mardigras

Not bet more, lose more. Revenue is the collection of losses from punters (less the collection of profits from those punters that win overall). The encouragement is the enticement of betting on an event with real money - in the anticipation that should it not win, but meet some criteria, you will be rewarded with an additional bonus bet opportunity. If they simply give money away without requiring any betting, then I would expect that is done to attract a punter to bet in the hope that once they have lost the given money, they will lose some of their own money. So that is aimed at having say Ladbrokes get $200 from punter A by enticing them with $150 bonus bet - rather than Bet365 getting that punters $200. Ultimately, the punter in the long term is generally only going to be prepared to lose a certain amount - so it comes down to which betting provider is going to get it (or a share of it).

My understanding of their promos was that you placed a fixed odds bet, and depending on the outcome, you could be provided with a bonus bet. The initial bet being real money. The promo/bonus bet being nothing from a revenue standpoint. With the idea being that punters will bet on the races with the promo, where they otherwise wouldn't. And my view is that all that is likely to do is shift where punters lose there money if the bets result in losing. They aren't going to lose on the promo/bonus offer, and then carry on losing the same amount as normal on the other races. So if you don't attract new punters to bet (and lose) on your promo, or your existing punters aren't prepared to lose more than normal ,then the promo delivers nothing extra in revenue. The only other potential upside is the promo is being used to retain punters that would otherwise go elsewhere. And if they keep the punter that loses overall, purely from the promo being available, then that is an avenue where the promo has benefit. A very difficult one to measure without some degree of understanding that your customers were planning to go elsewhere. A TAB is unlikely to be able to increase revenue from an existing set of customers (outside of typical increases due to normal economic factors related to things like incomes which allows for customers to be prepared to lose a little more as they have a little more). Since revenue is losses. And therefore they need some way for their collection of punters to be prepared to lose than before. So increasing customers becomes the easiest and most likely way to grow revenue.

The issue of profit on these is not as simple as just looking at the results of the bets themselves. Which I expect is what the TAB would do. I'd suspect that they do not analyse them down to the profitability across all account holders betting relative to their betting over a period of x and how the promos translate to an actual increase or otherwise. For the promos to be successful revenue earners, they need the punters betting on them to deliver greater losses than they would have otherwise, or attract other punters (with losses) that wouldn't have been losing with them otherwise. And factor that against those punters that have won overall relative to their usual betting behaviour by way of the promos. Having read many things from NZRB, and their many ideas they have on how to make more revenue, I'd be pretty certain they wouldn't even know how to do this type of analysis. Of course, we will never know, because NZRB/RITA are not forthcoming with open information - and how that information has been arrived at. If indeed they do such analysis - I'm surprised given how they always talk about things like how excited they are when turnover is up, only to find in the reports that it has had no impact on net revenue or overall profit.

Yep, that'll help.

Sure he did. And you win at punting. We don't need lies or liars on here. He's proven he's a liar, since he claimed stuff that is untrue. And he can't show evidence of his claims. How simple would that be. But nope - nothing. Actually, a lot like you. I hope you enjoy the funding for your horses next season - gonna be a blast.

For someone so anti Labour - you seem keen on the idea of racing being the recipient of massive 'social welfare' from the government. Or where else do you think the money is going to come from?

I agree. Not good. You ask a simple question -- easily answered by Bid and Freda - instead, you get a lot of trash from others. As for the topic, I'm somewhat surprised they bothered to race this season - and not doing so would have ensured people were able to get their horses ready.

It's been going nowhere Freda because I have an extremely low tolerance for liars - such as the lies being put forward by Huey. It's what you get on the internet/sites like this. Very sad.

Do you often spend your time on these sites writing that people stated something they didn't? Very sad. Not a good look - let's hope your clients don't know your identity. You should be embarrassed with such behaviour. You couldn't give anyone a hiding, except yourself - which you've been doing quite well at, and you're persisting with anything you can to try and dig your way out. You're wasting my time (and everyone else's) all because you have very poor reading skills. Come back after maybe taking a refresher course. Good luck with the new season of racing. You're going to need it.

You are definitely not too sharp. Repeating something I've never said - and you are proving that I've never said it - since you can't quote me. Thanks, that exactly what I was aiming for with you. Wanting you to keep highlighting your stupidity. Keep it up. Show us your next piece. Do you know the difference now between National Hunt and flat racing in the UK. Good one, took you a while. Next you'll be wanting to share your ideas on punting. Can't wait.

There are crooks everywhere - including here. But I have far greater faith in their ability to evaluate a horse running on its merits than they can here. But I prefer UK racing.

I give up. You're a lost cause. I hope you can maintain a little bit more control when you're dealing with your clients. This from someone who couldn't even work out the difference between National Hunt and 'Flat' racing. You should have given up without bringing that pearler up again. As for weight, I certainly ignore weight when assessing horses for the punt in NZ and Australia. But certainly weight has an impact, no doubt about it. You of course, can do what you like.

I have never claimed myself to be clever. I have never implied a horse can be pulled from the paddock and prepared to go to the races in 8 weeks. And you didn't say I was a trainer, but you asked me to provide a training plan for doing something I have never said can be done. Hmmm, I hope you are better at training than you are at reading.

So again, since you are obviously a little slow. Where have I stated anything about being a trainer or being able to get a horse to the races such as described. I haven't - but you don't read well.

I've never said that. And you tried to suggest I can't read. Put my post up where I claim I can do that. need a good laugh. You'll be backtracking faster than ATA did.

You've lost the plot. Keep on going though, since I'm not a trainer and have never once claimed that I could get a horse to the races in 8 weeks for a 2000m+ race. Try talking a step back and a sane person would realise I've never said otherwise. I hope you don't have any clients on here that know you. You're making yourself look stupid.

Stop being a twit. Show me where my statements are not either facts or questions. And tell everyone how long it takes to get a fat horse to a 2000m+ race in a ready condition. Since I've been asking, I don't know the answer - and you're too scared to tell us.

I'm not sure what that has to do with using a race as a training ground. Which is the integrity issue I am talking about. I don't see any issue with a horse being set up for a punt so long as a) they don't use the race for the purposes of training a horse and b) the horse runs on its merits. Certainly can't see any lack of integrity in that.

I don't have any - since as you stated, I am not in the habit of betting on NZ racing. The lack of integrity is a major reason why (and many others I know). At least you're happy with the lack of funding because people aren't interested in betting here.

Not surprised to see your vested interests come to the fore.

It certainly doesn't do anything for integrity. Having races used for the purposes of getting a horse fit - against the rules in certain jurisdictions.

Poor Huey. Can't answer simple questions, get's all defensive. I'm not a trainer, why would I come up with any training plan. Confused? You certainly seem so. I've not stated anything other than facts, and asked questions. None of those facts require me to be a trainer.

And I'm still waiting to hear how long it would be expected to take to get a fat horse from the paddock to a 2000m+ race. If the way things are done here mean it takes so long to get a horse to the races (in a suitable race), why not change the way things are done? Don't send it for a spell, keep it in light work etc etc. The idea behind racing a horse in 1400 - 1600m races for the purposes of getting it fit, is a shocker.

I think Gai Waterhouse calls that spelling. She has said she finds suitable properties for her horses to spell - bearing in mind their individual needs - which could be things likes water walkers etc.

All I've been doing is stating facts and asking questions. Questions, you haven't seemed to want to answer. And your original post wasn't only about the timeframe, it was about only having one jumpout, as if that was the reason there would be zero horses ready. Why do these horses need races or jumpouts. Why not just train them to be race ready without jumpouts or races? If you can't get yours ready in time, wait until they are ready.