Are you being played? Test your gambling IQ

[Murray Fish]

What do you really know about gambling harm?. Photo: Supplied

Gambling harm in Aotearoa often hides in plain sight. “Low-risk” bets, a few multis on the weekend, a quick spin on the pokies - it can all add up faster than people realise.

 

Take this quiz to test what you really know about gambling harm, who’s most at risk, and how the odds are stacked. Some of the answers might surprise you.

Test/quiz can be taken here
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/360914606/are-you-being-played-test-your-gambling-iq

 

 

 

Edited 21 hours ago by Murray Fish

[hesi]

More of their garbage, Stuff illustrates the reasons why many people have turned off mainstream media.

For a start they only call NZ, Aotearoa.  Not sure what decided they had the right to re-name this country.

Maybe the contract they signed when the Labour Govt was in power, under the guise of the PIJF (Public Interest Journalism Fund), and got paid millions of dollars.

[Shab]

Don’t believe the 4% win. 0.4% maybe.

[Chief Stipe]

16 minutes ago, Shab said:

Don’t believe the 4% win. 0.4% maybe.

Consistently win?  More than 4% win at any one time.  Otherwise the takeout would be 96%.

[Shab]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

Consistently win?  More than 4% win at any one time.  Otherwise the takeout would be 96%.

Presume they mean consistently or over a lifetime. If so then no chance 4%.

[Brodie]

So if 4% only win, why is it ok for the TAB to restrict the 4% that win???

The TAB acts with very little integrity!

They want to ensure that everyone is a loser, and those that can beat them, they try to eliminate them by big restrictions!

The TAB with the monopoly it has has been very bad for the wagering industry.

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Brodie said:

So if 4% only win, why is it ok for the TAB to restrict the 4% that win???

Because that 4% caught bankrupt them if allowed free rein.

[hesi]

Be interested to know what those restricted would be costing them each year.  Surely it can't be that much, knowing the small percentage that win.  You can almost deduce that it is a small amount based on the huge losses that punters incur.  Enough to fund a racing industry.

The no deductions policy gained them a lot of kudos.  To have a no restrictions policy would be also win them a lot of kudos.  As I said I don't know what it would cost them, so that is the proviso.   Maybe a case of the pros outweighing the cons.

I recall the TAB always used to advertise; you know the odds now beat them

[Chief Stipe]

4 minutes ago, hesi said:

Be interested to know what those restricted would be costing them each year.  Surely it can't be that much, knowing the small percentage that win.  You can almost deduce that it is a small amount based on the huge losses that punters incur.  Enough to fund a racing industry

Some top punters can individually as in one person take the equivalen to 1% or more of the net profit.  In NZ that is only about $1.2m.  That is the beauty of the tote and a betting exchange.  The house clips the ticket but it is mano on mano.  The house can't lose as it takes a fixed percentage.  Whereas on Fixed Odds it is computer and bookie vs the punter.  

[hesi]

They must have figured out that they could make a bigger margin on FO betting as they seem to want to phase our tote betting.  Would be surprised though as tote betting had some decent takeouts.  Win/place 15%, doubles, quinellas etc 20% and some of the exotics as high as 25%.  Or is it a matter of sports is the future and that is all FO, so they are increasingly left with this white elephant that is the racing totalisator

[Chief Stipe]

8 minutes ago, hesi said:

They must have figured out that they could make a bigger margin on FO betting as they seem to want to phase our tote betting.  Would be surprised though as tote betting had some decent takeouts.  Win/place 15%, doubles, quinellas etc 20% and some of the exotics as high as 25%.  Or is it a matter of sports is the future and that is all FO, so they are increasingly left with this white elephant that is the racing totalisator

Yes bigger takeouts and fixed percentages.   But Betfair stuffs that because they just clip the ticket doing sweet stuff all!

[Brodie]

7 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Some top punters can individually as in one person take the equivalen to 1% or more of the net profit.  In NZ that is only about $1.2m.  That is the beauty of the tote and a betting exchange.  The house clips the ticket but it is mano on mano.  The house can't lose as it takes a fixed percentage.  Whereas on Fixed Odds it is computer and bookie vs the punter.  

Chief, if they are a gambling agency and punters aren’t cheating, then how is it right to any degree, that they can let one punter put on as much as they want on a horse and yet another punter backing the same horse, is restricted to a small amount?

The Bookies should know the horses, so they put up the odds that they think is right!

The fact is that they are losing massive turnover by not allowing punters on for reasonable amounts, and then receives very little more money on that horse on the fixed odds, due to slashing the hell out of the odds, is crazy!

The restricted punters would increase  the turnover significantly and should be encouraged rather than what they are doing!!!

This would make the harness business stronger with all the flow on effects!

What other business in NZ is allowed to treat its customer the way the NZ TAB treats its current ones??

 

Edited 9 hours ago by Brodie