Jump to content
Bit Of A Yarn

Raise The White Flag- You have to be kidding?


Brodie

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, mardigras said:

If that is the betting side of things (as opposed to the code side of things)

1. Get out of commingling and all associated agreements with TABCORP.

2. Reduce the event schedule to be only NZ racing plus say 20 - 30 premium events off-shore per week.

3. Change the laws to allow betting operators in NZ to offer fixed odds (don't allow them to offer tote derivative based options). Set up race field fees on profit to charge them for making money from NZ racing information.

4. Remove fixed odds from NZ TAB racing

5. Offer reduced takeouts - especially on NZ racing

Basically  going back to how the tab was in the latest 80s early  90s when Saturday afternoon  they would  have selected  races from Australian main tracks, our local  meetings  always  had a great turnover back then and decent pools.

Why do they continue flogging this dead dog which is American racing and the likes of Tokyo  keiba which 9/10 times isn't  even covered by trackside, where there is no form guide and no money  in the pools! All this extra racing incuding 90% of the Aussie crap is surely detrimental to our local product. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People only bet on the dross because it's in their face so much. Quality is better than quantity. When the commingling agreement forced then to take 40k extra races, they said it was all going to increase tote turnover. I did an OIA request in 2009/2010 to get the full breakdown of all betting figures by code/jurisdiction/tote and fixed odds.

The rate of decline in tote that was happening pre commingling continued after commingling unchanged, with all the new races to bet on (and the supposed advantage of betting into bigger pools). All it did was spread the NZ betting around and took more away from the NZ pools. That has continued to the point where with the impact of fixed odds included, it has brought about the demise of tote betting practically on NZ races.

Which makes the majority now fixed odds. Lower margins, more overheads, costs for betting done on off-shore. Yep, a true winner.

Compared to building the pools by way of appropriate pricing - making them attractive to punters. Promote the racing with better coverage. And get the codes to deliver on the areas of improved customer interaction and improved trust in the integrity of the racing.

So that new punters develop an interest (that grows the betting aspect) in NZ racing which we control - and other jurisdictions don't get to tell us what to do and how much they are going to charge us for doing it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mardigras said:

People only bet on the dross because it's in their face so much. Quality is better than quantity. When the commingling agreement forced then to take 40k extra races, they said it was all going to increase tote turnover. I did an OIA request in 2009/2010 to get the full breakdown of all betting figures by code/jurisdiction/tote and fixed odds.

The rate of decline in tote that was happening pre commingling continued after commingling unchanged, with all the new races to bet on (and the supposed advantage of betting into bigger pools). All it did was spread the NZ betting around and took more away from the NZ pools. That has continued to the point where with the impact of fixed odds included, it has brought about the demise of tote betting practically on NZ races.

Which makes the majority now fixed odds. Lower margins, more overheads, costs for betting done on off-shore. Yep, a true winner.

Compared to building the pools by way of appropriate pricing - making them attractive to punters. Promote the racing with better coverage. And get the codes to deliver on the areas of improved customer interaction and improved trust in the integrity of the racing.

So that new punters develop an interest (that grows the betting aspect) in NZ racing which we control - and other jurisdictions don't get to tell us what to do and how much they are going to charge us for doing it.

I doubt that there are very many new punters coming thru, certainly not enough to replace the ones that are being lost!

There are possibly more sports punters that are betting more but unfortunately for the racing industry they are being diminished by the actions of the TAB!

No one except the odd plonker on here,  could support what is going on!

Wait for it, Ranga, what have you got?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Brodie said:

I doubt that there are very many new punters coming thru, certainly not enough to replace the ones that are being lost!

There are possibly more sports punters that are betting more but unfortunately for the racing industry they are being diminished by the actions of the TAB!

No one except the odd plonker on here,  could support what is going on!

I'd agree - especially since my post was about what they should have done 12 years ago, but didn't do. I'd say the boat has well and truly sailed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may not have much relevance to these arguments but I thought it may add some interest.

I have in front of me a Trotting Year Book from 1974/75 ,which I am going to donate to the NZ Trotting Hall of fame, along with some other memorabilia (if I can find them)

In the front it has club turnovers , stakes, and Tote Turnover.

There were 47 clubs, with 161 meetings and 1596 races.

Total stakes paid was $ 2,921,363

On-course Turnover $ 32,639,893

Off-course Turnover $ 48,363,319

Grand total of $ 81,003.212

Not sure how that stacks up against today's figures but it sure looked in a healthy position.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Rangatira said:

that makes perfect commonsense

anything other than that and they would need their heads read

But it is more or less saying we are happy  to take all your money, but don't win more than you gamble on a regular basis or we will stop you!! They shouldn't  be advertised as a gambling organization  it should just be called "losers only agency board" a government  run (owned by the tax payer) organisation  should  not be biased.  gambling  means gambling on both sides. If someone is clever enough to make winning a habit good luck to them. I cant recall  any adverts that the tab put on the television in years gone by of people looking gloomy and leaving a tab or racecourse with empty pockets,  they were advertising winner's !!!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Flagship uberalles said:

But it is more or less saying we are happy  to take all your money, but don't win more than you gamble on a regular basis or we will stop you!! They shouldn't  be advertised as a gambling organization  it should just be called "losers only agency board" a government  run (owned by the tax payer) organisation  should  not be biased.  gambling  means gambling on both sides. If someone is clever enough to make winning a habit good luck to them. I cant recall  any adverts that the tab put on the television in years gone by of people looking gloomy and leaving a tab or racecourse with empty pockets,  they were advertising winner's !!!!

i have not heard of anyone being stopped for winning but i guess it may have happened

prudent to restrict the persistent winners from fixed odds betting

hopefully they don't restrict those backing $1.50 shots cos they wont remain ahead for too long

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rangatira said:

i have not heard of anyone being stopped for winning but i guess it may have happened

prudent to restrict the persistent winners from fixed odds betting

hopefully they don't restrict those backing $1.50 shots cos they wont remain ahead for too long

 

I'm going to implement my own restrictions on the tab, for every  $1 I lose I'm only going to let them take 10c .....ahhhh still a big loss for the year, but don't have to expain to the wife that the money went to pay for a distant cousins funeral that died 10x this year. ..only once will do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/12/2019 at 7:31 AM, JJ Flash said:

Keep up Brodie , there is no such thing as the Racing board anymore and has not been for some time. It has been replaced by RITA and  cost cutting is already well underway under the general direction of the Board

Im sure that will please you just as it does to those with an interest in all things NZ racing.

Come in Ranga, i can see why you tease him all the time?

 

Greg

no teasing intended on my part

just trying to make him an honest man

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is just blatant BS that the NZ TAB is allowed to treat punters differently.

Are you allowed to treat people differently due to the colour of your skin?

Are we allowed to treat people differently due to their religion?

Are we allowed to treat people due to their age?

The answer is no we are not allowed to and yet this monopoly the NZ TAB is allowed to differentiate and segregate some punters from the others due to being more successful.

The NZ TAB will only let some  win a pittance whereas other punters are allowed to lose as much as possible.

Just because this is what they do does not make it right and I hope they get done by the punters each and every day but we know they won’t, because they will continue just to take wagers from the punters who continue to lose.

I don’t need that crap but will certainly continue to point out the practice that they restrict who they want to.

 

Edited by Brodie
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Brodie said:

It is just blatant BS that the NZ TAB is allowed to treat punters differently.

Are you allowed to treat people differently due to the colour of your skin?

Are we allowed to treat people differently due to their religion?

Are we allowed to treat people due to their age?

The answer is no we are not allowed to and yet this monopoly the NZ TAB is allowed to differentiate and segregate some punters from the others due to being more successful.

The NZ TAB will only let some  win a pittance whereas other punters are allowed to lose as much as possible.

Just because this is what they do does not make it right and I hope they get done by the punters each and every day but we know they won’t, because they will continue just to take wagers from the punters who continue to lose.

I don’t need that crap but will certainly continue to point out the practice that they restrict who they want to.

 

what is this nonsense

please add a splash or two to your plymouth

plymouth-gin-gurgling-fish-jug-7494.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Brodie said:

It is just blatant BS that the NZ TAB is allowed to treat punters differently.

Are you allowed to treat people differently due to the colour of your skin?

Are we allowed to treat people differently due to their religion?

Are we allowed to treat people due to their age?

The answer is no we are not allowed to and yet this monopoly the NZ TAB is allowed to differentiate and segregate some punters from the others due to being more successful.

The NZ TAB will only let some  win a pittance whereas other punters are allowed to lose as much as possible.

Just because this is what they do does not make it right and I hope they get done by the punters each and every day but we know they won’t, because they will continue just to take wagers from the punters who continue to lose.

I don’t need that crap but will certainly continue to point out the practice that they restrict who they want to.

 

Are businesses allowed to refuse service to customers?

The answer is yes! As long as they are not refusing them based on age, sexual orientation,race or disability.

Now if the tab were saying we are not taking bets from Brodie because he is mentally disabled old fart who keeps on whingeing about our restrictions you would have a case against them, otherwise any business refusing service is quite legal if kept within the boundaries outlined above.

They do cover themselves again in their terms and conditions saying:

7.4. The Board may refuse to accept any bet placed by you without giving any reason. The Board will use its best endeavours to communicate to you that it has not accepted the bet. The Board will not be liable to you for any loss you may suffer as a consequence of refusing to accept a bet made by you.

In other words if you don't like it JOG ON!

  • Like 1
  • Champ Post 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nowornever said:

Are businesses allowed to refuse service to customers?

The answer is yes! As long as they are not refusing them based on age, sexual orientation,race or disability.

Now if the tab were saying we are not taking bets from Brodie because he is mentally disabled old fart who keeps on whingeing about our restrictions you would have a case against them, otherwise any business refusing service is quite legal if kept within the boundaries outlined above.

They do cover themselves again in their terms and conditions saying:

7.4. The Board may refuse to accept any bet placed by you without giving any reason. The Board will use its best endeavours to communicate to you that it has not accepted the bet. The Board will not be liable to you for any loss you may suffer as a consequence of refusing to accept a bet made by you.

In other words if you don't like it JOG ON!

So on what basis are they refusing punters?

The fact that there rules may refuse to accept any bet without reason doesn’t make it right!!!

Anyway, easier money to be made investing nowadays than trying to beat the fixed odds markets and restrictions.

Punters and race goers are going to continue to give the racing game away and there are bugger all new people with any money coming in!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Nowornever said:

On the same basis as all the other bookmakers in the world.

You do not match their guidelines for managing risk. Hence they do not want your business. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

They aren’t getting my business at the moment!!!!

Cant be bothered with the Tossers!!!

Still won’t stop me pointing out that what they are doing is just not right ethically, morally and any other ally!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Brodie said:

FFS Ranga, differently.

Are you just a Wanker for the fun of it???

Sorry, Chief, had to be said!

i thought it might be what you meant but since you had edited it seemed less likely so i sort clarification so it would prove more challenging for you to move the goalposts on this occasion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...