Racing Sat 21 March

[Hesi]

Strange times ahead, but reasonable racing in NZ and 5 G1's in a row at Rosehill, and something to look forward to and even make a dollar on

Verry Elleegant and Danzdanzdance in the Ranvet

TAS, The Bostonian and the new Waikato Stud recruit Super Seth in the George Ryder

Probably our 2 best male staying 3 year olds, Sherwood Forest and Scorpz in the Rosehill Guineas

Can 3 of our best in recent times, pull off a win in that iconic Aus race the Golden Slipper.  I'm talking about Michael Walker, Trent Busuttin and Natalie Young with impressive Blue Diamond winner Tagaloa

Feel free to put up your thoughts on any race

[mardigras]

Here's my current view on the Slipper. But that market% by the TAB is horrific - regardless of there being emergencies.

Slipper		TAB	mardigras
1	TAGALOA	5.00	8.20
2	HANSEATIC	6.00	4.00
3	FARNAN	5.50	12.50
4	PRAGUE	12.00	21.00
5	KING'S LEGACY	34.00	65.00
7	MAMARAGAN	13.00	22.00
8	AWAY GAME	14.00	10.00
9	DAME GISELLE	9.50	14.00
10	SEE YOU SOON	13.00	50.00
11	MILDRED	34.00	75.00
12	PERSONAL	17.00	15.00
13	MUNTASEERA	51.00	50.00
14	HUNGRY HEART	15.00	80.00
15	CELLSABEEL	19.00	26.00
16	THERMOSPHERE	23.00	100.00
17	RATHLIN	71.00	22.00
18	MINHAAJ	15.00	30.00
19	TIME IS PRECIOUS	71.00	150.00
20	PHILIZZY	101.00	200.00
		136.71	100.33

 

[curious]

Here's my current view on the Slipper. But that market% by the TAB is horrific -

 

Suppose it depends which side of it you are on, though it gets harder to find value in 136% markets

[mardigras]

6 minutes ago, curious said:

Here's my current view on the Slipper. But that market% by the TAB is horrific -

 

Suppose it depends which side of it you are on, though it gets harder to find value in 136% markets

They'll claim that if the emergencies are scratched, they won't cause a deduction, and the market % will be more in line with their usual. But the issue is if a non emergency scratches, an emergency becomes eligible to start and the punter may take a deduction, but the market is effectively unchanged (from the base level).

E.g If the top 16 were set to 125%. And the first emergency was at 10s. If one of the top 16 scratches at say 10s. The punter takes an 8% cut to their price, the top 16 eligible runners are still at 125% without the TAB having to change any prices. Yet all the runners bet on prior to the scratching have now effectively transacted at a lower price - making the effective market % higher than the 125% at that point.

[Freda]

Ffs....there's a reason why some are good at this stuff....and some aren't. 

Do you like poetry?

[mardigras]

To try and illustrate how bad it is that the TAB sets their markets with emergencies like they do (with total disregard for punters), here is a table of market % as they would apply to bets done pre the scratching of #15.

		Opening %	Taken pre scratching %	Current %
1	TAGALOA	20.00	20.88	20.00
2	HANSEATIC	16.67	17.40	16.67
3	FARNAN	18.18	18.98	21.74
4	PRAGUE	8.33	8.70	6.25
5	KING'S LEGACY	2.94	3.07	1.96
7	MAMARAGAN	7.69	8.03	7.14
8	AWAY GAME	7.14	7.46	7.69
9	DAME GISELLE	10.53	10.99	8.33
10	SEE YOU SOON	7.69	8.03	5.56
11	MILDRED	2.94	3.07	1.96
12	PERSONAL	5.88	6.14	5.56
13	MUNTASEERA	1.96	2.05	1.64
14	HUNGRY HEART	6.67	6.96	6.67
16	THERMOSPHERE	4.35	4.54	3.85
17	RATHLIN	1.41	1.47	1.23
18	MINHAAJ	6.67	6.96	11.11
		129.05	134.72	127.35

 

For the remaining runners, the market % at the time was 129.05. Punters that bet into that prior to #15 being scratched - effectively bet into a market of 134.72%. That being the market% of the horses that are actually still in the race right now. Wow. They should hang their heads in shame.

And now it is at 127.35%.13 of the 16 runners have had their price increased or the same from the opening quote (yet they would have had a deduction for betting early). One of the 3 that hasn't at least kept to that price or more, is the extra emergency that now gets a start. 

The whole idea of operating markets is to attract punters, not rip them off completely. This lot deserve what they get. if the government gives them a handout, I'll be well and truly pissed off. They don't deserve to run a betting operation.

[mardigras]

On 3/19/2020 at 1:08 PM, Freda said:

Do you like poetry?

Was that asked of me Freda? I love a bit of poetry. Got a mate that does a bit of live poetry - brilliant with a Guinness or two.

[Hesi]

28 minutes ago, mardigras said:

To try and illustrate how bad it is that the TAB sets their markets with emergencies like they do (with total disregard for punters), here is a table of market % as they would apply to bets done pre the scratching of #15.

 

 

		Opening %	Taken pre scratching %	Current %
1	TAGALOA	20.00	20.88	20.00
2	HANSEATIC	16.67	17.40	16.67
3	FARNAN	18.18	18.98	21.74
4	PRAGUE	8.33	8.70	6.25
5	KING'S LEGACY	2.94	3.07	1.96
7	MAMARAGAN	7.69	8.03	7.14
8	AWAY GAME	7.14	7.46	7.69
9	DAME GISELLE	10.53	10.99	8.33
10	SEE YOU SOON	7.69	8.03	5.56
11	MILDRED	2.94	3.07	1.96
12	PERSONAL	5.88	6.14	5.56
13	MUNTASEERA	1.96	2.05	1.64
14	HUNGRY HEART	6.67	6.96	6.67
16	THERMOSPHERE	4.35	4.54	3.85
17	RATHLIN	1.41	1.47	1.23
18	MINHAAJ	6.67	6.96	11.11
		129.05	134.72	127.35

 

 

For the remaining runners, the market % at the time was 129.05. Punters that bet into that prior to #15 being scratched - effectively bet into a market of 134.72%. That being the market% of the horses that are actually still in the race right now. Wow. They should hang their heads in shame.

And now it is at 127.35%.13 of the 16 runners have had their price increased or the same from the opening quote (yet they would have had a deduction for betting early). One of the 3 that hasn't at least kept to that price or more, is the extra emergency that now gets a start. 

The whole idea of operating markets is to attract punters, not rip them off completely. This lot deserve what they get. if the government gives them a handout, I'll be well and truly pissed off. They don't deserve to run a betting operation.

The TAB is under siege, now even more so, you could hardly expect them adopt that strategy, even though it would attract more punters.

I was hoping to back London Banker again at Tauranga, but they have offered such prohibitive odds, i won't bother.

Is it a policy thing at RITA, or do they just have measly odds setters

[mardigras]

7 minutes ago, Hesi said:

The TAB is under siege, now even more so, you could hardly expect them adopt that strategy, even though it would attract more punters.

I was hoping to back London Banker again at Tauranga, but they have offered such prohibitive odds, i won't bother.

Is it a policy thing at RITA, or do they just have measly odds setters

They follow other sites - as if that is appropriate. They aren't bookies - if they were they would be prepared to risk horses majorly to other providers. The absurdity is they then complain when punters bet elsewhere - all because they do nothing to attract punters themselves. It's very easy to sort this type of market - but they are inept.

[Hesi]

If they follow other sites, then why the need for any bookies in NZ.

The whole purpose of having fixed markets, was to attract the world wide market, which the tote would not be attractive to, because of the low volumes, so if they are following other markets, then those punters would just bet there, not NZ TAB

This whole strategy is ill conceived, as you say, they should have focussed on building the tote volumes

[mardigras]

12 minutes ago, Hesi said:

If they follow other sites, then why the need for any bookies in NZ.

The whole purpose of having fixed markets, was to attract the world wide market, which the tote would not be attractive to, because of the low volumes, so if they are following other markets, then those punters would just bet there, not NZ TAB

This whole strategy is ill conceived, as you say, they should have focussed on building the tote volumes

That's what the $50m betting platform was supposed to do - take away as much hands on to market setting as possible. Using some global market evaluation tools to determine price changes elsewhere to alter prices on NZ TAB (supposedly to avoid them being caught out by being late with price adjustments). NZ prices they may set themselves initially for others to follow, not 100% sure.

The whole shift was ill thought out. Going from being a transaction facilitator (tote), to holding the liability of the transactions (fixed odds). Entirely different skills required, none of which NZ TAB probably has. Which is likely why they went down the path of automating the price setting as much as possible.

And the codes were stupid enough to let them do it.

[Hesi]

10 hours ago, mardigras said:

That's what the $50m betting platform was supposed to do - take away as much hands on to market setting as possible. Using some global market evaluation tools to determine price changes elsewhere to alter prices on NZ TAB (supposedly to avoid them being caught out by being late with price adjustments). NZ prices they may set themselves initially for others to follow, not 100% sure.

The whole shift was ill thought out. Going from being a transaction facilitator (tote), to holding the liability of the transactions (fixed odds). Entirely different skills required, none of which NZ TAB probably has. Which is likely why they went down the path of automating the price setting as much as possible.

And the codes were stupid enough to let them do it.

How could the codes stop them out of interest.

I got the impression, in this accountability dysfunctional model that is the set up of NZ racing, the NZRB/TAB has scant regard for the codes, in fact they are a nuisance, and they do what they want.  Which is why costs have become so top heavy

[Freda]

8 hours ago, Hesi said:

How could the codes stop them out of interest.

I got the impression, in this accountability dysfunctional model that is the set up of NZ racing, the NZRB/TAB has scant regard for the codes, in fact they are a nuisance, and they do what they want.  Which is why costs have become so top heavy

I still think the codes ( bearing in mind that they don't appear to communicate about broad policy- even in these times ) could have influenced the RB - but obviously lack knowledge in that department as well as their own.

A comment on another site about Tim Mills'  $20 bet going on Te Akau Shark shows how little the average administrator really understands about both value and marketing.  Ok, very small bikkies,  but wouldn't you  a)  encourage betting on a NZ race. and b)  support - no, push - your own club ?

 

[mardigras]

8 hours ago, Hesi said:

How could the codes stop them out of interest.

I got the impression, in this accountability dysfunctional model that is the set up of NZ racing, the NZRB/TAB has scant regard for the codes, in fact they are a nuisance, and they do what they want.  Which is why costs have become so top heavy

As Freda mentioned, they would have some influence - and they had representation on the board to at least make their feeling known, if still ignored.

They wouldn't have been likely to properly understand what the risks and outcomes would lead to, as that isn't their core business. And neither was it the TABs. They just thought they play a game of follow the leader.

[Hesi]

So the codes really had no influence, nor as you say, would they have understood the complexities.

It doesn't inspire any confidence in RITA, with the outsourcing of the TAB, that they can put in place a deal that will work for the benefit of NZ racing

[Freda]

4 minutes ago, Hesi said:

So the codes really had no influence, nor as you say, would they have understood the complexities.

It doesn't inspire any confidence in RITA, with the outsourcing of the TAB, that they can put in place a deal that will work for the benefit of NZ racing

Recent events give me no confidence whatsoever that RITA [ as a body ]  has the faintest idea what to do,  or what it is facing.

Don't forget that the Minister instructed RITA to maintain the current level of stakes funding,  so,  obviously,  he has no effing idea either about the state of insolvency it is in.

Do people not talk to each other?  did no one say,  now,  come on, Winnie,  we need a chat about stuff here...cards on the table along with the single malt,  let's sort some shit...?

obviously not.

[Hesi]

22 minutes ago, Freda said:

Recent events give me no confidence whatsoever that RITA [ as a body ]  has the faintest idea what to do,  or what it is facing.

Don't forget that the Minister instructed RITA to maintain the current level of stakes funding,  so,  obviously,  he has no effing idea either about the state of insolvency it is in.

Do people not talk to each other?  did no one say,  now,  come on, Winnie,  we need a chat about stuff here...cards on the table along with the single malt,  let's sort some shit...?

obviously not.

If you have ever worked in a big organisation, it does not work like that.  Everyone keeps their head down, as they want to keep their job.

The simple way to look at it(2019 Annual report)

Nett revenue 348 mil

Total costs    211 mil

Returned to racing  151 mil(81 mil to Thoroughbred)

Excessive costs have been dragging the racing industry down for years now, whatever arrangement is put in place, must return another 70 mil to racing.  That is enough to provide the stimulus needed, such that nett revenue starts to grow substantially.

Forget about all this land grab stuff, until the above is sorted.  Then you have a case to take to the industry about consolidation to improve infrastructure

[Freda]

I've never worked in a big organization,  clearly  - but good and clear communication is lacking across the board in so many places.

My sister works in Qld on resource consent matters....you can bet your left that they would hear her opinions. 

[mardigras]

Yeah, I'm not so sure it's an endemic situation in large organisations. I worked for an organisation with 60,000+ employees. It was expected you would speak up about things that you believed would impact the business.

Maybe more a general government thing where often the focus isn't on profitability.

[Hesi]

Strong, fair and highly accomplished leadership help, and I can't recall going back over the years, anyone in NZ racing that fits this criteria.

Maybe this Dean McKenzie will break the mould

[Freda]

28 minutes ago, Hesi said:

Strong, fair and highly accomplished leadership help, and I can't recall going back over the years, anyone in NZ racing that fits this criteria.

Maybe this Dean McKenzie will break the mould

Now you are taking the piss.

[Hesi]

Well it doesn't say much about the the system of governance in NZ racing, if no one can put their hand up and make meaningful change, and there have been some very skilled business people involved over the years who have been very successful.

Perhaps that is the problem

[mardigras]

In my opinion, it's largely because the type of business does not follow the usual models. Take for example the way they decided to do tote based rebates. That was entirely based on thinking the highest volume customers are your best customers. (Like what would be typical of a standard retail business). But that is the simplistic view - and even in standard retail, the view is inaccurate.

In all business, your best customers are typically the ones that contribute to your profit the most. In standard retail, they are often your biggest customers volume wise (but doesn't have to be the case).

In a betting business such as the TAB, as sad as it is, your best customers are the ones that lose the most with you. Those are the ones you want to try and keep.

You see it first hand with the corporates who ban/restrict punters that win off them - irrespective of their volume. Because as a customer, they are not important to their profitability.

And now we have fixed odds through the TAB, you can see they seem to understand that volume isn't the important ingredient, profit is. Which is why they now will restrict punters that win fixed odds. What's the difference - the difference being they can understand that they carry the liability/risk side to the transaction, whereas in tote betting, they believe they carry no liability/risk. (Even though they do).

While all markets generally carry a degree of not being totally discrete, compared to most selling environments, betting markets have a lesser degree of being discrete. i.e. most selling markets are more discrete than what betting markets are.

So why do they understand profit in one scenario and totally lose sight of it, in the other scenario. I can only guess it is because they aren't as smart in this line of business as they may be in others - or that lack of understanding doesn't shine through as easily in other types of marketplace as it does in this type.

Compare the approach of the TAB say, with the exchanges. On the exchange, when they were delivering things like commission discount, the more you paid the exchange in fees, the bigger the discount (up to a point). (You're contributing more to the business, they want to keep you doing so).

BUT when you are getting to the point where your performance may be having a negative impact on other customers (through winning), they charge you more, not give you more. That is because they understand the markets are not discrete - and a punter winning continually means others are losing - and that can impact the ability of those others to interact with the exchange over time. 'Over time' being the key here.

You ask someone at the TAB about this, and you will get a blank stare.

Edited March 21, 2020 by mardigras