NZTR Directions paper

[Hesi]

I presume then you would be replying to that question, with the supporting data, which I know both you and Mardi will have

[curious]

3 minutes ago, Hesi said:

I presume then you would be replying to that question, with the supporting data, which I know both you and Mardi will have

It's highly unlikely I will bother replying to anything. I'm struggling to even read this. Any reply seems certain to fall on the same deaf ears (or new ones).

[curious]

Twilight racing is a great idea as is AWT racing but it won't make NZ punters lose any more than they are willing to do now. It may shift where they lose it, that's about all.

[Hesi]

Surely if you have data that shows higher end stake increases will not increase turnover, as I know you have(Mardi as well), you are obliged to forward it to them

The Aotearoa Champions Day @200K for all races, may eventually mean a higher % of good horses are retained to race in NZ for longer, and that may entice more interest in from the better public here and overseas, but as you say, no point if it does not increase NBR

 

[curious]

18 minutes ago, Hesi said:

Surely if you have data that shows higher end stake increases will not increase turnover, as I know you have(Mardi as well), you are obliged to forward it to them

The Aotearoa Champions Day @200K for all races, may eventually mean a higher % of good horses are retained to race in NZ for longer, and that may entice more interest in from the better public here and overseas, but as you say, no point if it does not increase NBR

 

I don't see how it can possibly increase NBR. It will just increase the cost of achieving the same NBR or shift the cost from grassroots funding. We don't need more better horses retained here to stage competitive and viable wagering events.

I only have the same data that NZTR have and have had for decades but they now propose to do more of the same that got NZ racing into the perilous position that it is. They are even proposing a Heritage racing scheme to maintain stakes levels for races like the Telegraph and Thorndon should they lose their Group status. These are exactly the races that are already grossly overfunded on an NBR basis.

Edited October 24, 2021 by curious

[mardigras]

1 hour ago, Hesi said:

Surely if you have data that shows higher end stake increases will not increase turnover, as I know you have(Mardi as well), you are obliged to forward it to them

The Aotearoa Champions Day @200K for all races, may eventually mean a higher % of good horses are retained to race in NZ for longer, and that may entice more interest in from the better public here and overseas, but as you say, no point if it does not increase NBR

 

If higher stakes are aimed at improving horse retention, then that should be the goal. (unlikely to work based on past experience)

I don't have any current evidence re stakes increasing turnover - as since the shift has happened to fixed odds, there is no information about the revenue generation of the individual events.

But on the basis, that the tote was indicative of interest in times gone by, then the returns from higher stake events is so far out of proportion to lower stake events, it is not funny.

Here is what things were like a number of years ago when tote was still ahead of fixed odds betting. Make your own mind up. (The pools are total including exotics and are including comingled totals with Vic).

from an average stake 0f 7.5k, when you multiplied the stake by 10, the pool tripled. But the gross revenue went from double the stake to just over half the stake. So from a gross revenue perspective, you went from being ahead to being well behind.

(This paints a better picture than actual - since the gross shown is inclusive of the Vic TAB betting which was around 45-50% of the total - and NZ TAB did not receive the commission on that betting, but a small fee on turnover).

If you do the same exercise for Australian races, the pool/stake column stays the same at all levels, because the stake reflects the interest from a punting perspective. That is not the case here and has become worse with the advent of tiered racing.

 

[mardigras]

In fact, the data suggests our bottom level should be around 1/3rd of our top level. If the top is 100k, the bottom is 30k. Probably unaffordable - so make the bottom 20k and the top about 70-80k (maybe a few Group 2s or Group 3.) No Group 1s, none of the races are Group one level on an international assessment. Reduce the number of races to around 2000 and look to use NZ as a nursery to better jurisdictions (it is now anyway).

[curious]

As Mardi says, it's impossible to extract the relevant NBR data for individual events. Any requests, all you get is documents with even publicly available figures redacted. How NZTR could put out a consultation document with questions such as the above and expect any intelligent informed feedback from stakeholders without providing the relevant wagering data supporting the idea or otherwise is beyond my comprehension and beyond any normal and usual business practice I have encountered.

[curious]

32 minutes ago, mardigras said:

If higher stakes are aimed at improving horse retention, then that should be the goal. (unlikely to work based on past experience)

I don't have any current evidence re stakes increasing turnover - as since the shift has happened to fixed odds, there is no information about the revenue generation of the individual events.

But on the basis, that the tote was indicative of interest in times gone by, then the returns from higher stake events is so far out of proportion to lower stake events, it is not funny.

Here is what things were like a number of years ago when tote was still ahead of fixed odds betting. Make your own mind up. (The pools are total including exotics and are including comingled totals with Vic).

from an average stake 0f 7.5k, when you multiplied the stake by 10, the pool tripled. But the gross revenue went from double the stake to just over half the stake. So from a gross revenue perspective, you went from being ahead to being well behind.

(This paints a better picture than actual - since the gross shown is inclusive of the Vic TAB betting which was around 45-50% of the total - and NZ TAB did not receive the commission on that betting, but a small fee on turnover).

If you do the same exercise for Australian races, the pool/stake column stays the same at all levels, because the stake reflects the interest from a punting perspective. That is not the case here and has become worse with the advent of tiered racing.

 

And now, with FOB making up more than half the turnover, the pool to stake figures are likely much worse given the historic NBR on FOB (back when we could get those figures) was in the 2-12% range p.a.

[Porky]

Sorry guys I am  ignorant of the stakes V turnover figures and my comments are based only on a good day at the races (few and far between these days)

Covid or no Covid...I don,t know how they managed to get away with the on course crowd @ the Everest, (mostly young)...BUT good on em !

NZ Racing couldn't run a piss up in a Brewery...Covid or no Covid !

My 21 y.o daughter wanted me to shout her into the $80 Party Tent for youngsters @ the recent HB Spring Carnival...(Livermol Day)

which her and friends attended previous years (put in the too hard basket & refunded ) 

Granted, as far as punting is concerned,, the majority of em are just there to get pissed, BUT 

as for the normally large Public Crowd, I assumed large sections of the Public Stand would be sectioned off (similar to Rugby).

Forgive me for being so assuptious and Ignorant of Health and Safety Policies...OR do Covid rules make it all to hard ???  

 

[curious]

Porky, I'm struggling to see what any Covid restrictions for on course crowds have to do with the above NZTR proposals.