Massive pools

RELEASED BY: Phumelela Gaming and Leisure Limited


The Quartet was the star on a day turnovers went through the roof.
Overall turnovers at Greyville's Vodacom Durban July meeting on Saturday were up 10.62% but as far as the Durban July itself was concerned, the increase from last year was an outstanding 27.68%.
While the Pick 6 was marginally down and did not exceed the expected R12 million it appears the reason for that was the overwhelming support for the Quartet, which was the big winner on Durban July day. There was a R1-million added to kick start the pool but even taking that amount off, the pool was up almost 35% from last year’s figure of R10,655,842 to some
16.2 million.
The Quartet of Power King, Punta Arena, Tellina and Futura paid R82,066 to
197.40 winners.
Also receiving a major boost was the Place pool, which increased by almost 34%. However, that was more expected as Vee Moodley, Executive Director:
Sports betting for TAB points out. “This year we were back to 18 horses in the July whereas last year we had only 16. We also paid out six places this time against the five places last time.
“The Quartet was way higher than we predicted and in fact, is the highest Exotic pool ever offered by TAB,” said Moodley.
“This year was quite an eye opener and I have some exciting new ideas for next year’s race.”
The Win pool also showed a decent increase of 22.8% but again that can be put down to the increased number of runners.

so what is vee telling us that us punters don't already know regarding the bigger THE FIELD THE HIGHER THE TURNOVER,,,lets have a look at greyville and look at the decision to build a polytrack inside the grass track and whats it limit of runners...12..the last 12 months due to draw bias and a few other factors the average fields are less than 12 which doesn't do turnover any good WHiCH THE LAST TIME I LOOKED DRIVES THE INDUSTRY...considering that over half of natal racing is going to take place on the polytrack mainly due to a fcuked greyville grass track which lets face it will never get fixed and is so bad that group 1 horses have to canter down on the poly for their races on grass then how the hell is turnover going to increase?the grass track has been compromised for the polytrack and the question remains surely either the whole track must be turned into a polytrack or back to a grass track as it simply isn't going to help turnovers...its either one or the other ...plenty experts said its to small greyville to have 2 tracks and build the poly at scotsville and its proved to be a correct one..

The only lessons that could have been learnt is that greater pool liquidity leads to even bigger pools.

So for next year I predict bigger main race pool subsidies and perhaps even a few other races as well and possibly a return of the Superfecta (select 6) or a select 5

Perhaps Vee Moodley should consider the reasons for the p6 decline. Perhaps punters don't want a lottery with big payouts because it is almost impossible to catch. Perhaps punters actually want the chance to catch something and make some money. Perhaps all the bullshit about rockets and growing pools in the p6 should be acknowledged as rubbish and the couplings be reinstated. Perhaps the majority of punters would invest there again and not into a quartet.

OTA, you are so right.

The product that we are trying to market (Scoreline) gives the player and the operator the best of both worlds. Regular carry overs, way more than the current P6 to generate the necessary interest in racing but guaranteed daily pay outs (a large portion of the daily pool) to look after the punters interest and to support churn.

The format that I have developed will turn a few punters into guaranteed millionaires every 3 months without even having to catch all the winners in any event during this time.

Somehow this concept does not appeal to our betting operator at present which is difficult to understand given that they have a few smart people working for them and the concept is very solid and highly marketable to experienced and new players.

LSU wrote: OTA, you are so right.

The product that we are trying to market (Scoreline) gives the player and the operator the best of both worlds. Regular carry overs, way more than the current P6 to generate the necessary interest in racing but guaranteed daily pay outs (a large portion of the daily pool) to look after the punters interest and to support churn.

The format that I have developed will turn a few punters into guaranteed millionaires every 3 months without even having to catch all the winners in any event during this time.

Somehow this concept does not appeal to our betting operator at present which is difficult to understand given that they have a few smart people working for them and the concept is very solid and highly marketable to experienced and new players.

I look at Racing differently - Racing has ardent fans that punt for various reasons even-though sports betting offers an easier way to show returns - Let's compare the p6 to the soccer 13 - You have only three choices per match in the S13 - How many different combinations do you have in the p6 ? If a person wanted to become a millionaire then they would surely play the S13 before any P6 . I don't personally take any soccer bets but logic suggests that that is the bet that a dream punter should pursue. We,(Racing) have such strong competition in Sports Betting that our only hope is to continue to boost casual punters and combine some other forms of entertainment to boost turnovers.

Mr H, no doubt to each his own and racing punters and other gamblers definitely differ from one another. I also don't play the soccer 13 even though it offers the potential of a dream payout, so money is most certainly not the only attraction when we choose to get involved.

Racing does need the big bet though if it is to draw initial attention to it amongst the huge non-racing population as this is often the first thing that creates awareness. Lotto and casino's use this very effectively to draw people into the mix.

The difference with racing is that the big bet on offer is not quite big enough to draw the new interest from which everyone already involved could benefit and it is very difficult to win without some racing knowledge and experience, a big bank roll and tons of luck. With the others it is just luck and people are not intimidated by the process to get on.

Racing should make more sense as a game that requires skill but stagnant pools and an uninspired offering does not appeal to a new generation, but it could with the right new products.

Current products are good but so much more can be done to improve the marketing of racing through the use of products designed for the purpose.

I gather from a very good source that the only reason the pick 6 was down was that there was a problem on the Phumelela side that caused a server I think he said to send a message to close the tote machines down for awhile before the 3rd and 4th race and this caused the short fall on the total pool expected. I am sure that some of this money that missed out on getting onto the pick 6 was put onto the quartet and helped produce that huge pool.

I understand the need to ensure that P6 type bets don't become "too easy" ,but I disagree with changing rules which perceive that "insiders" have an advantage ( the stable elect)
Has the most obvious and sensible action been completely ignored in racing ......inflation!
When I started punting,4% of the starting salary of a bank clerk got you 8 lines of an exotic (Jp's and PA's).......to show the relativity,it now gets 240+ lines.
If the cost was equitable it would be approx. R15 per line.as opposed to R1.
If the unit cost was raised and a fractional minimum was introduced, it would create the necessary degree of difficulty without any sector feeling hard done by.
(affordability is just a universal fact in every aspect of life and always has,and always will exist)
If racing had increased gradually every 5 years ,would the rules have needed changing?
It is undoubtedly time to increase the unit cost to at least R2 and have a target of R5 in the foreseeable future,but keep the rules fair to all participants.
How exciting would jackpots and PA's been, at a now equivalent 3c a line, when they kicked off? I doubt they would have caught on at all.

So true Rob, think of what pool sizes could be under your illustrated scenario.

But racing can still do so much more to harness a new generation of players (excuse the pun)

The obsession to market racing purely as an attraction has to be complemented with marketing the sport as a year round activity.

This will be much more effective from a marketing perspective but would require new product types to get maximum traction.

Guess this won't be happening any time soon though as it requires an actual investment in racing.

nice thread and topic...

rob faux wrote: I understand the need to ensure that P6 type bets don't become "too easy" ,but I disagree with changing rules which perceive that "insiders" have an advantage ( the stable elect)
Has the most obvious and sensible action been completely ignored in racing ......inflation!
When I started punting,4% of the starting salary of a bank clerk got you 8 lines of an exotic (Jp's and PA's).......to show the relativity,it now gets 240+ lines.
If the cost was equitable it would be approx. R15 per line.as opposed to R1.
If the unit cost was raised and a fractional minimum was introduced, it would create the necessary degree of difficulty without any sector feeling hard done by.
(affordability is just a universal fact in every aspect of life and always has,and always will exist)
If racing had increased gradually every 5 years ,would the rules have needed changing?
It is undoubtedly time to increase the unit cost to at least R2 and have a target of R5 in the foreseeable future,but keep the rules fair to all participants.
How exciting would jackpots and PA's been, at a now equivalent 3c a line, when they kicked off? I doubt they would have caught on at all.

Rob
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
The problem as I see it, is the issue of disposable income to punt.

In my opinion, even if the unit cost increases, punters will only have "so much" money to spend.