Michael Guerin comments on TAB FF odds!

[Guest]

The old slogan the TAB had was "you know the odds now beat them" wasn't it?

They removed that one and now have "are you in"?

You can only be in if they let you in!

Just because the The TAB rules state that they don't have to take your bet and don't need to give a reason for not 

taking it, doesn't make it legal.

You are not allowed to do this according to the Human Rights Act.

Of course the TAB are there to make a profit but they are restricting successful punters to minimal amounts, so why don't they come out

and state the fact that if you are going to take money off us, we aren't interested in you betting with us?

We only want losing punters betting with us, and yet they advertise that they encourage responsible gambling and will show concern

for punters that lose!   BOLLOCKS They will take as much as they can from punters but don't start winning or we will stop you!

The TAB are doing a great disservice to the racing industry and anyone who is remotely successful I have spoken to  know  it is pathetic.

[JackSprat 947]

12 hours ago, Sickopunter said:

If you think I don't know the difference between turnover and profit you're a long way off the mark. Part of generating turnover is having horses to fill fields. Part of doing that is keeping owners happy. Many owners punt and many punters own. Many of both are seriously unhappy about the way the TAB frames their markets and restricts punters in the last few years.

You're struggling to put the pieces together. Not unlike the TAB and the Racing Board. 

I wonder if there could be a specific reason for that.....?

Yes, there is a very specific reason.

You seem to think that the TAB exists for your benefit, and your benefit alone. I on the other hand, fully comprehend that the TAB exists for the benefit of the racing industry (along with other vested interests), and that the punters are simply customers with self interest at heart, and no vested interest in the TAB's profitability and the lifeline that it provides to the racing industry.

Pretty simple stuff really, yet it flies over the heads of many.

[tonkatime 323]

1 hour ago, Brodie said:

You can only be in if they let you in!

Just because the The TAB rules state that they don't have to take your bet and don't need to give a reason for not 

taking it, doesn't make it legal.

You are not allowed to do this according to the Human Rights Act.

 

Can you elaborate as to what part of the human rights act you believe they are in breach of?

[Kotare_Hunter 748]

54 minutes ago, tonkatime said:

Can you elaborate as to what part of the human rights act you believe they are in breach of?

Surely he believes it is The Right to Trail as he was earlier in this thread asking if I was a lawyer.

This was his response to me when I asked " Do you have a court date yet ?"

Good luck in getting a straight answer from Brodster.

[Happy Sunrise 554]

2 hours ago, Brodie said:

You are not allowed to do this according to the Human Rights Act

Your passion is admirable!

Are you referring to this part of the Human Rights Act? If so, which of the prohibited grounds of discrimination do you come under? I can't see 'winning punter' on the list.

I think we can safely say some of us on here have saved you tens of thousands in legal fees and costs so how about we spend 10% (mabye,$5000) of the money we have saved you on a horse of your choice at FF odds. Don't panic though, because myself, Kotare, Tonka will get the big bet on with the TAB....we have ways!

21Prohibited grounds of discrimination

(1)

For the purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are—

(a)

sex, which includes pregnancy and childbirth:

(b)

marital status, which means being—

(i)

single; or

(ii)

married, in a civil union, or in a de facto relationship; or

(iii)

the surviving spouse of a marriage or the surviving partner of a civil union or de facto relationship; or

(iv)

separated from a spouse or civil union partner; or

(v)

a party to a marriage or civil union that is now dissolved, or to a de facto relationship that is now ended:

(c)

religious belief:

(d)

ethical belief, which means the lack of a religious belief, whether in respect of a particular religion or religions or all religions:

(e)

colour:

(f)

race:

(g)

ethnic or national origins, which includes nationality or citizenship:

(h)

disability, which means—

(i)

physical disability or impairment:

(ii)

physical illness:

(iii)

psychiatric illness:

(iv)

intellectual or psychological disability or impairment:

(v)

any other loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological, or anatomical structure or function:

(vi)

reliance on a guide dog, wheelchair, or other remedial means:

(vii)

the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing illness:

(i)

age, which means,—

(i)

for the purposes of sections 22 to 41 and section 70 and in relation to any different treatment based on age that occurs in the period beginning with 1 February 1994 and ending with the close of 31 January 1999, any age commencing with the age of 16 years and ending with the date on which persons of the age of the person whose age is in issue qualify for national superannuation under section 7 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 (irrespective of whether or not the particular person qualifies for national superannuation at that age or any other age):

(ii)

for the purposes of sections 22 to 41 and section 70 and in relation to any different treatment based on age that occurs on or after 1 February 1999, any age commencing with the age of 16 years:

(iii)

for the purposes of any other provision of Part 2, any age commencing with the age of 16 years:

(j)

political opinion, which includes the lack of a particular political opinion or any political opinion:

(k)

employment status, which means—

(i)

being unemployed; or

(ii)

being a recipient of a benefit under the Social Security Act 1964 or an entitlement under the Accident Compensation Act 2001:

(l)

family status, which means—

(i)

having the responsibility for part-time care or full-time care of children or other dependants; or

(ii)

having no responsibility for the care of children or other dependants; or

(iii)

being married to, or being in a civil union or de facto relationship with, a particular person; or

(iv)

being a relative of a particular person:

(m)

sexual orientation, which means a heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation.

 

 

[Guest]

No not that section at all of the Human Rights Act.

The Human Rights Act protects people in NZ from discrimination.

It is not just based on sex, colour, religion etc. but all discrimination.

There is direct discrimination  and INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION!

Section 65 Human Rights Act, Indirect Discrimination  is ILLEGAL.

Discrimination occurs when a person is treated unfairly or less favourable than another person in the same circumstances.

You CAN NOT restrict certain people to a certain amount when other punters are not restricted, end of storey!!!!!!!

The TAB is breaking the law.

[Kotare_Hunter 748]

26 minutes ago, Brodie said:

No not that section at all of the Human Rights Act.

The Human Rights Act protects people in NZ from discrimination.

It is not just based on sex, colour, religion etc. but all discrimination.

There is direct discrimination  and INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION!

Section 65 Human Rights Act, Indirect Discrimination  is ILLEGAL.

Discrimination occurs when a person is treated unfairly or less favourable than another person in the same circumstances.

You CAN NOT restrict certain people to a certain amount when other punters are not restricted, end of storey!!!!!!!

The TAB is breaking the law.

Where are you at with this ?

What is your next step ?

How can Race Cafers get in behind you ?

[tim vince 985]

I don't usually bother   I have a little bit of experience in this field -don't know brodie- but he is right on all counts-

 

impossible to win in nz on a consistent basis- first the bookmakers wont let u and the tote pools are so small u will give yourself unders- people talk unders and overs I suspect very few know what they are talking about-  lisening to tv presenters on this immediately means the mute button-if it 5 percent overs is it a bet-  nooooooooooooooooooooooo. brodie unfortunately u are fighting a losing battle because its their bat and ball and they decide all the rules - you don't even get to bat number 12

 

quite a few were able to win 20 years ago because of large pools but as soon as they fell-  and tax went up- percentage betting came in and silly pools came in and redistributed the dollar it didn't matter how much of an edge u had it wasn't big enough.

 

the silly part of the bookmakers if they played the long game  they would get it all of most of even the smarties they limit.

but they are fleas especially considering its not their own money as per the old days of the waterhouse's   bruce reid the list goes on. they can take huge losses that even those guys couldn't. they are fleas- gutless whatever word u like.

 

my guess is the odds setters bookies what ever u call them get a bonus. so play the tightest game in the universe-

 

they give mugs hats and pens and trips and   fight tickets personal contact-   coz they like them-   really -they have all sorts of terms for them- but they are one thing long and persistent and big  losers.

I have had plenty of mates thrown out of casinos all over the world - been in the griffin book of  cheats "usually because they are too smart." in the old days mates found a bias in the wheel- cheats  hahaha counting cards  cheats - fsaw dealers who couldn't shuffle properly   cheats - backing a winner in nz  using your brains- u go in their version of the griffin book.

 

undoubtedly they get criminal drug money- I know that- but don't see them  refusing that-

 

u guys could go under cover but it is like putting on disguises at casinos probably wont last long -

to  win on racing  the only way is to find  place that  has huge tote pools japan hong kong.  my suggestion if u want to give your self a chance  is bet into hong kong quinella and win pools.

 

bag the broadster all u like- I have some inkling who he could be (not sure) but he is utterly completely 1000 percent right.

[Guest]

Thank you Tim, for telling it the way it is!

Yes I have got a total bee in my bonnet about the NZ TAB.

Yes it is their business and they want to make a large profit.

They will do this by any means whether it is legal or not and everyone is not treated equally or anywhere near it!

There have been several incidences (won't bore you with the details) but basically they have all the power and the punter has none.

If they make a mistake they just cancel the bet so they don't have to pay you out even if the bet has been accepted.

If the punter makes a mistake and the bet has been accepted the punter can not cancel the bet, not that I have wanted to cancel one.

Any winning punter is flagged and losing punters are gold for them.

Yes they are gutless.

They talk about horses that shorten up with all this money on.

If a restricted punter backs a horse for a place they also shorten the horse up on the win market, so there can be bugger all money on a horse to win and yet it can halve in value  and it appears that this horse has been hammered, which is not always the case.

All restricted punters ask to be given a fair go by the NZ TAB and for them to stop breaching the Human Rights Act!

[tim vince 985]

unfortunately u wont get anywhere -sad but true.it is the frustration  that really annoys you. findgreener pastures- if you are good enough you will win- half a dozen of us  20 odd years ago made the decision and did well.if you are good here u can adapt - suggest u google alan  woods gambler have worked for him or since his passing his family for more than 20 years-genius- it will only help u .

[Guest]

1 hour ago, tim vince said:

unfortunately u wont get anywhere -sad but true.it is the frustration  that really annoys you. findgreener pastures- if you are good enough you will win- half a dozen of us  20 odd years ago made the decision and did well.if you are good here u can adapt - suggest u google alan  woods gambler have worked for him or since his passing his family for more than 20 years-genius- it will only help u .

Tim, yes hell of a lot of frustration.

Thing is that by restricting winning punters they are also losing investments thru the pubs  by restricting losing punters as they don't know who the punter is.

Ozzie agencies are even worse than here if that's is possible. They just stop you from betting on your account. Had 4 do this to me.

Love opening your account show signs of being a winning punter and bang.

I still do pretty well but it is the principle of everyone not being treated equally that  is so wrong!

[JackSprat 947]

Never ceases to amaze me that you guys hark back to the days when the tote pools were bigger and you could get a good sized bet on without destroying the price, and in the next breath you say how you only bet fixed odds, or overseas, or anywhere except the tote pools.

Where do you think the big punters bet years ago when there was no fixed odds?. That's right, on the tote, no limits, no restrictions, no whinging!

The so called "big punters" who have deserted the tote in search of the greener pastures of fixed odds betting - which turned out to be little if any better, have in the process decimated the tote pools, which they're now too scared to support.

These same "big punters" have nobody but themselves to blame for the current state of the TAB which is split between a tote system with minimal pools, and a fixed odds system that doesn't have enough liquidity to warrant major risks. Instead of one strong betting system, we now have two weak ones.

The NZ racing industry would have been in a far stronger position today if we were still on all-tote betting. Sure some punters would bet offshore, but there will always those that think the grass is greener elsewhere. The strength of the game across Europe would suggest all tote betting simply works better.

As for a gambling customers human rights - gimme a break. I run a reasonable size business, and we turn away clients EVERY day. If we choose not to do business with someone for whatever reason, we don't. The TAB are no different. If you don't like their terms, find somewhere else where the terms suit you better!

[harewood 477]

9 minutes ago, JackSprat said:

These same "big punters" have nobody but themselves to blame for the current state of the TAB which is split between a tote system with minimal pools, and a fixed odds system that doesn't have enough liquidity to warrant major risks. Instead of one strong betting system, we now have two weak ones

Correct. Where are the strongest racing jurisdictions in the world. Hong Kong and Japan where there are NO bookmakers and you can only bet on the tote. Everybody wins, racing gets more money thru the tote creating bigger stakes and better horses, trainers and jockeys all want to be there AND the punter can get on for what ever he wants at the true market price. This fixed odds is just a have with punters trying to get a better deal/price at their loss. It is open to too much manipulation. 

[CosmicBlackie 128]

....and NZRB's answer to this is too spend a small fortune on a platform to provide even more fixed odds options. Wonder if fixed odds could be exclusively be targeted for sporting fixtures, with the golden goose of a tote system being left for racing's benefits?

[Guest]

7 hours ago, JackSprat said:

Never ceases to amaze me that you guys hark back to the days when the tote pools were bigger and you could get a good sized bet on without destroying the price, and in the next breath you say how you only bet fixed odds, or overseas, or anywhere except the tote pools.

Where do you think the big punters bet years ago when there was no fixed odds?. That's right, on the tote, no limits, no restrictions, no whinging!

The so called "big punters" who have deserted the tote in search of the greener pastures of fixed odds betting - which turned out to be little if any better, have in the process decimated the tote pools, which they're now too scared to support.

These same "big punters" have nobody but themselves to blame for the current state of the TAB which is split between a tote system with minimal pools, and a fixed odds system that doesn't have enough liquidity to warrant major risks. Instead of one strong betting system, we now have two weak ones.

The NZ racing industry would have been in a far stronger position today if we were still on all-tote betting. Sure some punters would bet offshore, but there will always those that think the grass is greener elsewhere. The strength of the game across Europe would suggest all tote betting simply works better.

As for a gambling customers human rights - gimme a break. I run a reasonable size business, and we turn away clients EVERY day. If we choose not to do business with someone for whatever reason, we don't. The TAB are no different. If you don't like their terms, find somewhere else where the terms suit you better!

Jack, seem you know so much about Tote and fixed odds betting , can you provide us with the amount of betting that is being put thru the Bookies on harness on a weekly basis?

We get no advices at all from the TAB regards this.

I firmly beleive that the bosses are so consumed with improving the yield on harness racing so that they look good and justify their huge salaries.

This train of thought from them is hugely detrimental to turnover and harness racing future.

The yield on harness fixed used to be about 6 per cent and I think last year they improved to 9 Per cent

Brilliant you would say, well done TAB, more money for racing. YAy.

How did the geniuses do this?

By stopping winning punters winning as much by restricting them, plus shortening the odds so not as much was paid out to everyone.

This business plan from the TAB Bookies is so badly flawed and is detrimental to racing.

The correct route or plan is to increase turnover rather than reduce turnover.

How do we do this?

Furstly we need to retain existing customers not get rid off them and get new ones in!

By offering crap uncompetitive odds you lose the existing punters whether they are winners or losing punters, so your client base drops.

Secondly with crap odds you have stuff all chance of getting new punters to offload on fixed odds or Tote.

The TABs basic maths is wrong!,,

A yield of 6 per cent on say $1million is more than 9 per cent on $500k. Which means increase turnover rather than reducing it, and they will make more profit, but the bosses just worry about yield and not about viability.

Yes there will always be certain punters who win, just like at the casino or in business life and that is the way it should be.

But, the TAB's business mentality, to treat any winning punter by shutting them down, also affects the other punters that they  should be wanting to retain and encourage.

TAB, you need to rethink your current BUSINESS PLAN mentality if you want to remain viable and increase your profits!!!!!

It is not rocket science!!!!!!!!

 

[MisterEd 328]

40 minutes ago, Brodie said:

Jack, seem you know so much about Tote and fixed odds betting , can you provide us with the amount of betting that is being put thru the Bookies on harness on a weekly basis?

We get no advices at all from the TAB regards this.

I firmly beleive that the bosses are so consumed with improving the yield on harness racing so that they look good and justify their huge salaries.

This train of thought from them is hugely detrimental to turnover and harness racing future.

The yield on harness fixed used to be about 6 per cent and I think last year they improved to 9 Per cent

Brilliant you would say, well done TAB, more money for racing. YAy.

How did the geniuses do this?

By stopping winning punters winning as much by restricting them, plus shortening the odds so not as much was paid out to everyone.

This business plan from the TAB Bookies is so badly flawed and is detrimental to racing.

The correct route or plan is to increase turnover rather than reduce turnover.

How do we do this?

Furstly we need to retain existing customers not get rid off them and get new ones in!

By offering crap uncompetitive odds you lose the existing punters whether they are winners or losing punters, so your client base drops.

Secondly with crap odds you have stuff all chance of getting new punters to offload on fixed odds or Tote.

The TABs basic maths is wrong!,,

A yield of 6 per cent on say $1million is more than 9 per cent on $500k. Which means increase turnover rather than reducing it, and they will make more profit, but the bosses just worry about yield and not about viability.

Yes there will always be certain punters who win, just like at the casino or in business life and that is the way it should be.

But, the TAB's business mentality, to treat any winning punter by shutting them down, also affects the other punters that they  should be wanting to retain and encourage.

TAB, you need to rethink your current BUSINESS PLAN mentality if you want to remain viable and increase your profits!!!!!

It is not rocket science!!!!!!!!

 

Most of your questions have been answered on here but you choose not to listen but instead gripe on even louder like a stuck car horn. 

Jack, seem you know so much about Tote and fixed odds betting , can you provide us with the amount of betting that is being put thru the Bookies on harness on a weekly basis?
Use your brain! Very easy to work this out, tote win pools used to be about 50-60K before fixed odds and now they are about half that suggesting the fixed odds would be somewhere near $25-30K per race. In fact the box seat had a bookie on suggesting much the same thing last year I remember.

I firmly believe that the bosses are so consumed with improving the yield on harness racing so that they look good and justify their huge salaries.
Yes I agree same as every other business on the planet!

By stopping winning punters winning as much by restricting them, plus shortening the odds so not as much was paid out to everyone.
The tote odds come out of a pool of money so that will not have changed. Every one is still getting paid out that pool of money. The fixed odds will be similar but different in that that sometimes they will have to pay out more than they have in the pool when a favourite wins and sometimes they will pay out less than they have in the pool when an outsider wins. 

By offering crap uncompetitive odds you lose the existing punters whether they are winners or losing punters, so your client base drops.
Secondly with crap odds you have stuff all chance of getting new punters to offload on fixed odds or Tote.
They have not shortened the odds on every runner like you suggest. The market still has to fit in to 125% which is your biggest obstacle you can not seem to understand. If one horse is lower the others must lengthen to fit into the 125%. The bookmakers are only working smarter and are only shortening the horses that have the best chance ie unlucky last start, good trialists, good stable, best drivers etc. Gone are the days of getting a big place price on an a previous unlucky runner. The odds they used to have some runners at was ridiculous and it was like taking candy from a baby so that was never going to last forever. I remember getting $26.00 for a place on a runner at Oamaru one day that ran third and should have been about $6.00.

I do agree the place % has increased on opening compared to a few years ago and it is now almost better to bet at a closing price rather than opening unless you spot value early.

Low prices on horses you like is a sign of the times just like your restrictions.  The Box seat bookie also admitted last year that they had to restrict winning punters so the TAB have come out and said that publicly.

We never get any factual information from you about these crap odds. Just that they are crap and every horse is opened too low.  Your math does not work out you cannot have all horses priced low in a set % what you are saying is bollocks. Give us some examples?

Can almost guarantee you will not come up with any factual information on any particular runner with reasons why you think it is low or high. Your modus operandi seems to be bleat on with out any facts to back it up.

Is this deja vu I remember having this conversation with you 200 times now!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MisterEd said:

Most of your questions have been answered on here but you choose not to listen but instead gripe on even louder like a stuck car horn. 

Jack, seem you know so much about Tote and fixed odds betting , can you provide us with the amount of betting that is being put thru the Bookies on harness on a weekly basis?
Use your brain! Very easy to work this out, tote win pools used to be about 50-60K before fixed odds and now they are about half that suggesting the fixed odds would be somewhere near $25-30K per race. In fact the box seat had a bookie on suggesting much the same thing last year I remember.

I firmly believe that the bosses are so consumed with improving the yield on harness racing so that they look good and justify their huge salaries.
Yes I agree same as every other business on the planet!

By stopping winning punters winning as much by restricting them, plus shortening the odds so not as much was paid out to everyone.
The tote odds come out of a pool of money so that will not have changed. Every one is still getting paid out that pool of money. The fixed odds will be similar but different in that that sometimes they will have to pay out more than they have in the pool when a favourite wins and sometimes they will pay out less than they have in the pool when an outsider wins. 

By offering crap uncompetitive odds you lose the existing punters whether they are winners or losing punters, so your client base drops.
Secondly with crap odds you have stuff all chance of getting new punters to offload on fixed odds or Tote.
They have not shortened the odds on every runner like you suggest. The market still has to fit in to 125% which is your biggest obstacle you can not seem to understand. If one horse is lower the others must lengthen to fit into the 125%. The bookmakers are only working smarter and are only shortening the horses that have the best chance ie unlucky last start, good trialists, good stable, best drivers etc. Gone are the days of getting a big place price on an a previous unlucky runner. The odds they used to have some runners at was ridiculous and it was like taking candy from a baby so that was never going to last forever. I remember getting $26.00 for a place on a runner at Oamaru one day that ran third and should have been about $6.00.

I do agree the place % has increased on opening compared to a few years ago and it is now almost better to bet at a closing price rather than opening unless you spot value early.

Low prices on horses you like is a sign of the times just like your restrictions.  The Box seat bookie also admitted last year that they had to restrict winning punters so the TAB have come out and said that publicly.

We never get any factual information from you about these crap odds. Just that they are crap and every horse is opened too low.  Your math does not work out you cannot have all horses priced low in a set % what you are saying is bollocks. Give us some examples?

Can almost guarantee you will not come up with any factual information on any particular runner with reasons why you think it is low or high. Your modus operandi seems to be bleat on with out any facts to back it up.

Is this deja vu I remember having this conversation with you 200 times now!

Mr Ed, if you are a spokesman for the TAB I suggest they replace you.

Firstly, what I would,like to know is how much is being taken by the Bookies on harness each meeting?

No use saying it is half of what the old Tote figures used to be because that is crap.

Why don't they advise this?????

Yes, Mr Ed yield is important but so is flippen TURNOVER and if your yield is good on a small amount a smaller yield on a MUCH LARGER TURNOVER with new punters coming thru is EVEN BETTER!!!!

Mr ED, if you offer a more competitive market you will actually have punters betting into your fixed odds market, and yes you will have  ore of a spread and beleive it or not increased turnover will actually make you more PROFIT!

Yes you have made the opening odds far shorter than they were and far shorter than they should be.

By having 5 horses at next to nothing for a place in a 10 horse field beleive it or not does not make for punters wanting to offload.

The 125per cent that you quoted is always far too late to attract punters to offload. open the market at a shorter per centage and beleive it,or not you will have punters wanting to invest and you will increase your turnover and  yield.

It is business sense Mr. ED. Business's Have larger turnover during their specials than when at full price and that what makes their business viable.

Mr Ed. Any punter that is reasonably serious about punting will be able to tell you that the place odds on opening and until too late are crap.

The TAB staff and crew even say they are far too short!!!

If you think that they are attractive and not too short on opening then YOU give us the figures from the Bookies that show the amount of turnover being put on Fixed Odds on the races to show that the punters think that the races are worth investing on!!!!!!!!

If you can't then you are the one that is bleating on and with no evidence to support your viewpoint.

"The Brodster" is on the money here unlike yourself Mr ED.

 

 

 

[tim vince 985]

there is more to betting than win  - fixed odds. the treble pools quinella   are dead.  I can tell u the real pros in hk japan the q pools are there biggest betting-ron langsford a name from the past got the record treble dividend midweek of 151 thousand- now im guessing 7.

 

its a given that u cant bet into small pools and hope to win on any scale-  unless you are completely computerised so fixed odd the only hope of winning.

 

one hk team bets in 31  places but there betting is precise to the dollar and it is like running a corporation.

 

a lot of the winnings are commissions on turnover.

 

if you getting a clip all the time it makes it impossible-now very few punters win the long game- it takes a huge amount of work knowledge and then u only get a small advantage on turnover.

 

 

how can I person get 5k on a horse and another  can get it on the same horse- because one is a consistent big loser and the other a winner. so huge tote pools are the only answer-so if you want to win - and  think you can -head to the big tote pools.

 

or get a job

 

 I don't know who defends the nz bookmakers- they are indefensible-

 

I only bet socially now- don't have an account because  I know u cant win in nz- 

 

without being a smart arse I should know.

 

hk racing starts soon- the reason the betting is getting bigger is the pools are huge and getting bigger

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, tim vince said:

there is more to betting than win  - fixed odds. the treble pools quinella   are dead.  I can tell u the real pros in hk japan the q pools are there biggest betting-ron langsford a name from the past got the record treble dividend midweek of 151 thousand- now im guessing 7.

 

its a given that u cant bet into small pools and hope to win on any scale-  unless you are completely computerised so fixed odd the only hope of winning.

 

one hk team bets in 31  places but there betting is precise to the dollar and it is like running a corporation.

 

a lot of the winnings are commissions on turnover.

 

if you getting a clip all the time it makes it impossible-now very few punters win the long game- it takes a huge amount of work knowledge and then u only get a small advantage on turnover.

 

 

how can I person get 5k on a horse and another  can get it on the same horse- because one is a consistent big loser and the other a winner. so huge tote pools are the only answer-so if you want to win - and  think you can -head to the big tote pools.

 

or get a job

 

 I don't know who defends the nz bookmakers- they are indefensible-

 

I only bet socially now- don't have an account because  I know u cant win in nz- 

 

without being a smart arse I should know.

 

hk racing starts soon- the reason the betting is getting bigger is the pools are huge and getting bigger

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some very good,points Tim!

The ones that defend the Nz Bookies on here are

 

1.  people that are smart arses that just want to have Brodie on even though they will have to be getting up a lot earlier to upset "The Brodster.

2. Losing punters who are always jealous of successful punters and just because they continue to lose, everyone else should too.

3. TAB Bookies or spokes people for the TAB trying to justify that they are acting rationally when there are not for the benefit of harness racing, but they are trying to justify their large salaries.

4. People with no business nous and don't want harness racing to succeed into the future.

5. There a select few on here that will always disagree with Brodie because they possibly work for the TAB and/or HRNZ!

Keep up the great work you are doing with your horses Tim.

 

[JackSprat 947]

27 minutes ago, Brodie said:

Some very good,points Tim!

The ones that defend the Nz Bookies on here are

1.  people that are smart arses that just want to have Brodie on even though they will have to be getting up a lot earlier to upset "The Brodster.

2. Losing punters who are always jealous of successful punters and just because they continue to lose, everyone else should too.

3. TAB Bookies or spokes people for the TAB trying to justify that they are acting rationally when there are not for the benefit of harness racing, but they are trying to justify their large salaries.

4. People with no business nous and don't want harness racing to succeed into the future.

5. There a select few on here that will always disagree with Brodie because they possibly work for the TAB and/or HRNZ!

Keep up the great work you are doing with your horses Tim.

 

Or maybe, just maybe .....

6. People who have no connection to the TAB or HRNZ, are successful in their chosen fields, understand market forces, don't give a toss what Brodie wins or loses, have no selfish self interest to whinge about, and have enough common sense to see the TAB for what it is.

7. Nah, #6 pretty much covers it.

[Sickopunter 403]

3 hours ago, JackSprat said:

Or maybe, just maybe .....

6. People who have no connection to the TAB or HRNZ, are successful in their chosen fields, understand market forces, don't give a toss what Brodie wins or loses, have no selfish self interest to whinge about, and have enough common sense to see the TAB for what it is.

7. Nah, #6 pretty much covers it.

I note you never answered my question about the percentages.....

[Basil 333]

On 10/7/2017 at 5:21 PM, tim vince said:

 

bag the broadster all u like- I have some inkling who he could be (not sure) but he is utterly completely 1000 percent right.

Right about being discriminated against?  In which case it's a bit strange he hasn't taken up my suggestion --- made over a year ago --- to complain to the Human Rights Commission.

Or right about how the TAB should act as his own private banker?  In which case I have some well-irrigated Chch riverside property you might be interested in taking off my hands...

The idea that bookies should make it anything other than difficult for punters displays an alarming lack of understanding of markets, business and economics.  If, god forbid, this is a commonly-held belief in the industry, it's little wonder it continues to head downhill.  Sitting around petulantly demanding a free lunch will eventually just lead to starvation.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, JackSprat said:

Or maybe, just maybe .....

6. People who have no connection to the TAB or HRNZ, are successful in their chosen fields, understand market forces, don't give a toss what Brodie wins or loses, have no selfish self interest to whinge about, and have enough common sense to see the TAB for what it is.

7. Nah, #6 pretty much covers it.

Jack, 

What has success in their chosen  field got to do with it?

I could say I was great in my chosen field but I am not a blow hard, just beleive in fair play Jack!!!!

Despite you saying that you don't give a toss, I think you are jealous Jack otherwise you would nt comment like you do, as if you were a serious punter you could not condone the TABs behaviour!

If you were a restricted punter Jack you would be totally against the TABs actions, but perhaps you are not that great in the chosen field of punting?

[Double R 260]

Hi Brodie,

Thank you for making us smaller punters aware of the problems that exist with larger successful punters. I am sorry, I can give a tangible answer to the plight of large punters.

When it is all boiled down, the TAB needs us more than we need them, because there are plenty of other options for our leisure dollar.

Cheers.

Robert.

[JackSprat 947]

8 hours ago, Sickopunter said:

I note you never answered my question about the percentages.....

What question?