Author Topic: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate (Read 18065 times)

jfc · « 2018-May-26, 04:51 PM **Reply #50** »

While you persist in sprouting rubbish I have every right to call it that.

Nothing ambiguous about the government paying for Kickbacks.

No idea what your questions are supposed to mean.

NSW pays up to $130 million (from memory) to finance Kickbacks.

And a significant portion of that ends up in a tax haven!

PoisonPen7 · « 2018-May-26, 05:00 PM **Reply #51** »

Quote from: jfc on 2018-May-26, 04:51 PM

While you persist in sprouting rubbish I have every right to call it that.

Nothing ambiguous about the government paying for Kickbacks.

No idea what your questions are supposed to mean.

NSW pays up to $130 million (from memory) to finance Kickbacks.

And a significant portion of that ends up in a tax haven!

No attempt to answer my questions. Thought so.

Stop parroting what other people are saying without having an understanding of the subject matter.

When you "NSW pays $130 million" are you referring to the taxpayers? Or is this another of your specialty ambiguities. What does "NSW" mean specifically in that sentence. What is your source of this information?

jfc · « 2018-May-26, 05:06 PM **Reply #52** »

Go forth and multiply yourself.

PoisonPen7 · « 2018-May-26, 06:19 PM **Reply #53** »

Quote from: jfc on 2018-May-26, 05:06 PM

Go forth and multiply yourself.

I finished my "multiplication" 17 years ago mate

Another "non answer" to two questions that I think are pretty straight forward.

jfc · « 2018-May-27, 07:44 AM **Reply #54** »

Quote from: PoisonPen7 on 2018-May-26, 11:52 AM

But the thing here is that we are talking about parimutuel totalizators.

For everything that firms something must ease. You guys seem to ignore this fact in all your talk.

So the punter looking for a bit of value can often find it on the tote while all the "smarties" are pouring all their money into favourites.

They don't always win.

You guys consistently seem to ignore these mathematical ambiguities when they are raised. Can someone be brave enough to tackle this fact and explain it to us all in clear mathematical terms?

Wrong!

Contingencies can firm without anything else easing!

And I have not ignored it. I contradicted it to expose it for the garbage it is.

It is something a mug in short pants might claim.

And it is insane to suggest punters can find value when something firms.

Way too often contingencies firm after the jump.

And furthermore Zeljko has effectively testified his strategy of turning everything into Unders!

Favourites don't always win? Wow! Worked that out all by yourself!

Nearly every word is ambiguous. My word it is!

Mathematics typically is not.

Non-Tasmanians donating over $60 million to Tote Tasmania is pretty clear cut to me.

wily ole dog · « 2018-May-27, 08:04 AM **Reply #55** »

Quote from: PoisonPen7 on 2018-May-26, 04:22 PM

You have made zero attempt to answer my question apart from the ambiguous sentence

"And the government pays for the rebates!"

So my understanding of the rake is that (say) they take 15% out of a Win Pool that part of this goes to the operator (TAB), and the rest goes to the Government who redistributes some of that to the race clubs.

Q: Are you saying that it is incorrect?

Secondly,

Q. Are the rebates paid from the TAB rake, or from both the TAB rake and the Government rake (assuming the first question is answered).

Can you please create a post that just answers those two questions please.

Thanks.

Seems a reasonable request

jfc · « 2018-May-27, 08:52 AM **Reply #56** »

The questions are dumb and impertinent.

If the party of the first part genuinely wants answers the party of the first part should part with such stunts and instead partake in some research.

fours · « 2018-May-27, 09:08 AM **Reply #57** »

Hmmmm,

I have been a little cranky lately in that we are seeing odds shorten well after the jump more often lately - even as they cross the line and sometimes AFTER they cross the line.

Is the Z man being 'trusted' to close off before the jump?

Maybe its nothing to do with him but rather that we have another TAB employee doing the wrong crooked thing once again.

Fours

jfc · « 2018-May-27, 09:23 AM **Reply #58** »

I think that these days Tabcorp at Granville controls closing of pools so no one in Australia can circumvent TAB NSW.

But who knows what goes on at the Isle of Man or at a Typhoon hub?

And imagine the situation at a Perth racetrack, When a customer gets a ticket has his bet gone through the track to WA control then Supertab and all the way back?

If not then there is scope for skulduggery.

PoisonPen7 · « 2018-May-27, 10:52 AM **Reply #59** »

Quote from: wily ole dog on 2018-May-27, 08:04 AM

Seems a reasonable request

They are reasonable questions and notice that we never get an answer. It is like Groundhog Day with him

In the opening piece of the Zejlko thread is a single unassuming sentence paragraph that is so important to understanding all this:

Industry talk has him employing anything from 30 to more than 100 staff just to analyse form.

If he had this method of certainty whereby he could just win every time he bets because of the rebates why would he be employing form analysts?

What is a more likely scenario is that he uses his rebate combined with form analysis to eliminate no hopers to reduce his market to under 100% and then applies bets on the remaining runners so he cannot lose.

The percentage points would be small but under scale they would add up to a high net figure per race.

However there is some risk. He must cop the occasional situation where one of those eliminated bobs up. But if the sum won on the winning races exceeds the sum lost on the occasional race then he is in front.

The rebates can only be paid from the TABCorp part of the rake meaning that mathematically it is impossible to back every runner on a totalizator and win every race even if you are getting a rebate.

There is more work involved and more risk to overcome than what people are suggesting. Blind Freddy should be able to see that even his plays on large Keno jackpots have a risk involved i.e. some little old lady from the Ettalong Bowling Club might jag 10 out of 10 on Keno while he is betting big into the pool.

As I said, if there is no risk involved then why is he employing so many people to do the form? Basically I would think he is doing Don Scott/Pittsburgh Phil with a rebate to help improve the percentages in his favour.

jfc · « 2018-May-27, 12:01 PM **Reply #60** »

Quote from: PoisonPen7 on 2018-May-27, 10:52 AM

The ~~rebates can only be paid from the TABCorp part of the rake~~ (wrong in so many ways)meaning that mathematically it is impossible to back every runner on a totalizator and win every race even if you are getting a rebate.

With Kickbacks it is quite possible to back the field and be guaranteed a win.

Merely cherry pick the 3 Totes. And through W, P, Q, X, T, F4, etc, etc, etc.

PoisonPen7 · « 2018-May-27, 12:08 PM **Reply #61** »

Quote from: jfc on 2018-May-27, 12:01 PM

With Kickbacks it is quite possible to back the field and be guaranteed a win.

Merely cherry pick the 3 Totes. And through W, P, Q, X, T, F4, etc, etc, etc.

So why does he need a team of 30-100 form analysts then if it is "so easy"?

Are you seriously challenging my statement that the rebates come from the TABCORP take by giving an example of betting on different totes thus implying that if he gets a rebate off WA TAB this somehow makes my statement false? Talk about sentence parsing!!

jfc · « 2018-May-27, 02:16 PM **Reply #62** »

"Possible" is significantly different from "easy".

Now if the impossible now happened and Kickbacks were eliminated and the playing field became completely level then Zeljko would have to pull his horns in and cut his contingent of quants.

Then far more punters would have winning runs and participate more. Real Turnover and associated industry benefits could even improve.

Your last paragraph is incredibly stupid, and particularly woeful parroting.

pegasyber · « 2018-May-27, 02:22 PM **Reply #63** »

Mcilwaine said the payment of rebates strips the TAB of it's profit, while another TAB executive stated that Rounding was essential to cover the payments of rebates and was usually enough to cover their cost. Not sure if rounding amounts are covered in what is termed as Rakes, but they would form what is part of business profits. Rebates are probably covered by regulation if they are not covered in TAB enabling legislation and are consequently thought to be legal.
Kickbacks are a different thing in that they are held to be illegal either to offer or to receive. When P.M. eventually gets his Royal Commission into Racing it will cover the financial operations of the TAB, and then their legality would be clarified and tested.
As to whether either are held to be fair under ACCC "Fair Trading legislation ", which they would probably not be seen to be Fair for about 99% of punters, is another matter. Not sure if that has ever been tested.

Bubbasmith · « 2018-May-27, 04:23 PM **Reply #64** »

Quote from: jfc on 2018-May-27, 02:16 PM

"Possible" is significantly different from "easy".

Now if the impossible now happened and Kickbacks were eliminated and the playing field became completely level then Zeljko would have to pull his horns in and cut his contingent of quants.

Then far more punters would have winning runs and participate more. Real Turnover and associated industry benefits could even improve.

Your last paragraph is incredibly stupid, and particularly woeful parroting.

No doubt far more punters would participate if kickbacks were eliminated. From my long experience of betting on overs in high roller rooms in NSW, VIC & on the Gold Coast I can assure any doubters most, if not all, punters who frequented those rooms no longer bet on "overs" as "overs" no longer exist. One might argue, rather than bet on course those same punters still bet on computers from their home,if that was the case, they would no longer be reliant on getting "overs" and would only survive if they have changed their previous modus operandi.

The elephant in the room : Would Tabcorp rather get a "net" 5% of Z's billions in turnover or 15% of a lesser turnover of a bigger pool of punters ?.

PoisonPen7 · « 2018-May-27, 05:07 PM **Reply #65** »

Quote from: Bubbasmith on 2018-May-27, 04:23 PM

The elephant in the room : Would Tabcorp rather get a "net" 5% of Z's billions in turnover or 15% of a lesser turnover of a bigger pool of punters ?.

That question makes a couple of assumptions, and forms the basis of my questions.

Assuming 15% takeout of a Win betting pool:

Q1. Does TABCORP get the entire 15%? I don't think they do. Even if they did they would have to subtract the annual amount they pay the NSW Govt. for the right to operate a totalizator making the real figure much less than 15%.

Q2. It assumes that they rebate two thirds of their take. Is that a known and correct figure?

Why is he employing 30-100 form analysts if this is as easy as logging on, running the program, having your bets and collecting a profit?

Does anyone know the answers to these questions definitively?

I think the rebates mitigate his risk but do not eliminate it entirely, based on the fact he has to employ form analysts in the first place.

bascoe · « 2018-May-27, 05:10 PM **Reply #66** »

Quote from: stiffarm on 2018-May-25, 12:08 AM

Agents betting on behalf of large groups on TAB fixed odds via retail agencies has been happening for years but surely it’s not a sustainable business model? How much longer are retail agencies going to last for?

Tried to send you a pm but your mailbox is full

Sent from my iPhone using Racehorse Talk

bascoe · « 2018-May-27, 05:25 PM **Reply #67** »

Quote from: PoisonPen7 on 2018-May-27, 05:07 PM

That question makes a couple of assumptions, and forms the basis of my questions.

Assuming 15% takeout of a Win betting pool:

Q1. Does TABCORP get the entire 15%? I don't think they do. Even if they did they would have to subtract the annual amount they pay the NSW Govt. for the right to operate a totalizator making the real figure much less than 15%.

Q2. It assumes that they rebate two thirds of their take. Is that a known and correct figure?

Why is he employing 30-100 form analysts if this is as easy as logging on, running the program, having your bets and collecting a profit?

Does anyone know the answers to these questions definitively?

I think the rebates mitigate his risk but do not eliminate it entirely, based on the fact he has to employ form analysts in the first place.

I can answer the second part of the question- it is certainly not a matter if logging on and betting - then winning off the rebates- the first part of the equation is knowing what bets to make and that is where the form analysis comes in - if you work for humbleton doing form you have no say what you will be working on - could be Swedish harness racing or Japanese motorboats

Sent from my iPhone using Racehorse Talk

PoisonPen7 · « 2018-May-27, 05:31 PM **Reply #68** »

Quote from: bascoe on 2018-May-27, 05:25 PM

I can answer the second part of the question- it is certainly not a matter if logging on and betting - then winning off the rebates- the first part of the equation is knowing what bets to make and that is where the form analysis comes in - if you work for humbleton doing form you have no say what you will be working on - could be Swedish harness racing or Japanese motorboats

Sent from my iPhone using Racehorse Talk

Thank you Bascoe. You are the very first one (after years of trying) to answer my question.

That is what I thought.

However some post here like all he has to do is turn up and collect a rebate to be guaranteed a win.

They bet on Japanese motor boats

bascoe · « 2018-May-27, 05:34 PM **Reply #69** »

Quote from: PoisonPen7 on 2018-May-27, 05:07 PM

That question makes a couple of assumptions, and forms the basis of my questions.

Q2. It assumes that they rebate two thirds of their take. Is that a known and correct figure?

When tastote was giving away money we were getting about 8-10% which was the biggest of all the Australian tabs at the time- as noted earlier the Tatts ceo called it a race to the bottom as tastote bled their take to pay the rebate and the biggest punter had extra special deals in place

Their books showed I think about a billion in t/o but only about 1 million in profit so the rebates certainly came from their end - all the regular punters and citizens of Tasmania got short changed big time

Sent from my iPhone using Racehorse Talk

PoisonPen7 · « 2018-May-27, 05:40 PM **Reply #70** »

Quote from: bascoe on 2018-May-27, 05:34 PM

When tastote was giving away money we were getting about 8-10% which was the biggest of all the Australian tabs at the time- as noted earlier the Tatts ceo called it a race to the bottom as tastote bled their take to pay the rebate and the biggest punter had extra special deals in place

Their books showed I think about a billion in t/o but only about 1 million in profit so the rebates certainly cone from their end - all the regular punters and citizens of Tasmania got short changed big time

Sent from my iPhone using Racehorse Talk

When you say that the "citizens" of Tasmania got short changed, the Tas Tote was owned by the State?

That is the other point to be discussed. TABCorp is a private company.

The citizens of NSW (and other states) had their totalizator stolen from them by corrupt politicians who then sold them on to private companies.

The rebates could only come from the pockets of the shareholders of these companies I would assume. Not the taxpayer.

bascoe · « 2018-May-27, 05:46 PM **Reply #71** »

Quote from: PoisonPen7 on 2018-May-27, 05:31 PM

They bet on Japanese motor boats

Yes - also in Korea- it is short course speed boat racing - it is very tightly controlled- drivers are allocated random boats at the start of the race and the drivers are kept in seclusion from the public - also betting on cycling is huge - I know from first hand experience when I visited Korea with a view to establishing betting operations there - the Korean tab rake is a eye bleeding 27% so the opportunity for rebating is huge - but the Koreans would not come to the party to make the vision available due to their fear of CB linking in and stealing the market

Sent from my iPhone using Racehorse Talk

bascoe · « 2018-May-27, 05:50 PM **Reply #72** »

Quote from: PoisonPen7 on 2018-May-27, 05:40 PM

When you say that the "citizens" of Tasmania got short changed, the Tas Tote was owned by the State?

That is the other point to be discussed. TABCorp is a private company.

The citizens of NSW (and other states) had their totalizator stolen from them by corrupt politicians who then sold them on to private companies.

The rebates could only come from the pockets of the shareholders of these companies I would assume. Not the taxpayer.

At the time tastote was owned by the state - it was later sold to Tatts

Interestingly I read while doing some research that a Tabcorp trump once stated publicly that if they were forced to end rounding down then it would be inevitable that the takeouts would increase as their business would not be viable without that additional income
Sent from my iPhone using Racehorse Talk

stiffarm · « 2018-May-27, 07:09 PM **Reply #73** »

Quote from: bascoe on 2018-May-27, 05:10 PM

Tried to send you a pm but your mailbox is full

Sent from my iPhone using Racehorse Talk

Try again now, should be fixed.

Peter Mair · « 2018-May-27, 07:56 PM **Reply #74** »

Uniquely direct access to TAB facilities.?

Presumably syndicate bettors, betting as late as they can, hit the button to place large and very complex composite bets which are processed without delay.

That special access is an element of the abuse of most punters inherent in the rebate rorting.

If this professional rorting of then tote pools is considered 'fair' it would seem sensible for TABs to be shareholders in the syndicate-betting businesses.

............just imagine if someone like the judge running the banking inquiry were let loose on the racing industry........... paraded as 'integrity concerns' the nonsense associated with noisy pursuits of 'doping' and 'same day treatments', would soon give way to exposure of deliberate maladministration and unwarranted diversion of public funds to prop up a bloated industry.