Guest Report post Posted October 8, 2017 4 hours ago, Basil said: 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. Mr Fawlty, are you saying that the TAB is not indirectly discriminating against restricted punters even the the Human Rights Act says they are? Why have I not taken them to court? There are several reasons Basil! Dont want to be in the limelight as I am not a glory seeker, and it would backfire on me anyhow as they will not accept any bets in the future. The reason I bet fixed odds is the challenge of trying to beat the odds rather than the financial gain. I am in a sound financial position and don't require winnings from harness racing, but my bee in my bonnet as I have stated many times is the total unfairness of the TABs actions and also the harm that they are doing to the racing industry. The TAB doesn't really give a rats about racing nowadays, the major profits are coming from sports betting where the costs are so low compared to racing. If racing died I doubt they would be too concerned!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise 554 Report post Posted October 9, 2017 2 hours ago, Brodie said: Mr Fawlty, are you saying that the TAB is not indirectly discriminating against restricted punters even the the Human Rights Act says they are? Brodie, This has nothing to do with the Human Rights Act. Even Section 65 is subject to the prohibited grounds. You are so far off the mark it is not funny. Your position is actually an affront to all the people in New Zealand who actually face discrimination. A novel idea would be to look into the Commerce Commission's view on what the TAB do. Maybe it is unfair trading what the TAB do but who would know. I imagine the TAB have themselves pretty well covered with the rules of betting they have on their site. At the very least, let the Human Rights Act thing go. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lecithin 429 Report post Posted October 9, 2017 3 hours ago, Happy Sunrise said: Brodie, This has nothing to do with the Human Rights Act. Even Section 65 is subject to the prohibited grounds. You are so far off the mark it is not funny. Your position is actually an affront to all the people in New Zealand who actually face discrimination. A novel idea would be to look into the Commerce Commission's view on what the TAB do. Maybe it is unfair trading what the TAB do but who would know. I imagine the TAB have themselves pretty well covered with the rules of betting they have on their site. At the very least, let the Human Rights Act thing go. I have thoroughly investigated this in the past (several years ago when the restrictions started). I sought legal advice which supports your position (that there is no breach of the Human Rights Act) but indicated that there may be a case to answer under the Commerce Act. As such I made a submission to the Commerce Commission which was "thoroughly investigated" and they concluded there was no case for the NZRB to answer and the NZRB could restrict (or in my case totally ban me from betting with them) for "commercial reasons". In my opinion the Commissions reasoning was totally flawed and interestingly some of the their comments on the recent case where the NZRB sough a ruling relating to the SuperTAB deal directly conflicted with their comments on my case, but that's what you get when you have one statutory body making rulings on another I guess?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Report post Posted October 9, 2017 29 minutes ago, lecithin said: I have thoroughly investigated this in the past (several years ago when the restrictions started). I sought legal advice which supports your position (that there is no breach of the Human Rights Act) but indicated that there may be a case to answer under the Commerce Act. As such I made a submission to the Commerce Commission which was "thoroughly investigated" and they concluded there was no case for the NZRB to answer and the NZRB could restrict (or in my case totally ban me from betting with them) for "commercial reasons". In my opinion the Commissions reasoning was totally flawed and interestingly some of the their comments on the recent case where the NZRB sough a ruling relating to the SuperTAB deal directly conflicted with their comments on my case, but that's what you get when you have one statutory body making rulings on another I guess?! Ok thanks for Lecithin. Seems that the Human Rights Act needs amending then, seem it is nearly 25 years old. You would think there would be something in it to say that people can't be discriminated for any reason. Why the hell can anyone be victimised for being good at something????? How on earth can the Commerce Commission think that it is ok to sell something to someone is ok and not to others??? Totally seems like BOLLOCKS!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise 554 Report post Posted October 9, 2017 54 minutes ago, Brodie said: Seems that the Human Rights Act needs amending then, seem it is nearly 25 years old. You would think there would be something in it to say that people can't be discriminated for any reason. Why the hell can anyone be victimised for being good at something????? How on earth can the Commerce Commission think that it is ok to sell something to someone is ok and not to others??? Come on Brodie.....say it...try real hard......we know you can do it..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Report post Posted October 9, 2017 Happy, what I will say is that what the TAb is doing by treating punters totally different is WRONG! Morally, ethically, and everything else ending in ally!!! People that it doesn't affect can defend the Tab as much as they want but if they were being victimised for being successful they would not be happy. Anyhow, it just reinforces my resolve to keep beating them! The restrictions they are placing on punters will have a larger negative impact on their baseline profit than mine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterEd 328 Report post Posted October 9, 2017 13 hours ago, Brodie said: Ok thanks for Lecithin. Seems that the Human Rights Act needs amending then, seem it is nearly 25 years old. You would think there would be something in it to say that people can't be discriminated for any reason. Why the hell can anyone be victimised for being good at something????? How on earth can the Commerce Commission think that it is ok to sell something to someone is ok and not to others??? Totally seems like BOLLOCKS!!!!! Brodie was not on the money this time! I am guessing New Zealand will go the same way as UK and Australia and start completely banning punters that continue to win after being restricted, all in the interest of better yield. Spikecity and tonkatime 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Report post Posted October 10, 2017 4 hours ago, MisterEd said: Brodie was not on the money this time! I am guessing New Zealand will go the same way as UK and Australia and start completely banning punters that continue to win after being restricted, all in the interest of better yield. I am on the money in regard to the TAB morally and ethically not acting in the best interests of its customer and harness racing industry, ED. As to the other, we will wait and see. Will do more bad than good so why don't they damned well come out and state that if you are going to want to win on punting then forget about it, we only want losers gambling with us!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sickopunter 403 Report post Posted October 10, 2017 On 10/9/2017 at 10:24 AM, JackSprat said: What question? My bad, it wasn't actually directed to you but since Basil wanted nothing to do with it maybe you will... Are you saying that you think the tab is bang on with the markets and %s they're setting? Maybe you think they should be higher %s? Why not 150%? Why not 180%......? It's all just more profit right...? Is that your argument? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackSprat 947 Report post Posted October 10, 2017 There probably aren't many places that have a business model like our TAB. I'd imagine having a traditional tote and a fixed odds operation working side by side is fairly unique. My guess would be that they frame a market based on similar percentages to what they expect to happen in the tote pools. Traditional bookmakers in Australia and UK are almost always quasi-punters as well ie. in similar fashion to Betfair, they lay certain horses very aggressively if they dislike their chances - effectively betting against them. The TAB "bookies" don't have as much room to move in this regard as they are playing with "company funds" rather than their own, so have to be more conservative - ideally producing a balanced book. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sickopunter 403 Report post Posted October 10, 2017 12 minutes ago, JackSprat said: There probably aren't many places that have a business model like our TAB. I'd imagine having a traditional tote and a fixed odds operation working side by side is fairly unique. My guess would be that they frame a market based on similar percentages to what they expect to happen in the tote pools. Traditional bookmakers in Australia and UK are almost always quasi-punters as well ie. in similar fashion to Betfair, they lay certain horses very aggressively if they dislike their chances - effectively betting against them. The TAB "bookies" don't have as much room to move in this regard as they are playing with "company funds" rather than their own, so have to be more conservative - ideally producing a balanced book. Maybe politics for you. Nice way to dodge a very simple question. So do you think most of their markets should be priced % wise similarly to the tote? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackSprat 947 Report post Posted October 10, 2017 Yes. Ultimately they should be quite similar. They are after all taking bets on the same horses in the same races. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sickopunter 403 Report post Posted October 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, JackSprat said: Yes. Ultimately they should be quite similar. They are after all taking bets on the same horses in the same races. And they aren't. Did you just join myself, Brodie and Tim Vince's side of the debate? Or at least in terms of the odds on offer.....? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwentY$BilL 29 Report post Posted October 10, 2017 On 10/7/2017 at 2:53 PM, Kotare_Hunter said: Where are you at with this ? What is your next step ? How can Race Cafers get in behind you ? Is Brodie stumped? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise 554 Report post Posted October 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Sickopunter said: Did you just join myself, Brodie and Tim Vince's side of the debate? Everyone would like better treatment of punters. Sure, punters shouldn't be restricted. Some on here just don't get the reasoning behind the argument, an inability to admit some of their reasoning is wrong and an unwillingness to do anything about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Report post Posted October 10, 2017 1 hour ago, TwentY$BilL said: Is Brodie stumped? Why would I be stumped? Brodie is never stumped and that is why he is "always on the money" even though some may say he is not. What I think is far more important than what some on a blog site think! It is not worth my while financially to take it any further, and I don't need the publicity!!! I am just trying to point out to the TAB that their business model for fixed odds and restrictions etc. is seriously flawed and is costing them and the racing industry money. Yield may be up but their profit could be more if they accept change!!!!! Everyone even the ones that have "The Brodster" on know that it is wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kotare_Hunter 748 Report post Posted October 10, 2017 16 minutes ago, Brodie said: Why would I be stumped? Brodie is never stumped and that is why he is "always on the money" even though some may say he is not. What I think is far more important than what some on a blog site think! It is not worth my while financially to take it any further, and I don't need the publicity!!! I am just trying to point out to the TAB that their business model for fixed odds and restrictions etc. is seriously flawed and is costing them and the racing industry money. Yield may be up but their profit could be more if they accept change!!!!! Everyone even the ones that have "The Brodster" on know that it is wrong. Brodlogic defying conventional logic once again LOL Although its nice to see you have ditched that human rights nonsense BackPoonDrinkGoon 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Report post Posted October 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Kotare_Hunter said: Brodlogic defying conventional logic once again LOL Although its nice to see you have ditched that human rights nonsense I beleive I am human Kotare, and I beleive my rights have been discriminated against. The fact that a 24 year old Act doesn't specifically note discrimination of being treated differently from others for being successful is an anomaly and needs inclusion into the Act! Something that you would automatically take for granted that you should not be victimised for!!!!! Maybe if they are reading this they may make an amendment to the Act. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackSprat 947 Report post Posted October 10, 2017 3 hours ago, Sickopunter said: And they aren't. Did you just join myself, Brodie and Tim Vince's side of the debate? Or at least in terms of the odds on offer.....? You're a funny guy sicko! Study the starting prices, fixed and tote. You'll see they are already are very similar! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackSprat 947 Report post Posted October 10, 2017 1 minute ago, Brodie said: I beleive I am human Kotare, and I beleive my rights have been discriminated against. The fact that a 24 year old Act doesn't specifically note discrimination of being treated differently from others for being successful is an anomaly and needs inclusion into the Act! Something that you would automatically take for granted that you should not be victimised for!!!!! Maybe if they are reading this they may make an amendment to the Act. Maybe you wouldn't be so confused if you looked up the definitions of "discrimination" and "business". And just to confuse you a little further - would it be discriminatory to compel a business to deal with a customer they didn't want? If the TAB don't want your business, that's their business. Get over it. Happy Sunrise 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sickopunter 403 Report post Posted October 10, 2017 6 minutes ago, JackSprat said: You're a funny guy sicko! Study the starting prices, fixed and tote. You'll see they are already are very similar! What do you constitute a starting price? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kotare_Hunter 748 Report post Posted October 10, 2017 15 minutes ago, Brodie said: I beleive I am human Kotare, and I beleive my rights have been discriminated against. NO NO NO .... NO ............ NO They have made a business decision and an easily understood decision. Lets just pretend you are a Ginga/Redhead and they refused your bets based on your hair colour then you could have a case. If they refused you based on your skin colour or your religious beliefs I would say you would have a much stronger case. But as far as I am aware they are reducing you because you are too smart for them and they are well within their rights to do that. Happy Sunrise 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Report post Posted October 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Kotare_Hunter said: NO NO NO .... NO ............ NO They have made a business decision and an easily understood decision. Lets just pretend you are a Ginga/Redhead and they refused your bets based on your hair colour then you could have a case. If they refused you based on your skin colour or your religious beliefs I would say you would have a much stronger case. But as far as I am aware they are reducing you because you are too smart for them and they are well within their rights to do that. Doesn't make it right! I still will win with restrictions and yet my restrictions also restrict losing punters from losing more. So I suppose I am a bit of a martyr without knowing it They need to encourage wagering not the other way Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kotare_Hunter 748 Report post Posted October 10, 2017 1 minute ago, Brodie said: I still will win with restrictions and yet my restrictions also restrict losing punters from losing more. WIN / WIN ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise 554 Report post Posted October 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Brodie said: I beleive I am human Kotare, and I beleive my rights have been discriminated against. The fact that a 24 year old Act doesn't specifically note discrimination of being treated differently from others for being successful is an anomaly and needs inclusion into the Act! Something that you would automatically take for granted that you should not be victimised for!!!!! Maybe if they are reading this they may make an amendment to the Act. Reading this? I am pretty certain 'they' have better than things to do than worry about a person who punts on horses, allegedly wins thousands and willingly enters into a trade with a company who offers a service. Albeit, on their terms. Brodie, If you paid $300 to a prostitute for 'a full service' but she didn't give her 'best' because she didn't think you were attractive enough, would you feel your human rights had been violated? Would you go to the Human Rights Commission to get your 'rights' back?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaceCafe News