Racing Act Legislation and TAB Rules allow the TAB to lay bets off!

[Trojan]

I had an argument with a long term big punter in the pub the other day.  Another mate and I were discussing how the Fixed Odds at times are priced really strangely for particular horses for example Orchestral.  Was she short in the market initially to attract your average punter to throw it in their multis?  Like a form of reverse psychology.  

We also discussed the improbability of how often Fixed Odds end up equalling the Tote price - particularly AFTER the race has started.  We decided that the TAB lays Fixed Odds on the Tote on a fairly regular basis.  Anyway the big punter (won a few punter of the year competitions) piped in and said that the TAB didn't lay Fixed Odds bets and it was in the rules.

So I had a spare moment and looked at the Racing Act legislation and the TAB Betting Rules.  It specifically says in both that the TAB CAN lay bets.

The TAB rules say - 

LAY OFF BETS

13. We may at its sole discretion place all or part of a Fixed Odds Bet accepted by us on another betting system to manage its financial exposure.

Off to the Thirsty Thursday session to get my two jugs I bet!!!

[Wingman]

They need the tote pools to be high enough to make it viable and as they have successfully cannibalised  the tote it probably is a Saturday event and even then only on the bigger days. An example would be where they are up to lose 60K on one horse in fixed odds but the tote pool is only 40K. Bottom line is the tote punter is the one most at risk

3 hours ago, Trojan said:

We also discussed the improbability of how often Fixed Odds end up equalling the Tote price - particularly AFTER the race has started.

That I do not have an answer to other than; UNLESS it is inhouse arbitrage

[curious]

Will the new legislation mean that they can't lay off with overseas providers? Or will they be exempted from that?

[Trojan]

57 minutes ago, curious said:

Will the new legislation mean that they can't lay off with overseas providers? Or will they be exempted from that?

Good question.  Who knows what the back end of their systems connect to.  Their other brands in OZ?

[Trojan]

1 hour ago, Wingman said:

An example would be where they are up to lose 60K on one horse in fixed odds but the tote pool is only 40K. Bottom line is the tote punter is the one most at risk

But they wouldn't need to lay off much to mitigate some risk.  The tote punter gets screwed anyway because even if they bet 10 seconds before race start the price changes after the race start.

1 hour ago, Wingman said:

That I do not have an answer to other than; UNLESS it is inhouse arbitrage

That would be feasible as again there doesn't appear to be a rule against it.

[Trojan]

There is nothing in the rules to say they have to lay off on the same event either.  

[Murray Fish]

5 hours ago, Trojan said:

The tote punter gets screwed anyway because even if they bet 10 seconds before race start the price changes after the race start.

tick...  I tend to be a very late better, hard not to notice those drops in posts from what was being posted in the last 30 seconds of bets, it us to be said it was money coming into ply via Au?

 

[Wingman]

Enjoy the memories Mr Fish. Ten to 15 years ago the likes of you and I were getting overs on horses that today are unders as the bookies with the help of technology have priced meanly, for good reasons. There was a brief period of relief for the astute punter with 'No Deductions', that has now gone, so we are back to the old school, find the winner and spend less time on looking for 'VALUE'