DISINFORMATION Rules The Day In Racing

rob faux wrote: Spot on Garrick!
The only part that I believe has never been addressed is the fact that when bookmakers offer the open bet,they score hugely over the Tote,in theory.
When the tote declares a return of,lets say R2 (on a R1 stake)it is based on "nett,after take-out" and they distribute 80% of the take-out to stakes,operating costs ,tax etc.
When the bookmaker pays the same amount ,he has effectively pocketed that 80% portion of the take out.(ie it has effectively been removed from the dividend,but not distributed,and therefore retained!)

What's the flaw here? (although the writer does say "in theory"). (Clue: ask yourself why the open bet is good for the punter, and the game? - not that anyone cares).

Mini Tycoon wrote:

rob faux wrote: Spot on Garrick!
The only part that I believe has never been addressed is the fact that when bookmakers offer the open bet,they score hugely over the Tote,in theory.
When the tote declares a return of,lets say R2 (on a R1 stake)it is based on "nett,after take-out" and they distribute 80% of the take-out to stakes,operating costs ,tax etc.
When the bookmaker pays the same amount ,he has effectively pocketed that 80% portion of the take out.(ie it has effectively been removed from the dividend,but not distributed,and therefore retained!)

What's the flaw here? (although the writer does say "in theory"). (Clue: ask yourself why the open bet is good for the punter, and the game? - not that anyone cares).

You can do better than that ...lol......I recognise the defence!
I am more than happy to again debate the flaw,but first you must declare your vested interest in the bookmaking industry so readers don't assume your opinion is neutral or unbiased!

Tigershark wrote: I agree with many of the points of view on this subject but for anyone to believe that a 3% cost for product can sustain owners is naive.

You make a good point, Tigershark, although 'naivete' has nothing to do with it.

There is a fundamental difference in the structure of 'fixed odds' vs 'pooled' (tote) bets which I am sure you are familiar with. Let's use my old favourite - the supermarket - to illustrate the point.

Store A & B are both selling chickens.

Store A (bookmaker) offers a chicken at R25. You deem this to be a fair price so you pay your money and take your chicken.

Store B (tote) is selling 'chicken options' at R25. You pay your R25 and then go to the checkout to await the arrival of the stock. When it arrives (a winning bet) they present you with a drumstick; telling you that a lot of people wanted chickens so they divided what they had amongst all of the applicants who paid their R25. They also remind you that it costs a lot of money to run the store & that they used the first R5 from your R25 to pay for those expenses before they even allocated the chickens.

They then console you by saying that if no one else has wanted chickens at the same time you (hopefully!) would have ended up with the whole consignment.

Shoppers/punters are not complete mugs & WILL SEEK OUT THE DEAL WHICH BEST SUITS THEM. Self interest always rules.

Added to the above is the perception amongst almost all 'shoppers' (ie punters) that the chicken on offer is less than fresh & wholesome. (This site is riddled with examples of the activity being waaaaay short of the transparency and honesty required to ensure that it flourishes ).

Speaking from personal experience I long ago binned racing as an activity that merits a serious financial commitment from me; although I do still have one horse in training 'for fun' [read: I am only prepared to throw away a small portion of my disposable income on activities highly unlikely to be self sustaining].

As I have often stated - I punt pounds on sport & pennies on racing. My sport bets are seldom less than R10k per strike. I would NEVER countenance committing the same figure to a bet on a horse for two reasons;

1.) I am not confident that I have ANY idea as to all of the issues surrounding the activity I am wagering on.

2.) If I back a team to win me R10k I will GET R10k nett if it wins. (Self interest). To the best of my knowledge no team/s have ever come to me whining that they cannot afford to turn up & play because they are underfunded & need to sell their grounds etc.

Uninformed punters have my gobsmacked admiration for placing, say, 10x successive win bets on the tote in one afternoon @ R1000 each in the knowledge that, if the bets are successful or not, they have contributed R2000 towards the running of the sport. That is just way too expensive in my (sole) opinion.

To reiterate, i do agree with some of your points of view but others maybe need some further examination.

The fundamental difference between fixed odds & pooled is that the operators of fixed odds only take out. What a wonderful notion.... fixed odds - we don't pay for the product, horse racing or sport but we make a living off it.

Supermarket A where you get the whole chicken, has no cold chain storage, no certificates or rules.....but hey in this world you actually get 20% more than what you pay for. Sounds more like buying a brand name item at a discounted price made in an Asian country where the workers have no rights and believing that your conscience is clear because you shopped for the best price.

I agree that the operators need to be questioned and things need to change but I am an owner & punter, granted not a big punter, but i want equitable change for everyone.

Imagine for a moment that Fixed Odds operators offered football teams 3% of winning bets to run a game that they can take bets on???? I would love all sports teams to charge Fixed Odds operations 20% of turnover for the rights to hold a book on the game. Believing that you can bet on racing or a sporting event without contributing comes off as parasitic not smart, gambling is not a right its a privilege afforded by legislation and investment by those staging the event to bet on. If a gambler wants a full take out then bet with your mates.

I am yet to find a casino where the parking & drinks are free and every game or machine gives you a 50% chance of winning with no deductions.

The barrier to entry of a fixed odds betting operation is the cost of the license.... I would love Governments to drop that cost altogether and insist on a Credit Guarantee deposit which limits the amount held on total bets equal to the guarantee as the only condition. Imagine an open market where you can get R25 chickens for R20 everywhere with the same freshness & guarantees......
The securing of licenses and the monopoly must have all been done for the love of the game, surely not to turn a profit. I am currently writing to the author of the hit series "The Peeky Blinders" to put a different spin on his series.

I agree with you Garrick, the punter must get full value but to believe that the opportunity to bet & receiving value come at no cost is well ......

But shop B fobs me off when my chicken is rotten.

Garrick i have heard and seen many trying to encapsulate the tote vs bookmaker scenario. You have got it spot on.I am incredulous that the operator of the tote would buy bookmaking rights.Rather make the tote the only place to bet by upgrading facilities and lowering the take out to be competitive.

I absolutely agree with above post,and can only add
Where 2 local meetings run the Jackpot Mixa on those meetings only
If only 1 local meeting get all possible info out to punters ( not french racing where we have absolutely no idea of form)
For all they try,NONE of the presenters have any idea which way they're shunting you

I think the operators biggest fail is that they are hell-bent on trying to get big winners
It just doesn't work that way
More winners more turnaround

A bit off topic but i'm sure thats what the majority of punters want.
To WIN and have another crack at WINNING

It's amazing to me that Phumelela has (somehow) bamboozled punters into believing that it is their (the punters) duty to fund the game, stakes and all.

Punters who play R20 or R100 per race have to worry about horses which cost about R150K on average to buy, and say 7 or 8K per month to train. When you watch a soccer match on tv they should tell you to watch the adverts carefully because ad-spend makes the cash to play the players so many million pounds.

The guy who runs the game drives a Bentley, his bosses are billionaires, but somehow punters are guilt-ed into worrying who is going to pay the stakes or mow the turf. It's unbelievable.

Punters should just worry about the value they get for their money, be it facilities, or service, or returns. Truth is no one gives a shit about you EXCEPT the people who call you customer, and hopefully "sir".

A listed company owns the tote, and they ONLY care about 1 single thing. They ONLY pay the stakes for 1 single reason. They only pay the absolute minimum they think they need to for anything and everything. This is not rocket science, it's business.

They are not our friends, but they need us! The thing is, they got us believing that we need them. Mind you, we are gamblers, drinkers, smokers, or addicts: maybe we do need them?

Tigershark - we must be boring everyone on this site to tears! Lol. But here's my response:

1.) Why does everyone simplistically assume that bookmakers are only parasitic? They offer a SERVICE which clearly appeals to a lot of people as it is well supported. Those very same people are entirely free to support the tote which they clearly prefer not to do for a number of reasons - not least being unexplained dividends, often NIL return on place bets, poor PR skills and overall shoddy service. That's hardly the fault of bookmakers.

2.) Bookmakers don't just operate on a 'have cellphone, will travel' basis. They often operate retail outlets (which they fund in full without crying to their punters), provide significant employment, support the IT providers to a massive degree (a licensing requirement) etc.,

3.) Most importantly they have to carry RISK as they are liable to settle punters' winning bets when their field money on beaten horses/teams may not equal the liability on the winning horse/team.

4.) They are subject to STRINGENT regulation by the various gambling boards who also, by the way, make their living off gambling without 'contributing' anything other than policing to the industry they regulate.

5.) They also did not acquire their infrastructures for free as the operator did.

6.) The only point of departure I have with their activities is insofar as the 'open bet' is concerned. But one must never forget that the open bet owes its existence more to the inefficiency and poor attitude of the tote than any other reason.

I have a number of friends who 'punt big' on horses and they cite the following reasons why they use the open bet :

a.) They seldom encounter difficulties with a bookmaking firm in 'getting on' (unanswered calls, offline system, illiterate & unhelpful staff, errors etc.,)
b.) They know that if they place a large bet into a tote pool they will shrink their own odds. (Self interest!)
c.) Bookmakers provide credit

It's just an entirely different business model............

During the 1990's you might recall that the deduction from a winning bookmaker bet was raised to 12% (6% operator/6% tax). The only effect it had was to throttle revenue from bookmakers to the beneficiaries to a trickle as bigger PUNTERS demanded that bets be struck 'on the side' so as to avoid having fully 12% deducted from their winning bets. When this was later reduced back to 6% revenue from bookmakers quadrupled as PUNTERS were comfortable with the more palatable deduction.

I am prepared to wager (an activity I relish!) that were bookmakers to be outlawed (as many people would like) there would not be a concomitant increase in tote activity on horses; simply because Saftote has never shown an ability or desire to nurture punters.

Given that account holders at Saftote provide a deadly accurate insight into punter habits and betting preferences it is somewhat amazing that we do not yet even have an active loyalty programme! The attitude appears to be - 'Thanks; we'll have a minimum of 20% off every bet you strike and, for the rest, get knotted'. My bookmaker relationships have been somewhat different.........

Instead the operator spends an inordinate amount of time eyeing bookmaker turnovers as if they miraculously manifest themselves out of fresh air. The balance of that time is spent acquiring the selfsame businesses which, if they were really the moneyspinners everyone imagines them to be, have not yet translated into meaningful stakes increases.

The harsh reality of the structure of modern day racing in South Africa is that shareholders and stakeholders make uneasy bedfellows. There is little doubt where the operator's priorities & responsibilities lie. Owners, trainers & punters are simply the lemons from which the juice must be squeezed to ensure the corporation flourishes.

If we are really that dissatisfied then we should buy the shares and not the horses although it might not be that exciting screaming home - 'Go you good thing Phumelela go!

Clearly many people have already reached that conclusion and have left the game. I would be surprised if they were to return so it will be up to the next generations to revive the sport; providing they can drag themselves away from their devices........

Guys i read last year some time that the UK TOTE and bookmakers Levy only contributes about 37% of the prizemoney dished out in the UK

The rest is raised by the Tracks, Sponsorship and owners entry fees

Garrick, being involved in horse racing in SA will bring you to tears...

You make very valid points but one cannot get away from the fact that the take-out on a bookies bet is 6% and this should help fund the game. Why did the punter stop/slow down/move when the take-out was 12%??? Still way less than the tote but nooooo, once again the punter/bookie must contribute as little as possible and get max value. Everyone knows that this business model is not sustainable or it would be used everywhere in the world. Let me think.....is the an international racing jurisdiction that only has bookmakers for the punter with a 3% take-out contribution?

For the record, i am not anti bookmakers per say just anti any betting business, tote included that does not put enough back into sustaining the game. At this stage in SA you have more affluent Bookmakers, Jockey's & Vets than you have trainers who battle daily to make a living and are after all much bigger drivers than the group listed before. You also have much better returns on Phumelela stock, by miles, than you have a stakes pot for owners considering their monthly investment. Something has got to change....

Tigershark - I have just been on the receiving end of an experience which makes interesting reading insofar as service is concerned. And, yes, it does involve a bookmaking business.

On Friday evening I deposited R10k into my Interbet account for a rugby bet I had identified for Saturday morning in the NZ/AUS match.

I was nearly caught out on Saturday morning as the match started earlier than is normally the case in NZ.

To my dismay my account had still not been credited. A somewhat frustrating sequence of events followed which resulted in my missing out on the punt.

I sent a copy transcript of my interaction to Interbet; primarily in the hope that this kind of obstructive service from their online service centre would not be repeated.

I was utterly amazed to receive a call from Barry of Interbet today. He asked me what I had been planning to punt on the match & THEN ADVISED ME THAT MY ACCOUNT WOULD BE CREDITED WITH THE R5K THAT I WOULD HAVE WON. ( Trust me - I was not planning to back Australia).

I was certainly not expecting such a noble gesture; nor had I asked for it. But it does further cement an already cordial relationship that I have with this provider.

I wonder what the response (if any) from Saftote would have been?