End of the Open Bet for Bookmakers?

Titch is your office next door to Riaan....<

Titch has an office between Riaan and Tex - all the furniture is Gomma Gomma ()

mr hawaii Wrote:

---

> Titch has an office between Riaan and Tex - all
> the furniture is Gomma Gomma ()


LOL....

Greg I heard he is also the spokesman for the SA Guidedog Ass:)-D

So now I also know why people say..."hy het die kat aan die g@t beet"
Way I see it you first get the product and the punter will follow, right?:S

gregbucks Wrote:

---

> hotline Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > Jack...no one said they are "flying"...just
> said
> > the pools are huge......and by the way on this
> > subject are you wearing a bookies cap ,owners
> cap
> > or breeders cap?
>
> Hotline, stop forgetting to include the ''punters
> cap''...

LOL I been klapped with all those caps -

I've am/have been all those things but I try to be objective as much as possible. I try not to argue for something just because I am something. I try.

The thing that aggravates me beyond anything is hypocracy. In the ongoing debate on this forum, at least bookies aren't hypocrites, and neither are punters. The continual drivel from other sources is infuriating.

It's pointless debating the open bet here on page 3 after an already long see saw, however perhaps we can just give one thin slice of the open bet debate a look.

I've heard it said that R500 million is being lost to bookmakers of which R100 million would end up in the stakes pot. I would love to see where these figures come from... lets say we have to be careful what we believe.

But lets go with these figures for the want of proper numbers. Currently betting turnover is R6 billion per annum, which generates about R300 million to the stakes pot.

Lets assume that the open bet be stopped and that the entire "R500 million" would go on the tote,
1. assuming that people PURPOSEFULLY playing off the tote to preserve the dividend are happy to proceed
2. that no bookmakers ever put any cover on the tote as that figure would already be counted.

Unless my arithmetic is wrong, even if ALL that turnover did move directly over, then turnover would go up to 6.5 billion and generate stakes of R325 million. 25 million isn't 100 million, and hardly the salvation of everything, EVEN if those numbers could be true. The problem is people throw out so many theories, but I'm not sure I trust them anymore.

Hotline - It probably unfair of me to ask you to respond to what follows but I will have a crack at it and you may be able to shed some light on the issue.

Rob makes the comment :

"There IS a guarantee.There is a stakes agreement that is linked to T/O .....big profits don't count"

Is SA racing not facing the same plight as some major American Banks and corporations. Crying for bailouts in one instance but paying bombs to management in bonuses in the next? The only ones really feeling any pain is the customer!

I am sure that the equation is not as simple as this but if it is, the idea of stakes being linked to T/over and profit being left to management is a problem IMO. Management will always ring the neck out of cost centres to ensure their bonuses.Then of course shareholders interests and dividends can never be placed before the moral interests! What happens, things begin to slide....Its a business after all and the key motivator is profit before all else.

The problem is that speculators buying shares on the JSE are not interested in the commodity, they are only interested in how it is run and that they will see a return on their money quickly and regularly. Put and take and take and take....

Example: We all think Pick n Pay is a grocery store, Pick n Pay is a bank. The real money is in selling the commodity, holding on the cash and paying creditors long after (60 day payments to creditors). Commodity has already been sold maybe even at a loss, but the cash in the bank is making the real money.

The question is, should owners not control racing rather than a management company. Would horse racing owners not be in a better position to protect their own interests by protecting the product. IMO the current structure will always see owners wanting to drive T/over to ensure stakes (the carrot) and the man-co will always be driving profitablity (take out with what appears to be very little large scale capital investment to rejuvinate the game).

The coporitisation of racing has been well documented and debated (one sidedly) on this site. The big question has to be under the old regime (pre corporitisation) surely management and other take outs costs alone were far less than they are now? I wonder what percentage of turnover this represents and whether or not this may be the second elephant in the room (the 1st being the open bet)?

@ Titch,

There is no contention here.This is fact.I know it is true because I have been offered it personally in the past.You have to do it from overseas though,and it's just too much of a mission for me at this stage,but it's definitely going on.

The tote, open bets and the like are all mere parts of a problem. Although I agree that 'outlawing' the open bet might help the overall problems are deep seated and structural. At the risk of boring you all to death and irritating ( again! ) the one eyed slaves (and employees ) of the industry allow to me summarise my view of the sport/industry. A view, I might add, which is shared by many hundreds of people whom the industry would love to have as participants and patrons.

After 40 years of participation in this industry I can state without any ill feeling or rancour that from my viewpoint the sport is structurally corrupt. I have worn virtually every hat from owner, punter, bookmaker etc., and can only point to breeding as a role I have not played. Within each sector that I have been active practises ranging from immoral to illegal proliferate. ( I can hear you all shouting : Isn't all business the same ? Possibly. But it does not make it right ).

I now no longer own horses or attend racemeetings and have recently also ceased punting on horses in any form whatsoever.

The rot is evident at almost every level and attracts little comment and/or no action :

Breeding : There is rampant use of illegal and inhumane methods to 'prepare' yearlings. Chances are modern breeding methods are slowly breeding all the 'good' out of the thoroughbred. so your basic product is becoming more and more unsound.

Auctions : You know what goes on. I don't need to labour the point.

Feed and Nutrition : It may now be more 'efficient' but side effects such as colic impair or kill horses and there is no current evidence as to what the long term effects are of cubes and whatever.

Training : It's solitary confinement accompanied by any number of other dubious practises involving medical 'help' employed to 'exploit' the animal.

Betting : It brings out the worst in most of us. There are always schemes afoot.

So let's get on to the open bet in a little more detail now that we have swum through that cesspool :

To believe that canning the open bet will automatically increase stakes is so naive as to be almost laughable.The industry is in effective survival mode so you can bet your bottom dollar that huge swathes of additional funding emerging from this windfall would be applied to other projects as well as modest increases in stakes.

If I am to believe the posters who claim that you cannot get a box for love or money in certain centres why is there any particular pressure to raise stakes when owners appear happy to continue buying horses and racing at current stake levels?

The horse industry desperately needs COMPETITION from within. This site is riddled with dissatisfaction about the operator yet the slow stranglehold exerted by Phumelela continues to tighten with the occasional and temporary setback. Monopoly breeds inefficiency. That's a fact. And the tote experience has become very inefficient and questionable.

Bookmakers survive because they offer credit to their big players and not because of the open bet. They also offer a DIFFERENT product type which the Tote does not offer. I have struck substantial bets in the past which would have resulted in a Tote dividend of R1 ( if I was lucky! ) off an SP of, say, 7/1. How is that a proposition for a punter? and before you all jump on your soapboxes the sport still receives 3% on winning business which they are unable to provide themselves! And..........the market in RSA may NEVER be big enough to handle massive strikes on horses and sustain attractive payouts.

Furthermore - the natural development of a relationship between the provider ( bookmaker ) and the customer can be both cordial and flexible. To the best of my knowledge the tote has never attempted to create or nurture a VIP type betting model. Yet my bookmaker can and will make facility available at 11 pm in the evening if required!

In my opinion the tote costing model is also outdated. 25% deduction for a Pick 6? Why? They are churning funds so quickly with s-o-o-o much racing they should be looking at reducing takeout to promote better 'dividends'. ( Sidebar : If the Tote continues to refer to payouts as 'dividends' should they not also be subject to the additional new Dividend Tax of 15%? Lol ).

The demise of the open bet would not be the white knight or silver bullett. Should it happen it would be nice to see it in conjunction with a tender process offer to other parties wishing to operate the Tote. I cannot see new blood, for example, instituting a bet as confiscatory and immoral as the All To Come - which has been almost the sole new 'creative' offering from the Tote in recent years.

mr hawaii Wrote:

---

>
> How many Casino punters do you know that own their
> own Slot Machines ? You don't need more owners,
> trainers or jockeys you need more muggs to fill
> the machines

Bwahahahahah...

mr hawaii Wrote:

---

> How many Casino punters do you know that own their
> own Slot Machines ? You don't need more owners,
> trainers or jockeys you need more muggs to fill
> the machines

The problem and big question is : Who owns the slot machine called South African Racing? I say it belongs to the operators as they pay (fund) it, and everybody else that uses if for free or virtually free is stealing. It is as simple as that.

Sharkie Chicken/egg- Punters fund the operators by placing bets - Owners provide the contest -
I am still trying to understand how an increase in stakes will suddenly pull in reams of new punters and thereby save the game? Will the masses suddenly wake up and say let me have a punt cause a Maiden Race is now 100K? Now if a run of the mill Maiden has a win pool of R200 000 will punters suddenly rush down to the Tab to have a bet? The spinners will have us believe this - They run a business and are trying to win back lost market share which is the correct thing to do but to create this witch hunt hides the fact that they have no idea how to attract new custom. The problem is the betting PIE used to be 100% it's now 5% and the bookmakers are smarter than the operators(they have been around for way longer) - I have been to many a betting shop and the sports betting is about 80% of the customers that I see having a bet - I personally think that it would be a terrible move to stop the bookies from taking the OB as for many of them Racing has become the smallest part of their product range and if it is no longer profitable they will switch off Chanel 232 - If the operators spent more time trying to get new punters involved everyone would win - Unfortunately the rationale is that" Racing will never die" or as Marie Ainthadabet would say "Let them punt Turkey".