YOU BE THE JUDGE NO. 2

The point i'm making Lsetaro, is that the debate Tote v Bookmaker, is one that affects the punters' choice/preferance to punt or not to punt. If not attractive enough, they will take their gambling rands elsewhere, which affects all.
As the bulk of the punters are not white, why no representation for the punter/man in the street to tell all and sundry what would entice them to have a punt ?
This is not a govt contract, its a gradual process to inform, encompass, educate and uplift all stakeholders in our industry.

I thought O Conner was an absolute hoot:

I will paraphrase, and stand open to correction if I interepreted this incorrectly, but on the subject of Betting Exchanges he says:

"He vehemently opposes Betfair being legalised in South Africa, because the only person that will benefit from laying a horse on a Betting Exchange is the punter".....

And at the end of the show, in his summation, he says:

"the bookmakers priority is to ensure the punter is catered for"...

The show was pathetic..Andrews is absolutely useless in that role..not nearly controversial enough..once again not enough research done before the debate..the guy from the gambling board is a joke..the guy from the tote comes across as this prim corporate yes man with all the promices the usual corporate managers spew out daily to keep their jobs.

The only guy who did some research and had some guts was the RA guy..interesting to me..

and anyway their topics are still skirting around the real fundamental foundation problems of the industry.

The root of the problem is not in the percentages but rather at entry level. A new punter enters the system of punting at the Tote level and progresses to Bookies if they stay that long.

The Tote is responsible for capturing the new punter and the experience should therefore be rewarding. You will not capture new punters in SA by offering overseas betting. Business wise P sees the global market of which we are 1/2 a percentage of according to the P director on last nights show, as something that they need to tap into. For profiteering obviously but at what cost for the industry? The question is do overseas punters contribute to our pools on a daily basis and is that money filtering back into racing? If not why have it?

Again I sit and watch as the powers that be sit on there hands whilst slot machines pop up in every bar, franchised or private (and our local Tote too for that matter) in my area. I would like to be able to take a bet at my local pub rather than a doghole tote. This is common practice in UK and Aus by what I have been told but is something that no one is considering on our side.

GROW OUR MARKET AND THE POOLS WILL GROW. GROW THE POOLS AND THE MARKET WILL GROW. MAKE OUR OFFERING ATTRACTIVE AND IRRISTABLE. PLEASE

I thought the show was good, but could have been better:

1. Why ask for input/questions from the 'public' and then not give the panelists the opportunity to answer these questions?

2. Why stop the debate between Brugman and O' Connor (I agree with Yeldah - what a hoot) just when it was getting interesting?

3. Why not elaborate on the statement by Attenborough with regards to betting exchanges not being 'viable' in SA; I for one (well maybe I'm just stupid) did not follow his reasoning.

In general (and I am talking from an owner's standpoint), I thought Brugman came accross very well - if there was an RA election tomorrow he would get my vote for re-election on this performance ; Attenborough talked the talk, the guy from the Gambling Board seemed willing to take the issues further, but o' Connor really blew it with his contradictory statements about the 'punter'.

In the end the show just re-enforced some issues most of us are already aware of; let's hope we see some action. I have no doubt that there is room for bookmakers in the SA setup, but they need to get their house in order and contribute more to the industry.

I thought the show was ok, but scratched the surface and got side tracked.

Brugman, who I don't like, was far and away best prepared, better than the host. He in fact had more control even up to when he made it clear that he was Neil's boss in effect. Clearly he tried to tackle the points on their merit rather than from a position, unlike TAB-man, gambling board guy and Bookie Apologist.

It's a pity TAB-man didn't have the figures. To be honest, most Tote revenue is from exotics, which is not bookie territory, and most bookies and their customers are players in that market.

The only real overlap is the win pool, and even though the Tote Win Pool is effectively a 120% book, it's absolutely no competition at all to bookmakers and never will be.

Brugman vs O'Connor
If individual bookmakers like Brugman want tighter books, I don't understand why they don't just start doing it. A tighter book means offering better prices, so let the 'better' bookmakers offer better prices. There is no law telling Ackermann what price to sell a can of peas in Pick 'n Pay, over the years he's been the cheapest/best service combo, and now he's the biggest.

As a punter I shop around, interbet is good, but useless for doubles. Bettingworld is the best for doubles and being online means I can play all sorts of funny combinations without aggravating anyone. But ofcourse, win a few and they limit you to 5K...or R80 on a 2x 10/1 double...a little pathetic.

I don't think it is a case of Tote vs Bookies. Each must try to be better. The tote is a monopoly totalisator, and a cash business. Bookies are individuals who gamble. Bettingworld is essentially the Tote's plunge as a monopoly into specialized fixed price betting. If it's price that people want, Bettingworld can offer 110% book and clean up, their problem will ultimately be how they handle the Bookie's secret weapon...credit.

Hello girls!Did you watch the show? Why no women execs in racing? Isn't it funny how these racing men talk about themselves to themselves? Why no mention of the fact that bookmakers should be paying their commission on total turnover, not only winning bets? Half the panel obviously weren't interested in that favorable deal for racing. Can Mr Brugman explain to this industry how sectional timing will sort out the empty grandstands and general public disinterest? Why did this panel not highlight the fact that a tote machine can't talk to jockeys and trainers? Why do these bookmakers publicly claim to know of bucket shops but give no evidence to substantiate these claims? Very poor debating skills!

Mr Andrews, as always, very good, and Mr Attenborough obviously understands why Hong Kong is so successful. He also definitely has the best interests of South Africa at heart. I think it is time to start gelding, girls. Both the bookmakers get the chop!

As for Mr Venter"you've got to keep it quiet". Sies!!!!!!!!!!!!Bring out the hot iron!

Love to Saksy! Anytime baby!Mumtaz Mahal

.

Jack Dash, definitely food for thought.

As for MUMMIE [I love Mr Andrews and Mr Attenborough] MAHAL....you have a good day, boy!