Racehorse TALK

Thoroughbred Racing Talk => Racing Talk => Topic started by: jfc on 2018-May-20, 01:12 PM

Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-20, 01:12 PM
This is an attempt to confine all the debate about Kickbacks to this topic.

Anyone with rational contributions welcome.


Wow! 26 visits before any new contributions!
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-20, 01:14 PM
To play Devils advocate.

In all parts of society those that buy in bulk getter  a better price than  this that don’t.

For instance Coles and Woolworths pay significantly less for product than small retailers like IGA and other Independent stores for exactly the same item.

Betfair does exactly the same with commission rates. The biggest syndicate, has  been on 0 commission on Aust racing to provide liquidity since the day the “fair” opened.

Why no outcry re Betfair?

If I run the Tab why not charge less to the “wholesaler”  to guarantee liquidity in market. Rebates do mean that the syndicates bet bigger and pools are larger.

 I am not privy to the numbers, but rebates MAY mean Tabcorp make more money than if they didn’t offer them. Ie 3%  of triple is worth more than  7% of a single.

Lastly Tatts pools are so small they are close to terminal as no body can have a decent bet. Even 3 or $400 distorts pools in harness and greyhound. Rebates will mean that Tabcorp diminishing pools are held up due to the extra  turnover they attract.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-20, 01:15 PM
Any number of ways to rebut this.

Above I showed where Zeljko virtually confessed to "depreciating" markets - i.e. turning every Over into an Under. Because the generous Kickbacks more than suffice.

That means no one without a Kickback can win long-term on the Totes.

So all that competition is removed.

Imagine an intelligent small punter who does his homework and manages to win (or come real close).

The money may not be his main reward. The prestige gained from outdoing his mates at work or the club is paramount.

While he keeps having winning days, he'll keep punting. As will his mates keen to match his record.

But now he inevitably finds himself losing, and he'll find something more fulfilling to play like Sports betting or Poker tournaments.

Whereupon Tabcorp has lost 40 years revenue from him and his mates.

This is hardly a theory, you can see the effects in Tabcorp's KPIs.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-20, 01:17 PM
You are so obsessed with Zjelko you are missing the point.

After rounding TAB take out is close to 117% win. I am prepared to say no one wins at SP at a rate to make a profit  betting into that pool.  So I agree , you can’t win without rebates.

Tabcorp are running a business , they have identified for the reasons in my prior post that Pari mutual is more profitable for them if they attract wholesalers investing by offering rebates . 

Zjelko, other syndicates and also individuals are in the fortunate position where they bet  at a scale to take advantage of these rebates. Similar to Betfair these rebates increase as the entities turnover increase.

Its well advertised , not corrupt, it happens in every industry in  the world and as I said also happens at Betfair which. I never see any complaints about.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-20, 02:52 PM
"In all parts of society those that buy in bulk getter  a better price than  this that don’t."

Wrong!

This has nothing to do with buying in bulk.

This has nothing to do with Tabcorp or any other gambling operator.

All of these are bound by government rules intended to protect punters.

In a Player versus Bank game, Kickbacks are fine to selected players. Because that does not adversely affect other players.

But for a Player versus Player game, Kickbacks are typically not fine. Because those with Kickbacks can wipe out those without them.

So Kickbacks are fine for -

Blackjack
Baccarat


But wrong for -

Totes
Keno
Lotto.


Now for a specific example consider Tote Tasmania.

The Kickbacks and turnover for them was so huge, that the effective takeout rates for Victoria exceeded the maximum legal limits.

That arrangement broke Victorian law.

The Sports Minister should have been sacked.

Instead he was made Premier!








Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: Bubbasmith on 2018-May-20, 02:53 PM
Antitab, rebates are well advertised ??? I doubt too many average /  retail ( mug ) punters would be aware some punters are receiving rebates of 10% to 8 % rebates. One racing administrator once said average punters would not know whether a tote pool was subject to a deduction rate of 5% or 20%, I would therefore imagine rebates would hardly enter their minds.

However if, as you say, they are "well advertised", can you direct me to  where can I find on any TAB website or publication or annual report the different rates of rebates for turnover thresholds ?   
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: Peter Mair on 2018-May-20, 04:04 PM


.................. apart from the injustice of rebates on bets into a tote pool...........the rorting is compounded when the administrators institutionalise the corruption of the races by cluttering fields with runners competing for 10th but having no hope of winning.

This is greed writ large and gone mad as would be soon established by any proper inquiry or , god help us, any of the main racing media players bringing to racing the 'investigative journalism' commitment they espouse in other arenas.

 It seems the independence of the media has been brought to silence with the pieces of silver paid to have the form guides published.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-20, 05:18 PM
Antitab, rebates are well advertised ??? I doubt too many average /  retail ( mug ) punters would be aware some punters are receiving rebates of 10% to 8 % rebates. One racing administrator once said average punters would not know whether a tote pool was subject to a deduction rate of 5% or 20%, I would therefore imagine rebates would hardly enter their minds.

However if, as you say, they are "well advertised", can you direct me to  where can I find on any TAB website or publication or annual report the different rates of rebates for turnover thresholds ?

In her opus Kate wrote that Tabcorp refused to even tell her the minimum turnover required for rebates.

Bear in mind many (with the notable exception of AntiTab#) consider her Australia's foremost investigative journalist, so imagine how tough it would be for retail punters to find out!

Also note that the NSW government publicly stipulates a $3 million minimum for their $130? million tax relief so it is hardly a state secret.

So it seems to me that Tabcorp functionary might have broken some law.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: fours on 2018-May-20, 05:28 PM
Remember the poster Vo Rogue?

At the time he was complaining loud and long about the trot bettor hitting almost every very short favourite for the place into 1.04 or less.

No doubt a desperate attempt to meet the minimum turnover requirements and retain his rebates going forward.

Vo Rogue did not like the way this affected other people betting and note that the formula for place dividends DOES allow the dividend paid to other place getters to be stolen from.

Stolen is not too strong a word.

Fours
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: ratsack on 2018-May-20, 07:46 PM
do they give kickbacks for the hong kong tote betting ?

if they don't why don't all the smarties here bet into that pool ?
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-20, 07:51 PM
Only joke ones.

So the big spending illuminati find more fertile ground.

HKJC, Triads, Woods estate, whatever.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: bascoe on 2018-May-21, 01:54 AM
do they give kickbacks for the hong kong tote betting ?

if they don't why don't all the smarties here bet into that pool ?
Yes - 14% Q T QUINPLACE(duets) and triple trio - but those rebates are not from Australian tabs....

And that’s is exactly why there are A$5 mil pools for every race in Q and QPS pools -mainly pros.

If you live outside Australia- say New Zealand -
PGI will welcome you if you can turnover enough- and not just HKG - just about everywhere else is an option except Australia



Sent from my iPhone using Racehorse Talk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=90061)
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-21, 07:41 AM

Betfair does exactly the same with commission rates. The biggest syndicate, has  been on 0 commission on Aust racing to provide liquidity since the day the “fair” opened.

Why no outcry re Betfair?

What Betfair does bears no resemblance to the Kickback malpractices of Tabcorp et al.

On Betfair you agree with a counterparty about the odds of a contingency.

If you transact then you get a price you believe is fair.

Any Kickback the counterparty may be getting is irrelevant to your prospects.

Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: Antitab# on 2018-May-21, 07:57 AM
All true about Betfair.

However when the horse wins at 4/1 , depending on which state the race was run the punter can receive anywhere between $4.60 and $5.

Those who bet the biggest are paid $5 down to the little fish who receive  maximim comm rate and are paid the least at $4.60.

It may be packaged differently to a Pari mutual paying rebates but the result is the same.

You can tell from the name I post under that I am no fan of Tabcorp but paying rebates makes sense to me from their point of view.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-21, 08:42 AM
On Betfair, you know-

Price
Commission
Discount

Therefore you can deduce the real price.

And transact if you consider that fair.

No one can challenge the fairness of such a set up.




Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: Tracksuitdave on 2018-May-21, 10:32 AM
If someone is in receipt of a no commission rebate deal they can take better prices. If they can also beat the clock then John Wilson is your uncle. I would be interested to know why the gentleman with the Italian sounding name has been boasting about this ever since he became John Wilson´s personal butler?
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-21, 11:05 AM
Not sure how many times I need to repeat this.

This is not whether or not Zeljko, Woods and their ilk are destroying Betfair.

It's whether Betfair punters are disadvantaged by rebates.

And because they choose at what price to transact they are not disadvantaged.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: PoisonPen7 on 2018-May-21, 04:38 PM
Not sure how many times I need to repeat this.

This is not whether or not Zeljko, Woods and their ilk are destroying Betfair.

It's whether Betfair punters are disadvantaged by rebates.

And because they choose at what price to transact they are not disadvantaged.

Or they can choose not to transact because they don't see value.....just like non Betfair punters.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-21, 05:36 PM
Rubbish.

Tote punters have no way of telling whether any contingency is value.

Because Zeljko's bets never appear before on indicators until after the jump.

Zeljko is on record claiming he'll knock a true $8 chance into $6.

No retail Tote punter has any chance of being a long-term winner.

Thanks to Kickbacks.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: JWesleyHarding on 2018-May-21, 06:02 PM
What's the minimum annual amount one would need to turnover to attract the minimum rebate?

And what would that percentage be?
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: Bubbasmith on 2018-May-21, 06:06 PM
JWH, give the marketing department at Tabcorp a call , if you find out , let us all know. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: JayDee on 2018-May-21, 06:52 PM
Can’t guarantee this is right but heard the TAB required $20m turnover before offering rebates. This offer was directed at corporates and alike to add liquidity into the parimutuel pool. The rebates increased as the turnover guarantee from whoever was increased. I’ve been involved in the Commission ‘world’ for years but the earn on that is long gone. TABs were offering from 2% to 8% apparently.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: Dave on 2018-May-21, 11:08 PM
Easy for punters to avoid being ripped off by the TAB, just so what I do.........never bet with them, the only way they will learn, if you keep walking up to the slaughter you can't blame the guy who hits between the eyes with a hammer, can you?
The TAB has no morals, they treat punters like fools.........the question is are punters Fools?.....hard to argue the TAB is wrong on that count when all the evidence says they are correct
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-22, 08:30 AM
You can tell from the name I post under that I am no fan of Tabcorp but paying rebates makes sense to me from their point of view.

It makes no sense whatsoever to any rational honest person.

I've already pointed out the way rebates work is unfair and oppressive to retail punters, hence illegal. Hence it makes no sense for Tabcorp to flagrantly facilitate law breaking.

Also note that very few of the punter victims read the AFR, so (barring McIlwain) Kate's piece is the first time Kickbacks have reached the mainstream press. Despite 10 years of malpractice.

How is it that not a single racing writer aver publicly raised the issue!

That look kosher to anyone!

Obviously Tabcorp and its co-conspirators are very afraid of the possible punter backlash, and have been very influential in stopping this hitting their media.

If it made any sense at all then surely someone would have written about how sensible it is.

And I still haven't started about how insane the economics for Tabcorp are.



Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: Bubbasmith on 2018-May-22, 05:08 PM
It makes no sense whatsoever to any rational honest person.

I've already pointed out the way rebates work is unfair and oppressive to retail punters, hence illegal. Hence it makes no sense for Tabcorp to flagrantly facilitate law breaking.

Also note that very few of the punter victims read the AFR, so (barring McIlwain) Kate's piece is the first time Kickbacks have reached the mainstream press. Despite 10 years of malpractice.

How is it that not a single racing writer aver publicly raised the issue!

That look kosher to anyone!

Obviously Tabcorp and its co-conspirators are very afraid of the possible punter backlash, and have been very influential in stopping this hitting their media.

If it made any sense at all then surely someone would have written about how sensible it is.

And I still haven't started about how insane the economics for Tabcorp are.
Why would they when at all  the major racing carnivals they enjoy the hospitality of the tote companies by way of canapes washed down with premium beer or even better French Champagne. Kickbacks have little relevance to racing journalists because they are noted non winners on the punt and they would assume, so are all other punters, and even if kickbacks were discontinued most punters will still lose.
In other words let sleeping dogs alone !!!!!
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: arthur on 2018-May-22, 08:01 PM
In other words let sleeping dogs lie.


Or . . Lying dogs sleep   :whistle:
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-23, 07:26 AM
Consider Tabcorp pooling with Hong Kong for cerain bet types.

Premium Players get a token rebate ~SFA.

But according to Bascoe 14% is available through PGI in NZ or wherever.

No prize for guessing what the Premium Players will do.

Now Tabcorp owns part of PGI so consider how any of that revenue (less 14% !) will be shared.

Tabcorp
Phumelela
RHKJC
Zeljko's Typhoon hub

Who on earth can argue that makes any business sense!

Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-23, 06:26 PM
Onto liquidity.

Given the Rebate Players bet extremely late I fail to see any way that helps liquidity.

And liquidity could even suffer if other players try following suit by betting ultra late. Besides bets sometimes failing to get on, pool totals would appear even lower.

As for any idea that Zeljko is seeding pools I've noticed Betfair liquidity getting worse and worse.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-24, 08:46 AM
The debating seems to have ceased but there are still some key issues left unwrit.

It's very clear that Tabcorp and its ilk are very bad negotiators.

They seem to be oblivious to the proven experience that punting boycotts have always failed.

Zeljko may threaten a boycott if his outrageous demands are not met there is no way he'll every carry that out.

What's happened before will simply happen again.

If he carried out a boycott then I along with many surviving punters who unanimously use correct money management would quickly notice improved conditions and bet up accordingly. Up to as much as the market can bear.

Personally I have some robots hibernating because of barren conditions. I could simply revive them and my turnover would soar while the halcyon days endure.

Of course making sure not to pay Betfair 1 cent in PC40 charges.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: stiffarm on 2018-May-24, 01:28 PM
So if I am a premium customer am I better off going through Tabcorp or PGI? Do they offer different rebate percentages on the same pool?
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: stiffarm on 2018-May-24, 01:38 PM
Rubbish.

Tote punters have no way of telling whether any contingency is value.

Because Zeljko's bets never appear before on indicators until after the jump.

Zeljko is on record claiming he'll knock a true $8 chance into $6.

No retail Tote punter has any chance of being a long-term winner.

Thanks to Kickbacks.

Is that thanks to kickbacks or thanks to the fact that Zeljko's bets don't appear until after the jump? (which is a separate issue).

Or are you suggesting that the process of events that have led to Zeljko's bets not appearing until after the jump were accelerated by kickbacks in the first place?
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-24, 03:07 PM
It makes no sense crushing Overs into Unders unless you enjoy kickbacks.

Now the perp in question may choose to make early bets to compromise the market.

But very late (hence invisible) bets are needed to complete to complete the manouver.

Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: stiffarm on 2018-May-24, 05:04 PM
So basically the perp gets the last throw at the stumps and the dividends go off at whatever price he wants them to?

How do other kickback players deal with something like that? Would be near impossible calculating bet sizes from tote data that you know is going to be compromised by someone who is going to manipulate dividends after you place your bets into the pool.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-24, 05:15 PM
Obviously everyone tries to bet as late as possible.

And that does not help liquidity at all.

Now I don't know how Tabcorp guarantees that the Isle of Man closes pools precisely at jump.

Or whether the Isle of Man has more up-to-date pool approximates than the rest of us.

Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: stiffarm on 2018-May-24, 05:31 PM
Are the Australian based punters at an advantage due to the fact their servers are in closer proximity to the Tabcorp servers? High internet speed and closer distance would mean they are receiving info faster?
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-24, 05:39 PM
Who knows how the whole arrangement works?

Does Tabcorp have total control which bets are rejected for tardiness?

Or does it trust the Isle of Man to close its own bets at jump?

Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: stiffarm on 2018-May-24, 05:56 PM
Don't know but sounds like there are two tiers of premium players. Normal premium players and then Zeljko on a tier of his own...
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-24, 06:30 PM
Probably an opportune time to relate this pertinent anecdote.

In the early 90s 2KY reported that the AWA Newcastle Tote manager had been sacked for certain unspecified malpractices. I never saw any reporting in the press.

One of the stunts the perp in question used was instead of closing races at jump, he'd instead rush to the High Value Room and urge the punters there to keep betting during this window of exclusivity!

That's certainly one way of boosting turnover.

But not sure how big players in Sydney felt about this Newcastle edge.

This illustrates just how sloppy controls were back then, and how there's inevitably someone ready to exploit such situations.


Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: stiffarm on 2018-May-24, 07:06 PM
A basket case indeed.

What sort of kickbacks are these players getting in the US? Have heard figures up to 19% been thrown around, now that sounds like mismanagement!
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: bascoe on 2018-May-24, 08:16 PM
There is always a way...
Before the advent of api and computer betting (I’m talking late 1990s here) we had an arrangement with a tab owner where all our bets were run through his tab and we would split the commission- t/o was enormous and we had assistants writing tickets and all the cash was managed behind  the counter
There were other tab rorts back in those days where some dog races were not closed at the jump and bets were placed up to about 20 secs after the start - I think that was all insider run - and people were sacked over it

As for the issue about estimates and late pool updates - premium customers get access to updates every 5 secs instead of the the 35 everyone else does

Premium also get access to tri and f4 approximates

Certainly very beneficial but most pro groups are moving away from tote betting and are getting more creative getting set with the tab via fixed odds - confirmed with a recent conversation with another of jfc’s persona non grata list

As for pgi - it is only an option for non Australian residents


Sent from my iPhone using Racehorse Talk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=90061)
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: stiffarm on 2018-May-25, 12:08 AM
Certainly very beneficial but most pro groups are moving away from tote betting and are getting more creative getting set with the tab via fixed odds - confirmed with a recent conversation with another of jfc’s persona non grata list
Sent from my iPhone using Racehorse Talk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=90061)

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?
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-25, 09:41 AM
It is actually quite easy to provide an Internet Tote that would be vastly more attractive for retail punters, and with no problems, ever.

Some of the features would be.


Liquidity would be vastly superior because the Early Bird discount  + equivalent Late would mean a very high percentage of Early money.

Pool sizes won't be important. If your bet goes on you are almost certainly guaranteed a good return. If it doesn't feel free to bet elsewhere and risk the odds getting "depreciated".
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: PoisonPen7 on 2018-May-25, 08:29 PM
It is actually quite easy to provide an Internet Tote that would be vastly more attractive for retail punters, and with no problems, ever.

Some of the features would be.

  • Low Rake
  • Early Bird discount. With the same discount applying to late money up to the early spend.
  • Large late bets restricted so they don't force a contingency below a benchmark (National Tote or whatever)
  • A compensation scheme so that over 90% of punters exceed above Best Tote on their lifetime winnings
  • Regular boosts above Best Tote (where that's cost effective)

Liquidity would be vastly superior because the Early Bird discount  + equivalent Late would mean a very high percentage of Early money.

Pool sizes won't be important. If your bet goes on you are almost certainly guaranteed a good return. If it doesn't feel free to bet elsewhere and risk the odds getting "depreciated".

Under this model who pays the race clubs for "putting on the show"  :(
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: LeRoi on 2018-May-25, 09:58 PM

[/quote]
It is actually quite easy to provide an Internet Tote that would be vastly more attractive for retail punters, and with no problems, ever.

Some of the features would be.

  • Low Rake
  • Early Bird discount. With the same discount applying to late money up to the early spend.
  • Large late bets restricted so they don't force a contingency below a benchmark (National Tote or whatever)
  • A compensation scheme so that over 90% of punters exceed above Best Tote on their lifetime winnings
  • Regular boosts above Best Tote (where that's cost effective)

Liquidity would be vastly superior because the Early Bird discount  + equivalent Late would mean a very high percentage of Early money.

Pool sizes won't be important. If your bet goes on you are almost certainly guaranteed a good return. If it doesn't feel free to bet elsewhere and risk the odds getting "depreciated".


TBH tried the early liquidity idea, providing a rebate for the first 20k into pools before 10am. Problem is they didn't provide any rebate in the last hour of betting like your idea, and punters just feared they're money is there to just be manipulated. Future looks grim for it once the Sean deal ceases.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: ratsack on 2018-May-25, 10:42 PM
Under this model who pays the race clubs for "putting on the show"  :(

Joh
don't you worry about that son (JBP Queensland politics, for those not sure)


on this thread we only worry about making a buck !

who is going to put the show on ?
seems to be going ok in england and america ?


lets plunder Australia next 


Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: PoisonPen7 on 2018-May-26, 01:33 AM
Joh
don't you worry about that son (JBP Queensland politics, for those not sure)


on this thread we only worry about making a buck !

who is going to put the show on ?
seems to be going ok in england and america ?


lets plunder Australia next

The strange thing is you never hear them talking about Winx or giving their views on who is winning tomorrow or tips in the tipping comp.

Only ever implied insults that we are all a bunch of losing f. morons  :lol:
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-26, 08:59 AM
Under this model who pays the race clubs for "putting on the show"  :(
Not hard to see which way the debate is heading with efforts like this.

I remind you of PP7's extraordinary earlier post actually implying that punters know what they will get on the Tote!

As to this effort.

This conceptual Tote would conceptually pay the same taxes as any other Internet Tote .

Why on earth does that have to be spelled out!

But as to Tax or Charge evasion.

What about Tabcorp?

How can we tell Tabcorp is innocent of such stunts given its clandestine in the Isle of Man and other tax shelters.

And remember Tabcorp is a joint owner of PGI which conducting intriguing business on nearby NZ.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: PoisonPen7 on 2018-May-26, 11:52 AM

I remind you of PP7's extraordinary earlier post actually implying that punters know what they will get on the Tote!


Can you please quote me where I said that? It is an extraordinary claim and does not reflect my opinion.

The final tote prices on Saturday races do fluctuate toward the end but not by that much and often reflect the fixed price fluctuations.

Heavily backed favourites seem to firm on the tote significantly in NSW late in the betting to the point they often pay a lot less than the fixed price. I have always assumed this is corporate bookmakers reducing their risk late.

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.

Also I question the perception that Zjelko bets on every available racing tote pool and always wins.

The rebates come out of the TAB's cut. The government and the race clubs still get their full cut. That means he still has a few percentage points to make up unless he has crunched something the place to the point they have to give him a $1 place dividend and borrow from the other two pools.

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?

If I get the patronizing pat on the back of the head as a "non answer" (as I always do) I have to assume you guys have NFI and are just parroting gossip from other parts of the internet.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-26, 03:51 PM

Also I question the perception that Zjelko bets on every available racing tote pool and always wins.

The rebates come out of the TAB's cut. The government and the race clubs still get their full cut. That means he still has a few percentage points to make up unless he has crunched something the place to the point they have to give him a $1 place dividend and borrow from the other two pools.

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?

If I get the patronizing pat on the back of the head as a "non answer" (as I always do) I have to assume you guys have NFI and are just parroting gossip from other parts of the internet.
Rubbish! Once again!

Who on earth has that bizarre perception!

And the government pays for the rebates!

Somewhat ironic when Zeljko claims to reside in a tax shelter.

Now I remind you of the Tote Tasmania fiasco.

The rebate players through that won far more than their fair share.

So the rest of the Supertab members had to donate over $60 million per year over to Tasmania to settle!

So forget about whatever you were trying say about a few percentage.

No Zeljko or his near peers can knock all Overs into Unders, so that no one but them can will long-term.

That is unquestionably their go to strategy.

Because it destroys all other competitors.





Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: PoisonPen7 on 2018-May-26, 04:22 PM
Rubbish! Once again!

Who on earth has that bizarre perception!

And the government pays for the rebates!

Somewhat ironic when Zeljko claims to reside in a tax shelter.

Now I remind you of the Tote Tasmania fiasco.

The rebate players through that won far more than their fair share.

So the rest of the Supertab members had to donate over $60 million per year over to Tasmania to settle!

So forget about whatever you were trying say about a few percentage.

No Zeljko or his near peers can knock all Overs into Unders, so that no one but them can will long-term.

That is unquestionably their go to strategy.

Because it destroys all other competitors.

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.

If you feel the need to add insults, can you just answer the questions in your first post then add a second post where you can go knock yourself out with the abuse.

Thanks.   :biggrin:
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: 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!


Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: PoisonPen7 on 2018-May-26, 05:00 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?
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-26, 05:06 PM
Go forth and multiply yourself.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: PoisonPen7 on 2018-May-26, 06:19 PM
Go forth and multiply yourself.

I finished my "multiplication" 17 years ago mate   :lol:

Another "non answer" to two questions that I think are pretty straight forward.  :nowink:
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-27, 07:44 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.



Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: wily ole dog on 2018-May-27, 08:04 AM
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.   :biggrin:

Seems a reasonable request
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-27, 08:52 AM
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.

Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: fours on 2018-May-27, 09:08 AM
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
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-27, 09:23 AM
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.


Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: PoisonPen7 on 2018-May-27, 10:52 AM
Seems a reasonable request

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

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.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-27, 12:01 PM


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.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: PoisonPen7 on 2018-May-27, 12:08 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!!
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: 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.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: pegasyber on 2018-May-27, 02:22 PM
  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. 
 
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: Bubbasmith on 2018-May-27, 04:23 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 ?.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: PoisonPen7 on 2018-May-27, 05:07 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.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: bascoe on 2018-May-27, 05:10 PM
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 (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=90061)
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: bascoe on 2018-May-27, 05:25 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 (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=90061)
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: PoisonPen7 on 2018-May-27, 05:31 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 (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=90061)

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  :what:
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: bascoe on 2018-May-27, 05:34 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 (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=90061)
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: PoisonPen7 on 2018-May-27, 05:40 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 (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=90061)

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.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: bascoe on 2018-May-27, 05:46 PM


They bet on Japanese motor boats  :what:
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 (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=90061)
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: bascoe on 2018-May-27, 05:50 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 (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=90061)
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: stiffarm on 2018-May-27, 07:09 PM
Tried to send you a pm but your mailbox is full


Sent from my iPhone using Racehorse Talk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=90061)

Try again now, should be fixed.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: Peter Mair on 2018-May-27, 07:56 PM

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.





Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: pegasyber on 2018-May-28, 07:23 AM
  Baccoe quoted above:
Quote
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

  But what the originator should have added would be: [quote]Unless all rebates were also dropped at the same time.[/quote]
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: Bubbasmith on 2018-May-28, 08:34 AM
The implications of rounding down are more applicable to win and place betting than exotic betting.

If a dividend was exactly, $2.19 it rounds down to $2.10, for those that place bet shorties at $1.50 etc, an additional couple of dollars in the pool bet on that runner could tip a dividend from $1.50 to $1.40 if it is already hovering around $1.50.

In percentage terms, that loss of 10 cents from $1.50 to $1.40 or  9 cents from $2.19 to $2.10 are massive, however if a Trifecta dividend was reduced from $423.19 to $423,10 it is marginal, however, the deduction rates on trifectas, as are all exotics bets, far in excess of the deduction rates on win and place.

For that reason alone the kickbacks offered on exotics are greater than those offered on win and place betting. Mere mortals, not receiving kickbacks, can please themselves whether they are subject to rounding down on win and place betting or endure the higher takeout rates on exotics.

A bit like a doubled headed coin..it is difficult to win if you continue to back tails.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-May-29, 05:05 PM
It is actually quite easy to provide an Internet Tote that would be vastly more attractive for retail punters, and with no problems, ever.

Some of the features would be.

  • Low Rake
  • Early Bird discount. With the same discount applying to late money up to the early spend.
  • Large late bets restricted so they don't force a contingency below a benchmark (National Tote or whatever)
  • A compensation scheme so that over 90% of punters exceed above Best Tote on their lifetime winnings
  • Regular boosts above Best Tote (where that's cost effective)

Liquidity would be vastly superior because the Early Bird discount  + equivalent Late would mean a very high percentage of Early money.

Pool sizes won't be important. If your bet goes on you are almost certainly guaranteed a good return. If it doesn't feel free to bet elsewhere and risk the odds getting "depreciated".

A Tote like this could run on a shoestring and would succeed. Provided no one tries to fix it.

But Totes without all of 1., 2. & 3. should struggle.

As seen by

AusTote
Typhoon (ZeljkoTote)
GlobalTote

I shudder at the mentality of those running those fiascos. They start off with half-baked ideas (sometimes raising OPM capital). But when things didn't go as swimmingly as they hoped, how come none of them came close to my above ideas which would have saved them!
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-Jun-01, 08:57 AM
Tabcorp reports are so bad that you'd expect the ASX, ASIC and ASA to take action against such rubbish. Trouble is that trio supposed to be protecting us is even worse.

But the RWWA reports are even worse than Tabcorp.

However in contrast to Tabcorp, WA at least mentions rebates and where they are hidden. So PP7 can knock himself out decrypting the pointless information he demands.

As to the WA Tote, it is a basket case.

They take in punters' money and spend a lot of it dubiously. The government rewards them for their folly through concessions.

The punting dollar resembles a decaying ping pong ball being swatted around back and forth.

So the Tote loses money and has to be bailed out by grants!

http://www.rwwa.com.au/home/about/annual-report.html
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2018-Jun-03, 09:14 AM
I believe that the most attractive rebates are now from WA, but they are more limited than ToteTas.

Not too hard to guess what happens next.

You have the very biggest punting groups, corporates, commission agents, aggregators and cronies snapping up these goodies.

Leaving ~SFA for anyone else.

This sends out a clear signal for any new blood contemplating entering the caper.

Stay away from Totes!

Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: stiffarm on 2018-Jun-03, 01:24 PM
I believe that the most attractive rebates are now from WA, but they are more limited than ToteTas.

Not too hard to guess what happens next.

You have the very biggest punting groups, corporates, commission agents, aggregators and cronies snapping up these goodies.

Leaving ~SFA for anyone else.

This sends out a clear signal for any new blood contemplating entering the caper.

Stay away from Totes!

Unless you join in on the fun in WA
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: Peter Mair on 2018-Jun-03, 03:51 PM

JFC should be promoted to run a tote operation 

........this looked good to me

It is actually quite easy to provide an Internet Tote that would be vastly more attractive for retail punters, and with no problems, ever.

Some of the features would be.

1.Low Rake
2.Early Bird discount. With the same discount applying to late money up to the early spend.
3.Large late bets restricted so they don't force a contingency below a benchmark (National Tote or whatever)
4.A compensation scheme so that over 90% of punters exceed above Best Tote on their lifetime winnings
5.Regular boosts above Best Tote (where that's cost effective)

Liquidity would be vastly superior because the Early Bird discount  + equivalent Late would mean a very high percentage of Early money.

Pool sizes won't be important. If your bet goes on you are almost certainly guaranteed a good return. If it doesn't feel free to bet elsewhere and risk the odds getting "depreciated".
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: pegasyber on 2018-Jun-03, 06:56 PM
  Who knows perhaps the Tabs might see the error of their ways; and there maybe  a message there for the perpetrators of   secret special clients and deals ( Rebates Kickbacks and Rounding ) for a minority of special  punters,  Non Disclosure, Unfair Trading etc ......   and what is thought to be "Normal" operations of the  Financial Services Industry, the Banks and perhaps even the TABs. 

Do a google on ACCC and ANZ. 

   We live in interesting times.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: Peter Mair on 2018-Jun-03, 07:24 PM

............a single national tote

Ideally the JFC tote would be a single national tote -- and bookmakers would be restricted to standing 'on course'.

There is no need for 'fixed odds' corporate operations -- including those of TABs -- which have become a corrupting influence.

I would love to hear the banking commissioner and his team turning up the grill on racing industry administrators and their political and corporate allies -- you would pay for a ticket to get in!

Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: pegasyber on 2018-Jun-08, 07:19 AM
Peter Mair noted above:
Quote
That special access is an element of the abuse of most punters inherent in the rebate rorting.

  It would be closer to the mark if he had said:
Quote
That special access is an element of the abuse of most punters inherent in the"ROUNDING" rorting.

  ..... after all  with Rebates being a Rort is it possible to Rort a Rort.
 
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: Grega9430 on 2019-Oct-10, 11:15 AM
I have heard that one of the large litigation law firms is working on a class action against Tabcorp et al on behalf of regular retail tote punters and the affect the rebates to Tabcorps premium "partners" has had on them.

When it increases effective takeout on regular retail tote players by 0.5 to 1% then that is a significant amount per annum.

Will they win?
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: The Yank on 2019-Oct-10, 01:59 PM
FWIW...

I live in the U.S. (hence my screen name   :biggrin: ).  I have wagered with rebates for 20 years;  almost everyone in the U.S. can get some form of rebate.  I have started and run multiple rebate shops based in the U.S.  I have no involvement with any now, I punt full time as well as work with professional punters.  It's easy to get a rebate here.  Even small bettors ($5k a month) can get some level of rebates, though the more you bet the larger the rebate in percentage terms.  My understanding is in Australia rebates aren't available unless you bet more than A$1,000,000.  Makes it tough to win as pools get more competitive each year and average rakes approach 20%.  It's very hard to win here too.  No large punters win without rebates in the states.

Just the view from my home base.

Cheers,
Ian
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2019-Oct-10, 05:12 PM
Welcome Yank.

I (and I suspect others) are very interested in your contributions about such matters.

But, right now I'm stunned by Grega's bombshell.

I can only hope that class action is true.

I used to win more overall before Kickbacks were introduced.

Back in the Tote Tasmania fiasco days I calculated that Victorian losses exceeded the legal maxima significantly. Ended up talking to a regulator heavy there. First he tried to fob me off by claiming it was just variance. When that didn't work he then claimed the Minister has the discretion to allow his electorate to be fleeced by these Tasmanian Terrorists!

As to the amount of fleecing in the current setup, I believe regular punters are fleeced far more than 1% (on certain segments). And that I can prove it!
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: Bubbasmith on 2019-Oct-10, 07:23 PM
Jfc wrote "I used to win more overall before Kickbacks were introduced"

That statement would apply to all punters, who were "winners", prior to the introduction of kickbacks.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: The Yank on 2019-Oct-11, 01:44 AM
What is the wagering threshold in Australia to get rebates?  As I mentioned previously, I'm told it's $1,000,000.  For jurisdictions I know...In France there are no rebates for anyone but computer teams (what the French call Pari-Professionals).  In the U.S., it's available in almost every state where wagering is legal, except California that has some economic constraints that reduce any rebates to close to zero.  The average rebate for bigger tracks in the U.S. is about 2-3% on win and 3-5% on trifectas and superfectas.  The larger wagering shops like Churchill Down's Twin Spires won't rebate anyone betting less than $250k annually.  The smaller Mom & Pop shops will offer cash rewards to everyone.

Tracks in the U.S. would go bust without it as retail handle here at some tracks is negligible.  With the legalization of sports betting here I'd expect the horse racing pools to continue eroding.  It's different where you are; the average man on the street interest in racing is still pretty high.  Not so in the U.S. anymore.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2019-Oct-11, 05:38 AM
The situation here differs significantly from the USA in a number of ways.

Tracks no longer can do anything to boost On Course Turnover. Instead their revenue is a percentage of all the nationwide Turnover for their track.

Notably V'landys effectively killed off Randwick's High Value complex, hence its colourful occupants, by raising the rent to a usurious level!

The Kickback situation here is extremely complex, convoluted and clandestine and will require a number of enigmatic posts just to scratch the surface.

Fortunately NSW has documented its deal in legislation so I can safely reveal Tabcorp's minimum requirement for locals is only $5 million.

WA's deal and system is more attractive. But there is some sort of quota system attempting to prevent poaching from Victoria et al. And that quota could well have been filled by a literal handful of outfits, some of whom may well have relatives officiating at RWA.

None of this information will ever reach the fleeced public because V'landys has stitched up the media.


Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: stiffarm on 2019-Oct-11, 07:27 AM
Yank your inbox is full so I cannot reply to your message.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: The Yank on 2019-Oct-11, 07:30 AM
I guess you only start with a 1 message capacity.  Yours was the only message I had received.  I archived it.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: stiffarm on 2019-Oct-11, 07:33 AM
Fortunately NSW has documented its deal in legislation so I can safely reveal Tabcorp's minimum requirement for locals is only $5 million.

Which piece of legislation is this contained in jfc?
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2019-Oct-11, 08:23 AM
Who knows? You're welcome to trawl through my 7012 posts to see if it's there.

As I remember it, NSW sets aside up to $130 million for Kickbacks.

And the entry requirement for locals is $3 million.

Which is consistent with my disclosure of $5 million for Tabcorp's NSW + part of Supertab.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: stiffarm on 2019-Oct-11, 09:12 AM
http://www.competitiontribunal.gov.au/documents/act2017/Statement%20of%20Doug%20Freeman%20REDACTED%2013.03.17.pdf

There is the document above but the juicy information has all been redacted.
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2019-Oct-11, 10:17 AM
The bill next refers to an area that is not so well known: premium customers who are professional operators of totalisator betting. It is about reducing taxation, more than anything, and being able to compete with interstate jurisdictions, with the potential for revenue growth. The commission tax that is presently payable is 19.11 per cent. Under the bill it will fall to 10 per cent in respect of bets placed by TAB account customers, who we would ordinarily understand to be professional operators, with a turnover of $3 million or more, and in respect of all bets placed by account customers residing outside Australia. The full tax refund will be passed on to these customers as an incentive to remain in, or return to, the New South Wales totalisator system. All States make these rebates for their premium customers and it has driven a significant growth in turnover from the professional market.


https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Hansard/Pages/HansardResult.aspx#/docid/HANSARD-1323879322-43060
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: stiffarm on 2019-Oct-11, 11:47 AM
Thanks for that
Title: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate
Post by: jfc on 2019-Oct-12, 09:48 AM
I have heard that one of the large litigation law firms is working on a class action against Tabcorp et al on behalf of regular retail tote punters and the affect the rebates to Tabcorps premium "partners" has had on them.

When it increases effective takeout on regular retail tote players by 0.5 to 1% then that is a significant amount per annum.

Will they win?
Tabcorp will obviously wrongly claim that their Kickback figures are confidential, when in fact they are mandatory disclosure.

But even if they succeed it is possible to determine how much extra Rake regular punters have to bear.

It is not hard to legally determine that Isle of Man turnover for Saturday Trifectas on Sydney, Melbourne is ~15%

Obviously the Isle of Man Kickback has to exceed the losses, otherwise the caper would not be sustainable.

So here is the extra Rake depending on IoM losses.

Assuming the Kickback does not exceed 13% punters have to suffer an increased Rake of at least 1.41%.

But probably heaps more.

Lock 'em up!

Loss Extra Rake
 0% 3.71%
 5% 2.76%
10% 1.94%
13% 1.41%