mardigras

That's funny since I didn't disagree that for your bets, the TAB would be entitled to more money. What I disagreed with is that you doing that over the course of a year, will not make the TAB more money. And the other part is that I stated YOU don't pay the takeout. Are you still seem to think you do.

The money the TAB gets, has to ultimately come from somewhere. If punters bet 500k on the day at Wingatui. They lose say $75k net across the day. If Newmarket decides that day to bet, and bets $10k on the races on the day. The TAB will take say $76.5k out. That will be the net losses from the punters. $1.5k more. That money has to come from somewhere. If Newmarket doesn't lose, the other punters need to be prepared to lose more. $1.5k more. They may do it that day, but they won't just keep doing that. Most people don't have a bottomless supply of money to lose. People are betting against other punters. One punter winning overall affects the other punters rate of return in a pool scenario.

Given what is on here, I'm going to have to contact the TAB to get all my tax invoices for all the deductions on my bets that have resulted in GST being paid to the government. That may be the case - if looking at just that day in isolation. But if you think that you could bet $5k every day, returning you $5k, and that the TAB would therefore be making $750 every day because of your betting than otherwise, then please tell us where the money is coming from. Because that means that 365 * $750 would have been lost from the other punters across the year betting into those pools - close to $300k. Where is that coming from? They got bottomless pockets?

Where have I said otherwise? You are looking so narrowly that you haven't considered the losses from the others and the impact over the year to the TAB revenue. But that is how you think. You bet more, the TAB gets more. But the results of them doing this have proven otherwise. And then when I stated that races with shorter priced horses will have less tote turnover, you seemed to poo poo that by suggesting everyone will have those horses in their multis. Well I suggest you go and have a look at the betting on Winx's race as an example.

I didn't say the pool doesn't come from the punters. But the difference is clear. The takeout comes from the pool. It doesn't come from your bet. I'm pretty confident it doesn't come out when my bet is taken. Since when my bet gets scratched, I get ALL my money back. Nice to see your language. Is this how you speak to people?

I guess that's why rebates have been such a success. The annual report has been showing such a rise in profits since they were introduced. They only prefer option B in the short term, because option B doesn't deal with what the impact those bets have had on the loss rate of the other participants. The same way that high volume tote punters that don't lose are causing the remaining tote punters to lose at a faster rate than otherwise. They will only lose so much. But you are asserting that they will happily lose more and more just because someone else has put more money into the pools. Remind me not to go into business with you. In this very example, if NM puts $5k into the pools and loses nothing on the day. The remaining tote punters have lost an extra $750 dollars than if he didn't bet. And you think they're just going to be happy doing that for the rest of the year.

Pretty sure these relate to pools, not individual bets. As opposed to what The Crucible states, they are NOT the same thing. (b) Statutory deduction – Win The statutory deduction for commingled Win pools will be 17.50%. Where a pool is scheduled to be commingled, but the Board decides to un-commingle the pool before any betting data is exchanged with the Hong Kong Jockey Club, then the statutory deduction for that Win pool will be the statutory deduction as listed in APPENDIX 1. “Dividend Pool” means, the sum of money placed as bets on a specific pool, less Refunds and statutory deductions. From time to time it may also include amounts carried forward from previous dividend pools and may also include amounts from any Prize Reserve Pool. The rules refer to pools. They don't refer to any individual bet being subject to commission/takeout. Yet for some reason, you've made the leap to claim your bet has commission when all it does is give the TAB a right to take commission. No one knows who actually pays it. I know this is simple, but clearly not simple enough.

They make sense. But they're wrong. Ignorant.

The numbers of the takeout are correct. The money however, does not come from your bet. The racing rules state that. Of course there is. The amount is the same. Where it comes from is not defined.

You're certainly struggling with this, no doubt. because you keep claiming that YOU are paying the takeout. YOU don't. The pool does.

Where have I stated that. I have stated the takeout happens when the race is finalised. Pretty simple really.

Yep, the will pays will show what is calculated after they take their allowable deduction from what is the 'pool' at that time. But if you read the NZ TAB racing rules, it states, the takeout is taken from the pool. I can't help it if my example is mickey mouse to you. It probably just means you are struggling to understand the difference between takeout being taken from my bet versus takeout being taken from the pool of money bet. That's more your issue than mine. if you can't grasp that, then forget replying except to indicate that you can't grasp that.

It doesn't state that in the rules of racing. The individual punter does not have a deduction from their bet. Which part of that are you not understanding?

When the race is finalised. But it isn't taken from your bet. If you lose, you don't know where your money went as it is not defined. When you win, you don't know where it has come from. But the TAB revenue is the sum of losses less the sum of winnings from a race (They know what defines the amount. The TAB rules where that % comes from the pool of money bet).

It has nothing to do with betfair. You're asserting that you betting $5k and losing nothing will make the TAB more gross revenue than a person who bets $2k and loses nothing. To do that, the other punters must have been prepared to lose more in your case than in Curious's case. Why would that be? So suddenly, Curious has two bets and loses nothing staking $2k. And the TAB punter revenue is $50k for the day. Then you come in and bet $5k, lose nothing and yet the other punters have suddenly lost $50k + $750. Amazing. I hope you're not an accountant.

That's largely irrelevant. Since if Newmarket loses less than the 'takeout', then the rest are simply supplying the takeout at a higher rate. Which means they are losing their allowable 'losses' faster. Which means, unless punters are prepared to lose more, again, the TAB will not make more from Newmarket's betting, if he doesn't lose. It's the TAB rules - there is nothing deducted from Newmarket's bets. It's taken from the pool. If a punter affects the level of takeout that others get, that does not help the TAB revenue. If you don't lose overall with the TAB on tote betting, you cannot claim to have contributed to their revenue. Since your bet never gets a deduction. The only revenue is your losses. Even the annual report will tell you that, along with the betting rules which reinforce that.

You both made the TAB the same. Nothing.

No they won't, not if that is from tote betting.

It makes no difference what I write. You have your views. Next you're going to tell me that over the course of a year, the total gross revenue from tote betting is not equal to the sum of all the losses from losing punters minus the sum of winnings from all the winning punters for the year (less any rebates they pay out and any bonus/free bet adjustments). I guess you think it works differently. Next you'll be telling me that when I put $10k on the tote, I've contributed 15% of that to their gross revenue.

Can you explain how turnover helps NZ TAB. I thought their revenue was based on punters losses.

I'd say you are right. And I'll add that races with shorter priced favourites attract less totalisator betting (more fixed odds betting). More of these that race (and then win) that are bet through fixed odds isn't necessarily going to help the industry. Less money bet through the tote is also not a positive.

I'm not sure that is the case. UK handicap races have around the same favourite strike rate as NZ, higher average price of winners, and higher average price of the favourite. They have a lot of people interested in racing relative to NZ and certainly much higher turnover per capita than NZ. I would say the condition of the tracks is what is stalling punter interest more so. Are you suggesting that a punter that loses 10k per year is going to be happy to lose more than that a year, so long as they get more winners along the way?

So it was you that inferred that. Thought so. As I said, I don't control what stupid people interpret from a post. Next time, try just reading the post as it is clear there is no other inference in it than the bet was unusual. Out of the f'n ordinary etc. Which it was.

I think I called it unusual. And this year, from the data I collect at the various points in time for each race, there has been one other occasion where a horse had bets being asked for over $1500 at two points in time leading up to the race, on a NZ race. Twice this year so far. So from the 40,000 betting entries I have for NZ races this year, two horses have achieved that. The other one won and happened to be on a reasonably big betting day - the 1st of January. Maybe Thomass wouldn't call that unusual.

It certainly is beyond f in normal. Quite agree. Certainly not expected, abnormal, out of the ordinary. No doubt about that. That doesn't infer 'dodgy'. Yet you managed to.