TURFFONTEIN PUNTER ROBBED OF R325k !

louisg wrote: I repeat - Bookies are not the issue. I also have a bookie account. But they DO NOT PLAY THE OPEN BET on their bookies account.

The OPEN BET is the issue here, not the existence or presence of bookies.

And I think it is precious that, after taking what doesn't belong to them and then not contributing equally or fairly to running racing, there are those who now want the tote to "offer a better deal" to same bookies, as if the tote now suddenly owes them something.

HI GUYS, I STOLE YOUR GOODS. GIVE ME A GOOD DEAL AND I WILL RETURN THEM.

Where or what are we ? Somalia maybe ?

if they feel the open bet is an infringement on their product why did the courts not agree ?
If that is correct then where is the problems
You cannot complain about restrictions a business has if they there to be seen before you do business with them
Regarding contributing to costs what are the totes on their sports bets ?
All racing assets are in their hands so why look for contributions from other parties
Facts on figures are not known to me but the pools are there for everyone to see and the money isnt unsubstantial
What have they done with the liquid from the sale of racings assets
Read a post saying that racing is practically bankrupt and then one on lowering the stakes so one has to ask whether this is like a warning that hey if racing cannot continue these are the culprits ?

The one thats doing the owing is the custodians of racing

---

FROM: Operational Rules for Bookmakers (All Provinces Gambling Board rules)

23. Open bets

The following shall apply to “open bets” –

(1) all open bets offered by a bookmaker shall be subject to limits as determined by the bookmaker if any;

(2) the limits and conditions applicable to any bet type must be clearly displayed on the notice board, website or other relevant media of the bookmaker concerned.



Marshalls Betting Rules (displayed in every branch) on a poster headed

Bookies have limits and 99% of punters know that the 1% that don't certainly haven't got 30 years experience. For phumelela to criticize Marshals on air is not fair at all. They have done nothing wrong.

Bob Brogan wrote: LG i did say earlier i didnt agree with the % rule

I probably shouldn`t comment as i`m not an exotic player ?

bob is 100 % correct..in that we should not believe in the % rule...i am an agent its not in my interest to sell cheap ..because would i rather prefer 10 % of R1.00 or 5% off R3...the point i am making here,...is to give something back to your punter..and your tote agents as well....if the pool hits R1MILLION...U TAKE YOUR 25%...if your next target is 1.25 million.your %take out should drop...and if u hit 2 million...drop even further..i know it sounds complicated..but in this day and agewith computers..its not that difficult to control...give the punter an incentive...every successful business model in this country at the moment is going this way..fnb with e bucks..absa rewards...etc...even pick and pay and wollies and now i hear spar...its the only way forward...give something back...give guys that have tote accounts an incentive on their tote turnover..at the moment bty trying telling the punter to punt on the tote is only making shareholders richer..so why should the punter even comply

Racing Guru

You have a point but to not back on the tote is not an option if we want racing to continue for the forseeable future. I am all for paying agents a fair commission to accept bets on behalf of the tote operator, and this should perhaps be revisited.

To suggest that the tote should not be supported is longer term suicide as bookmakers still get a considerable portion of their business from bets on local racing.

We all have a responsibility to market racing and to return it to a thriving business, and will all benefit if we succeed.

I agree with Racing Guru and to a certain extent with LSU

But really, what is in it for me, the punter?

LSU wrote: Racing Guru

You have a point but to not back on the tote is not an option if we want racing to continue for the forseeable future. I am all for paying agents a fair commission to accept bets on behalf of the tote operator, and this should perhaps be revisited.

To suggest that the tote should not be supported is longer term suicide as bookmakers still get a considerable portion of their business from bets on local racing.

We all have a responsibility to market racing and to return it to a thriving business, and will all benefit if we succeed.

Your points are absolutely valid,and, insofar as exotics are concerned,it is also in the punters best interests.
Bearing that in mind, it begs the question why the tote fails to secure that business?
I wonder whether Saftote ever considers that question??
May I suggest........... that customers do not trust,and feel disrespected by Saftote which is fatal for a business relationship............due to:
a)Saftotes sense of entitlement to the custom
b)a failure to respond to suspect dividends with anything other than idiotic media releases which suggests we are idiots.
c)failure to acknowledge or interact with customers
d)the customer care area is a joke and smart businesses realise that customer care should be a state of mind(culture) ,not a dept.
I believe that a well managed Saftote could win back the open bet customers but that it won't happen with the encumbents.

In this instance if i was Phumelela i would FUCK the bookies one way.

I would stop posting pools and live tickets. If that meant that even more went to bookies then for the short term so be it. The Bookies would have ZERO reference point to declare their dividends.

So if a tote client caught the pick 6 he / she would simply go in and collect , no where would the dividend be available nor the pool.

Step 2 would be on days where there is for example on 1% winning ticket I would declare 4000 winning tickets and a lower dividend.....lets see how the bookies would explain to their clients that the following pick 6 only paid R2-00 12/1 x 33/1 x 1/1 x 20/1 x 20/1 x 4/1

Then i would start on other bets, like trifectas etc. i would NOT declare dividends for a period of time. The open bet player would be stuffed and the bookies would have to go to a UK based product (tricast/forecast)

Sometimes the best form of defence is attack, i think they go it wrong parading this guy in the media BUT i think they have more aces than they think they holding.

If a bookmaker has a limit on a yankee i can sort of see it BUT on a bet where he has and sometimes does place it on the tote its a no brainer.

Stop the open bet i say.......

Geez EASY ,what are you smoking mate...................you certainly haven't thought that post through.................lol
However,I do agree, in that I also believe that "P" have a lot of ammunition in their armoury, but seem at a loss to use it effectively and rather choose the "big stick" approach.
So far they have ended up being beaten with their own stick!

My thoughts exactly

rob faux wrote: Geez EASY ,what are you smoking mate...................you certainly haven't thought that post through.................lol
However,I do agree, in that I also believe that "P" have a lot of ammunition in their armoury, but seem at a loss to use it effectively and rather choose the "big stick" approach.
So far they have ended up being beaten with their own stick!

easy wrote: In this instance if i was Phumelela i would FUCK the bookies one way.

I would stop posting pools and live tickets. If that meant that even more went to bookies then for the short term so be it. The Bookies would have ZERO reference point to declare their dividends.

So if a tote client caught the pick 6 he / she would simply go in and collect , no where would the dividend be available nor the pool.

Step 2 would be on days where there is for example on 1% winning ticket I would declare 4000 winning tickets and a lower dividend.....lets see how the bookies would explain to their clients that the following pick 6 only paid R2-00 12/1 x 33/1 x 1/1 x 20/1 x 20/1 x 4/1

Then i would start on other bets, like trifectas etc. i would NOT declare dividends for a period of time. The open bet player would be stuffed and the bookies would have to go to a UK based product (tricast/forecast)

Sometimes the best form of defence is attack, i think they go it wrong parading this guy in the media BUT i think they have more aces than they think they holding.

If a bookmaker has a limit on a yankee i can sort of see it BUT on a bet where he has and sometimes does place it on the tote its a no brainer.

Stop the open bet i say.......

If the TOTE did that mate Racing would die in two weeks - Punters need info - If they don't get it they leave (See the results of the pools when UK racing was not broadcast at home) For the punter to get a fair shake a class action lawsuit against bookmaker limits using the open bet would be the only way to go and even that is not certain to succeed but would have merit in my limited opinion and may find sympathy with a judge or perhaps even the Public Protector?

Guys

i know but drastic times etc....

If there is 1% winning tickets there is ZERO harm in declaring a LOW dividend and still paying their clients the correct amount .....