Brodie Posted January 18 Author Share Posted January 18 Chief, you ask Brodie what he is doing to entice new punters? The answer is probably very little, When you are treated very poorly by someone or an institution would you be doing big favours for them? All Brodie asks for is for punters to be treated equally! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 34 minutes ago, Brodie said: Chief, you ask Brodie what he is doing to entice new punters? The answer is probably very little, When you are treated very poorly by someone or an institution would you be doing big favours for them? All Brodie asks for is for punters to be treated equally! No you want other punters to turn up so you can out punt them and win more. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 45 minutes ago, Brodie said: They should at least allow a minimum of $2k net winnings on any single bet!!! I've agreed with that for a long time. Otherwise the monopoly wins and poor bookie performance prevails. I also believe the TABNZ bookies shouldn't be able to lay on the tote. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted January 18 Author Share Posted January 18 The laws in NZ I was under the impression was that you can not be prejudice against people? By way of COLOUR or RACE! AGE! SEX! Etc!!!! If you show prejudice it becomes an issue, we see it all the time! However apparently the TAB is somehow allowed to say to some punters you can wager what you want to and yet it is also allowed to treat other punters differently by saying you can only put a wee bit on!!!! What would happen if they came out and said that we will not be accepting any bets from 80 year old, female Tongans????? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangatira Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 9 minutes ago, Brodie said: The laws in NZ I was under the impression was that you can not be prejudice against people? By way of COLOUR or RACE! AGE! SEX! Etc!!!! If you show prejudice it becomes an issue, we see it all the time! However apparently the TAB is somehow allowed to say to some punters you can wager what you want to and yet it is also allowed to treat other punters differently by saying you can only put a wee bit on!!!! What would happen if they came out and said that we will not be accepting any bets from 80 year old, female Tongans????? Ah yes your old human right chestnut. I had forgotten about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted January 18 Author Share Posted January 18 28 minutes ago, Rangatira said: Ah yes your old human right chestnut. I had forgotten about this. Ranga, we are subjected to so much BS nowadays! Hopefully David Seymour will get rid of half the rules and regulations that are so unnecessary! The control and interfering in people’s lives needs to go! This AML bs needs to be majorly modified as it is so pathetic and time consuming for what? If they stopped importing people from overseas that are the ones that launder money, things would be far better for all! Why should people who have been citizens of NZ fir decades now have to identify themselves continuously and have to state where you got money from to buy a house decades ago, when they want to sell??? AML, TAB wants to know who you are, when you gamble and win $1k?.. You can not tell me this is sensible? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 18 hours ago, the galah said: A small % of his higher spending customers have a favorite meal. Problem is if he prices that meal at a cost where he turns a profit Novel concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 18 hours ago, the galah said: When he loses them,he loses every facet of his business where they spend. In this case many are customers who when they come in spend large $ on drinks where his profit margins are very much in his favour. How does that relate to wagering? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 18 hours ago, the galah said: In other words,he has two choices. The first choice is to price the meal at a price that he could return a profit,but at the same time lose many of his customers that he makes a good overall profit off because of their spend on the drinks. So unless this dodgy restaurant owner has a different tariff for every customer he must reduce the price of the meal another way e.g. applying a discount when the bill is paid to favour his preferred customer. Isn't this similar to rebates given to some punters? Of course at the end of the day the onwer isn't going to give a discount that is below cost or that doesnt cover his fixed costs - well not for long as he'd go broke. Yes he might do it for a shirt period but not for long eventually all the other customers find out and start wanting the same discount or go eat and drink elsewhere. The only way you could compare this restaurant owners practices to wagering is if the bookie was willing to lose heavily week in week out from a number of customers. He could do that for a while but eventually he'd start running at a loss and go broke. It's akin to the restaurant owner paying the customer to eat at his restaurant. Now yield management can be a complex mechanism to improve profits particularly in the airline and rental car industry. You don't have a perishable product but you do have a product with a single opportunity to be sold. With airline it is a seat on a flight on a plane. You can't sell that seat after the plane has taken off. With the rental car firm you rent a car per day. If the car sits in the yard not rented it costs the company. In my day it was on average $52 a day in fixed costs. It was OK on some occasions to rent a car at less than fixed costs because you got a return that covered some of those costs. What you tried to avoid though was renting the car at a cost where the additional variable costs associated with the rental e.g. cleaning the car on return were greater than than the fixed cost return. You then lost money. It was more complex than I described because there was residual value of the car to consider and a number of other variables. Of course some of the large customers got heavily discounted prices but never at a price that returned zero profit or didn't cover fixed costs at a minimum. We've discussed perishable products before with the bread baker analogy. Wagering is neither a perishable product nor exactly the same as the airline seat or the rental car day. You can't keep selling to one customer at a big loss that doesn't cover fixed costs otherwise you go broke. Unless of course you can find a zillion other mugs to subsidise the big guys @Brodie wins. In an open and competitive market even the zillions of mugs will eventually start looking for better prices somewhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the galah Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 (edited) 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: So unless this dodgy restaurant owner has a different tariff for every customer he must reduce the price of the meal another way e.g. applying a discount when the bill is paid to favour his preferred customer. Isn't this similar to rebates given to some punters? Of course at the end of the day the onwer isn't going to give a discount that is below cost or that doesnt cover his fixed costs - well not for long as he'd go broke. Yes he might do it for a shirt period but not for long eventually all the other customers find out and start wanting the same discount or go eat and drink elsewhere. The only way you could compare this restaurant owners practices to wagering is if the bookie was willing to lose heavily week in week out from a number of customers. He could do that for a while but eventually he'd start running at a loss and go broke. It's akin to the restaurant owner paying the customer to eat at his restaurant. Now yield management can be a complex mechanism to improve profits particularly in the airline and rental car industry. You don't have a perishable product but you do have a product with a single opportunity to be sold. With airline it is a seat on a flight on a plane. You can't sell that seat after the plane has taken off. With the rental car firm you rent a car per day. If the car sits in the yard not rented it costs the company. In my day it was on average $52 a day in fixed costs. It was OK on some occasions to rent a car at less than fixed costs because you got a return that covered some of those costs. What you tried to avoid though was renting the car at a cost where the additional variable costs associated with the rental e.g. cleaning the car on return were greater than than the fixed cost return. You then lost money. It was more complex than I described because there was residual value of the car to consider and a number of other variables. Of course some of the large customers got heavily discounted prices but never at a price that returned zero profit or didn't cover fixed costs at a minimum. We've discussed perishable products before with the bread baker analogy. Wagering is neither a perishable product nor exactly the same as the airline seat or the rental car day. You can't keep selling to one customer at a big loss that doesn't cover fixed costs otherwise you go broke. Unless of course you can find a zillion other mugs to subsidise the big guys @Brodie wins. In an open and competitive market even the zillions of mugs will eventually start looking for better prices somewhere else. As far as your car rental example goes. My answer to that would be the tab has two types of wagering. FF and the tote. .Not one,but 2 where it can generate income. to make a more similar comparison to your car rental example you need to factor in a 2nd part which returns a profit before you can look at overall profit/loss from the customers. So lets say that the customer(bigger punters) would rather employ a driver to drive them around because. So your car rental business,who also has drivers for hire, would have income from 2 streams,not the one. And given you can charge the customer an hourly rate for the driver with a good profit margin for you in excess of the discounted(profit loss) that you get for the car you hire out,then you are making money overall. Simple as that. Edited January 18 by the galah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 1 hour ago, the galah said: My answer to that would be the tab has two types of wagering. FF and the tote. .Not one,but 2 where it can generate income. No it has more than two products from which it generates income. Exactly like a Rental Car company. 1 hour ago, the galah said: to make a more similar comparison to your car rental example you need to factor in a 2nd part which returns a profit before you can look at overall profit/loss from the customers. So lets say that the customer(bigger punters) would rather employ a driver to drive them around because. So your car rental business,who also has drivers for hire, would have income from 2 streams,not the one. And given you can charge the customer an hourly rate for the driver with a good profit margin for you in excess of the discounted(profit loss) that you get for the car you hire out,then you are making money overall. So how does this latest twist on your analogy relate to managing wagering yield? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the galah Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 (edited) 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: No it has more than two products from which it generates income. Exactly like a Rental Car company. So how does this latest twist on your analogy relate to managing wagering yield? The point i make is the tab/entain obviously are aware and spend time assessing whether they can limit their losses from successful punters as regards ff yields. Then based on that, they sometimes place restrictions and algorythms on accounts.. What they fail to do is consider the tote turnover that these customers spend. The bookies only focus is on the ff yields. I would guess they have targets and even get performance bonuses if targets are met. So they have no incentive whatsoever to consider the big picture,which includes the tote spend of customers. When you can draw a graph of the monthly spend by someone and see a drop in tote spending by 70-80% at the same time they placed restrictions or imposed algorythms,then you should be able to put 2 and 2 together and get 4. 4 represents the overall profit/loss of income for the tab as relates to each individual account holder.But with the tab bookies, they aren't interested in 4. Its irrelevant to them. I'm not saying they should not restrict punters. Every punter is different.I'm always saying what i think is just coomon sense,i.e...They need to do consider overall ff and tote yields for each customer,not just ff yields.. Thats why i say they should have policies that incentivise greater spend on the tote. For example say to a customer... we will increase the amounts you can win on ff per month should you meet the criteria of x amount of tote spend. I personally think the tab/entain are run by dummies. People making out they are there for the greater good of the industry,when the reality is they are there for the good of their own department only and themselves. Its not rocket science what i'm saying. But some of those who work at the tab/entain seem to think it is. Edited January 18 by the galah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowornever Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 9 hours ago, the galah said: I personally think the tab/entain are run by dummies. Agreed 9 hours ago, the galah said: When you can draw a graph of the monthly spend by someone and see a drop in tote spending by 70-80% at the same time they placed restrictions or imposed algorythms,then you should be able to put 2 and 2 together and get 4. Agreed and hit the nail on the head. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 On 19/01/2024 at 12:49 PM, the galah said: The point i make is the tab/entain obviously are aware and spend time assessing whether they can limit their losses from successful punters as regards ff yields. Then based on that, they sometimes place restrictions and algorythms on accounts.. What they fail to do is consider the tote turnover that these customers spend. The bookies only focus is on the ff yields. I would guess they have targets and even get performance bonuses if targets are met. So they have no incentive whatsoever to consider the big picture,which includes the tote spend of customers. No they don't! They consider the profitability of the customers total account turnover!! However they limit their losses on the books and this can be relative to the total hold on that book. A punter may get limited on an individual event but is probably treated no differently to many others big or small. The biggest reason turnover may be constrained is price. The TAB NZ has consistently priced their product more expensively than other options - that worked when it wasn't so easy to bet elsewhere i.e. they truly had a monopoly. On 19/01/2024 at 12:49 PM, the galah said: When you can draw a graph of the monthly spend by someone and see a drop in tote spending by 70-80% at the same time they placed restrictions or imposed algorythms,then you should be able to put 2 and 2 together and get 4. They can see that data for an individual's account yet you assume they take no notice of it. On 19/01/2024 at 12:49 PM, the galah said: Thats why i say they should have policies that incentivise greater spend on the tote. For example say to a customer... we will increase the amounts you can win on ff per month should you meet the criteria of x amount of tote spend. Fixed odds killed the golden goose - i.e. the tote. What is killing it more is what I think is the ability of large punters AND especially the TAB or other Corporates to lay off on the tote later than anyone else can. So the price the average punter sees late in the betting is not what it ends up as. With today's technology they should be able to update in real time - rather than 600m after the start!!! The result is the average (most) punter wants to fix their price rather than bet on what appears to be value on the tote which disappears within 600m after the start! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the galah Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 (edited) 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: No they don't! They consider the profitability of the customers total account turnover!! However they limit their losses on the books and this can be relative to the total hold on that book. A punter may get limited on an individual event but is probably treated no differently to many others big or small. The biggest reason turnover may be constrained is price. The TAB NZ has consistently priced their product more expensively than other options - that worked when it wasn't so easy to bet elsewhere i.e. they truly had a monopoly. They can see that data for an individual's account yet you assume they take no notice of it. Fixed odds killed the golden goose - i.e. the tote. What is killing it more is what I think is the ability of large punters AND especially the TAB or other Corporates to lay off on the tote later than anyone else can. So the price the average punter sees late in the betting is not what it ends up as. With today's technology they should be able to update in real time - rather than 600m after the start!!! The result is the average (most) punter wants to fix their price rather than bet on what appears to be value on the tote which disappears within 600m after the start! I give up trying to explain to you real life experiences of how it effects peoples spend. I can tell you one way for the TAB to never have any punter who has an account that does not yield a profit for the tab. Link the amount of the tote spend to there possible winning ff returns. for example they have identified a punter who is spending mearly all of their spend on ff and making say $5,000 a month off them. Well say to that punter,there is a way where you can avoid being restricted. That is you spend $40,000 a month through the tote and well will allow you to make up to $5,000 a month on ff, Spend $80,000 a month through the tote and you can make $10,000 on ff a month. The levies from the tote spend will always be greater than what they pay out in ff losses. Win/win There i have given you a simple solution to the tab no longer having punters who win off them and who they need to restrict. I'm a genius. Edited January 20 by the galah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted January 20 Author Share Posted January 20 13 minutes ago, the galah said: I give up trying to explain to you real life experiences of how it effects peoples spend. I can tell you one way for the TAB to never have any punter who has an account that does not yield a profit for the tab. Link the amount of the tote spend to there possible winning ff returns. for example they have identified a punter who is spending mearly all of their spend on ff and making say $5,000 a month off them. Well say to that punter,there is a way where you can avoid being restricted. That is you spend $40,000 a month through the tote and well will allow you to make up to $5,000 a month on ff, Spend $80,000 a month through the tote and you can make $10,000 on ff a month. The levies from the tote spend will always be greater than what they pay out in ff losses. Win/win There i have given you a simple solution to the tab no longer having punters who win off them and who they need to restrict. I'm a genius. Geez Galah, no way on earth would I be considering ever investing 10k a week on the tote just so that I could win 5k on final fields! I reckon this would ensure the punter goes broke! You go putting big amounts on the tote nowadays and your divvie will be not worth the risk, due to pool size! I just want to know why why the TAB is using $1k limit for the AML when it reads as it should be $10k! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 25 minutes ago, the galah said: Well say to that punter,there is a way where you can avoid being restricted. That is you spend $40,000 a month through the tote There's no way a serious punter would bet on the Tote at the moment as they have no way of identifying or fixing value. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the galah Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 5 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: There's no way a serious punter would bet on the Tote at the moment as they have no way of identifying or fixing value. I think i can answer that one for you as well. Punters need to assume the tote prices will close similar, for the favorites or win movers, that they see being offered on ff. In other words,if you back a win mover paying $3 on the tote as they start that is at $2.30 on the ff,you will see the tote dividend adjust and close to be the same or very close to the same as the $2.30 ff price after you can no longer bet.. Say you punt late on a horse on ff and you drop that in from $20 to $8 on the ff.Well expect the horses tote dividend of $20 to close at around $8 even though you didn't back it on the tote. The tab bookies will have. It took me a while to work it out but that is what i have observed time after time after time. Thats why these days the tote win pools are always higher than the place pools. Its the tab bookies system offloading after when punters no longer can. Also,another observation is never believe ithe ff dividends on roughies at tote close are what you could have got on at. The bookies lengthen the odds of the roughies right at the end. personally i have tried to back some roughies in the final seconds,been shut out due to the race starting,and then had a look at the odds and seen they have gone up even more than what i tried to get on at but couldn't. Its all just a big game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowornever Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 31 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: There's no way a serious punter would bet on the Tote at the moment as they have no way of identifying or fixing value. Incorrect. There is value in the exotic bets if you know how to extract it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the galah Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 35 minutes ago, Brodie said: Geez Galah, no way on earth would I be considering ever investing 10k a week on the tote just so that I could win 5k on final fields! I reckon this would ensure the punter goes broke! You go putting big amounts on the tote nowadays and your divvie will be not worth the risk, due to pool size! I just want to know why why the TAB is using $1k limit for the AML when it reads as it should be $10k! Spending 10 k a week isn't too hard if you follow the horses with all the harness meetings they have. About $150 a race which you could spread over all bet types. If your a serious punter able to win $5000 a month off ff then you should have no problem getting close to your tote spend back or making a profit on the tote as well. If you don't want to take that option well the tab can just say,well we gave you an option where we increased your restriction levels and you didn't take it. If you don't want to make your $5,000 or $10,000 or whatever a month then stop your moaning. It may or may not suit you brodie,but there would be a lot who are restricted who it could help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 6 minutes ago, Nowornever said: Incorrect. There is value in the exotic bets if you know how to extract it! Myab3 but you can fix that value now with Fixed Odds exotics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 14 minutes ago, the galah said: Punters need to assume the tote prices will close similar, for the favorites or win movers, that they see being offered on ff. "Assume" isn't fixing value. Why would they take a risk on the tote if the same value, as you infer, is offered on fixed odds? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 18 minutes ago, the galah said: Say you punt late on a horse on ff and you drop that in from $20 to $8 But why bother when your bet was large enough to bring the price in from $20 to $8? Your hypotheticals are well at best hypothetical. I doubt if you saw value at $20 that you would still see value at $8. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowornever Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 1 minute ago, Chief Stipe said: Myab3 but you can fix that value now with Fixed Odds exotics. Fixed odds exotics algorithm takes the value out of the fixed exotics especially trifectas and first fours. Any payout under 1000 on fixed tri and f4 is normally 15% - 30% less than tote barring the odd exception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 20 minutes ago, the galah said: The bookies lengthen the odds of the roughies right at the end. personally i have tried to back some roughies in the final seconds,been shut out due to the race starting,and then had a look at the odds and seen they have gone up even more than what i tried to get on at but couldn't. Its all just a big game. That's a technical problem where the various systems for displaying odds are out of sync or at best time delayed. The same happens on the tote. There is technology to fix that but probably not in the bookies advantage to do it. Arguably in value has to be found well before closing time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.