The "Open Bet' debate rages on

Article published by David Thistelton on the Gold Circle website:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

David Thiselton
The “Open Bet” is defined as a tote bet that can be stood by bookmakers using the official tote dividend as the indicator of the payout.
Let it be made clear that any reference in this article to the "open bet" does not include "fixed odds" betting as part of its definition.
They are two different things as bookmakers themselves decide the dividend for fixed odds.
The open bet is regarded by the operators as the single most damaging practise to the health of horseracing, because the money that goes into the open bet is lost to the tote pools and is therefore also lost to potential stakes money for races.
However, in bookmaking shops that offer it, it is noticeable that the queue for the open bet till is longer than the one for the tote till.
The reason is that the punter believes that by not having his wins included as part of the divisor the dividend will be greater.
In this he might be correct, but what he fails to recognise is that all the other people in the open bet queue are detracting from the size of the pool.
If an agreement was reached between all punters in a particular tote that they will all bet on the tote and not on the open bet, the dividends are likely to be bigger rather than smaller as the losers, which are naturally going to be the larger section of betters per race, will be contributing to the size of the pool and therefore to the size of the dividend.
One only has to look at the strongest horseracing country's in the world, the likes of Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan and France to realise this.
All of these countries have tote monopolies, the pools are huge and the bigger the pool the stronger the dividend.
Furthermore, the returns for racehorse owners in these countries are very strong due to the excellent stakes money derived from the tote turnover, and this leads to a winning situation for everybody involved in the game including punters, owners, trainers, breeders and jockeys.
Even pure racefans who simply love the sport benefit as good stakes attract good horses.
In local races like the Vodacom Durban July too, money is poured on to the tote in the knowledge that the huge pools will lead to healthy dividends.
A further detractor to the open bet for punters should be that their dividend is subject to bookmaker's betting tax.
Also, as one punter found to his cost on Dubai World Cup night, bookmakers have limits to their payouts.
In one particular bookmaker the limit for a quartet payout is displayed as 35 000-1.
One punter, who bet on the open bet at this bookmaker, was overjoyed when winning 10% of a quartet on Dubai World Cup night that paid a dividend in the region of R280, 000 on the tote.
He expected to receive a payout of roundabout R28, 000.
Alas, 10% of 35,000 is only R3,500 and that was all he was paid, much to his bemusement and anger.
The open bet was declared legal in a recent court case, but it is no doubt damaging to horseracing and if punters could band together and boycott it, it would also benefit the size of their dividend rather than detract from it.
In deciding whether to go this route, punters could also consider that bookmakers make a limited financial contribution to horseracing compared to the tote.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For me a relative well written article and in principle I agree with his points, HOWEVER what he does not cover (and this comes as no great surprise to me as it is written/published on a GC sanctioned website) is the HUGe discrepancies in the tote payouts over the last 6-months to a year. Why not ask the question why the queues are now longer for the open bet than the tote line.....It isn't because the punter thinks he will get a better dividend due to the R1 divisor being included, rather than excluded as with the tote, but rather that he is guaranteed a certain level of payout. Not like the tote where you are guaranteed a serious case of the clap these days.......................

I will support the tote 200% as no doubt I would want the stakes pools to be higher and I would want racing to benefit even more, but this hypocritical article for me again proves that the proprietors are trying to lead us by the noses......

I'm not stupid pal, I can see with my own eyes whats happening, even if certain groups are too blind to find the water when falling off a boat!

Where are the real journalists who will write articles for the betterment of racing, not just the betterment of a certain segment of racing......Oh, i forgot, they may all still be at Emperors waiting for their awards (tongue in cheek)

Touche

Great stuff again David, this line says it all

"is the huge discrepancies in the tote payouts over the last 6-months to a year".

No satisfactory reply has been received to date.

We are all aware of the benefits of the tote to racing, however the educated punter will not take R1.50 a win and R1.00 a place when he can have "fixed" odds with a bookmaker with no uncertainty in the return and this would tend to be the bigger punters.

Some decent points in the article but the whole "the bigger the pool the bigger the dividend arguement" does not sit with me

"the dividends are likely to be bigger rather than smaller as the losers, which are naturally going to be the larger section of betters per race, will be contributing to the size of the pool and therefore to the size of the dividend. "

I would assume that the number of losers v winners who take the open bet is much the same percentage as those who play on the tote? The assumption above appears to be that every guy you send back to the tote will be a loser. I would like the writer (or someone else) to prove to me that bigger pools mean bigger dividends.

He also says "the bigger the pool the stronger the dividend" - if by strong he means robust and more reflective of the market I agree, if by strong he means big I disagree. Smaller pools in my view would result in more skewed payouts where for example one big bet can influence the dividend alot be it a winner or a loser but I cannot get my head around how bigger pools would result in bigger dividends other than say a P6 scenario where there are only a handful of winners or perhaps a single winner sharing the pot.

Well said tommy, has he wrote an article about the Tote debacle,which is probably the reason why the open bet will only get more popular

another mistake is that open bets taken with bookies are not subject to tax by the bookies,if you take 100 places and it pays 3 rand a place you get 300 back ..with due respect to dave thistleton tell your employers to look inwards and they will see the problem...get your totes upgraded get your people that sell tote tickets to become customer friendly and then punters might reconsider going back to the tote....unfortunately for them we punters have a choice where to bet and bookies have given us a better deal all round so lift your game boys...remember its not us punters problems that stakes are where they are so dont come with that shit argument...and while you getting your own house in order get the phum gold owned betting world company in line as well...i have been waiting to see the ceo mr weare for 10 mths now but to no avail ...

2 WORDS


HONG KONG

What exactly does the punter gain out of the takeout?, we know that money is used for stakes (owners, trainers, jockeys), tax (government), Phumelela (shareholders, salaries, show on the road etc.,), but why isn't half a % put into a well regulated government blessed punters association and used by the punters body for the punter????

Without getting into the morals of the open bet, perhaps the writers of these advertorials (because are you a journalist when you are writing on behalf of your party?) should at least get their facts right. There is no way betting on a tote is better from a dividend point of view if someone will lay you a bet outside that pool, and especially if they absorb the tax.

Although contrary to the court case, I do believe that the tote dividend is the product of the tote, and that allowing bookmakers to sell it was a mistake by the courts...what the F*** do they know about horseracing anyway?

It's a great pity that an industry now has to beg from the very people it treated so badly, those who played small stakes but in multitudes. When I was a student (and at school too, so long time now) I worked at offcourse totes during the period when it changed from closing at racetime to staying open. All I can say is "What you sow, so shall you reap".

The tote is perhaps the greatest money making model in gambling today after the lottery. I think the 3rd most profitable model may be exchanges. In his book "No Easy Money - A gambler's notebook", Dave Nevison remarks "Over a five year period, Mark Smith and I have made approaching 500,000 pounds profit on Betfair but we have paid about a third of that in commission, even with a commission rate of between 2.5 per cent and 3 per cent." So even a small take of turnover = a huge share of the total amount..now imagine the tote's 17% to 25% bite.

These models make money on turnover, a bit like taking a slice of the wave as it repeatedly breaks in and then again as it washes out. The model carries no liability, just makes enormous profits on movement. It is very funny when some people think that banning bookmakers is the solution. For a start, the first few 100 years of racing there was no tote, it's a relatively new concoction, so the bookies where there long before and was part of the formation of the sport. Secondly, in countries with a low national gambling urge, with tote only racing is also struggling as in the US. And finally, there is a decent number of people from both owner and gambler ranks who 'like' gambling with bookmakers because in these 'low urge' countries they cannot play on the tote on an ordinary day, and if you deprive them you will lose them completely, or worse, they will go underground like in all the tote only markets and the 'open' bet will take on a new meaning.

I guess the above article coincides that I heard GC announcing a R12 million reduction in stakes (possibly no more 4th place stakes in certain types of races). I wonder how it works that while P pays out dividends and GC doesn't, that P makes a profit and GC makes a loss even though income is from a slightly unequal split of national tote income. I wonder why Thistleton isn't writing about the chairmanship squabble rather than blaming the loses on those pesky customers who won't play with them just because we pissed on them a little bit. The owners take a half a billion rand hit for racing and the punters probably the same, just how much subsidy do they want? I'm not convinced that a merger is the way out, because even this little bit of remaining competition is required to keep them honest. Imagine just one cell phone operator..would turn into an Eskom.

I hope there is a way out of this mess. Maybe we can rely on a government bail-out if all else fails.

thistleton in his one sided propaganda article should have got the opinion of punters and bookies that offer the open bet..shocking piece of journalism

Before you decide who is to blame for the open bet,how many know how it came to be?...so let me help!
I had a 1/2 share in a bookmakers cubicle in the 80's and we were positioned ,in a shopping centre,right next door to the tote, WHICH CLOSED AT 11am, including Saturdays( and July and Met days) and late comers who were looking for 100 swingers etc. looked to bookmakers to provide what the tote didn't....all day access to tote bets

---

but we had to have limits,as we did not have the benefit of turnover near to what the pools enjoyed.These limits were displayed on large boards,but this did not deter punters who had no other options.

SO, lets all remember that it was the normal crappy tote service that created the alternate product,a lesson they have not learned to this day!

That's it in a nutshell, Rob. The way to a customer's pocket is via good service, a reliable product, and customer relations that don't make the customer feel like an unwanted itch. Repeatedly flighting those stupid "No Tax No SA" etc slogans on Tellytrack is not the answer.