lecithin

Now over 236K worth of donations received and climbing. The outpouring of generosity from the racing community and abroad has been staggering! 
 
Here’s hoping he can get the treatment he needs to make a full recovery. 

Exactly right and also of the $150M racing related offshore turnover a high percentage would be sharp/price sensitive punters that are taking offshore prices because they are better value than the TAB's odds, so it's incorrect to assume geo-blocking would result in this $150M all just being bet via the TAB.  I'd be surprised if one third came back to the TAB,  so maybe $50M which might result in $5M extra profit, but that needs to be offset against the race field fees that the $150M is already generating, so the benefits would seem to be marginal at best.  

Exactly right and also of the $150M racing related offshore turnover a high percentage would be sharp/price sensitive punters that are taking offshore prices because they are better value than the TAB's odds, so it's incorrect to assume geo-blocking would result in this $150M all just being bet via the TAB.  I'd be surprised if one third came back to the TAB,  so maybe $50M which might result in $5M extra profit, but that needs to be offset against the race field fees that the $150M is already generating, so the benefits would seem to be marginal at best.  

Exactly right and also of the $150M racing related offshore turnover a high percentage would be sharp/price sensitive punters that are taking offshore prices because they are better value than the TAB's odds, so it's incorrect to assume geo-blocking would result in this $150M all just being bet via the TAB.  I'd be surprised if one third came back to the TAB,  so maybe $50M which might result in $5M extra profit, but that needs to be offset against the race field fees that the $150M is already generating, so the benefits would seem to be marginal at best.  

Exactly right and also of the $150M racing related offshore turnover a high percentage would be sharp/price sensitive punters that are taking offshore prices because they are better value than the TAB's odds, so it's incorrect to assume geo-blocking would result in this $150M all just being bet via the TAB.  I'd be surprised if one third came back to the TAB,  so maybe $50M which might result in $5M extra profit, but that needs to be offset against the race field fees that the $150M is already generating, so the benefits would seem to be marginal at best.  

Exactly right and also of the $150M racing related offshore turnover a high percentage would be sharp/price sensitive punters that are taking offshore prices because they are better value than the TAB's odds, so it's incorrect to assume geo-blocking would result in this $150M all just being bet via the TAB.  I'd be surprised if one third came back to the TAB,  so maybe $50M which might result in $5M extra profit, but that needs to be offset against the race field fees that the $150M is already generating, so the benefits would seem to be marginal at best.  

Exactly right and also of the $150M racing related offshore turnover a high percentage would be sharp/price sensitive punters that are taking offshore prices because they are better value than the TAB's odds, so it's incorrect to assume geo-blocking would result in this $150M all just being bet via the TAB.  I'd be surprised if one third came back to the TAB,  so maybe $50M which might result in $5M extra profit, but that needs to be offset against the race field fees that the $150M is already generating, so the benefits would seem to be marginal at best.  

Exactly right and also of the $150M racing related offshore turnover a high percentage would be sharp/price sensitive punters that are taking offshore prices because they are better value than the TAB's odds, so it's incorrect to assume geo-blocking would result in this $150M all just being bet via the TAB.  I'd be surprised if one third came back to the TAB,  so maybe $50M which might result in $5M extra profit, but that needs to be offset against the race field fees that the $150M is already generating, so the benefits would seem to be marginal at best.  

Clearly something needs to be done to increase turnover and revenue.  One way to increase turnover would be to require the TAB to accept bets from all customers to lose say $3,000 per bet (similar to Australian minimum bet rules).  I appreciate that increased turnover doesn't guarantee increased revenue, but my understanding from the Australian states where minimum bet rules have been introduced, is that it has increased revenue to the industry.
Furthermore, most restricted punters have had these restrictions in place from when the old TAB platform was in operation.  The main reason given in the past for most restrictions was that punters were able to beat the TAB when fixed odds prices changed, due to the TAB having to manually set odds.  The new TAB fixed odds platform has eliminated this issue so there should be no reason for many of the restrictions.
So my question is - why don't you require the TAB to accept fixed odds bets from all customers to lose $3,000 per bet to see if this would have a beneficial impact on revenue?  This could be implemented over night and monitored closely to see what impact it had on turnover (which would certainly increase) but more importantly revenue.

Leicthin   
The TAB’s approach is in line with standard bookmaking practices and RITA does impose betting restrictions on a small number of customers, whilst we don't have a minimum ‘bet to lose amount’, by international standards are limits are generous, particularly on race day.

Clearly something needs to be done to increase turnover and revenue.  One way to increase turnover would be to require the TAB to accept bets from all customers to lose say $3,000 per bet (similar to Australian minimum bet rules).  I appreciate that increased turnover doesn't guarantee increased revenue, but my understanding from the Australian states where minimum bet rules have been introduced, is that it has increased revenue to the industry.
Furthermore, most restricted punters have had these restrictions in place from when the old TAB platform was in operation.  The main reason given in the past for most restrictions was that punters were able to beat the TAB when fixed odds prices changed, due to the TAB having to manually set odds.  The new TAB fixed odds platform has eliminated this issue so there should be no reason for many of the restrictions.
So my question is - why don't you require the TAB to accept fixed odds bets from all customers to lose $3,000 per bet to see if this would have a beneficial impact on revenue?  This could be implemented over night and monitored closely to see what impact it had on turnover (which would certainly increase) but more importantly revenue.

Leicthin   
The TAB’s approach is in line with standard bookmaking practices and RITA does impose betting restrictions on a small number of customers, whilst we don't have a minimum ‘bet to lose amount’, by international standards are limits are generous, particularly on race day.

Clearly something needs to be done to increase turnover and revenue.  One way to increase turnover would be to require the TAB to accept bets from all customers to lose say $3,000 per bet (similar to Australian minimum bet rules).  I appreciate that increased turnover doesn't guarantee increased revenue, but my understanding from the Australian states where minimum bet rules have been introduced, is that it has increased revenue to the industry.
Furthermore, most restricted punters have had these restrictions in place from when the old TAB platform was in operation.  The main reason given in the past for most restrictions was that punters were able to beat the TAB when fixed odds prices changed, due to the TAB having to manually set odds.  The new TAB fixed odds platform has eliminated this issue so there should be no reason for many of the restrictions.
So my question is - why don't you require the TAB to accept fixed odds bets from all customers to lose $3,000 per bet to see if this would have a beneficial impact on revenue?  This could be implemented over night and monitored closely to see what impact it had on turnover (which would certainly increase) but more importantly revenue.

Leicthin   
The TAB’s approach is in line with standard bookmaking practices and RITA does impose betting restrictions on a small number of customers, whilst we don't have a minimum ‘bet to lose amount’, by international standards are limits are generous, particularly on race day.

1. Rotorua R5 - 12
2. Caulfield R3 - 8
3. Ashburton R7 - 8
4. Rotorua R7 - 8
5. Caulfield R5 - 8
6. Caulfield R6 - 12
7. Caulfield R7 - 7
8. Randwick R7 - 6
9. Caulfield R8 - 3
10. Caulfield R9 - 8
11. Caulfield R10 - 2

You obviously haven't read the DIA report on this or any independent analysis. The NZRB won't release theirs. They just keep spruiking their numbers and have persuaded Messara perhaps. I frankly think that at least the Racefields component should be expedited but doubt it will be worth more than a mil or 2 to the TR industry immediately and they can put their own agreements in place anyway if they want to. The bookies have offered to pay, some a decade ago but no-one bothered. Why not if it was worth so much?

1. Te Aroha R7 - 5
2. Rosehill R5 - 8
3. Rosehill R6 - 8
4. Rosehill R7 - 8
Thanks

1. Te Rapa R6 #6
2. Randwick R4 #3
3. Randwick R5 #7
4. Caulfield R5 #6
5. Randwick R6 #10
6. Caulfield R6 #10
7. Randwick R7 #7
8. Caulfield R7 #2
9. Randwick R8 #1
10. Morphettville R7 #1
Thanks

Riccarton R6 # 7
Flemington R7 # 7
Thanks

R8: #2
Thanks

Riccarton R8: #18
 
Randwick R7: #2   Thanks for the comp!

Grand Prix
Dark Dream
#2
Lord Mayors Cup
Duca Valentinois
#3
BRC Sires Produce
Zousain
#3
Kingsford Smith
Le Romain
#2
Thanks for the comp!
 

You can't think of a $7 percentage quaddie as a $7 bet, because it's not one bet. It's 120 individual bets, some with a stake of $0.05 and some with a stake of $0.06. So, "I had a $7 bet and had the winner in the first leg, some other people didn't have the winner, therefore I should get my $7 back plus a share of the money from the people who didn't have the winner" is faulty thinking. While you had the first leg winner on some of your tickets, you also had first leg losers on most of your tickets.
In reality, you had 12 winning $0.05 bets, each of which paid out $0.35. You also had 108 losing $0.05 & $0.06 bets, which paid out nothing.

You took 11 horses in the first leg and the winner paid $7 odd and you're wondering why you lost money?

Agreed - they already have an automatic link (presumably with permission given the fixed odds platform deal) to use the Sportsbet fixed prices so why don't they just set up a "white label" of the Sportsbet site?

Here's a solution.
If a loser in a suit wants to work at head office they should have to prove they're competent by first riding a couple work, or at least tack a shoe on one.
Conversely if a member of the real racing fraternity ( who put on the show ) want to transition to head office they need to prove they can eat three sausage rolls and drink a bottle of Pinot.
It's all about credibility.
 

I have been to several of his presentations over the last few years.  The presentations where he continually pushed the "three pillars" that would bring in the cash - new FOB platform, doubling account customers and race fields legislation passed before the 2017 election.  We were told we could judge him on the success of these....
Strange then, that apart from one passing comment on race fields legislation (possibly a slip of the tongue) his focus and lengthy updates were just on the FOB platform and doubling accounts to generate this extra revenue.  Anyone know what the update is regarding race fields legislation being passed before the election?

these ON course = atmo$phere
https://findyouraustralianbookmakers.joomla.com/10-selecting-the-right-australian-bookmaker-for-your-betting-needs
try it !!