RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.

Varro

Members
  • Posts

    815
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Varro

  1. with respect, have you ever approached Jason on matters which can be confronting? and if so have you seen his reactions? and more so, his behaviour in recent times to those involved, i.e. te rapa? im not condoning ostracizing him or adding light to the situation, however you can only ever help someone as much as THEY are willing to help themselves.
  2. in my experence, and on average, the most distinct differences in maturity and development levels are at an early age, and from a racing perspective from ages 2 in particular and to 3, then from there the ledger tends to be far more even. is a valid argument that concessions are restricted to 2 and 3 year old racing only?
  3. come in Leo i understand it is incorporated based on the theory of horse development, and differences between gender that lends an advantage to males.
  4. Northerly, Lohnro, starcraft, frankel, dundeel, apache cat, takeover target, buffering, fields of omagh, weekend hustler, chataqua, so you think, id add Karasi, absolute iron horse. think we are reading a bit too much into this male and female stuff. the term champion is so loosely used. I heard bevan sweeney refer to advantage as a champion after her win at Otaki, i thought that was a really dumb statement, shes done nothing yet which compares to the list above, or her female counterparts like sunline, winx, atlantic jewel to only name a few. whilst there have been some amazing girls grace the track, the blokes havent exactly been letting us down either. the term champion is so loosely used and is rather subjective. but the blokes are doing ok id say, we are just lucky to have also been blessed with some freaks in the last decade such as black caviar and winx
  5. but we are so bottom heavy, we give no encouragement for horses to gradually climb grades, or have an appropriate band of rating races to encourage horses to race on. Surely our biggest priority should be introducing rating 50, 55, 60-65 races? and start pushing some horses through the grades? additionally, the mares allowance is too much in wfa. i think it should surely be 1kg allowance i think would be fair.
  6. what gives you the divine right to criticize a post for what is a frequent challenge in the south island. i have had shares in a couple of stayers in the south island, and unless you are based at Riccarton, the programming is often diabolical. This has been raised so many many times with various bodies and little is done about it, the amount of times from various leaders I have seen they are reviewing the programming. However this is a public forum here were we can further raise these issues. And is a public forum which is read by different bodies involved within the industry. It is not being negative, it is simply a matter of fact. As im sure some other South Island trainers on here can confess to. You cite 2 examples of a couple of stayers, but there are many horses that struggle to get a start. How often do you see in the south capacity size maidens, but fewer noms for rating 65. Whilst it is a criticism of the programming, that doesnt change ones enthusiasm for the industry, they are after all enthusiastic enough to be participants, in which in most cases your on a hiding to nothing anyway, and that takes some bravery, passion and a few coins in the pocket
  7. I have and am yet to receive a reply. I note Red Rum asked Scooby to add as a late question to Dean. That is it, and that is why I have been so vocal as it is a matter of integrity. A number of things I have raised here, is also because of information from others which I have been told about, like for e.g. take out rate on that race being different. That is why I asked in this post, at the very beginning because i know for a fact TAB marketing read this site. The issue is not the promo, nor the bet option, or even as some have said the inflated odds you could say BGP got. My info is that the take out was different, and if what I understand is correct that the TAB layed the bet via their tote pool then that is using the tote fund inadvertently potentially subsidizing the BGP bet. hence the title of this thread being above, because ultimately i am directing this at the TAB and we are discussing this further via the forum. Chelseacol, the quinella pool is not transparent, if the above is correct, and the TAB accepted the bet, the will pays from that point onwards were then never going to be a true reflection of the tote, (one mentioned earlier potential manipulation) as it appears they then drip fed the tote pool to include liability of BGP bet. The TAB reads this site, I know along with others the TAB have been sent emails on this matter, not one reply as of yet. As a matter of integrity I think Scooby you should raise this with Dean to see if this can be clarified or a representative of the TAB come on here and provide some clarity on this
  8. can i add for clarity, most of my betting is done via the TAB, largely because i prefer to bet in store and am trying to be supportive because i know investing via the tab benefits our industry. as does any punter who invests through the tab i have no issue with BGP nor do i take issue with promotions and incentives. i just think that punters derserve better, because ultimately we need more punter funds invested via tab for the benefit of distributions to the codes. and if i had a sizeable bet on that quinella and won, i would feel aggrieved if my funds were used to subsidize the return for someone else. Especially considering in this day and age punters are more sophisticated and are far more value focused, given that competition out there you could say is largely more attractive. So given this, and their recent ad, i feel tote punters deserved better.
  9. JJ you are futher exposing yourself to being in some way challenged. I have at length already explained to you this observation. Additonally the will pay was meaningless because you dont know what the TAB were doing with tote prices, from when they accepted the BGP quinella bet, additionally the will pay price is quite meaningless when substantial funds are being added to the pool. i am done dealing with you because it seems impossible to understand eachothers viewpoints so i move on
  10. yes, but they dont lay onto the tote because an an exclusive offer to one group for the same bet. The will pay before race is meaningless because of the fact that the pool size will change to close of race, and then ofcourse close to race time they are drip feeding the sum to the pool. How else would you explain a quantum increase to the quinella pool versus other races but no significant change on win and place, logical no? e.g. taking a 10k quinella, and getting $1.70, but 1 exclusive group getting a near whole unit more. Was there a change in take out on the pool to subsidize the offering to BGP as a result. If infact the tab layed off that bet to the tote, then of course tote punters subsidized that return! its about protecting all your customers, and showing integrity and transparency. And normally the TAB would lay off bets via another operator not against their own tote in scouring the market, there were returns available to punters elsewhere $2 and above via other competition. yet the tab is spending marketing funds asking punters to remain loyal, bet with them. I am all for BGP, they are great for the industry. But dont tell me we should accept that its ok for tote punters to miss out on potentially a greater return without knowing the tabs actions, because BGP are great, its a 1 off promo, i was wearing their red socks.
  11. it seems some of you are struggling to grasp that its imperative the tab shows integrity when dealing with punter funds. and your excusing the action because it was a fun day, was a 1 off promo, its BGP, you were wearing red socks. extreme exaggeration that its end of life stuff, but you are someone who seems challenged at grasping things JJ. it seems mind boggling that we can potentially excuse what is a rip off action to tote punters because you had a good day out, jesus fucking christ
  12. then it is clear you can neither read or see. i think from reading your arguments, particularly across another site, you are making yourself look a bit plain on this topic. if you cant unerstand despite various explanations, how it seems very obvious it was played against tote pool, and its repurcussion for this pool and its punters then thats on you. will pays especially for a bet like tht before tote close would be a waste of time because the tote is adjusted on close, and why should the punter do that, would it not be reasonable to assume they would get a market rate price for return? give or take. you are showing yourself to be a novice, and makes a mockery of our tab. you honestly think a ladbrokes or a bet365 would shit on their customers like this? even for a big group wagering in this manner, like fuck.
  13. JJ, how else then would you explain the quinella pool being approx 45k more than any other race on the card, whilst at the same time, there was no change or reflection of additional betting revenue for win or place bets on the same race. So perculiar, then that the last race, which coincidentally is carrying the big quinella for BGP, and there is a noticable differential in the quinella pool, again in the vicinity of 40 to 45k. again the TAB will not compete against a 1 man pool, and given the differential in tote for the last, it is quite obvious to anyone with any common sense and basic knowledge that they offset the liability against the tote. There are some clever ones out there, across 2 other different sites, with more inside knowledge of operations than me who have also see it this way aswell. anyway i am done argung this subject, if you cant see how this is unfair, then thats ok, and thats your view. But i see it a different way.
  14. sorry mate i disagree. The tab need to be competitive for the benefit of the industry, and for distributions to the codes. That requires an increase in wagering, hence their ad. They have to stay competitive. If not, punters will flock. bonus bets are covered via the book on fixed odds, off set by the fixed odds price. its not the same. Times have changed, we have become more sophisticated with betting, and punters want better service, treatment and value. its a common theme amongst gripes with the tab. i like bonus bets too. But i realise by doing this, im betting on a fixed odds platform that has a worse take out and ultimately price offering against the tote, majority of the time. Its the same as the hot jocks bonus feature, its covered by the price offered via fixed odds. apples and oranges
  15. i respect your opinion, we differ, thats ok. we reach a stalemate. yes its generated aot of attention, and the tab will be stoked, this is a good thing. but i dont think you should rob peter, to pay paul and make him look good. the difficult part is, people seem to be thinking that the exercise came at no cost. it obviously did. And in simple terms, can be evidently seen via the price paid, versus comparable returns elsewhere, doesnt take much homework. Yes it was a one off, yes it was a good promo. but surely could have been funded via other means, rather than against the punters playing the tote. But dont use peters funds, to subsidize what you pay to paul, get my drift.... If you had a thousand on the tote, on that quinella, wouldnt you feel a little aggrieved. And then you think, oh shit, if i had placed that same bet with an overseas book maker, i could have gotten quite a bit better price? would you rather have a profit of $700 hundred, or elsewere easily more than double that. Had TAB not offset the liability of that bet to the tote, which clearly they did, then a winning punter has lost some of their profit to BGP as a result. If the TAB did not offset that liability to tote, which JJ is saying they may not of, then the tote offering was so uncompetitive, it is a mockery. but i dont believe this to be the case at all, cosidering pool size. plus the tab already operates on a uncompetitive take out rate anyway. but the tab is spending racing industry dollars in advertising that people bet with them. But your asking your customers to bear the brunt, and pay for your promotion. ...... done my point to death now. When I was running another business, and i was marketing a promotion, i would have lost my position pretty quickly charging them additional premiums to subsidize and experiment for one customer, at the expense of my portfolio. p.s. i didnt have a bet on that race. Just the TAB are so right in their advertisement, we need all the punting dollars available, its critical for our industry. I just think they could have found another way to go about this experiment
  16. i get that, and thats all fine and well. but the tab is asking punters to stick with them. Saying they are loosing to much of their customers to offshore betting agencies. ok fair play, send a message, ask for loyalty. but then dont piss on them, by subsidizing one punters bet with the tote. if you want people to stay loyal, prop up the tab, which in turn has all those positive consequences to our industry, then simple, dont rip off the punter. A differential of nearly $1 per unit is a staggering differential. again im all for special incentives, new schemes, and yes BGP is great for our industry, they are actually a blessing, but the tab already operates on a very high take out compared to other competitors, so i can only presume their take out would have been even higher. that is my point, the exercise i believe was done at the expense of the punter. this is my main point. Given they are in desperate need of not just punting dollars, but more regular and loyal puntng dollars, if your gonna piss on all the punters that could only use the quinella pool, if they were to have known that before that race, and tab were gonna probably a take out rate near 140 or so, possibly, then they probably wouldnt have invested. all you need to do is compare the payouts from the tab to other competitors t see that was an uncompetitive price that winning punters got via the tote. that is not fair.
  17. but JJ flash, again and you dont seem to grasp this, and this potentially affected a number of tab customers, thousands of dollars worth, actually probably over half to 3 quarters of the entire quinella tote pool for this race. lets say hypothetically, you were a winning punter via the tote, your only way to access this bet, but your return was substantially less than BGP. And if say the tab did thi via using your money, the tote funds, to subsidize the return to 1 punter, then would you deem this fair? in my opinion this is not fair, infact i think its a disgrace
  18. excuse spelling at the top of the thread for those grammar and spelling enthusiasts.
  19. you advertise loyalty, ask punters to stick with you. But give only 1 of your customers, exclusive rights to a betting option, at the expense of all your other customers. What was your take out on the tote quinella pool? because i believe that was a slap in the face. im all for vip options, and given size of bets, some warm fuzzys and arse slapping, but dont screw your backbone of punters. I know you read this forum, can you please explain was your take out on the pool different to normal? do you think it was unfair offering a price exclusively to one punter, that absolutely none of your other ccustomers could access? Given that there are also other large punters that trade with you. On top of the generous offer to BGP, and exclusive odds at the expense of the tote (i presume) you offer a rebate and 25% worth of bonus bets. At what cost to industry and punter. If say hypothetically i could garner a group as big, with equal betting activity and sums, would you give me same treatment? i think all punters who have been loyal to tab deserve some clarity. As a result of this, it has now left me considering my alternatives.
  20. i wish he had a bad ride on loader that day in telelgraph, we would have won it. that ride on loader that day was CWJ at his absolute best. he is pure class
  21. couldnt have said it better myself. i backed it too
  22. one could argue you do as well, you seem to pop up all over the place, across various sites, posting and replying with rubbish, one could argue that you are also a serial poster, so then in saying that you must too have a lot of spare time. auckland is on a hiding regardless of changes. with a limited pool of trainers, and little interest in harness in auckland, as time goes on its going to become an ever increasing challenge to maintain decent fields, despite auckland offering good stakes. maybe this is were innovation comes to the fold. new incentives e.g. whats hrnz doing to attract more trainers to auckland. could an idea like, HRNZ subsiding costs to a new start up for the first year in auckland help pave the way forward for more people to take up training in auckland? for auckland i dont think numbers will be affected by stakes, or new internal rule changes, history has shown us this thus far. id say the north island in articular needs some new ideas, outside the box thinking to make it a force again
  23. NZTR monitor this site and would be familiar with Shane's position.
  24. how much input or say do you get into programming with regards to pukekohe shane?