<html><body style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><p><font size="3">The impression I got from conversations and calls I made following my </font><font size="3">"deduction" experience, led me to believe that a comment the </font></p><p><font size="3">betting steward made to me on the day, implied IWS Re_Frame software </font><font size="3">was in common use in </font><font size="3">on-course bookmaking around the country ...</font></p><p><font size="3">not in all variants of fixed odds betting ...just on-course bookmaking. </font></p><p><font size="3">Whether or not I formed the wrong impression can be cleared up eventually. B</font><font size="3">y "universally adopted" I was referring to <u>on-course bookmaking only</u>. </font></p><p><font size="3">I have seen with my own eyes that there is no 'universal' deduction </font><font size="3">methodology across ALL </font><font size="3">fixed-odds betting offerers in Oz </font></p><p><font size="3"></font> </p><p><font size="3">Incidentally, in the hypothetical example you framed (below), with the black box theoretical deduction at just 2% ...I sense your pain, but let's face it</font></p><p><font size="3">most punters who have been previously skinned by a bookie see betting with you as blood sport and wouldn't be very sympathetic! In fact they'd </font></p><p><font size="3">probably gift you the razors, supply the brandy and pay for your hot bath! </font><font size="3">LOL. Cheers,TonyA</font> <br /><br /><br /></p><blockquote><br />----- Original Message -----<br /><div style="background:rgb(228,228,228);width:100%;"><div style="font-weight:bold;">From:</div> "Rob Waterhouse" <robbie@robwaterhouse.com></div><br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">To:</div><chiron1@iinet.net.au>, "AusRace Racing Discussion List" <racing@ausrace.com><br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">Cc:</div><br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">Sent:</div>Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:11:34 +1100<br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">Subject:</div>RE: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of<br /><br /><br /><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(68,84,106);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:14pt;">What you do mean by universally adopted in OZ? My calculation is that it covers but 1% of fixed odds betting.</span></p><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(68,84,106);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:14pt;"></span></p><p> </p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(68,84,106);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:14pt;">As regards fairness: </span><span style="color:rgb(68,84,106);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:14pt;">Any “bunch ’em up” bookie last Saturday (one making a balanced book, laying every runner) would be suicidal at this deduction. He could have held, say, $10,600 on the race, have had everything taking out about $10,000 With the scratching, he would have had to refund $2000 on the scratching and retrieve but $200.50 from the punter if he had bet, say, $10,000 to $25 the winner. The late “Digger” Lobb would have called for a hot bath, a bottle of brandy and razor blades.</span></p><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:14pt;"></span></p><p> </p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:14pt;"></span></a></p><a></a><p><a> </a></p><a></a><p></p><span></span><div><div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;padding:3pt 0cm 0cm;"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="en-us" xml:lang="en-us">From:</span></b><span lang="en-us" xml:lang="en-us"> Racing [mailto:racing-bounces@ausrace.com] <b>On Behalf Of </b>chiron1@iinet.net.au<br /><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, 19 October 2017 4:54 PM<br /><b>To:</b> racing@ausrace.com<br /><b>Subject:</b> Re: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of</span></p><p></p><p></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p><p><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:18pt;">Hi Rob and Ausracers,</span><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;"></span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:18pt;">I know deductions only affect us as punters from time to time but everybody should have a look </span><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;"></span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:18pt;">at the new policy - the IWS_Re Frame, which, on further investigation, seems to be universally </span><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;"></span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:18pt;">adopted in Oz. I'm slowly beginning to get the point you're making Rob. I went </span><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;"></span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:18pt;">through the Dominic Beirne slideshow/Q&A that 2 ausracers sent or pointed me to and</span><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;"></span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:18pt;">I could probably accept it, if I could get my head around, not so much the "fairness" of it. </span><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;"></span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:18pt;">I saw the examples but Beirne says it consists of hundreds of look up tables (written into an </span><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;"></span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:18pt;">algorithm obviously) covering numerous 'anomalous' situations </span><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;"></span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;"> </span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:18pt;">but if a bookie has to return all the money held on a scratched medium shot at say 11/1 ($12.00) but the fave, </span><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;"></span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:18pt;">on which he stood to lose the most, if it won, goes unplaced, then it works against the punter even at </span><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;"></span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:18pt;">low aggregate betting percentages.</span><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;"></span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:18pt;">My bet was deducted 14c/$1 via the on course bookie I laid it with but only 8c/$1 via the TAB fixed odds system.</span><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;"></span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:18pt;">(The winner paid $7.50; the fave was unplaced) They can't both be answering the same question. </span><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;"></span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:18pt;">Perth aggregate betting percentages often get close to or above 140% win. The TAB fixed odds, permanently.</span><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;"></span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;"> </span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;">With the example you quote isn't the IWS algorithm deducting 50% once the winners price </span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;">is over 50/1 ... Beirne alluded to it or something like that, in the Q&A presentation... I feel a semantic </span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;">discussion on the meaning of "fairness' coming on.. :-)</span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;">cheers Tony</span></p><p></p><p></p><p style="margin-bottom:12pt;"><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;"><br />Message: 1<br />Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:42:37 +1100<br />From: "Rob Waterhouse" <<a href="mailto:robbie@robwaterhouse.com">robbie@robwaterhouse.com</a>><br />To: "'AusRace Racing Discussion List'" <<a href="mailto:racing@ausrace.com">racing@ausrace.com</a>><br />Cc: "'warren woodcock'" <<a href="mailto:warrenwwoodcock@gmail.com">warrenwwoodcock@gmail.com</a>><br />Subject: Re: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of<br />horses scratched at the barrier<br />Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:00c601d346e9%2436482b60%24a2d88220%24@robwaterhouse.com">00c601d346e9$36482b60$a2d88220$@robwaterhouse.com</a>><br />Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br /><br />Further to the deduction discussion: Last Saturday in the last at Randwick, the 4/1 chance was scratched. The winner was 100/1. <br /><br /><br /><br />The ?black box?, predictably, declared a parsimonious 2 cent deduction. I understand the intellectual argument but a working bookie could have $10,600 on the race, have everything taking out $10,000, have to refund $2000 on the scratching and retrieve but $200.50 from the punter he bet $10,000 to $25.<br /><br /><br /><br />Had the winner been odds-on, it may well have been more than a 20-cent deduction. <br /><br /><br /><br />The black box cleverly answers the wrong question. <br /><br /><br /><br />From: Racing [<a href="mailto:racing-bounces@ausrace.com">mailto:racing-bounces@ausrace.com</a>] On Behalf Of Rob Waterhouse<br />Sent: Thursday, 12 October 2017 10:55 AM<br />To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <<a href="mailto:racing@ausrace.com">racing@ausrace.com</a>><br />Subject: Re: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier<br /><br /><br /><br />The new way of calculating is a source of contention and hated by on-course bookies and ignored by the betting firms and TABs, notwithstanding it is intellectually sound..<br /><br /><br /><br />This ?new way? is a black box (meaning it?s algorithm is secret) answers, cleverly, the question: what would a new market look like after a scratching?<br /><br /><br /><br />It has faults. Firstly, people don?t understand it. Secondly, an eccentric bookmaker who only lays long-priced runners is very short-changed. Thirdly, it answers the wrong question, which should be how should the bookmaker be compensated for the loss of field money on the scratching. Fourthly, through no fault of the ?new way? the deductions are based on the large-percentage corporate betting market rather than the razor sharp, low-margin on-course market. Fifthly, when a horse is being considered to be scratched, it blows with the corporates, and the deduction isn?t based on the price it was averagely traded.<br /><br /><br /><br />Rob W<br /><br /><br /></span></p><p></p><p></p></div>
</blockquote></body></html>