mardigras

Yep - and that's before any TAB expenses.

NZTR AR 2019-20 HiRes_RBG_29_Oct20.pdf (loveracing.nz) The 13 cents in the $ net betting revenue is from the 2018 annual report (NZRB). It fluctuates (can and has been lower), but that is a reasonable estimate.

No. Because there shouldn't be a tiered system as there is no tiered revenue from race meetings. And there won't be.

Yep - so 3.65 times as much turnover per day between little old Westland and big Ellerslie. (Only 3 times as much turnover per race - maybe Westland should run more races).And which of the two gets the most Saturdays do you think? Do you think Saturdays generally have higher turnovers than non Saturdays? So if you take net revenue at 13 cents in the $ (pre all the massive TAB expenses), you get Brilliant.

Yep, you may think that is normal, and it is like that in Australia. Not here - the difference between a Saturday R65 at Ellerslie is very little to a R65 at Waverley - as far as the punters are concerned. We want to operate tiers like they do in Australia, but the most important failings in my view are that we don't run tiers that in anyway mirror the reasons why they work there. Their tiers are geographical, ours aren't. In NZ they are somewhat random and there is no real geographical (or cost) boundary. And in Australia, you can examine the betting and the provincials do about 2 times the turnover of a country. And a metro does around 2.5 times the turnover of a provincial - which aligns pretty well with the stake structure. The same definitely does not apply here.

And since you are suggesting the same meeting at Ashburton would do better than at Westland, show us how you've come to that conclusion.

What do you mean. You stated Ashburton versus Westland? How am I going to find a meeting the same as Westland somewhere else on the same day? I know I'm not comparing apples with apples. If I actually did, I think Westland would come out ahead.

Throw in ARC and it's not hard to see where an excess of industry money goes. Punters in NZ don't give a toss about premier versus non premier, or tiered racing. Betting more relates to day of week than anything. Anyone would think if they ran 200 racedays at Ellerslie, punting revenue would go up. Yeah, sure.

From the most recent NZTR figures.

Not in the long term. No.

I don't get the point of suggesting punters don't bet on them in relation to restricting them. I would have expected the number of meetings to be based around demand. That is not indefinite. So therefore yes, I would be limiting them in some fashion also. The issue is many make claims that they don't bet on them. They attract the same level of betting for a comparable level of meeting held on the turf. And yes, I have the figures and the figures agree with that. I'm not debating whether NZ should have all weather - I'm merely pointing out that many opposing them are using flawed arguments against them, such as turnover alone. I'd be more inclined to oppose them based on costs versus benefits. I'd expect the turnover from meetings on AWT would reach the levels of a similar level of turf meeting.

I doubt there would be any significant difference. If you are providing the same funding to the clubs for running the meeting and the same stakes for the races, I doubt you'd see any punting difference, long term. Export turnover contributes peanuts. Hardly even worth mentioning.

On what basis is that claim. They certainly have no problem betting on them in Victoria.

They bet on them a heck of a lot more per $ of industry cost than they do on the likes of Ellerslie.

I don't believe that is the case. I don't think any race meetings make money for the industry, they may make some for themselves. But NZ race meetings are all run at a loss, and propped up by the revenues of sport, pokies and off-shore racing. The losses are however, significantly less for the industry/low tiered days than they are for any premier or iconic racedays which are massive losers.

The 'implied' deduction on fixed odds for racing is almost always higher on fixed odds than it is on the tote (at a point in time). The issue now is that the tote has become so severely bastardised by fixed odds, that the NZ pools don't handle any decent sized bets well. NZ racing did that to themselves. Sort of the same with fixed odds as the TAB make the rules on what they will accept. They don't make such rules on the tote as far as I am aware.

Because Tabcorp is the host and they set the rules on commission - so that the dividend calculation is across the entire pool.

$780 win pool (and no dividend under minimum), $666.9 (so $666.90). $40 place pool (and no dividend under minimum), $11.4333 rounded down to $11.40. If the pool is a NZ event, the statutory deductions are 15.5 win and place. If 15.5% is used for the two calculations, you would get dividends of $659.10 and $11.266 rounded down to $11.20 14.5 and 14.25 are the Tabcorp rates in effect for a Tabcorp hosted event, where we have decided to commingle. If we don't commingle, the event uses the NZ statutory rates.

I'm sure they do add up, but primary school maths level may not be sufficient. The only time when it would be more complex is when there is more than the amount of money required to take the odds down below the minimum odds level.

Thanks. Although not that interesting considering it is pretty much just an abbreviated concatenation of my name. The total on the tote for win and place - the commission is only included in the dividend calculation. Other pools with guaranteed payouts, who knows what they show.

I'm not sure what the right team is, but if you are implying I don't, then if you want to play with boys, that's your choice. Not sure why you want to mention that on a racing forum. But maybe you haven't worked out that's what it is yet. They don't falsify the amount of the pool. It's an 'as at' a point in time display. This is primary school stuff.

With respect, with someone that claims they are on the money all the time. This is so very basic, it's incredible that such a supposedly successful punter can't understand it. Talk about clueless.

He said he wasn't going to live under a dictatorship. Get a grip. I wasn't talking about this site - I assumed he was leaving the country. Is your comprehension that poor? You've lost the plot, and you've lost me. You're a total nutcase. So there you go, people are welcome to say goodbye. Because it is goodbye. Stick with all your useless analysis - and stress yourself out because you are simple.

Not bothered. It's called a democracy and like it or not, she was able to form a government when NZ First aligned with them. There's another election at some stage soon, and that gives the country another opportunity to have their say.

The truth airs it's head. It's got nothing to do with lockdown - just ignorance and anti-labour. We'll miss you. Bye. If you get fed up with all this, set up a Zoom meeting with JJ and share your lockdown war stories. That'll help.