ACT TAB dividends went into a tizz yesterday after the Federal Court’s injunction that resulted in the link with the Victorian superpool.
It is early days, but there is some pattern, and in the longer term, it may be that the small mug punter is better off under the new arrangements.
In all, though, the system should suit the mug, small-time punter.
The ACT’s smaller pool is less than a twentieth of the size of either the NSW or the Victorian pool.
In each race, the bets are added and the dividends are calculated so that after the payout, 85 per cent of the pool is given back to punters. The rest goes to government and overheads.
A small pool causes big punters to go elsewhere. One big punter might be half the pool, reducing his winnings to 2 to 1 at best, even if the horse is an outsider. Big punters will leave the ACT TAB in droves _ $14.2 million worth a year, according to ACTTAB’s own evidence.
Now, big punters tend to be the successful ones because they have more knowledge and skill.
If these successful punters leave, there is more for the mugs, because the TAB still pays out 85 per cent.
In a mixed pool of mugs and skilled punters, the mugs might average 65 per cent, to supplement the smart punters. If you take away the smart punters and leave a pool full of mugs, the average for the mugs goes up to 85 per cent.
However, if the big punters leave, the turnover falls and the government misses out.
ACT dividends will not always be lower than NSW and Victoria, as the table shows.
The smallness affects dividends in several ways. First, if one or more big punters back a winner. This dramatically reduces the dividend in the ACT. (see line two of the table). Second, if no big punter backs a winner (or in a very popular race if only one big punter wins). Then the ACT dividend will be higher than Victoria, because in Victoria there will always be some big and many small punters backing the winner. The result will be like Race 1 in line one of the table.
With trifectas, it is anyone’s guess. Generally, there will be cases when the trifecta pool is very low in the ACT and even with very few winning tickets, the return will be low. Occasionally, though, when a lot a favourites come in, there might be only very few winning tickets in the ACT and they will do better than in Victoria.
The trifecta is also more likely to be carried over with no live tickets in the ACT. It happened in three races yesterday. In three other races there was no third dividend because the pool was too small.
In all, the erratic nature of a small pool suits mugs because more is left to chance rather than broad averages and skill.
It is good to see a Labor Government supporting the working class for a change.