mardigras

You'd have good grounds. A mistake totally at the hands of the trainer/staff and nothing to do with the owner I would have thought. It is diffcult to fathom how such an incident ever came about especially for such an experienced trainer who has often traveled horses.

I agree, the rule is clear (and I think curious thinks the same). And that rule was broken.

What benefit or otherwise the treatment causes is irrelevant. And of course I have not drawn a conclusion about previous runners. But if the log books exist, they should be examined if what Dark Beau wrote is accurate. In that case, any Pike horses to have raced in Australia are potentially in breach of that rule since its inception, and likewise in NZ since the start of the rule here. As it stands, we don't know how other NZ trainers taking horses to Australia have behaved regarding this rule. So you ca't put all NZ trainers in the same basket. The issue around the NZ stipes is an important one, albeit a separate issue. They are two different things. One is a breach of the rules in Australia. Another is the alleged mis-interpretation of the rules in NZ by those asked to enforce them.

If as Dark Beau suggests and this is normal practice for Pike, how far back does this go and to what results even in Oz are potentially contentious. Sacred Elixir etc etc.

Of course it has. As for some of those reports, some refer to decline when it has been the same for decades. Sydney racing has been crap for longer than I can remember. If you think Australian racing is in decline to anywhere near the levels of NZ, then your thinking is blinkered. It is likely that NZ racing doesn't actually earn any net revenue through NZRB itself. Do you think that is the case with Australian racing? We have an industry that likely doesn't even generate $1 of net revenue through punters being interested in it. It's on life support and one day the government might turn the switch off.

i don't think I have ever said racing isn't in decline in Australia. I have only been discussing the use of industry money towards stakes in NZ, which is pointless..

All very well and good. I agree that the reason why racing is in decline in NZ is not stakes. But it is definitely tracks in my view. The argument you make doesn't stack up given how things are in Australia. The only real difference between here and there is the tracks which gives punters confidence and the resulting revenue which gives owners a degree of opportunity. And of course a model where they reward the owners based on the interest their horses generate financially. Something NZ doesn't do. And of course there are issues with how owners are treated, but when it comes to where industry earned money is spent, spending it on stakes will not resolve that. Punters don't bet on a race because of the stake.

The owner is getting shafted because the punter has no interest. You want to address the owner being shafted before addressing the punter being shafted. Yet the punter provides the revenue capacity for the owner. Brilliant.

I disagree 100%. Stakes are meaningless in the current scenario. Horse owners and trainers have put up with them at substandard levels for years already. To amend your statement, you can spend all the money you like on stakes as there won't be any punter left to bet on them. Horses and horse owners will remain (as they have done) with out any increase in stakes. Punter won't and aren't, without something worth betting on. Horses are still there, they are still racing. Are the punters. NO.

Yet still not enough to make the industry sustainable long term. To lift the net revenue after any culling exercise, the gross revenue will have to rise. On NZ racing it isn't.

Related or not, Smerdon was extremely well known for producing horses that would open short and just get shorter and shorter. And then win certainly more often than not. Not good.

I like to lay pretty much most horses at $1.65. But the weight and wide draw actually makes me less likely to do that as the price will likely be higher than it would be with different factors. Those factors are not likely to affect the horses chance in my view as is my view generally.

What makes you think they are the same? And as I asked earlier, if they are such an earner for NZ TAB, why is fixed odds turnover not included? Don't they value those punters?

Rebates affect the price/value of the punters not involved in the rebate. Punters will bet BECAUSE of the rebate itself. Elite punters as of a couple of years back, were performing overall ahead of the takeout rate (excluding the rebate). i.e they may be losing on average 10% gross in races with a 15% take out rate, excluding the rebate (which means that they are outperforming the average punter). So every bet they place additionally that is solely due to receiving a rebate, will on average increase the average loss rate of the other punters betting into those pools (on average). That will increase the average rate of loss by other punters which will ultimately lead to them doing less turnover or giving up due to perceived inability to win periodically as frequently. Which turns punters away as they simply find they are losing their money faster than expected and change their behaviour or stop altogether. As mentioned elsewhere, lowering the takeout for all is a far better option. And it cannot do what I describe. Promotional bets are often restricted to 1 - 4 bets from the bonus. They are generally targeted at punters where the organisation expects to get the money back from the punter. Often from bookies offering fixed odds. Perhaps you can tell us why they aren't offered on fixed odds betting in NZ if they are such an earner?

No, I don't think they are even remotely similar.

I'd love to see some expansion on why anyone believes that rebates would be likely to increase the net revenue numbers of NZ TAB.

Why on earth would NZ TAB even consider rebates. If they have still have rebates, it is hardly surprising that the net revenue is going nowhere. If they love them so much, I guess they would offer them on fixed odds bets as well.

Interesting read. It is the same method used by most punters aiming at winning. The ability to set odds based on probabilities that give you an edge against the odds you are faced with betting on (i.e the public in a tote system or the bookmaker in a fixed odds sense). If your ability to derive the probability of something happening is more accurate than the other side of the bet, then winning is going to happen, if you can't achieve that, then winning is unlikely long term.

It has a history and continual attraction that allows it to succeed beyond anything NZ currently has. People will book their attendance a year in advance to go to this carnival. I'm not sure you can still say that about any single gallops event in NZ. Although I have not checked this year, more is typically bet on each individual day at Warrnambool than would be bet worldwide on NZ's biggest gallops day - and every year it is midweek.

That would be along the very lines I would go to. Provide a low cost operation(tote only) as the core business. Free up the opportunity for betting operators to run a legitimate business here and simply restrict the basis on which they can price their product. Charge them appropriately and by virtue of a low takeout rate tote model, endeavour to build that to a level of size that makes betting into it attractive. Will involve a period of pain. Short term pain versus continual pain to the point of non-existence.

I'd agree. I expect there is little if anything to be made there. Peanuts.

They are. I would drop them to between 10% and 12% on NZ racing events. Get out of commingling, get out of fixed odds and set racefield fees at 30% of market profit (not turnover) from other betting providers on NZ events. Others could do the same back, but that shouldn't be a concern since we should be focusing on NZ racing income and wanting to shift focus on to our industry.

I don't think they would have a problem paying for using NZ product - at a realistic level of race fields fees (just like the TABs do). They didn't have a problem paying race field fees either. More the largely moronic approach of V'landys that they opposed - and in my view, rightfully so. If offshore bookies stop taking bets from NZers or on NZ racing - what makes anyone think the NZ TAB would obtain that business.

For sure. Something I don't believe they should have ever made their focus.

I'm looking forward to what he provides to the Minister. And I'm not saying he won't delve into areas of revenue growth. But when reading many of the discussions (such as those in the Informant), they are pushing costs as being a major focus. While the costs are excessive, they are currently being met by revenue generated outside of NZ racing.