Call for submissions on Wagering and Betting Licensing in Victoria - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK harm-plan harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Call for submissions on Wagering and Betting Licensing in Victoria - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Call for submissions on Wagering and Betting Licensing in Victoria  (Read 1581 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline turfdeli

  • Group3
  • User 587
  • Posts: 821
O.P. « 2018-Aug-08, 09:30 AM »
For those who are interested.

The Department of Justice and Regulation are seeking the communities views on current and future wagering and betting licensing arrangements in Victoria.

Feedback collected will be considered in the design of the future Victorian wagering and betting licensing arrangements.

A discussion paper setting out information on the current licensing arrangements and associated regulatory framework is now available here. The paper raises issues and questions designed to help you make a submission. You can raise other issues or provide additional information as long as they are relevant to wagering and betting licensing arrangements.

Please note submissions are due by close of business Friday 21 September 2018.

https://engage.vic.gov.au/wagering-and-betting-licensing-arrangements-victoria

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4360
« 2018-Aug-09, 01:05 PM Reply #1 »

WAGERING AND BETTING LICENSING PROJECT

I am interested and have put my hat in the ring.

The theme is a familiar one -- there is a problem with the fair conduct of races and race betting markets. It would be exposed by requiring betting operators,. especially TABs, to include with declared race dividends a couple of summary indicators of the fate of the bets placed by most punters and the converse, big bets placed by others.


SUBMISSION TO DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & REGULATION

                           

Future licensing arrangements for wagering and betting in Victoria, aimed at promoting consumer enjoyment of wagering and betting, would benefit from requiring betting operators to disclose summary indicators of the quality, integrity and fairness of races and race betting.

The recent evolution of the conduct of racing and related betting has unfortunately unfolded in ways that unfairly disadvantage most punters and, similarly unfairly, enrich others unduly.

What has unfolded may have been well intentioned, and only inadvertently unfair, but the situation now prevailing for racing’s commercial interests has hallmarks of ‘institutional corruption’ – corruption of the quality and fair conduct of racing in ways that compromise consumers getting a fair deal.

Put more sharply, there are elements of a de-facto cartel in the (mis)alignment of commercial interests associated with the governance of racing and an apparent subordination of the consumer protection role of the State government.


Are the regulatory requirements for wagering and betting licensees appropriate and ..........if not, what changes could be made to the regulatory requirements for the wagering and betting licensees?

Is the link between racing industry funding and the racing wagering and betting licences appropriate?



Answering these questions NO is addressed with a primary objective of ensuring an appropriate regulatory framework exists.

Unless the fundamentals are sound there are risks to the value of racing to the State and the viability of the Victorian racing industry.


How did this situation unfold?

Those wondering if there is a problem and whether it needs to be addressed might ponder the thought that a truly independent inquiry, akin to the banking royal commission, would very likely uncover things that would disturb the entrenched complacency.


‘rough results’

A starting point is to draw attention to ‘rough results’ routinely characterising the outcome of races run in Melbourne: concise illustrations being ‘lotto like’ and otherwise ‘excessive’ TAB dividends too often declared for First4 and Quadrella bets.

It is a short step back to assess the ‘acceptances’ on Wednesdays and reliably anticipate rough race outcomes on Saturdays. A key to these assessments is the numbers of acceptors, especially when a field is inflated with runners generally considered to have no reasonable expectation of being in the finish.

One can only wonder about the commitment of the racing industry to product quality control – what happens at RVL on Mondays in terms of reviewing race outcomes on Saturday as a guide to the quality of the product presented?


inflated fields

The risk with inflated fields (more than 10) rises when the barrier draw is important -- 1400m races run at Flemington and Caulfield with inflated fields are reliably likely to defy the form guide and the market -- ‘straight races’, inexperienced 2yro and 3yro runners and low-benchmark events, et al, compound the risks with capacity fields.

Inflated fields are conducive to congestion and interference.

Paying ‘prize-money’ down to 10th is one explanation for inflated fields not conducive to a fair race.
The administrators’ quest for capacity fields is only underwritten by having no qualifying filter on eligible runners and then generously covering participation costs for almost all runners.


inflated turnover


The routine conduct of races with capacity fields presumably reflects state racing administrators’ maximizing betting turnover and industry revenue then distributed to their racing industry.

Normally aiming to maximise profit and expand a business is consistent with good outcomes for the community.
This consistency is now eroded in the racing industry. Racing administrators are misusing protected monopoly power against a loyal customer base, one fairly assessed as culturally addicted. This is not fair trading.

As well, ‘too-much racing is never enough’, is not a good mantra for the wider community. The funding model entrenched allows racing to directly raise, and spend, government-protected ‘taxes’ earmarked for racing – this as distinct from industry funding allocations from consolidated tax revenue as a part of normal budgetary disciplines.

Accountability is lacking in the disbursement of revenue taken at the point of a government-gun and earmarked for the racing industry.

My concern is that the racing business model has gone bad – that racing under current administrative management is now ‘institutionally corrupt’.

Unlimited quantity and funding objectives, mocking product quality control, is a formula for a bloated racing industry and too-much racing -- especially ‘unwanted’ race meetings never covering costs.

The wider community would likely benefit greatly from disconnecting betting tax and levy collections from racing industry funding  -- the racing industry should be subject to a separate annual budget allocation for which it would present an open and transparent case for funds and the racing program on which they would be spent.


an unholy alliance

Natural alliances of industry interests ranged against the freight-paying customers are not generally well understood.

Key players, and allies, are state governments; TABs and corporate bookmakers; industry participants (and their ‘agent’ administrators) and captive print, internet and broadcast media, industry-owned or subsidized with racing industry funds.

This allied circle is impenetrable – impervious to sober reflection.

The ringmaster role is played by state governments. Alliances of state governments with racing are political – very welcome, off-budget, flows of city taxes into rural racing communities neutralize the racing vote. Conversely ever less taxes collected by the racing industry end up as consolidated revenue spent on the general community.
Importantly, state government – a normal refuge of exploited consumers -- is compromised about intervening to protect fair play and fair racing.

Nor is any unfairness likely to be investigated and exposed by the industry-owned and otherwise captive media – there is no ‘free press’ serving the punting and wider community about the racing industry. This is no good.

Similarly, owners and connections, likely to be disadvantaged, are largely captive under industry rules precluding ‘disreputable’ remarks. Perversely, most owners and connections may be inclined to favour racing conducive to ‘rough results’ randomly benefiting runners in races likely to be unfair.

Some integrity offences may be reflecting fairly felt but unresolvable grievances. 


corporate bookmakers prefer ‘rough results’


The advent of ‘off course’ bookmakers led to TABs offering ‘fixed odds’ betting. The recent consolidation of bookmaking into fixed-odds TAB options and a couple of local corporates, leaves predators protected.

Corporates offering marginally better odds erode TAB revenue and tote betting pools, taking mug-punter money, invite professional plunder unfairly subsidized by rebates on big-bets.

The current racing gambling environment is not conducive to either fair racing or a fair go for most punters.

Corporates (including TABs) writing ‘fixed odds’ tickets have a strong preference for ‘rough results’ – for ‘taking the lot’.

It is no wonder that corporates sponsor ‘inflated field’ racing and advertise prominently, subsidizing racing media.
This is not a good look at all.


crushed totes and plundered pools


Most punters placing small bets are betting into tote pools – also attracted to tote pools are better informed insiders denied access to fixed-odds bets.

With tote pools as a last resort it is common for smart money coming late to crush dividends paid to most punters.
One illustration of this is fate of the biggest tote pools, especially quadrella bets (the main Melbourne quadrella on Saturdays is typically the most popular bet, nationally).

Coupling a big tote pool on the Victorian quadrella – some $5 million nationally – with the prospect of even one rough result, is an attraction for syndicate betting – large bets ‘covering the field’.

Coupling rough results with big-bet rebates is not a good look either.



take-outs become takealls – and still they bet



It is quaintly nostalgic to recall off-course, government-owned, ‘tote only’ betting operations with overall take-out limited to 16%. This at a time when nomination fees were paid to run in races -- and, mostly, only horses with a chance of placing accepted.

This hardly benign arrangement to begin with has been comprehensively overturned leaving a cultural pastime in disarray and no prospect of relief from transparent exposure of the way it is being corrupted.

TAB punters now have little chance of a winning day on the punt – corporates and syndicates are almost guaranteed to win.

The racing game goes on – apparently oblivious to a revolution leaving TAB punters at a fatal disadvantage.


TAB punters deserve better


However inadvertent the run of events outlined above may have been, things got out of hand nonetheless. Moreover, known to have got out of hand, things went from bad to worse as ‘fixing’ one poor outcome only presaged another.

The industry needs to take stock and restore a fair and sound framework.

It is simply not correct that racing administrators are, or were ever, entitled to corrupt the conduct of races by inflating the fields – covering the costs of runners content with 10th but otherwise only likely to boost turnover unfairly and impairing the chances of horses there to win.

Running big fields in the ‘cups races’ and ‘black type’ events is sometimes problematic -- accepted on the basis that there are entry-costs and qualifying conditions limiting the fields in these races to credible contenders.

The complaint about inflated-field racing is the converse – runners ‘paid’ to inflate fields and boost turnover mainly disrupt race outcomes unfairly. This disadvantages most punters and owners (the ‘punters’ betting most) denied a fair go.

Victorian racing routinely ranks with the worst in terms of the disparity of race outcomes from market expectations. Making form guides irrelevant is no portent of a prosperous future.


 ‘who wins’ and ‘who loses’.


Ideally for each race the publication of TAB dividends would also show a couple of simple % indicators of the fate of different classes of bets placed.

Just what may be eventually agreed as required ‘quality control’ disclosures will benefit from professional advice.
Obviously useful indicators would include the relative fate of bets placed ‘early’ and ‘late’ and for ‘big bets’ and ‘small bets’ and ‘complex syndicate bets’.

TABs would program software to show, for each class of bet, the % of the amount wagered returned as dividends.
Bets placed late and big bets would, sensibly, fare better reflecting market developments and better judgement guiding big bets. The focus is on small bets.

Beyond a pilot scheme, a more general program would bring other bet types into the disclosure ring – including quadrellas offering rebates to syndicate bets.

There would be resistance to such initiatives but, hopefully, pleas of ‘commercial confidence’ would get short shrift against fair-trading concerns.

There would likely be wide support for such disclosures likely to put in train well founded restructuring of racing industry policy in the interests of all committed to fair racing as well as the general community.












Online fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5383
« 2018-Aug-09, 01:45 PM Reply #2 »
Peter,

I explained to you very clearly why big fields give a punter a chance of making a profit - a much much better chance than smaller fields where the chance of market errors is far less.

You have totally failed to show any weakness in my post.

Are you totally incapable of learning?   Are you mentally ill?

That has to be asked given the fact you have gone straight back to decrying big fields....

Fours

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25622
« 2018-Aug-09, 03:08 PM Reply #3 »
Not only is he mentally ill but he’s self absorbed

Yes Peter, we’re not surprised you’ve thrown your hat Into the ring. That’s what you’re about  ;)

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4360
« 2018-Aug-28, 12:49 PM Reply #4 »


Victorian racing: 'no problems' and 'no worries'


Wagering and Betting Licensing Project

........................submission to Department of Justice & Regulation



The submission that opens this thread was passed to Racing Victoria for assessment.

The relevant text of a response from Racing Victoria is:

Your theory that small TAB punters are impacted by inflated field sizes and professional wagering investors has been noted.

Racing Victoria does not subscribe to this theory and is satisfied that the fairness and competitiveness of Victorian racing and associated wagering market meets the highest global standards.

We appreciate you sharing your deeply held views, but suggest we agree to disagree.





Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2563
« 2018-Aug-28, 01:31 PM Reply #5 »
Their response is basically a polite paraphrase of the responses of most on this forum  :whistle:

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25622
« 2018-Aug-28, 04:29 PM Reply #6 »
Now go away Mcfly  :lol:

Offline turfdeli

  • Group3
  • User 587
  • Posts: 821
« 2018-Aug-30, 12:25 AM Reply #7 »
I have deep and new found respect for RVL.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25622
« 2018-Aug-30, 07:47 AM Reply #8 »
It’s clear that they’re aware of Mair and his irrelevant thought farts.
Great to see better minds than his are in charge

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4360
« 2018-Sep-03, 08:05 AM Reply #9 »

............... the highest global standards

                        ....... saw the dividend declared at $165,000 for the quadrella at Caulfield.

The rail was 'out' six metres and there were some 13 starters ion each of the 4 races over 11, 12 and 1400 metres.

There is an explanation for the rough results and one would like to see the review of the day presented to the RVL board.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25622
« 2018-Sep-03, 08:29 AM Reply #10 »
Tell you what, why don’t you review those main quaddy races for us.

Tell us about the way they were run, any unlucky runners or points of interest.

That’s if your capable of doing that in an honest fashion :bulb:

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4360
« 2018-Sep-24, 07:19 PM Reply #11 »



Bid to arrest decline in tote betting

What would Ripley say?

Extracts from an FXJ media report today follow -- this report seems to be lazy journalism reproducing some PR hype from an expanded Tabcorp newly embracing what was the Tatts Bet market.

The media are simply not properly reporting on the racing industry -- most punters are being taken for a ride.

Promises to 'help the punters' always ring loud alarm bells  -- most punters can only linger in fear of 'Longitude pool betting technology' which seems to be a scheme for confusing the tote pools for exotic bets.

The unfortunate decline in basic 'win&place'  tote betting is not hard to understand and I do not believe it is something Tabcorp fixed-odds and the few remaining corporates did not welcome.

The popularity of fixed odds betting created an opportunity for RVL and the corporates to 'not object' when RVL decided to pay appearance money for horses hoping to run 10th or better. They would have applauded.

This was a windfall for everyone bar most punters who are now collectively and routinely exposed to the total loss of their bets placed  -- at least with the tote the 'total loss' was confined to 16% of the pool.

The big winners are the fixed-odds bookmakers -- including Tabcorp -- enjoying cop-the-lot on win and place pools for low grade races run with inflated fields.

............just wait for the royal commission!


Bid to arrest decline in tote betting

Senior racing officials and national gaming giant Tabcorp are growing increasingly concerned about the decline of tote betting, and are ‘‘brainstorming’’ ways to boost its appeal to punters, according to the head of Racing Victoria.

............. Racing Victoria’s accounts for the past financial year reveal a 6 per cent slump in revenue from pari-mutuel betting turnover, which had ‘‘sustained the industry for decades’’. Racing officials said they believed the decline was driven by shifting punter preferences.

................., fixed-odds betting has soared in popularity, partly at the expense of pari-mutuel betting, also known as tote betting.

Wagering revenue at Tabcorp, ..............showed the company’s digital and fixed-odds offerings were major growth drivers. Fixed-odds betting on racing was up 12.7 per cent to $680 million, more than offsetting the decline in tote betting, down 5.2 per cent to $1.04 billion.

‘‘Our focus is on providing customers choice in how they want to bet – whether it is a choice between tote and fixed odds, or retail and digital betting, which is growing rapidly,’’ a Tabcorp spokesman said.

‘‘That said, we are taking steps to improve the position of the tote including the introduction of Longitude pool betting technology. The overall performance of the tote will be also improved by the introduction of TAB tote products into Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory.’’

Officials said they believed the decline was driven by shifting punter preferences.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4360
« 2018-Oct-31, 07:20 AM Reply #12 »


Racing administrators buck-chasing -- something to see here (or nothing)?

2018 has been a big year for cultural confrontations on many on many fronts in Australia -- banking, insurance, superannuation, cricket, rugby to say nothing of not-me-too exposures.

Put differently it seems that at a fundamental level many 'leaders' across the board have lost the plot when balancing 'bad bucks' and 'good behaviour'.

The general impression is that going-for-greed became an infectious mental affliction.

The racing industry made no secret of its determination to 'inflate race-fields' in the expectation of 'inflating betting turnover' and boosting the funding available from the entitlement to clip all betting tickets.

The question to be explored is whether the decision to pay prize-money down to 10th was considered reasonably ethical , either at the outset or, especially, now, in the light of the resulting corruption of the fair running of many races.

I am thinking that the racing industry should itself take stock and reorient its culture.

One big difference with the racing industry is that there is no independent media scrutiny -- rather there is a feeling that the racing media has been compromised by the subsidies paid to publish form guides.

All this is not a good look at all.


Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25622
« 2018-Oct-31, 07:57 AM Reply #13 »
So peter if a Royal Commission happens will you put your hand up to be a contributor?

Offline Wenona

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 175
  • Posts: 7315
« 2018-Nov-01, 08:16 AM Reply #14 »


The question to be explored is whether the decision to pay prize-money down to 10th was considered reasonably ethical , either at the outset or, especially, now, in the light of the resulting corruption of the fair running of many races.


Simply more troll drivel being put forward as fact without any evidence and an inability to engage in any meaningful analysis or debate apart from the continual assertion that because more longer priced horses win in bigger fields (that have more longer priced runners) it iproves the industry is corrupt.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4360
« 2018-Nov-01, 06:18 PM Reply #15 »

Big week coming up


..........tighten the seat belt and bet up.................inflated field racing will be educational.

.............................. check out what happened on Derby day last year --  it was disgraceful

                   https://www.tab.com.au/racing/2017-11-04/FLEMINGTON/M/R/9/Win

The quadrellas paid $7,500 and $2,800  --  'lowest' F4 was $4,600 and the highest $100,000 --the four 'lowest' F4s averaged $6,000 and the four 'highest' (excluding the 100k) $14,000.

.....those that go for broke are likely to succeed.


Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 12209
« 2018-Nov-01, 07:05 PM Reply #16 »
Why does that make it corrupt  :what: and just because you couldn't find it isn't an acceptable answer  :whistle:

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4360
« 2018-Nov-01, 08:22 PM Reply #17 »

How is last year explained?

Its a new year............... Cup week will unfold ......... I hope the favoured horses win.. ...I am thinkin' big.


Online fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5383
« 2018-Nov-01, 08:48 PM Reply #18 »
Peter,

Big fields last year on Derby but the problem for you is that favourites actually won more races than the long term average of 30 to 33%.

Peter 4 favs won from 9 races.

Accordingly Peter you should be campaigning for more big field days given your penchant for favs winning being used as a measuring stick.

Head back in the sand now and deny reality once again is it?

Fours

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25622
« 2018-Nov-02, 07:13 AM Reply #19 »
4s

Mair has ignored those facts for years as they dont suit his arguement

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4360
« 2018-Nov-02, 07:35 AM Reply #20 »

Into the Valley

The more ambitious may like to whet their appetite for Derby day at the valley tonight.

Last year, when fields were affected by scratchings, favourites won 3 of the 8 Valley races -- the quaddie paid $4,000 and the F4s on these 4 races averaged $2,500

.......... the SMH does not even bother to print the fields for the Valley races.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4360
« 2018-Nov-02, 09:20 PM Reply #21 »


Into the Valley  --History repeats

This year the quaddie paid $5,400 and the F4s on the quaddie races averaged $4.000


The more ambitious may like to whet their appetite for Derby day at the valley tonight.

Last year, when fields were affected by scratchings, favourites won 3 of the 8 Valley races -- the quaddie paid $4,000 and the F4s on these 4 races averaged $2,500


Offline Antitab#

  • Group 2
  • User 234
  • Posts: 2109
« 2018-Nov-03, 06:12 AM Reply #23 »
Will be an interesting decision.

It’s a clear tech error because it is the same bet twice.

Online fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5383
« 2018-Nov-03, 01:34 PM Reply #24 »
Hmmm,

White coat guys coming for Peter Mair after 5 races on Derby Day with 5 utterly predictable results by class horses.....

Fours


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap