mardigras

CGT Is just another form of income tax. IMO, far superior as a tax to GST which is a double dipping tax.

Because the types of investment that attracts CGT are designed to generate income. Why is some income taxed and other not? Why does a person with money in the bank earning any interest pay effectively CGT(income tax in that case) when a person uses the same money to buy non dividend yielding shares? And then sell them and pay nothing? Why if I invest my money into starting a business to make money, if that business profits, it's subject to income tax. But other investments aren't.

Outside of any potential industry impact, I fully support the idea of a CGT. Even though I'd be affected by one if it was implemented.

Which is fine. I think the handicapping model of the UK is as good as any. It allows for an overall ranking of runners and can include re-rating horses even if they haven't started in the interim.

I'd expect it flat from the top until around 0.5kg above the minimum, then a drop away as horses on the minimum aren't all getting all the weight relief their rating suggests they should.

I've been involved in studies that have gone to NZTR, the same relative % apply if you just take males or just take females. The weight variance for a point based on their scale is insufficient to equalise chance 'generally' in NZ and Oz.

The allocation of points and the spread of weights/weights per point is flawed here and in Oz. But weighting based on rating isn't flawed by itself.

Quite agree. Certainly not progressing through the grades. It's illogical to think better performing horses are at the top of the handicaps. Higher rates horses are, which is what handicap racing is about. And the stated purpose of that is to equalise chance.

What happens to the horses that lose points and start in lower grade. Are they proceeding to better class races? You seem to be suggesting that the progressive horses are always at the top of the handicap. Strange idea.

As I said, make it a rule preventing non public information being given to others for the purpose of gaining from it. Simple. It's a long bow to suggest it can help their betting. But you're stupid enough to believe it.

If the idea of the experiment is that it will work, good on them for giving it a go. Steve Hansen probably does similar. Why would a trainer listen to a jockey manager? You're obsessed with them.

What's the rules. Try using English. Your posts make little sense.

No, it's a rule.

Most punters know a lot more about punting on racing than you. They must be insider trading.

Of course it's covered by the rules. Every horse is to run on its merits. Are you claiming that in these experiments, the horse doesn't run on its merits? Every start is an experiment. Since the same thing will never happen twice. As for others trading on the information, that is not the same as punters requiring the info. Just do what a decent jurisdiction does and stop dissemination of non-public information to other people for them to gain from. Like in the UK. If a jockey manager suggests dropping out, how is the trainer going to notify something they don't know? Mountain/molehill as usual.

What a load of bollocks. Jockeys and trainers are allowed to change tactics. Just like the All Blacks do. As to business leaders. It's not insider trading, it's running a business. I have shares, and I don't get told all the strategy of those organisations. You have such little knowledge. Incredible.

Of course it will cost. An extra stipe per meeting possibly. Every horse will have to be checked to see if they ran with a change of tactics. Followed by an investigation into those suspected of it.

It's already well covered under the current racing rules. If the stipes can't administer them, that's the problem. Adding an extra piece unrelated to integrity, is unlikely to be done any better by them.

If you have the money, you should deliver points of difference. If you don't have the money, you should prioritise what will help get you that money. There is zero evidence that change of tactics notifications will get you any money.

I haven't bastardised anything. The thread title is claiming that not having change of tactics information is an outrage. I've merely pointed out that the claim is crap. It's not going to change anything. NZ racing needs to invest in far higher priority things than such stupid ideas as this. You're the king of stupid ideas. And because you're a loser, you're trying to find the piece of the puzzle that you're missing. Problem is, you're missing all the pieces of the puzzle.

In the last 7 years, average return to punter each year has gone from 83.6% to 85.6%. (So an average takeout from 16.4% down to 14.4%). A competitive advantage. Explain to me how information brings the average takeout down in such a fashion? You've been hoodwinked into thinking it's their information. Which is good. But it is their desire to bring in new money which is changing their model and increasing their revenue. More money, bigger liquidity, more information in those pools, more betting. Show us a year where their average takeout rate has stayed the same, but their revenue has grown - and correlate that to a change in information provided.

blah blah blah. They've been doing that for a very long time. And their information is such as this. "You have to offer as much information as possible into odds, pool sizes, and trends in the betting for their consideration.” "The HKJC has introduced the Longitude engine to the pari-mutuel, which allows for greater liquidity in markets and to also consistently display the odds of exotic bet types, such as the Tierce and First Four offerings. This increases customer attraction to those products as the punters will have a clear idea of what the likely payout will be. " And then of course they introduced commingling. Commingling will always help the superior jurisdiction. So extra new money arrives because of the liquidity offered by HK racing. Along with rebates on large losing bets to help bring in new money from punters that would otherwise bet through illegal channels. It's pretty simple stuff. And their other key information provisioning is in the area of television. They cover their racing pre race better than anywhere. Because they focus on their own racing. Maybe you should have told NZRB to do the same. But you go on about things like tactic changes in NZ as if they are going to change anything. Delusional.

I'd expect so. Betting in HK was declining. and then they introduced ways to obtain new money. Coupled with their integrity aspects, their very closed set of horses and their limited tracks - a perfect scenario for betting. And with a population that has limited choice and that loves gambling. They've always led the way with information, but I haven't seen their revenue grow as a result of it. Can you show me some years where revenue increased that correlates with additional information being provided.

It's all nonsense. Information both attracts and detracts from punting. People that bet on stats like you are put off because you are causing the odds to be uncompetitive. And don't bet. You just make shit up as you go along. Betting growth has been shown to be about having the ability to bet with a degree of competitive price. To attract new money. It's what HK has done. It's what any decent jurisdiction will do to bring in new money.

As expected, nothing. He couldn't win betting HK if he got to bet half way through the race.