punt on a horse the way to do it would be to start with the exoctic ff pools then put your ff win and place on last. Of course you can only get on with a return of x number of dollars potential return before it triggers a notification to the bookies so i had thought a drawback would be it is time consuming as you would have to place many exoctic bets to get to a point where you have a possible large return. But as you say,it is one way to go. All the complications of it all just discourages punter participation at the end of the day.

Spending 10 k a week isn't too hard if you follow the horses with all the harness meetings they have. About $150 a race which you could spread over all bet types. If your a serious punter able to win $5000 a month off ff then you should have no problem getting close to your tote spend back or making a profit on the tote as well. If you don't want to take that option well the tab can just say,well we gave you an option where we increased your restriction levels and you didn't take it. If you don't want to make your $5,000 or $10,000 or whatever a month then stop your moaning. It may or may not suit you brodie,but there would be a lot who are restricted who it could help.

I think i can answer that one for you as well. Punters need to assume the tote prices will close similar, for the favorites or win movers, that they see being offered on ff. In other words,if you back a win mover paying $3 on the tote as they start that is at $2.30 on the ff,you will see the tote dividend adjust and close to be the same or very close to the same as the $2.30 ff price after you can no longer bet.. Say you punt late on a horse on ff and you drop that in from $20 to $8 on the ff.Well expect the horses tote dividend of $20 to close at around $8 even though you didn't back it on the tote. The tab bookies will have. It took me a while to work it out but that is what i have observed time after time after time. Thats why these days the tote win pools are always higher than the place pools. Its the tab bookies system offloading after when punters no longer can. Also,another observation is never believe ithe ff dividends on roughies at tote close are what you could have got on at. The bookies lengthen the odds of the roughies right at the end. personally i have tried to back some roughies in the final seconds,been shut out due to the race starting,and then had a look at the odds and seen they have gone up even more than what i tried to get on at but couldn't. Its all just a big game.

I give up trying to explain to you real life experiences of how it effects peoples spend. I can tell you one way for the TAB to never have any punter who has an account that does not yield a profit for the tab. Link the amount of the tote spend to there possible winning ff returns. for example they have identified a punter who is spending mearly all of their spend on ff and making say $5,000 a month off them. Well say to that punter,there is a way where you can avoid being restricted. That is you spend $40,000 a month through the tote and well will allow you to make up to $5,000 a month on ff, Spend $80,000 a month through the tote and you can make $10,000 on ff a month. The levies from the tote spend will always be greater than what they pay out in ff losses. Win/win There i have given you a simple solution to the tab no longer having punters who win off them and who they need to restrict. I'm a genius.

by the way im not saying they can't win,i'm saying there prices are shorter than i would back at myself. And i did back both of them on the first day. I thought miley ace might be one for a price tomorrow in race 3,but just looked at its price and it opened at $6 and is now paying only $4.20. Unreal i think that its paying so short a price. He may try and lead all the way or he may take a sit behind spirited lou,although hard to predict what spirited lou may do as it seems a bit inconsistent so he may want to hold the lead. Mileys ace is a handy maiden,but $4.20 is not a good price.

I think backing Lester paying $5 is very unwise. Certainly he should have won the other day when people backed him at $12. He was at $3.30 a place the other day.He should still be paying $9 in my opinion. backing favorites who are going to be driven for luck like lester is too risky a strategy. There has to be a realistic price to make it worth the risk. as you've pointed out newmarket,theres more depth to that field as well. Then style council at $4.80. I think only for mugs that price also. You couldn't have much confidence going forward if you watched the way it was driven in the straight on friday. Who's to say he wont use the same tactics again if he thinks thats the best way to drive it. I'm convinced there are a lot of punters out there who see a horse they think should win and then just back it on the ff,whatever the price the bookies put up initially. i've followed horses that every time they start the bookies open at silly short prices and every time the horses still get punted. The bookies know they can open them shorter than they should and that it won't stop punters getting on .They can't lose in the long run on horses like that.

you may be talking about perigo. He had his last race 10 years ago. He raced at 15,although these days that would only be 14 due to them changing the horses birthdays. I don't think there is any limit to how old a horse can race in nz, so i don't think he was forced to retire. I just looked it up. He had 4 trainers.Started off with a mrs b wisnewski then A grayling then p.g.young and finally k smith. None of those people are licensed trainers anymore. Looks like they all gave up after they trained perogo. K smith used to run him in races where claimers could start in. actually his record is quite interesting to look at. Even M kerr drove him to win a couple of times when trained by k smith. he raced at meetings held by clubs like northland,morrinsville,bay of plenty,kumeu,franklin,thames,manakau. Some of those clubs no longer exist. How participation numbers and other things have changed in the north island in the last 10-20 years .

Ive got to find something better to do than watch race replays on a friday night before i go to bed.. But i just watched that dylan ferguson drive on luka doncic again for a bit of a laugh.. I've worked out who he reminded me of. The mother in law. She used to love driving down the road accelerating then pumping the brakes. If you were a passenger the head jerking back and forward.

Heres another races stipes report from marlborough today. G thornley was warned for the using her whip in more than a wrist flicking action. So the take away from that seems clear. Its ok to use the whip a couple of times like she used it ,as long as the horse is about to fall over. But you can't use it even once that way when driving at any other time during the race.If you do they will fine or suspend you.

i see the stipes say style council lay inwards in the straight,but it fails to note that was early in the straight. When he finally did pull it out with 50m to go it ran straight as. I'm not saying it would have won but it sure would have gone close. The stipes not asking him why he didn't pull out when anyone watching the race would have been asking that,seems odd.We all noticed it. As to lester. Thats even more of a mystery why they didn't question the drive. Once again,the reason we are talking about it was because you couldn't help but notice it. Obviously the stipes think its ok to angle in behind horses when there is a clear run on the outside.

yes it was a bad drive. But to be fair she is a driver who i have faith in to drive well. thats why i included it in my multi. Just not her best effort today.i suppose had it got out late and won we wouldn't be talking about it,but it didn't. We do know she always tries so no questions in that regard.I guess she may well read this. Must be a bit strange reading what people think when you already know if you made a wrong tactical decision.

what about a couple of drives tonight at cambridge. race 9 luka doncic(d ferguson) and race 10 lord delmar(a poutama) They were the worst today. Watch them and ask yourself,were they driving for themselves or someone else in the race?. Just look at the videos of those races and you will see what i mean.

lester had a gap to its outside but instead angled in behind them. Turned out a bad move tactically.Should really have won. It was a big win mover as well so a few frustrated punters. I just had a look and if it had won it wouldn't have been rehandicapped for the 2nd day.Actually i had a nice 5 race multi finishing on it to run a place .Bugga. And style council. yes i thought that strange as well.

I always remember a bloke telling me a story about a fella who used to like having a punt and was always asking his mate for a tip. He would often travel to the races with him. The story went everyone liked this fella but because they thought he needed to pick his own and not rely on their tips,that one day his mate,a trainer or driver,can't remember which, decided he would tip him one as unbeatable,but in reality had no chance. Well he tipped megatrand. It was 2nd up after a long lay off over 2 miles at motukarara and off a big mark and had been well beaten first up. Well you guessed it,to everyones surprise the horse won ,paying a big dividend. The fella who they tipped it to had a big punt,thought the tipster was a genius. I also remember being at methven when i was a youngster and watched a race megatrend started in. Well the first time they ran the race there was some interference at the start and the stipe,i think neil escott came out onto the track after 300m and waved. All the drivers except a couple seemed to have no idea what he was doing or didn't notice him. They continued on . But then they had an inquiry and decided to call the race a non race and run it after the final race. well obviously there were a lot of irate people on course .Anyway half the field scratched for the rerun. Megatrend who had broken badly in the first race and was out the back came out and ran 2nd in the rerun. I think erin crawford his owner/trainer drove him that day.It was a very controversial decision that the stipes made and got a lot of publicity.

The point i make is the tab/entain obviously are aware and spend time assessing whether they can limit their losses from successful punters as regards ff yields. Then based on that, they sometimes place restrictions and algorythms on accounts.. What they fail to do is consider the tote turnover that these customers spend. The bookies only focus is on the ff yields. I would guess they have targets and even get performance bonuses if targets are met. So they have no incentive whatsoever to consider the big picture,which includes the tote spend of customers. When you can draw a graph of the monthly spend by someone and see a drop in tote spending by 70-80% at the same time they placed restrictions or imposed algorythms,then you should be able to put 2 and 2 together and get 4. 4 represents the overall profit/loss of income for the tab as relates to each individual account holder.But with the tab bookies, they aren't interested in 4. Its irrelevant to them. I'm not saying they should not restrict punters. Every punter is different.I'm always saying what i think is just coomon sense,i.e...They need to do consider overall ff and tote yields for each customer,not just ff yields.. Thats why i say they should have policies that incentivise greater spend on the tote. For example say to a customer... we will increase the amounts you can win on ff per month should you meet the criteria of x amount of tote spend. I personally think the tab/entain are run by dummies. People making out they are there for the greater good of the industry,when the reality is they are there for the good of their own department only and themselves. Its not rocket science what i'm saying. But some of those who work at the tab/entain seem to think it is.

As far as your car rental example goes. My answer to that would be the tab has two types of wagering. FF and the tote. .Not one,but 2 where it can generate income. to make a more similar comparison to your car rental example you need to factor in a 2nd part which returns a profit before you can look at overall profit/loss from the customers. So lets say that the customer(bigger punters) would rather employ a driver to drive them around because. So your car rental business,who also has drivers for hire, would have income from 2 streams,not the one. And given you can charge the customer an hourly rate for the driver with a good profit margin for you in excess of the discounted(profit loss) that you get for the car you hire out,then you are making money overall. Simple as that.

could that be megatrend and jack carmichael?

I see it got some coverage in the paper.. the headline being "harness trainer facing assault charge" It says in the article the RIB confirmed they are investigating the matter.

I do understand.Its you that seems to miss the obvious. The easiest way for you to get what i am saying would be for me to give an analogy. A man runs a restaurant/bar. A small % of his higher spending customers have a favorite meal. Problem is if he prices that meal at a cost where he turns a profit, the customers are put off and he loses them. When he loses them,he loses every facet of his business where they spend. In this case many are customers who when they come in spend large $ on drinks where his profit margins are very much in his favour. In other words,he has two choices. The first choice is to price the meal at a price that he could return a profit,but at the same time lose many of his customers that he makes a good overall profit off because of their spend on the drinks. His second choice is to price the meal that attracts them to his business in the first place,at a price which will see them stay regular customers. He accepts that he is losing a bit on the meals but overall coming out ahead when he factors in their spend on the drinks they consume. In this analogy the meals that the small % consume are the ff betting,the drinks are the tote betting. The answer to how he makes the most profit is so obvious. The problem with the tab is they look at at only from the profit on the meals side of things. The tab could even try a compromise for those they restrict.They could say to them,we'll increase the amounts you can get on for,if you increase your tote spend. But that type of thinking is outside the wheelhouse of the tab. If you talk to those that work at the tab and whose job it is to promote punter spending,they will tell you the ff bookies side of things is hamstringing them to a degree,but they can't change the way they work.

Brodie is correct plain and simple. I have said it before and will say it again,from my own personal experience the tabs policies to restrict ff losses have seen me close my tab accounts and i would bet only a small fraction to the levels i once did. And 90% of my turnover used to be through the tote. And as i have said another time,i know someone who used to spend about $2-2.5 million a year on tote turnover,much of that on harness racing,who since they started with their systems to limit winning on ff,now spends only a fraction of that through the tote. The tab employ people who are only interested in their own sector. By that i means its very obvious to me the ff bookies couldn't care less how their policies impact tote turnover and completely ignore the big picture for the tab profit wise. Also they are full of shit sometimes. One time i opened an account and thought i would use the rebates they give to high turnover customers, to increase my income. At the time there was no nz harness due to covid. So i bet on queensland harness.I spoke to 2 different people at the tab who told me i had to have an annual turnover of ... to qualify for rebates. Well i did that solely on the queensland harness within 3 months and rung them up . Their reply was they would consider it. Then 2 months later after still spending the same i rung them again. Their answer,no sorry. So i just stopped betting totally on queensland harness. Brodie is on the money.

Who goes to pubtab and whats that. the only pubtab I know i really dislike going to.I went to a pub tab the other day and put 4 1e/w bets on for the wife at nelson it took me about 6 minutes. The time before it took me about 10 minutes to do the same thing.The machine kept going back to screens that i didn't want. Those pub tab machines are very time consuming to use.

One time i did ring hrnz about how covid mandates would impact participation within the sport at the time. They put me through to Catherine Mcdonald who i didn't know and she wouldn't have known me,but i found her a very approachable and accommodating person. She also said she would email me after she had checked out how to minimise the impact of a certain issue on those not vaccinated. I got the email the next day and was impressed with her efficiency. Hrnz does seem to have and have had some people who work there who go out of their way to be very helpful.Its an organisation who in my interactions with their staff, always seems to be doing their best to help everyone at all levels of participation.

I think its obviously a good thing for the industry if they can run more meetings. I mean more races,even if the new ones are lower stakes,means more stakes are paid to owners,more income for trainers and drivers,more for the clubs,more for the transport operators,starters and their assistants,etc,etc,etc. I think canterbury should have no problem as if you look at the trials each week they always seem to have plenty in their fields. It would just be a matter of running the remaining trials before or after the races. from a betting perspective people will still bet on them. I guess they would have to look to have time slots that work in with australian coverage,but it would just be a matter of running appropriate stakes as relates to turnovers. some may say that punters don't want to see any more meetings for the lower graded horses. But the people that say that are the same ones who keep telling us people bet more on the meetings with the high quality horses in,when anyone who watches turnover figures can tell you thats not true. Its more about the exposure meetings get than quality that is the driving factor for turnover. Midweek meetings,whether they be for high class or low class racing will get limited exposure,so anyone who comes along and says when the turnover figures are just average because of the low quality horses,well i think they just talk a load of rubbish. It does seems a bit of a head scratcher that they would be suggesting auckland or waikato run meetings regularly. Obviously they don't have enough horses. The only problem i can see is the handicapping system. Talk to anyone and they will tell you the worst thing that can happen to any horse is to win its first start and be thrown in against r50 horses. Just imagine a low grade horse winning a non win race and getting a low stake and a big rating handicap. That will be a reason that would stop people lining there horses up or trying So the handicapping of the winners would have to be addressed.