curious

5 hours ago, mardigras said:

Curious, can you explain more about how he used beaten runners? I may have missed that.

Oops sorry. That's not where I saw that. Right person. Wrong article. Here's an example though. https://blog.betway.com/horse-racing/further-willoughby-analysis-of-the-effect-of-the-draw-on-the-betway-chester-cup/

57 minutes ago, mardigras said:

His primary attribute is that he is of low intellect. It's why he can't understand anything beyond simple. 

Yes, and it appears that none of the remedial classes, holidays with the princess (inflated or deflated), nor any other interventions have worked.

A question though for you and any of the other clever people here. I note that in the James Willoughby articles that I posted there, in the female allowance one he has used Impact value to adjust expected chance for number or runners in each race analysed. Exactly what you and I did when we examined the NZ handicapping data pre and post the rating changes for NZTR. Except that we were able to go a step further by using current ratings as a proxy for ability as well. Something that he wasn't able to do leading to considerable caution in his conclusions.

My question though is that I see in the earlier study on the 3yo allowance, he has used beaten runners to achieve the same thing as the IV. In your opinions is that as accurate a measure/correction for expected chance due to number of runners per race?

For those who missed it.

Might have won if he could have had a claimer on! Be a big chance if he came for the cup.

Too good.

3 Recommendations
3.1 Amend the Racing Act 2003 to establish a single statutory Racing Integrity Board (RIB) to oversee the functions of the RIU and the JCA.
3.2 In consultation with the Racing Board and Racing Codes dissolve the RIU limited liability company and transfer the delivery and oversight of RIU functions to the Racing Integrity Board.
3.3 Establish a funding approval mechanism which enables the Racing Integrity Board to set and Racing Board (or its Wagering successor) to approve integrity budgets from Class 4 Gambling money.
3.4 Transfer responsibility for the management of the contract with the NZRLS, including the provision of capital funds for laboratory equipment, to the Racing Integrity Board.
3.5 Amend the Racing Act 2003 and rules of racing to allow race day admitted charges to be determined by the stewards
3.6 Have all defended charges heard by a centralised JCA panel in scheduled, centralised non-race day hearings.
3.7 Establish specialist animal welfare positions in the RIU to take the lead role in monitoring animal welfare.
3.8 Have the RIU review the relationships with MPI and RNZSPCA and develop formal mechanism (by way of MOU) for appropriate triage of animal welfare investigations.
3.9 Have the racing codes develop an online facility for recording non-race day injuries and veterinary treatment.
3.10 Establish a specialist position within RIU to monitor, investigate and review participant welfare.
3.11 Have the RIU review their confidential hotline and work with the codes to establish whistle blower provisions.
3.12 Have the RIB review the current RIU business processes against the recommendations made in the Stokes review.
3.13 Have the RIB review staff training and development models to ensure appropriate training is delivered and milestones established for career progression
3.14 Have the RIB review RIU organisational structure and staff distribution for optimal effectiveness and efficiency

Yes, sad really. Seems to be talking to himself again too.

I'd say reincarnated as the self appointed expert mardi refers to?

Oh no. They run proper handicaps in some places still? Been a while since we had that here.

10 minutes ago, ngakonui grass said:

Why should you have to pay to basically lose money?

 

For the entertainment?

Besides, I wouldn't call it a pay wall exactly. The above mentioned sports I would say are behind a paywall because they require a subscription. Trackside channels are free to air if you have a sky dish. You can either rent a decoder from sky for $18.70 a month or buy your own for about a hundred bucks. Can't see anyone who can't afford that contributing much to racing turnover.

rugby?

I think Pete nailed it. Thommo silent as well.

1 hour ago, mardigras said:

Went down to 1.14. Might have been worth it at that point.

I part covered at 1.18 so ended up a little ahead. That freaky throw that hit the bat screwed me when I thought I was home for all money!

56 minutes ago, mardigras said:

Pretty easy profit with NZ at under 1.70s. Or stick it out and see what happens as a true NZ supporter (well at least some of it).

Was tempted to cash out at 1.50 but riding it out.

So at least double the expected win rate for both races I'm guessing and he suggests drawing a line through the topweight!

The $400m is a crock of shit and if that's punter losses, probably close to 100 times the real figure. It would be good if a real journalist would investigate these figures instead of blindly accepting them. As you say mardigras, many of us have been circumventing what will become the means of implementing the PoC tax for decades. That is the only way you can bet in some foreign jurisdictions. The betting operators would have no clue that you are not resident in that jurisdiction. What a waste of time and money and complete failure to understand what they are up against here.

I note the NZTAB is generously offering 3.35. That'll be good for turnover though should help margins.

Yeahh I'd say that's overs too and a good set up for the VC trade out strategy. Did I hear that it was already decided we would bat first? Guptill is due for a ton.

Yeahh it was some effort. Definitely a tricky pitch. And yes, the much maligned Guptill the play of the match. Hopefully he can find some batting form in the final.

5 hours ago, mardigras said:

Just to ensure some accuracy. Race field fees may have started earlier in Oz. But for the main players overseas, NZ has already been collecting them for many years.

Do you know what the status of those existing agreements is? Obviously in Oz we know there are existing racefields fees being paid by the TABs, Crownbet, Betfair at least. Are there further agreements in place with major corporates? I know that the NZRB were pursuing those a year ago but haven't seen any updates on that.

I wonder when the MAC final report will emerge. I'm hoping it will include a much more diligent and accurate assessment of the potential benefits of the BIUC and PoC tax.

How they get from that to $1-2m a month is another question. The IRD GST figures suggest that total overseas gambling spend is about $270m. I don't know what portion of that is on racing and sports but I'd guess, say 1/3.... $90m. 10% of that is $9m a year. That's then less collection costs which the DIA estimated at around $5m from memory. That leaves $4m less RITA processing and distribution costs and about half that will be racing's share which to me suggests that $2m a year might be closer and possibly optimistic.

If it's 10% of turnover, RITA will be busy getting the lights turned out fast enough before they cut off the power.

2 hours ago, mardigras said:

POC of 10% is a sure fire way to kill racing. 

Betfair would have to shut down for NZ customers as they couldn't deliver 10% of turnover to NZ. They wouldn't earn anywhere near that and who would bet with them to a commission rate of 30+ % which they would likely need to cater for it.

What is funny about that is that NZ TAB hasn't managed to return 10% of turnover to NZ racing even when they get all the revenue from that turnover. 

Just shut the TAB down and take 10% from other operators. Easy.

The indicated 10% is surely 10% of revenue, not turnover? The MAC suggested 2% turnover didn't they?

The blog site is well named. There is optimism and delusional optimism though.