mardigras

Some people would rather a late scratching than expecting a little bit of common sense from someone who knows the requirements.

I have no idea what you're going on about. As per usual, your posts lack sense.

I think - that you are stupid. I think most would agree. There is a difference. One relates to a barrier attendant denying a fair start. The other relates to a horse carrying less weight than permitted under the race conditions. Quite different. In one case, the horse didn't get to race on its merits in relation to the other starters in the race, in the other case it did. And then if carrying too light a weight - they are found to have broken the rules. She didn't follow the process. The process is to weigh out with the weight you are going to weigh in with - with an accepted tolerance. The process doesn't have to be governed by the rules. The rules are what make the process. This isn't some written rule/process. This is common sense that you follow such a process. She clearly didn't follow that process since she did something to affect her weight. And in failing to understand the need to follow such a process, she ultimately broke the rules. Bad luck for her and the connections and the punters associated with that horse. Not bad luck to the people that had nothing to do with that horse and didn't back that horse. They shouldn't be affected by her lack of understanding the process. And to make matters worse, as mentioned earlier, the integrity of the outcomes would be subject to unscrupulous behaviour. Any rider running 2nd/3rd/4th in 3 and 4 horse fields could easily weigh in light. The winner would return a refund to the winning punters (by virtue of the new dividend after all the other runners are late scratched), and the late scratching punters, would get refunds as well. Punters are going to love that.

Just routine. Brother got BC years ago and they thought it family related. So had quite a few already. Booked me in for Tuesday, 2pm.

Of course anyone is capable of backing winners. But if you think there is any credibility in putting winners up post race, then there is certainly something that seems to have escaped you as well. You gave us your methods on here - the methods were practically identical to the methods Ted has put up when discussing how he analyses races. If you don't follow his ideas, then it's probably just dumb luck they are so much the same. But we certainly know how his selections (before the races) go. As to the Bay, It's racing is below par - but it has decent wineries. Life certainly gets a damn site better than the bay. And I certainly hope the people on here, and elsewhere have a great Christmas. I'm having a colonoscopy for mine, so that's always a bit of fun. Probably due to needing to purge a lot of what I read on here from my system.

I don't think it should be a late scratching. Scratching a runner affects the dividends of the other runners even when the situation doesn't affect the outcome of their bet. There's a process. Follow it and all will be OK. She didn't, tough.

He's a sad joke like his brother. But one thing is absolutely guaranteed. That being, if you backed all the horses I've put up on this and other sites (before the races), and did the same for your ones. You'd be so far ahead of ATA, it's comical. And yet he thinks we're struggling. Follows Ted's formula as well as we have seen. And yep, don't they go well. There's a very good reason why ATA doesn't tip anything before the races. He's a loser.

I'd agree - especially since my post was about what they should have done 12 years ago, but didn't do. I'd say the boat has well and truly sailed.

People only bet on the dross because it's in their face so much. Quality is better than quantity. When the commingling agreement forced then to take 40k extra races, they said it was all going to increase tote turnover. I did an OIA request in 2009/2010 to get the full breakdown of all betting figures by code/jurisdiction/tote and fixed odds. The rate of decline in tote that was happening pre commingling continued after commingling unchanged, with all the new races to bet on (and the supposed advantage of betting into bigger pools). All it did was spread the NZ betting around and took more away from the NZ pools. That has continued to the point where with the impact of fixed odds included, it has brought about the demise of tote betting practically on NZ races. Which makes the majority now fixed odds. Lower margins, more overheads, costs for betting done on off-shore. Yep, a true winner. Compared to building the pools by way of appropriate pricing - making them attractive to punters. Promote the racing with better coverage. And get the codes to deliver on the areas of improved customer interaction and improved trust in the integrity of the racing. So that new punters develop an interest (that grows the betting aspect) in NZ racing which we control - and other jurisdictions don't get to tell us what to do and how much they are going to charge us for doing it.

The problem now, is that is has likely reached the point where recovering things is not possible. The pain from trying to correct things would take time. And they don't think long term, they're only thinking about the next meeting with the sausage rolls.

They wouldn't agree with any of those points I expect. They think things like offering more races automatically makes them more money. They aren't the sharpest.

Of course 1 - 5 means they are operating a tote business. So that would allow them to get rid of 80% of their staff.

If that is the betting side of things (as opposed to the code side of things) 1. Get out of commingling and all associated agreements with TABCORP. 2. Reduce the event schedule to be only NZ racing plus say 20 - 30 premium events off-shore per week. 3. Change the laws to allow betting operators in NZ to offer fixed odds (don't allow them to offer tote derivative based options). Set up race field fees on profit to charge them for making money from NZ racing information. 4. Remove fixed odds from NZ TAB racing 5. Offer reduced takeouts - especially on NZ racing

They are - since the market % has risen. Being at 125%+ for a long time - when the tote win market is 117% approx. It takes a long time before the fixed odds gets down to anywhere near that and as pointed out above, they often are staying above that level. It highlights what a poor decision it was for a state owned operator like NZ TAB to open up fixed odds and not concentrate on developing the tote market (no risk, minimal staff costs). As I wrote on another thread in the trots section, fixed odds should have been opened up to other operators if that was wanted, and NZ TAB/racing industry should have simply clipped the ticket.

I'd say they have damaged the profile of NZ racing to a non-repairable level. If they don't sell up and incorporate some minimum funding criteria into a deal, they will likely just continue in the same vein. Is that stuffed? Pretty close to it. In my view, they should never have taken the focus off NZ racing. Which other jurisdiction in the world focusses more on racing from elsewhere than they do on their own. And as a state owned operator, they should have never gone with fixed odds. If they wanted fixed odds to be available, they should have sold rights for other operators to provide fixed odds and clip the ticket, rather than have the industry pay directly for providing that service. Also, if you have a shop and you offer some 'product' at a price. And then you introduce a new product that you sell for the same price, but the customers think is superior. What happens to the old 'product'. People stop buying it. NZ thoroughbred racing is like the old 'product'. Off-shore racing is the new 'product'. They should have incorporated a point of difference to keep the old 'product' attractive. Like a normal business would. Discount pricing etc. In the case of the TAB, reduced takeouts or similar. Then when the new 'product' has got all the customers and you have no control of it, what do you have? You become exposed to the things they do with that product such as extra taxes or additional costs of supplying that product. But your customers have already moved away from the old 'product' - so you're stuck with continuing to pay the costs of providing the new 'product' and an ever increasing decline in interest in your old 'product'. The old 'product' being the very thing you are tasked with providing for. And your entire model is at the control of 3rd parties. You have little to no say in what they charge you or on what basis they charge you. So for NZ TAB, every time they sell some new 'product', they pay fees off-shore. Something they don't do for selling the old 'product'. S net yields are affected as the swing away from the old 'product' to the new 'product' occurs. You don't see that in the annual reports because they hide them by way of 'turnover related expenses'. So the gross yields look similar, but the turnover related expenses go up. And the expense of provisioning the massive amount of off-shore racing (broadcast costs, racefields fees, operational costs of providing fixed odds on tens of thousands of additional races), goes up. Extra staff, extra agreement costs. All because you decided to focus on racing from elsewhere. 12 years ago, NZ racing was largely self sufficient from the revenue earned from its own racing. Now it is totally dependent on the revenue it earns from off-shore racing, sports and pokies. Stupid people making stupid decisions.

The revenue would be collected as part of the racing industry/RITA income. Australia stakes are higher because they are a far higher group of punters per capita (losses/turnover) than NZ punters. So the punters losses are enough to fund the industry there. Whereas the punter losses put through the NZ TAB are peanuts and leave NZ with what it gets. So even though they have 5 times the population, 5 times the number of events, the level per event is a lot higher. Some of that comes about due to competition where there are more avenues for price sensitive punters to seek out the prices they are happy with, some of it is just the Australian culture regarding betting. NZ has no competition apart from that which is occurring off-shore.

I couldn't say for sure, but I doubt it. I would say that there are punters that will not take odds offered, and therefore give it away or bet less. That is not likely to be a major NZ TAB issue at this point since NZ TAB as a betting operator hasn't been subjected to most of the extra taxes the Australian operators have been facing. If NZ starts increasing taxes on NZ based punters by way of the PoC tax, that could cause some NZ based punters to stop betting with those off-shore operators. If they stop betting with them, my view is that they are unlikely to then bet with NZ TAB - since NZ TAB odds wouldn't be expected to be better - as they likely subscribe to a set of data that incorporates price data across events, and then use that data to set and adjust odds as part of the automated fixed odds betting software. These punters that give it away are likely to be your most price sensitive customers, not your day to day punter. The issue for NZ with what the Chief put up is whether any of that betting was on NZ events (and if any other higher volume punters also give up betting due to the taxes in Australia). With NZ trying to increase the taxes on betting operators that don't currently pay racefields fees to NZ on NZ events, those fees would not materialise since they are based on turnover.

Some have, they pay racefields fees for betting done on off-shore events, as part of their agreement with TABCORP. And they/the industry are attempting to further increase taxes on off-shore operators - which will affect those punters betting on NZ events and also those NZ punters betting with off-shore operators. So whilst not the TAB, it is related to the revenue the NZ industry is likely to receive by way of those taxes.

Nothing at all surprising in that follow-up post. Very obvious and something that the likes of NZTR and NZRB simply do not comprehend. (Nor do the Australian equivalents). They all just think punters will carry on and the price makes no difference - and they'll all be happy to lose more over the course of the year compared to previously. Something mentioned often on sites such as this over the years by many. And NZRB didn't understand it back then, and they still don't understand it now.

Bumbling buffoons come to mind for me. If it wasn't such a serious matter, it would be laughable.

It's a myriad of mis-information. Racefield fees are already being collected from the vast majority of betting operators. So where is the extra revenue? PoC? Compliance costs and getting support from all off-shore operators. 'much needed additional revenue' Tui ad.

Maybe she just hasn't improved enough yet? I may have to revise my assessment of her. Isn't it easy after the event ATA/Thomass?

Perhaps if the TAB had agreed to meet me when it suited me, rather than try and meet me when it suited them, one of the things I could have gone into detail about was why things like what has been written about in the 'Dr Nick' thread are going to be bad for business. Clearly having missed that lesson, they've decided to go on with stupid idea after stupid idea. You'll be pleased though, given how you disagree with everything I write. It must be so rewarding to see how the NZ racing industry is going under such talent.

The greed of groups that think they can just charge more and more to betting operators - who are going to pass on those charges to their customers, is indicative of their limited understanding of the marketplace. They think tax them more and we get more and nothing else will change. It's ludicrous. People don't just have more and more funds to front up with. And those charges that are turnover related like racefields and PoC, affect the rate at which people lose their money (because odds are ultimately affected). And I think racefields is a reasonable charge. But it should be on operator profit, not operator turnover. Since you should be trying to keep the operators in business and charging them for being able to make money from your information. On turnover, all it does is wipe the punting customers out of business since it becomes an above the line expense to the operator - which they pass on in order to control their business. PoC is simply a stupid charge which is worse than racefields and harder for the operator to manage seamlessly. So they likely operate on the worst case scenario.

I thought it was right up there myself. Didn't need any video to tell me that though. Each to their own.