mardigras

Do you mean like your bias in support of PlanB and what they write. The analysis that you don't ever question. Like the 130+ threads in this particular forum. Is that what you mean by bias?

Nice. We're talking about the effects of a lockdown - which mainly effects things like tourism and the like. Of which there is minimal difference between Norway and Sweden as I said, around 1% as far a GDP contribution. I prefer to rely on my own finding in regards the people. Having been to both countries, I would say they are very similar culturally - especially in the urban areas where the majority of people live. And certainly no more insular in Norway than they are in Sweden. You're a clown. Fixated. Not happy that indeed I do write on stuff I know about. Whilst you are just a website owner with a keyboard. Clueless and think you can write whatever you like about people. You've been found out - you're a hypocrite, you don't even know the difference between a DBA and a BIA, and you call yourself knowledgeable about IT. Give it a rest. The collection of economic factors between Norway and Sweden are clearly in Norway's favour this year. Get over it. I really loved that one minute you were going on about government debt - and then once it didn't work out so well, you then decided it wasn't a metric that meant anything. That's about the level of your analytic capability.

I didn't claim it did provide proof - yet you are supporting PlanB as if their analysis does support their ideas. On their metric alone, it means nothing. yet you seemed happy to put it up (and not question it). How many topics in this particular forum. All with such quality analysis. And you think I'm not much good at this. If you take all the information in relation to Sweden and Norway, there is little that supports the notion that their approach worked better than Norway's. Two similar nations with similar GDP contributing factors. Similar cultures, and neighbours. You can look at all the government efforts, all the outcomes. And you will be cherry picking to find things that appear better for Sweden than Norway. End of story.

Sweden contribution from tourism and travel to GDP is a whole 1% higher than it is for Norway. Your statement is subjective. And why was Sweden impacted more than Norway in Q2 given Sweden was largely free to conduct whatever business they could, and Norway was under some draconian lockdown measure? In fact, Sweden is in more of a lockdown now that it was during Q2.

I'm not even largely interested in deaths or mortality. I tend to be more focused on economics. And I am yet to see any evidence of Sweden's approach being an advantage to the economy. I'm not searching for anything. I've said, put up the numbers for Q3- where are they? I have it that the increase in government debt between end of 2019 and end of Q2 has been greater per capita in Sweden than Norway. Let's see if that is still the case in Q3. That's what you are claiming.

I don't see the point because you quoted my post about government debt between two periods within the year. Are you surprised that government debt overall has gone up this year. Government debt per capita in Norway has been higher than Sweden's before the pandemic. That it still is, is hardly a surprise. Why don't you present the % change in per capita government debt from 31 December 2019 to end of Q3. Show us the starting government debt and then ending for both countries, and the populations. I don't have Q3 numbers, but I'm very confident that the % change from the start of the year to the end of Q2 is worse per capita % wise for Sweden than it is for Norway. Since that is all the information I have. So please share the actual numbers up to Q3 for us to review. I hope they are a damn site better as well, given the claims made about the massive costs to Norway in the title of this thread.

What's your point. I don't see April to July figures there. Give us the same chart for Sweden.

Stay surprised then.

I think I know a fair bit about economic performance. As I mentioned above, why aren't they now suggesting we could have at least done what Slovenia did - who they claimed had things better, were opening up borders etc. I see you haven't put anything up about them. Here's some info for you. Slovenia GDP contracted by 13% year on year in the second quarter, and 2.6% in the 3rd quarter. Slovenia government debt went up 2,700 million Euros from April to July (nearly a 10% increase). Although not really interested in Covid related deaths, Slovenia have been reported as having 937 deaths per million people. Pretty good effort. Maybe you want to look at Slovenia's excess death numbers. Funny, how they claim Norway had to spend so much compared to Sweden, but factually according to the Swedish and Norwegian governments, Norway's government debt actually reduced from April to July and Sweden's went up. Now, on to your comparitive debt per capita. I don't see the respective governments having reported that, but I doubt the changes between the two countries are significant. Norway's government debt to GDP has been higher than Sweden's for the last two years anyway. But given as I reported above, Norway's government debt has been going down this year, and Sweden's has been going up. I expect you've been sold another lemon. Pre any of this lockdown scenario playing out, odd how I stated that the economic benefits to Sweden compared to Norway and Finland wouldn't happen. Who knew, not Sweden, not you and not PlanB. And you think I know nothing about this stuff. My career has been in business intelligence. You should stick to running a forum on the internet.

And Sweden has reported a GDP third quarter contraction year on year of -2.5%. Norway - 0.2% These huge costs to Norway. I don't think so.

I guess it all depends on how much trust you put in PlanB's analysis - especially in light of previous reports suggesting NZ could do better by following the likes of Switzerland and Slovenia. Maybe next time some better thought out examples would be an idea. I haven't got the numbers at hand, but can you give me some death numbers/GDP etc for those countries? As for Norway and Sweden, I'm inclined to believe what they themselves say. Sweden has reported a GDP second quarter contraction year on year of -7.5%. Norway - 4.0% Government debt from April to July for Sweden - up by 30,000 million SEK, Norway down by 80,000 million NOK. Looking at this certainly makes me question the supposed advantages of not locking down - irrespective of any deaths etc.

So you seem to be suggesting that before fixed odds was introduced, you couldn't operate in the manner you wanted to. Then along came fixed odds, and you thought they shouldn't have any rules around what they would accept and what they wouldn't. And now you're aggrieved. Poor poor Brodie - doesn't seem to like the rules of the game.

Yes, but being restricted - he might think is unfair. But it is highly likely the same business practice for all punters. If you meet whatever their criteria is, you will face what they deem to be a suitable restriction. So he isn't being treated differently - he's just unhappy that he falls under the process that has resulted in changes to his outcomes when betting. It's would be like me saying Betfair treats me differently. I pay different amounts to betfair than other punters. I'm being treated the same as them, but meet some criteria that changes outcomes for me.

Quiet about what. I've certainly never stated you weren't restricted. What that has to do with the discussion is beyond me.

Bad luck. Bet somewhere else. Of course they want losing punters, so they treat punters the same by having a process of ensuring they don't lose too much from winning punters. As is the case with bookies/TABs everywhere when it comes to risk management. Certainly would agree they are hypocritical.

I don't. I don't really need to either. I don't typically walk around with an aluminium hat on either. That's also not different treatment. All punters are being treated the same, it's the outcome from that treatment that varies. So no, I have not confirmed that they treat punters differently. I've confirmed they offer rebates which in my opinion is a stupid idea, and the equal treatment of punters should be that no punter gets rebates, as opposed to the equal treatment of punters resulting in some punters getting rebates. Both equal treatments.

What inconsistency? My argument is based on standard business practice fits in with what Brodie describes happens to him. Don't see any problem there. My argument is further backed up by asking what would the TAB gain by treating Brodie different to other punters? His argument is, I'm being treated differently, even though his treatment seems to be in line and consistent with other punters. And as I say, why would they specifically treat Brodie different to other punters. For a laugh? What are they gaining by doing so?

I don't know. I'm giving my opinion. An opinion that if wrong would mean the TAB could be making people restricted that have never won any money from any bet. It's a stupid theory with nothing supporting it, when what is supposedly happening is in line with standard business practice. Yet he thinks they aren't following a standard business practice - because he is being treated differently. Gotta love these conspiracy theories. Just try and answer this. What does the TAB gain from treating Brodie any different to any other punter?

Talking about realising, I didn't realise English was a second language for you. That does explain a lot though. Since you still haven't understood. They are all treated equally, not different. The resulting restriction can be different. I know this is confusing for you. Words like equal beside words like different. As I say, it does explain a lot though.

I bet 98% on betfair, so I assess chance and I also try and assess expected punter chance. So depending on offer, I'll definitely wait if the price is less than my assessment of what the punters will ultimately think, and I'll bet earlier if I think the price will shorten. With that last bit, on betfair, prices in the price bracket I operate in tend to drift (except in the odd case of a big plunge), so I take that into consideration as well on the basis that the layers are often doing whatever they can to take the bets. So I tend to only bet early when the liquidity is strong on a market already and the price is beyond my expectation of punter price. And on NZ racing, I nearly always bet last second, as the prices and volumes are tiny (still quite small at start time as well though). Nearly all my betting is done through a program I wrote that collects the price information on markets continually and assesses those prices against my assessments. I pay an effective commission rate of around 23% on betfair, so if the TAB had APIs to execute to bet through a program, I'd bet on the tote with them.

I don't think so. I think you can substitute 'Brodie' with successful punter. Why would they take such a bet from a punter they know to be successful over all. And I doubt they would take it from anyone - although not being privy to their risk management approach, who knows

I am selective. I tend to answer on topics I fully understand. I leave the rest to the rest. Because if the punter has demonstrated they are successful, then why expose the business to unnecessary losses. The TAB doesn't know beforehand which of the bets are going to be winners, they just know that the punter has a record that defies the supposed chance the TAB has given the runners, at the time the bets were placed. That's a significant thing - the odds provided by the TAB have already got margin built into them, yet some punters are able to over-come that margin and well beyond that, to be successful. And now you think they should pick and choose which bets are the ones they are going to lose on. And are you saying winning punters don't bet on rank outsiders? I do. And I'm pretty sure I meet the criteria of a successful punter. In fact, I rarely bet on any runner below 15s and often at 50s to 100s.

Yep, the same way a business will conduct things like discounting. All customers receive the same treatment. An assessment of their worth as a customer and a potential for discount as a result - and of course, not the same discount for all. Just like reducing the ability of customers to profit based around what they cost you as a business. More severe on some, less severe on others. No restriction on many. Simple stuff this, I don't know what is causing you so much difficulty in understanding it.

Because they are treated based on a justification as to what level of risk they are prepared to take. All of them under the same process. All treated equally.

The behaviour of a winning punter should be informing the TAB that in the eyes of that punter, the TAB has priced the runner incorrectly. Letting the punter on at 80s knowing full well that based on history, the price is considered high by that punter - why would you then want to accept the bet. Are they stupid? If the punter is not a winning punter and they put such a bet on, then the TAB hasn't been informed that the price is high from anyone that has shown the skill necessary to back that view up.