Brodie

Wonder where TAB For Ever has gone? wonder whether he can shed any light on this?

I am sure they would lose Ranga! No Court is going to be allowing a business to treat customers of a gambling business differently! My NZ $ is the same value as someone else’s value!

Lol Not sure why I put Take A Moment, mustve been on the turps? Over in oz many of the pacers still going around are geriatrics and even as old as 15! In NZ our horses for some reason have a much shorter racing career? It is hard to fathom how so many in Oz being of pensioner age can be competitive with the much younger ones!

So they are in effect breaking the law!

Take A Moment at 13 would probably be the oldest horse racing snd winning in NZ at the moment?

Gamma, so you think that being limited to being able to net $20 on a Top 4 bet is fair? They wont let restricted Punters wager $1k! Clearly seems Brodie is correct that the AML limit for punters should be $10k and not the $1k, as no one has come on and said that Brodie is wrong? Why has the TAB persisted with this $1k limit for betting voucher wins, when the AML Act appears to be saying it is $10k? Can anyone advise me where it is written that it is $1k?

The TAB is a betting agency and as such they put up odds that punters can take or leave! The fact that the TAB take bets from the punters they want to bet with them, and not others is blatantly wrong! I am sure if it was taken to Court then the TAB would certainly lose. You are not allowed to show bias or prejudice against anyone nowadays, just because they have written it in their rules, does not mean it is legally or morally right!!

It is just not about Brodie. It is about everyone else that is being segregated and disadvantaged! Punters should be all treated equally, with none getting preferential treatment and others being screwed!

Do you work for the TAB or DIA, Paleface?

Correct Chief, very difficult to find anywhere now, just like the Banks have restrictions as to how much you can get! Control everywhere and not for the better either.

The TAB dont give a rats about harm from gambling, even though they may advertise the fact! The fact that they stop winning punters tells us all that all they want is losing punters and more the better!

Of course I dont want them to know how much I collect! They dont want anyone winning, if you do then they want to stop you! Gambling agency that only want losing punters, but surely if they are in that industry then they have to take the good with the bad?

Where in the AML Act does it say that $1k is the limit to be used by the NZ TAB? The Casino it appears to be $6k transactions! So what is the difference, far easier to launder at a Casino than wagering on a horse surely?

The TAB are using a limit for the Anti Money Laundering Act of $1k. They cited the DIA as putting this limit where if I am reading it correctly the limit for TAB vouchers is $10k. So currently if you collect over $1k you have to personally identify yourself and address! If you want to bet over $1k the same applies on the TAB’s law and yet it says $10k. It is just crazy as I have always maintained people that bet $2 and win $1k should have to identify themselves I can not fathom how this can actually be allowed to continue to happen when it is in black and white, is it not? Yes on account they know who is betting but the part of the Act that I have quoted is for betting Vouchers! Tab needs to come out and explain themselves ASAP!

No there is not plenty to be made Forbury with bet restrictions . The AML limit that I believe the TAB is currently breaking the law would mean you would be needing to identify yourself. You would be heavily restricted if you were winning over $1k regularly.

Brodie has always been totally against the AML limit by the NZ TAB being $1k, as it is pathetically low and stupid! Maybe I am reading it wrong and not understanding it, or is the NZ TAB not playing in terms of the regulations? I reckon it is about control! The amount for AML checking at a Casino is $6k currently so why is the TAB limit $1k? Well I reckon it is meant to be 10 times what it is currently if I am reading the “Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Financing of Terrorism Regulations 2011” version as at 31 July 2023! 15 (iii) clearly states”despite subparagraphs (i) and (ii), if the stored value instrument is a voucher issued by TAB, $10,000 or more, oris capable of being reloaded with $10,000or more in any consecutive 12 month period etc etc. Surely this means that the AML for the NZ TAB is currently $10,000 and not $1,000???????? That is the way it reads is it not??? Personally think the TAB is breaking the law!

Ranga, we are subjected to so much BS nowadays! Hopefully David Seymour will get rid of half the rules and regulations that are so unnecessary! The control and interfering in people’s lives needs to go! This AML bs needs to be majorly modified as it is so pathetic and time consuming for what? If they stopped importing people from overseas that are the ones that launder money, things would be far better for all! Why should people who have been citizens of NZ fir decades now have to identify themselves continuously and have to state where you got money from to buy a house decades ago, when they want to sell??? AML, TAB wants to know who you are, when you gamble and win $1k?.. You can not tell me this is sensible?

The laws in NZ I was under the impression was that you can not be prejudice against people? By way of COLOUR or RACE! AGE! SEX! Etc!!!! If you show prejudice it becomes an issue, we see it all the time! However apparently the TAB is somehow allowed to say to some punters you can wager what you want to and yet it is also allowed to treat other punters differently by saying you can only put a wee bit on!!!! What would happen if they came out and said that we will not be accepting any bets from 80 year old, female Tongans?????

Chief, you ask Brodie what he is doing to entice new punters? The answer is probably very little, When you are treated very poorly by someone or an institution would you be doing big favours for them? All Brodie asks for is for punters to be treated equally!

Chief, where did I say punters should be allowed to win unlimited amounts?? Being restricted to net $20 on specific types of bets is taking the piss surely???? Restrictions to certain punters is fair enough but the amount of the limits is just down right pathetic. They should at least allow a minimum of $2k net winnings on any single bet!!!

JJ, actually have recently been to a Pub TAB recently, not going to say where or when for obvious reasons! To be fair if Entain was looking for the clientele that were there to be wagering in 10 hears time and be wagering enough to keep the TAB afloat through racing, they will be badly disappointed! Yes the TAB probably need this type of punter throughout NZ but seriously they were using coin to bet through the lady behind the counter! Not sure what you mean by BGP and leading a sheltered life? there are many in BGP are in it due to not being able to punt successfully themselves so they put money with BGP for the excitement! The favours that BGP get from the TAB is not in my unbiased opinion not right!

My point is that they need to increase the pool of punters, not decrease it! Without punters the industry is stuffed obviously! TAB policy if restricting severely punters that have a win is absolutely flawed. If existing punters are turned away they eventually give it away and therefore they are lost to the industry where they are the ones who will be enticing other new punters to racing! Would love to know what the TAB policy is to entice new punters, as I personally do not know any young ones who have started punting on racing in the last decade? Successful punters is what the TAB should be promoting rather than trying to shut them down!!

They worry about getting a higher yield rather than increasing the turnover. Profit will take care of itself with increased turnover, the odds are always in their favour,

I see on HRNZ web site, that Entain are wanting more turnover for harness racing! They are looking at holding more harness races, and have proposed having meetings for low class horses with much smaller stakes! Racing to be early in the week and centred mainly in the North Island, Auckland and Cambridge. Interesting that Entain want more racing so that they can gain more $? Firstly wonder if they nave realised that they are struggling currently to fill fields already so not sure how they are going to fill fileds kf there ks more racing for low stakes? Secondly, there is a certain way for Entain to increase turnover for harness racing, and easily actioned! Encourage punters to offload instead of RESTRICTING punters to pathetically small amounts, ingeniojs really! forget about increasing your yields on smaller turnover and increase your turnover ! The AML BS is also a turnover restricter with it being set at a paltry $1k!!!!! I have news for the TAB , people are not money laundering gambling on harness racing for $1k! Why would they bother????? Get it uplifted to say $5k minimum, K would doubt it is only $1k at the Casino? Time to get into the 21st Century, $1k is not a lot of money nowadays! Entain, your turnover and profit will improve greatly if you actually proactive and not regressive! You are losing punters by your draconian and unfair practices, surely they can see this? Increasing the number of races is not the answer if you haven’t got the punters!!!!!!

As Brodie initially stated and Walt has agreed with, there is no way on earth Woodlea Jewel could win both days at Nelson, the way it went the week before at the Rangiora trials when not driven by Carter! One week it improved by many lengths! We are very lucky to be able to watch replays of most trials in Nz!