Kick Back for the Rebate Debate - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Kick Back for the Rebate Debate - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Kick Back for the Rebate Debate  (Read 9076 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pegasyber

  • Group 2
  • User 909
  • Posts: 1505
« 2018-May-28, 07:23 AM Reply #75 »
  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]

Offline Bubbasmith

  • Group 1
  • User 197
  • Posts: 8576
« 2018-May-28, 08:34 AM Reply #76 »
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.

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7022
« 2018-May-29, 05:05 PM Reply #77 »
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!

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7022
« 2018-Jun-01, 08:57 AM Reply #78 »
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

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7022
« 2018-Jun-03, 09:14 AM Reply #79 »
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!


Offline stiffarm

  • Class2
  • User 2721
  • Posts: 22
« 2018-Jun-03, 01:24 PM Reply #80 »
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

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4824
« 2018-Jun-03, 03:51 PM Reply #81 »

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".

Offline pegasyber

  • Group 2
  • User 909
  • Posts: 1505
« 2018-Jun-03, 06:56 PM Reply #82 »
  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.
« Last Edit: 2018-Jun-05, 08:36 AM by pegasyber »

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4824
« 2018-Jun-03, 07:24 PM Reply #83 »

............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!


Offline pegasyber

  • Group 2
  • User 909
  • Posts: 1505
« 2018-Jun-08, 07:19 AM Reply #84 »
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.
 
« Last Edit: 2018-Jun-08, 07:25 AM by pegasyber »

Offline Grega9430

  • Listed
  • User 267
  • Posts: 498
« 2019-Oct-10, 11:15 AM Reply #85 »
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?

Offline The Yank

  • class1
  • User 2857
  • Posts: 13
« 2019-Oct-10, 01:59 PM Reply #86 »
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

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7022
« 2019-Oct-10, 05:12 PM Reply #87 »
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!

Offline Bubbasmith

  • Group 1
  • User 197
  • Posts: 8576
« 2019-Oct-10, 07:23 PM Reply #88 »
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.

Offline The Yank

  • class1
  • User 2857
  • Posts: 13
« 2019-Oct-11, 01:44 AM Reply #89 »
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.

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7022
« 2019-Oct-11, 05:38 AM Reply #90 »
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.



Offline stiffarm

  • Class2
  • User 2721
  • Posts: 22
« 2019-Oct-11, 07:27 AM Reply #91 »
Yank your inbox is full so I cannot reply to your message.

Offline The Yank

  • class1
  • User 2857
  • Posts: 13
« 2019-Oct-11, 07:30 AM Reply #92 »
I guess you only start with a 1 message capacity.  Yours was the only message I had received.  I archived it.

Offline stiffarm

  • Class2
  • User 2721
  • Posts: 22
« 2019-Oct-11, 07:33 AM Reply #93 »
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?

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7022
« 2019-Oct-11, 08:23 AM Reply #94 »
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.

Offline stiffarm

  • Class2
  • User 2721
  • Posts: 22
« 2019-Oct-11, 09:12 AM Reply #95 »
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.

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7022
« 2019-Oct-11, 10:17 AM Reply #96 »
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

Offline stiffarm

  • Class2
  • User 2721
  • Posts: 22
« 2019-Oct-11, 11:47 AM Reply #97 »
Thanks for that

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7022
« 2019-Oct-12, 09:48 AM Reply #98 »
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%


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap