Print Page | Close Window

Zeljko Ranogajec

Printed From: Thoroughbred Village
Category: Horse Racing - Public Forums
Forum Name: Racing Forum
Forum Description: General discussion about thoroughbred horse racing
URL: http://forum.thoroughbredvillage.com.au/forum_posts.asp?TID=37615
Printed Date: 21 Nov 2018 at 2:22pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Zeljko Ranogajec
Posted By: oddsonbet
Subject: Zeljko Ranogajec
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2012 at 6:31pm
Read this elsewhere does anyone have this article and if so could they please post it here for a read?





I've got the article in print format. (Weekend AFR is $3 and not a bad read).

Earned $44 million over 3.5 years from an initial outlay of $200,000 betting on US tracks.

He stated this in court (trying to get back $8.5 million in rebates off a bookie).

Of $52 million profit, $44 million was earned in rebates. The US Race clubs proceeded to blackball the bookie's company through which the rebates were paid.

Article mentions the Tasmanian Tote (TT) disaster as previously reported on this forum i.e. In spite of nearly $1 billion in turnover in 3 years, made only $1.5 million last year. Tatts paid $103 million for TT when it became a basket case.

A Macquaries Equity report said that the average rebate was 10.5% to "punters like Ranogajec". Dick McIlwain stated "The ordinary punter is subsidising these guys".

Article starts on page 44 if anyone buys the AFR. Well worth a read



Replies:
Posted By: oddsonbet
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2012 at 8:12pm
Of $52 million profit, $44 million was earned in rebates wow





Posted By: Quezacotl
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2012 at 8:24pm
There's an old saying in gambling...
" to make millions on the punt, you need to start with millions "

An apt paraphrase for our beloved Z.


Posted By: oddsonbet
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2012 at 8:25pm
He started with nothing and made millions so there goes that saying 


Posted By: djebel
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2012 at 8:28pm
LAUNDRY

-------------


STRIKE WHILST THE IRON IS HOT

reductio ad absurdum

The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least.



Posted By: skinny
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2012 at 8:29pm
Djebel you really dont know much about anything do you.


Posted By: oddsonbet
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2012 at 8:30pm
Originally posted by djebel djebel wrote:

LAUNDRY


yes you finally make sense and i agree Wink


Posted By: djebel
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2012 at 8:45pm
Originally posted by skinny skinny wrote:

Djebel you really dont know much about anything do you.


Why dont you tell us the story ?


-------------


STRIKE WHILST THE IRON IS HOT

reductio ad absurdum

The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least.



Posted By: Quezacotl
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2012 at 8:49pm
Originally posted by oddsonbet oddsonbet wrote:

He started with nothing and made millions so there goes that saying 



Not quite Mr punting extraordinaire...

Before he came into or was even interested in the gee gee's..he had jagged a rather large KENO jackpot, and was a very successful black jack player.



Posted By: max manewer
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2012 at 8:53pm
My understanding is his name was fished out of the same bowl of alphabet soup as Quetzacotl's. LOL


Posted By: oddsonbet
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2012 at 8:56pm
Originally posted by Quezacotl Quezacotl wrote:

Originally posted by oddsonbet oddsonbet wrote:

He started with nothing and made millions so there goes that saying 



Not quite Mr punting extraordinaire...

Before he came into or was even interested in the gee gee's..he had jagged a rather large KENO jackpot, and was a very successful black jack player.




Your wrong he played horse before he played Keno



The relative, from the side of his late father, Mirko, claims he had started to work part-time at Wrest Point while studying for a commerce/law degree.

The relative says he met his wife and "first love", Shelley Wilson, while she was also working there.

But the more successful he became at blackjack, the more his studies started to take a back seat.

His skills as a blackjack player saw him feared by casinos around the world. His business was "politely declined" first at Wrest Point, and Queensland's Jupiters Casino in the mid-1980s. But he did not give up playing the casinos, and moved to greener pastures overseas.

The relative from his father's side recalls him coming home after being too successful on the blackjack tables in the US: "He was in Chicago, I think. They stopped him, and he had to come back."

He increasingly turned his attention to horse racing, as well as other games such as Keno. He once won a then-world record $7.5 million Keno jackpot at Sydney's North Ryde RSL Club in 1994.


Posted By: Quezacotl
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2012 at 8:57pm
Originally posted by max manewer max manewer wrote:

My understanding is his name was fished out of the same bowl of alphabet soup as Quetzacotl's. LOL


ROFL...

I don't even try an pronounce those eastern block names..fair dinkum they're worse then those 45 letter indian/Lankan one namers..


Posted By: Quezacotl
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2012 at 8:58pm
Thanks for confirming my statement oddson..


Posted By: oddsonbet
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2012 at 9:02pm
Originally posted by Quezacotl Quezacotl wrote:

There's an old saying in gambling...
" to make millions on the punt, you need to start with millions "

An apt paraphrase for our beloved Z.


Your a Donk Quezacotl you said the above and i showed you this you really a a dill

The relative, from the side of his late father, Mirko, claims he had started to work part-time at Wrest Point while studying for a commerce/law degree.

The relative says he met his wife and "first love", Shelley Wilson, while she was also working there.

But the more successful he became at blackjack, the more his studies started to take a back seat.


Posted By: djebel
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2012 at 3:18pm
http://www.afr.com/p/national/the_gambler_GwoSmf5IXaVFjmpyYXNu9J" rel="nofollow - http://www.afr.com/p/national/the_gambler_GwoSmf5IXaVFjmpyYXNu9J

-------------


STRIKE WHILST THE IRON IS HOT

reductio ad absurdum

The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least.



Posted By: max manewer
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2012 at 3:36pm
The real losers are not the mugs sitting in the TAB "guessing", as Dick Mc Ilwain makes out, it is the skilled punters who were winners, or maybe losing marginally, but have been attrited by a non-level playing field of heavy rebates. They have been reduced to the mug standard in a lot of cases. Skilled players would never accept tote odds of $4 about a horse the bookies were offering $5, but the uninformed betting blind would, except now they might get $4.50, though overall they would be no better or worse off, because they would also place bets on horses whose odds had been reduced by rebate players.Another example of deregulation screwing things up. Dick was right about the pollies being dimwits, or maybe that is kind.


Posted By: Luva Punt
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2012 at 6:34pm
Originally posted by max manewer max manewer wrote:

The real losers are not the mugs sitting in the TAB "guessing", as Dick Mc Ilwain makes out, it is the skilled punters who were winners, or maybe losing marginally, but have been attrited by a non-level playing field of heavy rebates. They have been reduced to the mug standard in a lot of cases. Skilled players would never accept tote odds of $4 about a horse the bookies were offering $5, but the uninformed betting blind would, except now they might get $4.50, though overall they would be no better or worse off, because they would also place bets on horses whose odds had been reduced by rebate players.Another example of deregulation screwing things up. Dick was right about the pollies being dimwits, or maybe that is kind.


Does anyone else think that these rebates should be 100% counted as income, and taxable, whether they are paid to Zeljko or a Corporate Bookmaker?

This is a rebate on all losing bets, which in effect is a cash rebate that no other punters in the marketplace receive.

It has no relevance to the winning bets placed, and is clearly an income stream paid for losing bets that all ordinary punters do not receive.

Medicare rebates are part of your income.  All other rebates are income for tax purposes, so surely a cash rebate paid from one company to another for doing business should be classed as an income stream, and as such, taxable ??.


Posted By: subastral
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2012 at 6:39pm
Originally posted by Luva Punt Luva Punt wrote:

Originally posted by max manewer max manewer wrote:

The real losers are not the mugs sitting in the TAB "guessing", as Dick Mc Ilwain makes out, it is the skilled punters who were winners, or maybe losing marginally, but have been attrited by a non-level playing field of heavy rebates. They have been reduced to the mug standard in a lot of cases. Skilled players would never accept tote odds of $4 about a horse the bookies were offering $5, but the uninformed betting blind would, except now they might get $4.50, though overall they would be no better or worse off, because they would also place bets on horses whose odds had been reduced by rebate players.Another example of deregulation screwing things up. Dick was right about the pollies being dimwits, or maybe that is kind.


Does anyone else think that these rebates should be 100% counted as income, and taxable, whether they are paid to Zeljko or a Corporate Bookmaker?

This is a rebate on all losing bets, which in effect is a cash rebate that no other punters in the marketplace receive.

It has no relevance to the winning bets placed, and is clearly an income stream paid for losing bets that all ordinary punters do not receive.

Medicare rebates are part of your income.  All other rebates are income for tax purposes, so surely a cash rebate paid from one company to another for doing business should be classed as an income stream, and as such, taxable ??.
 
No, they aren't mate.


Posted By: Baghdad Bob
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2012 at 7:00pm
LuvaPunt wrote...
"This is a rebate on all losing bets, which in effect is a cash rebate that no other punters in the marketplace receive."
 
Not quite correct, the rebates are given on turnover, that is, on both losing and winning bets.



Posted By: Luva Punt
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2012 at 7:52pm
Originally posted by Baghdad Bob Baghdad Bob wrote:

LuvaPunt wrote...
"This is a rebate on all losing bets, which in effect is a cash rebate that no other punters in the marketplace receive."
 
Not quite correct, the rebates are given on turnover, that is, on both losing and winning bets.



Ok BB,

So the rebates are paid on turnover.  The rebate is not a part of the wager. 
It is an additional payment for placing a bet.

Is this not a form of income paid as a commission?

What is it if it is not income?




Posted By: Quezacotl
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2012 at 8:05pm
Correct me if Im wrong on this, but some of these rebates could be actually being paid out to tote owned bookmakers..example ..TAB pays out big kickbacks to Luxbet, Luxbet owned by Tabcorp..just giving themselves kickbacks aren't they..?


Posted By: lotto7
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2012 at 10:16am
Surely the rebates would not apply to Black Caviar. Back her at $1.04 and receive $1.14? Load up forever if that was the case.


Posted By: The Ear
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2012 at 2:02pm
Even better on the place


Posted By: J.M
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2012 at 2:40pm
If he is business is professional punting than all income would be assessable winnings and rebates
of course he would be able to claim deductions for his losses and other costs


Posted By: HarmersHaven
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2012 at 9:27pm
Originally posted by lotto7 lotto7 wrote:

Surely the rebates would not apply to Black Caviar. Back her at $1.04 and receive $1.14? Load up forever if that was the case.


Long-time reader, first-time poster.

Betting on the Asian Exchanges allows you to do just this.

Your $5 win ticket can cost anywhere between $3.80 and $4.50 (10% to 24% discount in real terms) so backing BC becomes an option when you're in effect getting  $1.15/$1.20ish win and place. In actuality, tickets are available all the way up to face value ($5), but the majority of trading is done between the margins quoted earlier.

God Bless them.


-------------
Without data, you're just another person with an opinion.


Posted By: max manewer
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2012 at 10:05pm
Originally posted by HarmersHaven HarmersHaven wrote:

Originally posted by lotto7 lotto7 wrote:

Surely the rebates would not apply to Black Caviar. Back her at $1.04 and receive $1.14? Load up forever if that was the case.


Long-time reader, first-time poster.

Betting on the Asian Exchanges allows you to do just this.

Your $5 win ticket can cost anywhere between $3.80 and $4.50 (10% to 24% discount in real terms) so backing BC becomes an option when you're in effect getting  $1.15/$1.20ish win and place. In actuality, tickets are available all the way up to face value ($5), but the majority of trading is done between the margins quoted earlier.

God Bless them.
Asian exchanges ? who are they ? I have never heard of this before.


Posted By: Quezacotl
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2012 at 10:29pm
Surely at some point there will be competing betting exchanges everywhere .. If they allow licences to one..( http://bit.ly/h4aSYj - Betfair )..then surely they have to allow competitors a licence, to eliminate any monopoly of the punting turnover in that area.


Posted By: MannyG
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2012 at 10:38pm
Betdaq has been around for a while. Bugger all liquidity though.


Posted By: Muss
Date Posted: 17 May 2018 at 7:16pm
https://www.smh.com.au/national/meet-the-joker-the-australian-who-is-the-biggest-gambler-in-the-world-20180515-p4zfhi.html" rel="nofollow - https://www.smh.com.au/national/meet-the-joker-the-australian-who-is-the-biggest-gambler-in-the-world-20180515-p4zfhi.html

-------------
Keyboard Warrior


Posted By: maccamax
Date Posted: 17 May 2018 at 7:28pm
Originally posted by Muss Muss wrote:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/meet-the-joker-the-australian-who-is-the-biggest-gambler-in-the-world-20180515-p4zfhi.html" rel="nofollow - https://www.smh.com.au/national/meet-the-joker-the-australian-who-is-the-biggest-gambler-in-the-world-20180515-p4zfhi.html



Shows what little chance the average punter has.   Been happening for generations.   I remember the on course hi rollers rooms, only too well.
   Discount on turnover.
Will only get worse as Governments eye the prizemoney and wealth in the Industry.    
I can see a tobacco type tax , ravaging the gambling dollar .   It has started already in some States.

-------------



























<b


Posted By: Sneck
Date Posted: 17 May 2018 at 8:47pm
Tabcorps refusal to entice more customers into their tote pools through rebate incentives is unbelievable. We see through the Hong Kong example that expanding rebates to medium players increases turnover significantly. It's very difficult to believe increasing tote turnover is a priority given their behavior.
I think offering 10% rebates on a reasonable figure (say $400 metro racing/$200 all other events) would do wonders to revitalize the toes. Money would flood into the exotic pools.


Posted By: Atreus
Date Posted: 17 May 2018 at 9:39pm
If Tabcorp paid rebates to medium players then that would cut into Zeljko's profits and no way Tabcorp will allow that to happen

Note too that the new POC tax has been crafted so that Zeljko does not pay it betting from offshore via Tabcorp's Isle of Man hub


Posted By: Sunline
Date Posted: 17 May 2018 at 9:42pm
What % of medium players do you think are profitable and would therefore eat into Zeljko's profits, Atreus?

-------------
Sunline...simply supreme


Posted By: Atreus
Date Posted: 17 May 2018 at 11:13pm
Currently on the tote the only profitable players would be the big syndicates getting rebates and players betting with inside info

Everyone else would be unprofitable.  So right now the percentage of medium players on the tote that are profitable would be 0% or close to it

However if you gave rebates to medium players they might be able to show a profit.  This profit would come at the expense of those currently getting the rebates such as Zeljko

Rebates enable rebate players to corner the market on almost all the value bets on the tote


Posted By: Baghdad Bob
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 11:19am
Correct, those punters who have been forced out of betting on the tote due to rebaters cruelling any opportunity to win may have graduated to the corporates. However a new  Point of Consumption Tax is soon to be levied by state governments on those corporates.  Who do you suppose will pay that tax ? Punters of course, the corporates will pass the tax on by the way of reduced odds on any winner they might back.

Who do you suppose pressured governments to impose this new tax?  Tabcorp have for years insisted corporate bookies should play on a level playing field. If Tabcorp wants corporates to play on a level playing field they should do away with rebates to Zeljko and his ilk and, then, some of those punters they have lost might migrate back to betting on the tote.


Posted By: Lordy
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 11:34am
Any tax imposed on any industry is ultimately paid by the consumer. This is no different.


Posted By: Baghdad Bob
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 12:07pm
If rebates were withdrawn, the playing field would be level for ALL punters and many punters who they have been lost to the tote since the inception of rebates would definitely migrate back to the tote. For starters, exotic betting would increase back to what it was in the past. I recall when the daily Double held $100,000 +, today it is moderate.  Tabcorp's need for a level playing field will be restored and there would be no need for a Point of Consumption Tax. 


Posted By: Lordy
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 12:43pm
$100k on the daily double would have been from a time where the tote was the only betting option for those not on course and there were a limited number of betting options available.

These days there is little interest in daily doubles as most take multis on races of their choosing. Quaddie is far more popular now.


Posted By: 3blindmice
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 12:59pm
POC tax was levied to overcome corps using a tax haven - in this case the NT. The principle (if not the implementation) is sound, and smart countries are slowly recognising that's it's one of very few ways to force mega-multinational companies  to partially pay their way. 

Rebates are a separate issue. Rano operates on margins and it could be argued that he and TAB are together guilty of market manipulation, but "free marketeers" (lol) would claim it's nothing more than clever business. Ranogajec has picked a good time to be involved. Eventually the golden goose will stop laying. 

Can't recall if the TAB merger enquiry looked at the effect of rebates - it supposedly considered the effect on small punters (lol). If it did it underestimated its effects. The Vic TAB agreement comes up for "renewal" in 2024. Hopefully a new player might upset their apple cart, although more likely RV will simply suck more money out of Tabcorp/punters and the status quo will continue.


Posted By: Sneck
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 4:17pm
Originally posted by Atreus Atreus wrote:

Currently on the tote the only profitable players would be the big syndicates getting rebates and players betting with inside info

Everyone else would be unprofitable.  So right now the percentage of medium players on the tote that are profitable would be 0% or close to it

However if you gave rebates to medium players they might be able to show a profit.  This profit would come at the expense of those currently getting the rebates such as Zeljko

Rebates enable rebate players to corner the market on almost all the value bets on the tote
What's going on makes no sense drawing conclusions from all logical assumptions.
The following are the two most logical conclusions:
-If smarter players were enticed into the market Zeljko's teams edge would shrink and he would be forced to increased turnover exponentially to maintain the same win rate.
-Zeljko's team would recognize an improvement in the efficiency of the pools but greater pools bring greater betting opportunities and he increases turnover.

In either scenario the tote pools increase as does Zeljko's teams turnover. Why wouldn't Tabcorp want this?


Posted By: Sneck
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 4:22pm
If you told me Tabcorp's primary motivation was to keep the tote pools as soft as possible as to allow Zeljko to maintain the highest POT it would be hard to disagree looking at what's happening.

And why do they allow Zeljko to arb jackpot pools? What's going on here, it stinks. 


Posted By: Tlazolteotl
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 6:51pm
Sorry but I have to ask the stupid question- why do tote companies pay rebates? If Ranogajec takes all his money out of a tote what is the net effect, for the tote company?




Posted By: HarmersHaven
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 7:50pm
Originally posted by Tlazolteotl Tlazolteotl wrote:

Sorry but I have to ask the stupid question- why do tote companies pay rebates? If Ranogajec takes all his money out of a tote what is the net effect, for the tote company?


 
You're probably best served to address that question to TasTote, circa start of this decade...


-------------
Without data, you're just another person with an opinion.


Posted By: 3blindmice
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 7:56pm
Bigger the pools the bigger their share. Ditto for governments and racing bodies who share takeout.

Eg FF 22.5%
22.5% of $100K  =  22.5K
22.5% of $1M     = 225K

Reportedly the FF for the Everest was $2.8M. I'd guess a good bit of that was John Wilson et al.


Posted By: 3blindmice
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 8:00pm
Lol HH. A classic display of egregious executive incompetence and dereliction of responsibility.


Posted By: Red Hare
Date Posted: 19 May 2018 at 1:38am
Rebate /riːbeɪt/ n. A classic display of egregious executive incompetence and dereliction of responsibility.


Posted By: Luva Punt
Date Posted: 19 May 2018 at 9:30am
Originally posted by Tlazolteotl Tlazolteotl wrote:

Sorry but I have to ask the stupid question- why do tote companies pay rebates? If Ranogajec takes all his money out of a tote what is the net effect, for the tote company?



You only need to read the quotes on the attached article to see the net effect:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/meet-the-joker-the-australian-who-is-the-biggest-gambler-in-the-world-20180515-p4zfhi.html" rel="nofollow - https://www.smh.com.au/national/meet-the-joker-the-australian-who-is-the-biggest-gambler-in-the-world-20180515-p4zfhi.html

Responses from a TABCORP spokesman:

"It’s common knowledge that rebates are offered by totes around the world to high-volume customers," a Tabcorp spokesperson said.

Citing "commercial" considerations, the gaming company wouldn’t confirm the amount it rebates to Zeljko, who is widely believed to be its biggest client. Nor would Tabcorp disclose how much had to be wagered per annum to get a rebate.

Industry insiders estimate Tabcorp is giving Zeljko a kickback of between 8 and 10 per cent. So even if Zeljko’s syndicate makes a 2 per cent loss on betting, it is well ahead of the average punter when rebates are taken into account.

Comments from Zjelko himself when asked, "How much does the syndicate turn over per year?" 

"My guess would be $1 billion," was the answer.

But, as he explained to the court, it wasn’t winning that kept them way ahead of the average punter – it was the rebates or "loyalty payments".

"It’s very simple," Zeljko told the court. "If you bet $100 and lost $5, but you get a 10 per cent rebate, you still make 5 per cent."

"You always win," he said. "I’m telling you that, if you bet very large, it’s a pari-mutuel pool, you depreciate it so far that you end up getting under fair odds. If you fix something at $8, you get six, but if you get a rebate that puts you into the positive."

Given that the Fixed Odds Market always moves in line with the totalisator pools, and there is always very little difference between the two with final dividends.

There is no doubt run of the mill PUNTERS are now continually getting UNDER the true value of a horses odds, and there is also the potential for the same syndicates, with there large volume of wagering, to lay off their bets on BETFAIR, and further increase their PROFITS, by continually manipulating changes in the market.

The syndicates get over the odds, and rebates, and all other PUNTERS in the marketplace, get UNDERS and have to absorb the TAX RATES.

If that is not MARKET MANIPULATION, what is ?




Posted By: Luva Punt
Date Posted: 19 May 2018 at 10:29am
Has anyone done any sort of investigation into who actually owns TABCORP?

Who are the major shareholders / stakeholders?  What subsidiary companies it owns, and what companies have affiliation with TABCORP.

Given that Zjelko has set up Colossus Bets, it is not outside the realms of possibility that Zjelko is associated with TABCORP in some shape or form, and has a nice little set up so that he receives the REBATES, guarantee him a situation  where he can win and not lose, and he is also conveniently located offshore, to avoid the taxes via the Isle Of Man.

TABCORP can maintain it's shroud of secrecy as much as it likes, but surely it must be freely available information what companies TABCORP own, and who is in the ownership?

It would be interesting to know, because they have no interest whatsoever in changing the current arrangements, and are happy for Zjelko and Co to be a major beneficiary in their profit sharing model.




Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net