racing amendment bill

[the galah]

there was an article on "the post" from a few days ago,which was headlined racing amendment bill,what it means for sport ,racing and betting offshore. 

i don't know how the put that type of thing on here,but it was interesting enough. Whats the post,never heard of that myself.

how much of the $100 million goes to racing .they say 20 million of that will go to a sports group to distribute to sports organisations.

looks like basketball will be a big winner.

i read a headline of another article a month ago about winston peters seeking to remove restrictions on the tab refusing bets,from the new racing bill.

its sounds like it had been looking like they were going to make the tab accept more bets that are currently refused,but the tab lobbied peters to allow them not to.

anyone know what they were going to do but now aren't, since peters may have caved to the tabs request.

anyone know much about that.

for some reason things that effect racing seems to be given coverage in mainstream media more than racing media sometimes.

[Brodie]

2 hours ago, the galah said:

there was an article on "the post" from a few days ago,which was headlined racing amendment bill,what it means for sport ,racing and betting offshore. 

i don't know how the put that type of thing on here,but it was interesting enough. Whats the post,never heard of that myself.

how much of the $100 million goes to racing .they say 20 million of that will go to a sports group to distribute to sports organisations.

looks like basketball will be a big winner.

i read a headline of another article a month ago about winston peters seeking to remove restrictions on the tab refusing bets,from the new racing bill.

its sounds like it had been looking like they were going to make the tab accept more bets that are currently refused,but the tab lobbied peters to allow them not to.

anyone know what they were going to do but now aren't, since peters may have caved to the tabs request.

anyone know much about that.

for some reason things that effect racing seems to be given coverage in mainstream media more than racing media sometimes.

It is ethically wrong that the NZ TAB is allowed to treat punters not equally!!

The problem is that the ones making decisions for the TAB are on big money and are trying to increase the yield on racing by restricting turnover.

Totally wrong format for a gambling agency as it has major consequences and this is why they need people with foresight rather than  this tunnel vision they have held for years now!

They need to be encouraging wagering rather than giving away money to boost turnover, just so flawed.

Increased turnover from bigger wagering will flow on to the whole industry and  ensure it can survive, with higher gross profit.

The TAB current policy is stifling this by trying to attract the smaller punter with bonus this and that!

They should be ensuring that their existing loyal punters are retained rather than turned off.

Hopefully the new CEO decides that what they are currently doing is detrimental to the future of racing in NZ.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 07:15 AM by Brodie

[curious]

3 hours ago, the galah said:

i read a headline of another article a month ago about winston peters seeking to remove restrictions on the tab refusing bets,from the new racing bill.

its sounds like it had been looking like they were going to make the tab accept more bets that are currently refused,

Isn't that what the recent amendment/s to the bill have done, limited the TAB ability to refuse bets? That's how I read it.

Edited yesterday at 07:43 AM by curious

[the galah]

48 minutes ago, curious said:

Isn't that what the recent amendment/s to the bill have done, limited the TAB ability to refuse bets? That's how I read it.

i thought the racing amendment bill is to change several things,the most prominent being making it illegal for off shore gambling companies to take bets from new zealanders.

the refusing bets thing ,well is seems the select committeee in parliament had made recommendations limiting the tab refusing to take bets,the tab wasn't happy with that,so lobbied peters to keep their ability to restrict punters.

mow i don't know whether that would have meant under the original draft,punters like brodie would have got on for more if they wanted,i haven't been able to find the original draft.

But it sounded like mr peters was being asked by the tab to stop punters getting on for bigger amounts.

thats why i was wondering how does that effect punters. were some winning punters done a disservice by mr peters?

[curious]

With Peters' initiated third reading amendments on refusing bets.

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2024/0101/17.0/whole.html

 

[Brodie]

The TAB is operating as a gambling agency, and as such they can not be treating punters in different ways, just because some punters do okz,

There is no legal excuse for their ethically abhorrent ways that they try to shut down some punters and yet they get away with encouraging others to wager with bonus money in their accounts!

Hopefully things will come to a head where they see the error of their ways or things will continue to deteriorate for them and the racing industry!

[Rangatira]

38 minutes ago, Brodie said:

The TAB is operating as a gambling agency, and as such they can not be treating punters in different ways, just because some punters do okz,

Are you close to getting that sorted?

[Nowornever]

14 hours ago, Brodie said:

Hopefully things will come to a head where they see the error of their ways or things will continue to deteriorate for them and the racing industry!

It honestly feels like they're going out of their way now to swing the pendulum in the complete opposite direction to your hopes there Brodie. Instead of addressing your core issue (fairness and ethical), they're doubling down on selective treatment, almost as if to make a point.

[the galah]

16 hours ago, curious said:

With Peters' initiated third reading amendments on refusing bets.

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2024/0101/17.0/whole.html

 

So what we are discussing falls under the amendment to section 98 of the act.

so,reading between the lines, it appears that it may have been to do with the tab originally having to place greater restrictions to prevent problem or harm gambling,whcih they may have felt were unrealistic or difficult to enforce. in other words it would have been too easy for the regulatory bodies who oversee compliance,to pick up things which the tab may have viewed as being over the top oversight.

it appears section 98a, relating to consumer protection,where the issue of taking larger bets from winning punters,would appear to fall under,may have got a small amendment,but not specifically the amount people can get on for?

actually reading that act where it says"the intensity of betting by a person using an online betting system provided by the tab,including the frequency at which successive bets may be placed."

well that rings a bell with me as to the most likely reason betfair closed my account about 3 years ago. I opened a betfair account,put about $100 with the theory that if i backed favoured dogs to lose, who consistently jumped poor and got back early and drew poor as well on tracks with 2 turns.i did that for about 2 months, i backed on every dog race in australia,which was about every 3 minutes most nights. i did that for about 4 hours each night. i only did a couple of minutes study for each race.Well it was all going well and after about 2 months i had turned my $100 into about $5,000,then i got got a bit too clever and one night bet on a couple of tracks with only 1 turn and ones that were paying more,and would you believe it,i backed 6 dogs in a row to lose paying double figures, within half an hour and they all won. Bugga me,could you believe it. So that left me only a few hundred again. Well,the next day betfair closed down my account.They refused to say why,i had made some money overall and it annoyed me. So i waited and then my wife opened an account. I was doing ok,i  just decided to bet on nz harness as the aussie dogs thing just seemed a bit too intense for my brain to switch off when i went to sleep. Well my wife decided to withdraw some money ,they wouldn't let her,it said phone them. Then,as soon as she spoke to them they just closed her account and sent out the funds that were in there.they gave no reason and just said ,we don't have to tell you why.

so thats a long story,but i can see now,even though i wasn't a losing punter on betfair,i fell within the scope of who they had to restict or close the account.

you can see why horse racing is struggling with some of the strict oversight rules. Some seem over the top, when its obvious people aren't losing much and are just having a bit of fun.Compare how they want to control peoples gambling ,but your free to do many other more harmful things.

the british horse racing industry is an obvious exampleIt seem to be struggling with the main blame being laid on over the top harm regulations..its been reported recently that average turnover per race was down 8% compared with 2023/2024 and dowjn 15% compared with the year prior.. in 2007 they estimated 17% of the uk public regularly bet on the horses,but they reckon that only about 10% do these days.soccer is the most popular sport to bet on there,with racing close behind,then a big drop to the likes of golf,cricket and rugby.but soccer and racing gamblers average spend a month is about half of what gamblers spend on the other sports mentioned.Apparently betting on fantasy sports is getting rather popular.

Edited 18 hours ago by the galah

[Nowornever]

47 minutes ago, the galah said:

so thats a long story,but i can see now,even though i wasn't a losing punter on betfair,i fell within the scope of who they had to restict or close the account.

Unfortunately that's what the restrictions have become.

If you look likely there might be a chance you are possibly able to make money in anyway shape or form in Australia they will cut you off. It was only a matter of time before that happened here as well.

[the galah]

it will be interesting,once the new law comes into effect, how much more will be bet through the tab on racing and sports and how that will flow through into increased returns for racing here.

hopefully the positive impacts will far outweigh the negative

for example a hegative impact could be there are nz people who also have tabcorp accounts and bet into their tote pools.Given they are not big at the moment,any decrease would mean their pools would get to a point where they are very unattactive for aussies to bet on. I used to spend on a tabcorp account just so to spread the impact of even a $20 or more bet on the price. so its not as if you start transferring that spend onto a small nz pool.. Hopefully it all turns out as they are predicting.

[Rangatira]

20 hours ago, Brodie said:

There is no legal excuse for their ethically abhorrent ways that they try to shut down some punters and yet they get away with encouraging others to wager with bonus money in their accounts!

(Her)Bert the Bookie at Wycola Park is ethically sound and rolling in Treaty cash.

Would you like me to mention you as a potential client?

[Brodie]

24 minutes ago, Rangatira said:

(Her)Bert the Bookie at Wycola Park is ethically sound and rolling in Treaty cash.

Would you like me to mention you as a potential client?

Na, no point Ranga!

Everything is rosey for harness racing Brad Steele has told us all.

I need to get my head out of the sand and look at the positivity in the future,

Edited 14 hours ago by Brodie

[mikeynz]

4 hours ago, the galah said:

it will be interesting,once the new law comes into effect, how much more will be bet through the tab on racing and sports and how that will flow through into increased returns for racing 

And if turnovers stay same, what then,? I suspect they will, they are clutching at straws.

As for sports it will be fine, for some weird idea if you want to bet on sport live on a aussie site you have to ring by phone, who would do that?