gold circle and phumelela put this in your pipe and smoke it

Sharkie writes: Jack, yes I know more than what I am saying. I specificaly hoped that bookmakers would reply and deny what I am saying. The examples that I have first hand knowledge about are for BIG amounts.

Sharkie, I take it that you have reported these erring bookmakers to the Gambling Board?

sharkie, you might be forced to go to your local TABGold instead of your bookie.

i agree with Karel as a point of principle, even though the 6% gets so diluted by the time it has gone through the provincial fiscus, Phumelela's sticky fingers and eventually to the stakes pot that it is barely worth enforcing from a stakes perspective.

one of the main problems is transparency. based on one of Karel's recent posts, not even Colin Gordon could make it add up, and he was supposedly responsible for collecting it! if the system was set up so that stakes came out of a separate pot with nothing else in it, and those responsible for the pot had to report back to the industry as to where contributions had come from, and (to make it easier to compare apples and apples) the bookies had to pay the same from their betting profit that P pays from its take out, then people would be so much happier.

or so it seems to me.

If one had to hazard a guess, that elusive Stakes Agreement is probably protected by some 'confidentiality' clause.

No, I have not gone to the Gambling Board, for good reasons.

I am currently talking to "people" to get the Stakes agreements. I can not guarantee anything yet, but I feel positive that we will get it.

I recently asked some questions at Freeracer, and to my surprise, without asking him Derek had a meeting with Phumelela and came back with some detailed answers.

I have asked for info on the Stakes Agreements at Freeracer. Let's see who reads it and replies.

let's see. i don't think derek always toes the line. this is the bookmaker who came out against the disseminated odds and ridiculous pricing.

I am an owner that have and have had quite a number of horses in training. I have learnt a long time ago that owning horses is not profitable and that it should be no more than a hobby. I have also learnt that it is disasterous to try to cover the losses of owning horses by punting on them. In general jockeys and trainers are the worst tipsters on the planet. I therefore race for stakes and restrict most of my punting to small bets on my own horses, based on my own assesment of the horses chance in a race.

It is and has been my opinion for a very long time that bookmakers or rather that the agreement between bookmakers and Phum/ GC, is bad for racing in SA. There are many reasons for it. I have had many discussions about this with people in racing which have convinced me that I my opinion is correct.

The RA in it's recent press release says:

"THE Racing Association will do all in its power to combat any form of bet that is counter-productive to the growth of the stakes pot.

This was decided at the RA board’s first strategy meeting of 2009, at which the need to enhance stakes was once again made the association’s No 1 priority.

The survival of racing in South Africa depends on growing tote turnovers in order to provide the money needed to continually increase prize money – and thereby keep racehorse owners in the game.

While bookmakers pay a small levy towards stakes, this contribution is minimal in comparison with that of the tote."

Catsmug himself in a previous reply to this tread says:

"the open bet has no place in a bookmakers business. its only good for the bookie. as an owner im surprised you cant see the cancer for what it is."

As an owner, I fully agree with both statements and support the views 1000%. I therefore fully support the RA, Phum and GC if they are trying to achieve an improved situation for owners. This is my understanding of why the RA exist in the first place and is what I would expect them to do for owners. It should be obvious to anybody, based on the debate in this tread that not everybody agree with the RA's statement. Owners should agree with it, whilst punters probably will not.

My questions regarding the Stakes agreements have absolutely nothing to do with any conspiracy theory or any hidden agenda. I want the RA, Phum and GC to show by way of the various stakes agreements (Including the agreement with bookmakers) how skew the agreements are. I want them to show why they are saying:

"While bookmakers pay a small levy towards stakes, this contribution is minimal in comparison with that of the tote."

I have said that they are right, now let the fact's prove how right they are. I have always believed that when I ask somebody to do something, that if I tell them why I want them to do it, that I get greater co-operation. I am hoping that the RA will tell us the reason for their statement. The hard numbers will be ample proof thereof.

Having said all the above, I am in no doubt that the operators need to upgrade their facilities and services to get us to support them more fully. It is not just a case of us blindly doing what they are asking. There is work to be done.

This matter has been debated over a very long time and quite honestly has never lead to anything. Let's hope that this time, based on the press release by the RA, that something is going to happen. My suggestion to them are:

1. Do not get rid of bookmakers that play by the rules.
2. Any agreement between bookmakers and the operators should include a "takeout" based on turnover and not on only winning bets.

I hope that this will clarify my position and my reason for asking about the Stakes Agreements. I do feel quite strongly about it.

even when bookmakers play by the rules, the contribution to stakes is pretty minimal from fixed odds.

that's not the bookmakers' fault, it's a structural problem which has bookmakers paying tax to their main competitor rather than direct to the stakes pot. i think you are right in your other post sharkie, when you say that if all operators paid the same proportion of their betting profit to stakes, that the percentage could even be reduced.

bookies and the tote are interested in the same thing which is making profit from the punters. the more successful they are doing that, the more racing ought to benefit. it's never seemed all that logical to me that racing should make more money when punters win, because it's the bookie that's in the business of making the money and always will do in the end.

I've had my say plenty, and I'll end it here on this note:

This site is representative of racing in general in that it is controlled by owners, and so it makes perfect sense that the general opinion is concerned about how to fill "The Pot".

As a punter though, I am resentful that every discussion and effort is about how to somehow fleece more money from me. Every single angle and avenue is given consideration of how to squeeze a bigger cut from me, to the extent where owners consider banning some of my avenues of playing because certain avenues don't fill "The Pot" as quickly as others. (Like a casino banning blackjack & roulette because the takeout is not as high as the bandit machines).

How nice if you searched this site and found a single voice worried about how to make things better for me the punter, or how to steal less from me, seeing as how it's the punter who provides for nearly all the income for everybody, and gets none of the cool facilities. In fact, the greater majority are happily kept in crap conditions far away. At least casinos are pretty much one standard for all.

Some casinos in this country cost billions of rands, and paid for themselves in less than a year with takeouts of 3%-8%. If you play with a bookmaker you taxed 6% on wins to start with before the bookmakers margin and the tote take out 18-25% leaves punters scarred.

It's no surprise to me that in real terms, punting horses has never been smaller.

JD, ask yourself why no-one in racing is attempting to fleece you slower (like a casino would).

the whole structure of racing in SA is geared to prevent competition, not encourage it.

Adios, yes you must be right.

GB, nobody cries more in racing than the owners. Who are the real power brokers in racing then that are the cause of preventing competition?

JD, i was just looking at some old threads because i was surprised by your comments and i searched the site for posts about the plight of the punter. believe it or not, they do exist but you either have to know the thread or the poster (eg. search greenbook back in July08 "United We Stand" and "Price Fixing" in Feb08) but with the greatest of respect to scotia and what he is trying to achieve here, i don't think the punter has any voice where it actually counts in SA racing, or indeed anywhere in the racing world. normally public protector no.1 is the government, but in SA the government wouldn't know a member of the public if it tipped up to Pretoria with a fat tax cheque. it takes its advice from Big P and the casinos.

so who has the clout? no one will ever mobilise punters - they mobilise themselves and go to the casino where gambling is cheaper, easier to understand, and more fun (hmmm, i wonder if there could be something in that...?). you are left with the owners who cry the most even though SA's average return to owner is higher than in the UK and many other major racing nations. [EDIT: to be fair, you can't blame the owners for wanting a better return from their sport and P adds fuel to the fire by promoting the view that bookies don't pay their share.] but the owners are a group that could potentially mobilise, if only TS stopped suing everyone. however, even the owners have very little leverage: they mostly just want to run their horses, but there's nowhere to run them other than P and GC.

and if anyone wants evidence of the structural barriers to competition in the betting industry, and how this translates directly to the punter getting fleeced as fast as humanly possible:

why else would P and GC have carved up the country between themselves rather than run overlapping businesses? why else would the totes be entitled to charge bookmakers' customers a tax on winnings in addition to the bookies' take out, which their own customers don't have to pay on top of tote take out? how else could they get away commercially with taking out the legal maximum 25% on each pool? why else would the bookmakers respond to all that with the cartel that is dissemination at 140%? why else do bookmakers want to keep Betfair out, when so many of them are on Betfair themselves all day every day? what is it about the tote tellers that means they don't need to be licensed, when bookmakers clerks must undergo probity and pay fees? why else are sponsors not allowed to contribute directly to the stakes pot? why do the HRA's rules of racing say that P or GC can veto any potential advertiser who competes with them? why else does each province allow only one tote licence, which never expires and so can never be offered to other bidders?

oops mebbe i get carried away...