Skip to main content

Betfair v Racing NSW

This case has been running all week and will continue for a few days yet. Numerous articles about it in the Aus press with Racing NSW gaining some ground (they couldn't really lose much more) and legalese choking proceedings to a very slow grind. One quote from tomorrow's article in the Sydney Morning Herald I wanted to highlight though:

Racing NSW argues that the fee should be calculated by turnover because turnover is easier to assess and ''less susceptible to avoidance or manipulation'' than gross revenue.

It also argues that turnover is not influenced by the particular business model or business decisions made by the company.

Turnover is also preferable to gross revenue because it cannot be manipulated by inducements, rebates or benefits given to valuable customers, Racing NSW argues.


Rubbish, there is not one system in the world which is manipulation-proof. On-course bookmakers in Aus have been caught over the years taking bets on a second set of books - specifically to avoid turnover tax. Certain corporate bookies have added zeros to significant bets to make them into sexy press releases to send around to all the nation's journos. Turnover is very easy to influence by business model - accept bet, reject bet, tighten margins. If the TABs moved to a 4% margin (instead of 16+) tomorrow, do you think their turnover wouldn't see an enormous increase??

Turnover is only an important performance indicator for the totes, bookies have little interest in turnover, it's the bottom line which counts. And since profits of these companies have to be reported to the government and to the stock exchange for some, then there should be more checks and balances in the gross profits model.

Totes have a place in the betting market, and so do corporate bookmakers and betting exchanges. Trying to protect one will just kill interest across the board and allow the TABs, which one has to remember are not government-owned anymore they have shareholders too, to increase their margins as they see fit as regulations change and more matey agreements are struck behind closed doors....

Ever been to a racecourse in a country with only totes? If you're a punter, it's like watching paint dry (with the exception of rare feature days and Hong Kong which is an isolated case because they understand the balance of quality v quantity).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

lay the field - my favourite racing strategy

Dabbling with laying the field in-running at various prices today, not just one price, but several in the same race. Got several matched in the previous race at Brighton, then this race came along at Nottingham. Such a long straight at Nottingham makes punters often over-react and think the finish line is closer than it actually is. As you can see by the number of bets matched, there was plenty of volatility in this in-play market. It's rare you'll get a complete wipe-out with one horse getting matched at all levels, but it can happen, so don't give yourself too much risk...

Racing has a Ponzi scheme - and the fallout will be enormous

When the term 'Ponzi scheme' is mentioned these days, the names Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford instantly spring to mind. The pair of them ran multi-billion dollar frauds (US$60bn and $8bn respectively) that destroyed the lives of thousands of investors who had put their life savings into a 'wonderful' investment strategy. How so many people were sucked into the scheme is baffling to those on the outside. The lifestyle, the sales pitch, the success stories of the early investors - I suppose it all adds up.

So where does this link to racing you ask? A prominent Australian 'racing identity' this week has been reported to have lost access to a bank account with punters' club funds of $194m in it. Firstly - is there a worse term for anyone to be labelled with that 'racing identity'? It ALWAYS ends up meaning shonky crook! Secondly - who the hell has a punters' club with an active bankroll in the tens of millions? It simply can't be done.

The…

damage control when trading goals

When trades go bad, some people will say cut your losses immediately, others will recommend having a bit of patience as events tend to level out (i.e. games with two goals in the first 10 mins never end up with 18 goals in 90 minutes). This is something I like to do on certain matches.

Background:
1. You've backed Under 2.5 goals, trying to nick a few ticks at a time as the clock ticks.
2. You've been caught out by a goal.
3. The market has gone sharply against you.

On this particular match from a couple of weeks ago, there was an early goal (sixth minute) before I got involved. The period immediately after an early goal regularly shows a sharp drop in the Under price, so I was trying to capitalise on that. But Watford then scored again after 14 minutes. The Back price I took (3.95) was now out to 12 - I could close out for a big loss (not my style) or wait and wait for the price to come back to somewhere I could close out for minimal damage. But at 2-0 after 15 minutes, it w…