The Open bet - help required

I'm not sure of the % involved in Tote Agencies (maybe they get 1.5% or 3% of turnover). I was wondering if the Bookies were offered a preferential rate maybe 4% or higher would they still want the hassle or risk of the open bet. Perhaps Jack, LG, Dev or Pirates could put me straight here. Is there not room for negotiation that would see unification rather than fighting. Obviously then the Betting scroll no longer becomes an issue - Surely by taking a smaller bite of a massive pool would benefit Phumelela and also Racing. Perhaps I am punching above my weight here?

Abc got either 1% or 2% but never got paid,wouldn't mind starting it up again in the future

hibernia Wrote:

---

> Abc got either 1% or 2% but never got
> paid,wouldn't mind starting it up again in the
> future


My thinking is that the overheads of starting a new branch are largely reduced and you have a captive audience already in place so why not give them a bigger slice to ensure you get some of the money that you would not ordinarily get?

mr hawaii Wrote:

---

> hibernia Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > Abc got either 1% or 2% but never got
> > paid,wouldn't mind starting it up again in the
> > future
>
>
> My thinking is that the overheads of starting a
> new branch are largely reduced and you have a
> captive audience already in place so why not give
> them a bigger slice to ensure you get some of the
> money that you would not ordinarily get?


Two words.....greed and power

Really is that simple

Open bets by bookmakers have been around for 50 years.The tab branches in all the small towns only opened in the 70's.
Most of the small bookmakers then closed in the small towns.When Phumelela/Gold Circle changed the goal posts when they insisted a min bet of R6.00 and no verbal bets allowed.The smaller punters left the tote in their droves to the bookmakers,who had no limits to the value of the bet and laid verbal bets.That is nearly 20 years ago.Once you are happy to punt with the bookmaker why would you change.Those players are all 20 years older earning more money so his bet now is say R20 per swinger.
When the bookmakers discussed the issue with P/G they admitted that the cost or running a branch was 7% but they pay their agents 4%,so they make an extra 3%.The punters wonder why the service is so crap in the TAB's but how can you pay better operators when you are getting 4% of your turnover let alone modernise your shop.
Some of the bookmakers agreed to stop laying the open bet or give all the bets to the tote for 7% as they are paying the rent,the staff and the stationery and thats where it stalled.

Ladbrokes and all the big bookies have tote facilities in the UK

I am sure the biggest cash cow is now soccer bets, this is based on my very few visits to bookie/tote outlets, not sure of numbers in rands but based on heads waiting to place a bet.
I stand under correction but "open bet" terminology is based on mostly exotic bets being "sat on" and not going via the operator to establish the ammount of winning tickets to establish the payout , in addition to bypassing the take out

mr hawaii Wrote:

---

> I'm not sure of the % involved in Tote Agencies
> (maybe they get 1.5% or 3% of turnover). I was
> wondering if the Bookies were offered a
> preferential rate maybe 4% or higher would they
> still want the hassle or risk of the open bet.

Things change so it may be different now. A few years ago the deal for an agency came in two flavours: either one made space available and the tote ran the whole show and you got a lesser %, or you ran the whole thing yourself, paid wages, security, electricity etc etc, and you got the bigger %.

Once you paying rent and expenses like wages, what % and turnover do you need to make it viable.
4% on 1 million a month is R40,000
7% on 2 million is 140K

You need plenty staff for 2M. Lets say average bet is R25, that would be 4 transactions per minute/per 10am-8pm.. none stop. manager, assist, tellers, cleaners, security...

The thing is the tote dividend is a derivative of a ave 78% payback to punters, and a bookmaker lives in a 90% payback to punter world. The reason that the open bet is allowed ultimately, is because it's good for the people, the punters. If it were against the public interest to have the open bet, it would never have won.

People like LG, who I otherwise respect, think they have a right to force people to play in a way that ensures they lose more. The courts didn't respect that the bookmakers could do what they liked, they respected that the people can play how they like.

If racing wants to have all the turnover through the tote and beat the open bet, why don't they win the business like everybody in business? Maybe you need a monopoly? Oh wait, you are one. What the punters need now is a price war as in the real market, let the bookies offer tote +5%, force the tote to pay 83% back to be competitive. As it is the bookies pay the 6% tax of the open bet anyway, so they supply the tote a 3% kickback.

(I see Bob posted up similar earlier, but anyway)

Jack Dash Wrote:

---

> mr hawaii Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > I'm not sure of the % involved in Tote Agencies
> > (maybe they get 1.5% or 3% of turnover). I was
> > wondering if the Bookies were offered a
> > preferential rate maybe 4% or higher would they
> > still want the hassle or risk of the open bet.
>
> Things change so it may be different now. A few
> years ago the deal for an agency came in two
> flavours: either one made space available and the
> tote ran the whole show and you got a lesser %, or
> you ran the whole thing yourself, paid wages,
> security, electricity etc etc, and you got the
> bigger %.
>
> Once you paying rent and expenses like wages, what
> % and turnover do you need to make it viable.
> 4% on 1 million a month is R40,000
> 7% on 2 million is 140K
>
> You need plenty staff for 2M. Lets say average
> bet is R25, that would be 4 transactions per
> minute/per 10am-8pm.. none stop. manager, assist,
> tellers, cleaners, security...
>
> The thing is the tote dividend is a derivative of
> a ave 78% payback to punters, and a bookmaker
> lives in a 90% payback to punter world. The
> reason that the open bet is allowed ultimately, is
> because it's good for the people, the punters. If
> it were against the public interest to have the
> open bet, it would never have won.
>
> People like LG, who I otherwise respect, think
> they have a right to force people to play in a way
> that ensures they lose more. The courts didn't
> respect that the bookmakers could do what they
> liked, they respected that the people can play how
> they like.
>
> If racing wants to have all the turnover through
> the tote and beat the open bet, why don't they win
> the business like everybody in business? Maybe
> you need a monopoly? Oh wait, you are one. What
> the punters need now is a price war as in the real
> market, let the bookies offer tote +5%, force the
> tote to pay 83% back to be competitive. As it is
> the bookies pay the 6% tax of the open bet anyway,
> so they supply the tote a 3% kickback.
>
> (I see Bob posted up similar earlier, but anyway)

world of sport...gives u an extra 5% over and above what the tote dividends are anyway....why would i want to take a bet on the tote...besides diluting my payout...as i understand WOS...doesnt take back the tote bets laid

imagine if i stood in a busy tote and laid every tote punter what the wanted...and took it back with MARSHALLS...5%...no risk...on winning bets...probably do a deal with them...giving u back 3% back on all losing bets...wow what a business....food for thought..lol

I will again throw a national exchange into the equation

We can all match our fancies with huge liquidity and the governments takes their chop

scotia Wrote:

---

> I will again throw a national exchange into the
> equation
>
> We can all match our fancies with huge liquidity
> and the governments takes their chop


Dave ,the problem is that the bookies ,who clearly oppose exchanges ,are heard................Saftote who could easily bolt on as a "fixed price tote" and use as a lever against the bookies ,don't understand the concept (trying to have a sensible debate with Rutherford was like trying to swim up a waterfall) .........................and most of the punters who would benefit most,haven't been exposed so also don't understand the benefits of laying /trading,and those that do ,don't have a voice