OPEN BET, MUGS BET...?

Quite a few posters here are comparing fixed odds bets to tote bets. Pity they don't understand what the open bet is.... or that they don't address the thread.... hope they read the fine print before having an open bet...

So then, Hibs, why not donate half your stakes to the Horse Care Unit, seeing as you don't give a hoot about stakes...lol

I recall a few years ago the debate wrt Tote vs Bookmakers (fixed odds). A record was kept of I think KZN races and the Tote dividends were actually better than the Bookies odds overall. It would be interesting to compare the returns when taking the Open Bet with the Bookies vs the Tote Payouts. thus comparing Apples with Apples.

Why do Bookies have all these clauses, and in fine print, for the Open Bets they lay. I think to cover themselves in case they have not taken it back on the Tote. Why do the Bookies LOVE the Open Bet so much, I am sure not for the good of the Punter. IMO because in truth they also have no Risk in that they take the Bet back on the Tote and so get paid the actual declared dividend. They then reduce the Punters Payout (after the 25% take out) with the hidden Clauses they have and then on top of this the Punter then also gets Taxed a further 6%.

Maybe my reasoning is skewed but this is the reason why I for one will never place an Open bet with a bookie, fixed price bet a different story.

But Phum's tote has a lot of catching up to do. It needs to go on a marketing course.

I personally don't like taking bets where i don't know how much i am going to win and don't take tote bets or the "open bet" however to call the open bet a mugs bet is just foolish.

IMO If you look at win and place bets, with a winning ticket a punter should get more taking the open bet as opposed to playing into the tote pool as their winning bet does not 'dilute' the payout. This would become more noticeable the bigger the amount gambled/the smaller the particular pool. So why would a bigger punter playing wins and places play into the tote pool and likely take less when they can take the open bet and likely get paid more? The open bet is legal as decided by the highest court in the land as far as i know. So why wouldn't a punter utilize the options available to them to get the biggest return?

Can the bookies start running their own pools based on the tote model, exotics and race by race betting? If not why should they not be able to give that option to their customers.

Here's a scenario for Louis to consider :

Louis is a professional racehorse trainer and, as such, he makes his living out of racing. Not unlike a bookmaker except that bookmakers are no longer (for which they must be eternally grateful!) totally dependent upon racing for betting turnover opportunities. To this end I believe Louis pays the NHA an annual license fee of R5,145 or suchlike.

One day the operator suddenly announces via the NHA that he (the operator) is not happy with the contribution that Louis is making to racing.

With immediate effect he advises Louis that henceforth his license will cost him 3% of his stable turnover. Louis has, say, a modest 30 horses in training at R6,000 pm basic training fee so his license cost will increase from R5,145 pa to R64,800 per annum.

I use this example not to antagonize Louis but simply to highlight what happens when a cost is suddenly escalated out of all proportion.

I just hope I am not giving the operator ideas.

Garrick, you make a very good point. As a Trainer, that would be very costly and I would have to pass that on to the poor Owner.
There already is a big hoo ha about subsidies and our Stabling invoices now mention a subsidy. They invoice us, now, in full, for stables, eg what they maintain the cost per stable to them is and then they "deduct" the "subsidy" to get to the nett cost per stable. Also, private Trainers are being looked at now. For eg, a Trainer who is based a few km's from Vaal gets the same subsidy as a Trainer who is some 120km away.....

Interesting times indeed...

But the Open Bet is a killer IMHO. Bookies themselves are part and parcel of Racing as I know it. Just not the Open Bet...

It might be a mugs bet but in the small town were I come from there was only a bookie,
So we had to play our exotic bets with him. We knew about the restrictions , but if you never had
A telebet account you had no choice. We could also take our bets the day before .
On the side side of the coin the tote now offers soccer bets so is this not infringing on bookies and causing
Them loss of turnover .
Nobody goes into business to lose out on a chance to make money it's about who can market the product
Better and offer the customer a better service.
Just as a owner can choose who they want as a trainer, THE PUNTER CAN CHOOSE WERE TO TAKE THEIR
BET

Nish, u are correct in that it is about choices. The punter can choose where to bet. But, you had no choice, where you come from and have to use the open bet, as that is what the bookie offers, with restrictions. That bookie also has a choice, which is whether to run the legitimate tote or not.

As for the Soccer bets..... maybe good to go back a bit and find out who actually started these in SA, in terms of the Soccer 6 etc. To the best of my memory, it was the tote that started it, properly marketed etc, with their sponsorship of Supersport United and the bookies followed suit...I could be wrong. IMHO, soccer bets are not infringing on the bookies turnover, then.

But, the Soccer bet is irrelevant on this issue, as neither the bookies nor the tote can claim to be funding Soccer and that this is the sole income of Soccer.

Also, I read here of alleged big hitters who use the open bet, so as not to effect the dividends. I also read here of Marshalls having a tote teller and the open bet together and the punter must be very careful of which ticket he receives. The point is that the big hitter's bet can easily be placed onto the tote, at the discretion of the bookie. Now, given the modern day trends and limits of bookies, I would assume that the bookie would rather lay it off (some or all) on the tote, thus effecting dividends in his favour, in most instances.
This little scam or plan or whatever you want to call it, again plays into the bookies hands. And then there is the 6% tax on the winning bets for the Punter to pay....

Could this not also be a source of the late reductions of tote odds, at the death, just as the gates open?

The open bet is a mugs bet and offers no better than the tote, only less. But fixed odds with a bookie - thats the way to go, imho.

For instance, my yard collected very nicely, thank you, on the double recently - Moggytwoshoes to win onto Move Like Jagger eachway. (thats why we tried hard in the objection, after Meissa had carried Move Like Jagger across the course). The bets were fixed odds bets, with a bookie. And we got paid. No problem with the bookie doing what bookies do.

But, the open bet is the issue.....

If you insist on playing the open bet, then MAKE SURE YOU KNOW THE LIMITS, RULES, RESTRICTIONS AND DEDUCTIONS of your bookie. READ THE FINEPRINT !!!

Or you can play at the tote, get the exact, legitimate and FULL dividend, the same dividend from which your bookie pays the open bet winners......then deducts and restricts and limits....

or be a mug and pray that you dont catch the big one, on say, Classic Day (R4M pick6 pool? ) or Champions Day? or July Day (R12M p6 pool? )

.

I agree that bookies should not take open bets...... because then the tote pools will (should) be MUCH bigger. Guess what? I play the open bet.... daily !!!! Why? Accessibility, convenience, service ...... {shrug}