THANKS TELLYTRACK

It has become a Tellytack tradition to disrupt Cheltenham. At least they are consistent!

Today we had the first race interrupted at the three quarter stage to inflict us with a soupmeat sprint from Kranji.

I understand all the usual propoganda about giving priority to South African racing but Kranji? I don't think so.

I would be prepared to wager that there was more local money staked on the Cheltenham event so I would be absolutely fascinated to hear the rationale behind the decision - particularly as the Kranji event was slightly delayed whilst the Cheltenham race started on time.

I am beginning to wonder if there are not additional financial incentives involved as Tellytrack seems to make every effort to place almost all UK racing last in the queue when other venues are involved.

Whatever the reasons the decision makers at Tellytrack seem unable to differentiate between a Grade 1 race and an egg and spoon event. Which is probably why they work there!

We can trust Garrick to call a spoon a spoon.

They are advertizing for a presenter Garrick,how about it then?

I am afraid Garrick and myself do not meet the criteria, between 20 and 30 and good looking?
One point to mention is that the studio are trying very hard to ignore SP its all tote related and the "blind tote" meetings get preference?
It would appear its just the number and the tote dividend that get pushed, not even the horses name or official SP are of interest?

"Casino style betting" "a new betting opportunity every couple of minutes". I have some thoughts on this but will post separately. Just need to give it some thought and use a good angle to justify why this aproach is wrong.

Can anyone point me to where I can find information on tote turnovers pre casino style and post casino style Tellytrack.

I am also interested to learn about income flows as far as the 2 operators are concerned. I.e. Is income earned on a Gold Circle tote paid to GC or is there a cost paid to P in the event of a P race meeting or overseas meeting. I have asked this before but did not get an answer.

I do understand that the money lands in a single tote pool, I just wonder how turnovers are determined between the 2 operators, who contributed what to the pool and if there is an exchange of money between operators when the opposing operator is hosting the meeting.

Agree with some of the comments.
Last week there was so many repeat adverts relating to this festival,then the interruptions!

Morning Al, cant answer all the questions, but found this on Phemelela site.

Phumelela: Bet TAB/Back Racing

It’s often said that horseracing in South Africa would thrive without fixed-odds betting and an analysis of how much more bets placed on the tote contribute to the sport, as opposed to fixed-odds bets with bookmakers, shows why. To cut a long story short, prize money for races in Phumelela regions would increase dramatically if the money currently wagered with fixed-odds operators was bet on the tote instead!

Put another way, if the money currently wagered on the tote was bet with fixed-odds operators, horseracing would have to close its doors.

Fixed-odds betting has an obvious appeal for horseplayers in instances in which a fixed price is obtained about a runner that then shortens significantly in the betting. By and large, however, tote payouts compare more than favourably with starting-price returns from fixed-odds bets and the bottom line is that every rand bet with a bookmaker instead of the tote hits owners where it hurts – in their pockets!

Every R100 bet on the tote in Phumelela regions yields R20 on average for horseracing, of which about R6 goes directly into stakes in terms of an agreement between Phumelela and the Racing Association, which represents owners in Phumelela territory.

By comparison a R100 fixed-odds bet with a bookmaker yields R2.70 for horseracing. This assumes a 10% profit for fixed-odds operators with them retaining R10 of every R100 wagered with them. Of the assumed R90 left over, R84.60 is returned to horseplayers with R2.70 to horseracing and R2.70 for provincial taxation.

Let’s look at the post-race distribution of the money from a R100 bet on the tote in Phumelela regions:

Returned to punters: R76.00
Provincial tax (average rate): R 2.00
Vat: R 2.80
Stakes: R 6.00
Phumelela: R13.20

Of the R13.20 accruing to Phumelela, only some 4% (50c) translates into bottom-line profit for the company. This is because of the costs of maintaining racing facilities, conducting race meetings and operating a tote network. These expenses collectively amount to R12.70 of the R13.20 accruing to Phumelela from every R100 bet on the tote.

The breakdown of the R13.20 is as follows:

Staging race meeting: R 3.50
Betting operations: R 6.00
Head office expenses: R 1.70
Product Royalties: R 1.50
Profit: R 0.50


A variety of expenses are incurred staging a race meeting. These range from maintaining a database for the dissemination of information about runners to punters (without which minimal betting would take place) and the maintenance of training centres, racetracks and racecourse facilities to the transport of horses to and from race meetings, marketing, security and contributions to the National Horseracing Authority to enable them to regulate the sport and ensure that races are run according to the rules.

Betting operations’ costs include capital and maintenance expenditure for the computerised tote betting system, the rental, maintenance and operation of the network of TAB branches, telephone betting centres and an online betting site, as well as commissions to TAB agencies.

It is estimated that some R7 billion is bet on horseracing nationally every year with R2.8 billion being wagered on the tote in Phumelela regions in 07-08. This yields some R560 million for horseracing of which R160 million flows into stakes at Phumelela racecourses.

Assuming that fixed-odds betting turnover in Phumelela territory is R1.4 billion (50% of the tote betting turnover), it’s easy to calculate what would happen if that money was wagered on the tote instead. Horseracing would get some R280 million annually, instead of the R38 million it receives from fixed-odds betting currently, and stakes at Phumelela racecourses would rocket by some R80 million- a 50% increase!

What is even more damaging for horseracing currently is that many bookmakers are laying the “open bet”. Put simply, a punter takes a tote bet with a bookmaker, say a Swinger or a Trifecta. The bookmaker does not place the bet on the tote, but holds the money and pays the punter the tote dividend if the bet wins. The odds are not fixed at the time the bet is struck, hence the term “open bet”.

Given the average return of R76 for every R100 wagered on the tote, a bookmaker retains R24 of every R100 in open bets. Of the R76 left over, R71.44 is returned to punters with R2.28 for provincial tax and R2.28 to horseracing, which would get R17.72 more if the R100 had been wagered on the tote.

The message is clear – owners seeking higher prize money and those who love the sport need to think twice before betting fixed odds or taking open bets with fixed-odds operators

'... and those who love the sport'

An interesting phrase,considering P is certainly not about loving the sport but maximizing turnover!

SA racing sad to say is being mismanaged and in an economic downturn can be ill afforded.
Small Trainer/Owners etc will start disappear at an Increasing rate.

sylvester the small trainer owner breeder has begun disappearing already,but then again some expert on here will tell you that the game has never been healthier and more owners now than ever before

Thanks Scotia lots of info and lots of omissions. Of the 7 Billion wagered there must be quite a chunk of change being wagered on overseas racing. No costs involved in terms of staging races. Add R3.50 back on for overseas racing less whatever royalties need to be paid to overseas operators. I bet after royalties still way cheaper than staging a race. Hence the move to have this on every 2 minutes a larger portion of turnover being syphoned through overseas racing.

The GC and P relationship with regards to income is what I am really interested in. This article if I am reading it correctly suggests that GC is earning similar income to P.

Those that know probably think that I am grabbbing at straws - absolutely. No info available anywhere