Brodie Posted December 6, 2020 Share Posted December 6, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mikie said: That’s the best you’ve got Brodie? As I’ve pointed out it was you that said you were clueless to begin, and now you have referred to yourself as clueless once again Mikie Give it a break Mikie, the school bully is not very endearing! If you get something out of calling “The Brodster” clueless then you are easily pleased! I will take clueless and successful over clued up and not sucessful any day! Now give it away and watch the T20 cricket that’s on now! Edited December 6, 2020 by Brodie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 4 hours ago, mardigras said: Every punter the TAB deems to be an unwarranted risk to their profitability, gets restricted. I'd say they do that equally. You have no evidence to support that assertion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 47 minutes ago, mardigras said: I'm pretty sure they are treated equally. Being equal, doesn't mean they are limited to the same amount, it means all punters fall under the same process - equally. So you consider that for example a judicial system that determines a crime deserves a prison sentence is equal but those that commit the same crime should be treated differently in terms of the quantum that they serve. That in my opinion and many others is not an equal system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: You have no evidence to support that assertion. And you have none against it. But they are tasked with making a profit. To assert they don't do that would be suggesting that for some reason, the TAB decides they don't like punter x and are going to set some level of restriction on that punter which is out of alignment with what they would do in similar circumstances for others. Do you think they pluck out the level from their back pockets? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 1 minute ago, mardigras said: Do you think they pluck out the level from their back pockets? I wouldn't be surprised if they pulled it out of their arse. Technically their flash new system should be able to do it automaticallt without human intervention. However if you believe that and that their is no human intervention then I would consider you gullible and potentially clueless. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 1 minute ago, Chief Stipe said: So you consider that for example a judicial system that determines a crime deserves a prison sentence is equal but those that commit the same crime should be treated differently in terms of the quantum that they serve. That in my opinion and many others is not an equal system. It's an equal system to me if the decision is not affected by the 'person' undergoing the process. i.e. is not changed because of it being person x versus person y. The decision made being reflective of the information relating to the process. The information on crimes isn't likely to be the same from one crime to another even in crimes of a particular type. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 1 minute ago, Chief Stipe said: I wouldn't be surprised if they pulled it out of their arse. Technically their flash new system should be able to do it automaticallt without human intervention. However if you believe that and that their is no human intervention then I would consider you gullible and potentially clueless. I'd expect there to be human intervention. But not human intervention around consideration as to who the punter specifically is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 Just now, mardigras said: I'd expect there to be human intervention. But not human intervention around consideration as to who the punter specifically is. Semantics is it not? Supposedly what you are suggesting is that the system identifies a winning account and flags it for future bets. I would have thought that the risk of an individual bet relative to the pool should be determined regardless of what account holder makes it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 Just now, Chief Stipe said: Semantics is it not? Supposedly what you are suggesting is that the system identifies a winning account and flags it for future bets. I would have thought that the risk of an individual bet relative to the pool should be determined regardless of what account holder makes it. Semantics it certainly isn't. I'd expect the TAB an assessment based on the betting behaviour of the punter along with other aspects relating to that, in order to determine the level to which it would be unwarranted in taking their bets. I don't believe they would look at the behaviour of Brodie and say, since it's Brodie, we're going to do this. I'd say, since the behaviour demonstrates this, we're going to do this. Why would the TAB look at individual bets? If you buy 10,000 televisions from a store each year, do you want them to possibly give you a discount due to your buying behaviour? I guess you'd be happy if they didn't give you a discount anytime you bought just one TV - since they could say they looked at the one TV buy and deemed it unworthy of any discount. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 8 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: Semantics is it not? Supposedly what you are suggesting is that the system identifies a winning account and flags it for future bets. I would have thought that the risk of an individual bet relative to the pool should be determined regardless of what account holder makes it. Doesn't every Bookmaker in Aussie restrict winning Individuals? I'm not restricted, I obviously never win, but my colleague was told to piss off after a year of losing bets followed by 1 big collect (and I saw the email) Mikie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 19 minutes ago, Mikie said: Doesn't every Bookmaker in Aussie restrict winning Individuals? So if Brodie pitches up next week and puts $1,000 to win on the Spitfire at 80 to 1 should the TAB take his bet or restrict him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: So if Brodie pitches up next week and puts $1,000 to win on the Spitfire at 80 to 1 should the TAB take his bet or restrict him? Brodie says he can't do that. Something about betting to win $200 or similar. if he puts $1,000 on the tote, they should take it. Might be a good bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 54 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: So you consider that for example a judicial system that determines a crime deserves a prison sentence is equal but those that commit the same crime should be treated differently in terms of the quantum that they serve. That in my opinion and many others is not an equal system. It's the system though. Not equal but fair. The judicial system is designed to allow variable penalties for the same crime after accounting for mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 6 minutes ago, mardigras said: Brodie says he can't do that. Something about betting to win $200 or similar. That wasn't the question. Why wouldn't the TAB take his bet of $1,000 to win $80,000? You say they won't because they (or the system) don't consider individual bets just the fact that punter Brodie historically has been a winning punter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: That wasn't the question. Why wouldn't the TAB take his bet of $1,000 to win $80,000? You say they won't because they (or the system) don't consider individual bets just the fact that punter Brodie historically has been a winning punter. Exactly. Their pricing is supposed to be how they manage individual bets along with risk management strategies. That is very different than the risk management of individual punders by restriction. Edited December 7, 2020 by curious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 Just now, Chief Stipe said: That wasn't the question. Why wouldn't the TAB take his bet of $1,000 to win $80,000? You say they won't because they (or the system) don't consider individual bets just the fact that punter Brodie historically has been a winning punter. Are you saying the horse couldn't win? They should use punting behaviour and if a punter demonstrates that level of ability, then you don't know at which point the success is going to arrive, you just believe it will. Which means that they have odds wrong overall for the bets taken by that punter. And now you want them to pick and choose which times the punter is going to show that to be the case, and which times it isn't. Imagine the weekly meeting after the Spitfire wins. How come we lost so heavily last week? We let Brodie on for $1,000 on a nag. It won. Who knew. Not us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 8 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: That wasn't the question. Why wouldn't the TAB take his bet of $1,000 to win $80,000? You say they won't because they (or the system) don't consider individual bets just the fact that punter Brodie historically has been a winning punter. The behaviour of a winning punter should be informing the TAB that in the eyes of that punter, the TAB has priced the runner incorrectly. Letting the punter on at 80s knowing full well that based on history, the price is considered high by that punter - why would you then want to accept the bet. Are they stupid? If the punter is not a winning punter and they put such a bet on, then the TAB hasn't been informed that the price is high from anyone that has shown the skill necessary to back that view up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: So if Brodie pitches up next week and puts $1,000 to win on the Spitfire at 80 to 1 should the TAB take his bet or restrict him? Why ask me? I’ve offered no opinion, view, belief or comment on restricted punters other than once where I pointed out that Brodie has told us he’s restricted 298 times, and once when I stated a fact about a colleague and his experience with an Aussie bookie However since I’m sure Brodie has stated that the Spitfire will never win a race I don’t find your suggestion probable as Brodie is always on the money Mind you, he also stated that the Spitfire would never run a place. Unless I’m mistaken, 3rd is a placing so he can’t always be on the money. Gosh, it’s confusing isn’t it Mikie Edited December 7, 2020 by Mikie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 9 minutes ago, Mikie said: Why ask me? I’ve offered no opinion, view, belief or comment on restricted punters other than once where I pointed out that Brodie has told us he’s restricted 298 times, and once when I stated a fact about a colleague and his experience with an Aussie bookie However since I’m sure Brodie has stated that the Spitfire will never win a race I don’t find your suggestion probable as Brodie is always on the money Mind you, he also stated that the Spitfire would never run a place. Unless I’m mistaken, 3rd is a placing so he can’t always be on the money. Gosh, it’s confusing isn’t it Mikie Right so you're content with trolling rather than debating the substantive issue. All good. Each to their own I guess. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, mardigras said: The behaviour of a winning punter should be informing the TAB that in the eyes of that punter, the TAB has priced the runner incorrectly. Letting the punter on at 80s knowing full well that based on history, the price is considered high by that punter - why would you then want to accept the bet. Are they stupid? If the punter is not a winning punter and they put such a bet on, then the TAB hasn't been informed that the price is high from anyone that has shown the skill necessary to back that view up. FFS, a restricted punter is restricted to an amount, irrespective of what the horse or bet is! It has got nothing at all to do with whether the Bookies have overpriced the horse or not! If restricted punters want to back something it doesnt matter if it is at generous odds or shorts, the punter is only allowed to net a pathetic amount! How on earth are restricted punters treated equally when they are restricted to different amounts, that is BS and you know it, MardiGras!!!! Chief doesnt have to support Brodie at any time, however there is a rogue element, that think they are smart and just want to have a crack at him. MardiGras, if you want to persist in calling Brodie a fraud, meet my challenge to you to prove that I am a fraud, or retract your accusation! Lets make it a lazy $10k and the stake to go to a charity that gets the most votes from BOAY posters! If you are not prepared to meet my challenge then I will take it that you are just a troller and spurt off. Edited December 7, 2020 by Brodie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 Just now, mardigras said: FFS, try and read. I have never said any different. Brodie - clueless. 51 minutes ago, Brodie said: How on earth are restricted punters treated equally when they are restricted to different amounts, that is BS and you know it, MardiGras!!!! Because they are treated based on a justification as to what level of risk they are prepared to take. All of them under the same process. All treated equally. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, mardigras said: Because they are treated based on a justification as to what level of risk they are prepared to take. All of them under the same process. All treated equally. So you are saying that those that are restricted are treated equally in the sense they are all restricted under the same process. Brodie says they are not treated equally because the restricted amount varies. Geez Mardigras you'd get a job in this Government! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: So you are saying that those that are restricted are treated equally in the sense they are all restricted under the same process. Brodie says they are not treated equally because the restricted amount varies. Geez Mardigras you'd get a job in this Government! Yep, the same way a business will conduct things like discounting. All customers receive the same treatment. An assessment of their worth as a customer and a potential for discount as a result - and of course, not the same discount for all. Just like reducing the ability of customers to profit based around what they cost you as a business. More severe on some, less severe on others. No restriction on many. Simple stuff this, I don't know what is causing you so much difficulty in understanding it. Edited December 7, 2020 by mardigras 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise Posted December 7, 2020 Author Share Posted December 7, 2020 4 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: FFS Mikie I'm not sticking up for Brodie when I disagree with Mardigras's analysis. I find Mardigras' analysis very well thought out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 5 minutes ago, Happy Sunrise said: I find Mardigras' analysis very well thought out. Except he is selective in what he chooses to answer. He still hasn't answered why wouldn't the TAB override a restriction when the punter puts up a decent size bet on a horse that the TAB has priced as the rank outsider. 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.