Have the mystery tote dividends been answered?

I have opened a new thread on the subject as I see this as a summary of a number of the previous discussions on this shbject.
As the forum is aware I concluded some time ago,that if fraud was ruled out, the only reason for the number of R1 payouts was caused by co-mingled pools being the subject of additional undisclosed take-out(or put another way,depleted low value nett pools.)
I have been waiting for the confirmation that the final dividend for the 2 excessively backed horses at Scottsville was technically 60c each,which was confirmed a number of times by Graeme Hawkins on Tellytrack.
So,if the take-out is 24.5% (as suggested by Vee Moodly on another thread) then ,even if not another cent was wagered on any other horse in the race ,the technical dividend is 76.5c.
We know that punters are robbed by the rounding down,but the final figure should not drop below 70c.
So how did we get to 60c?.........the answer has to be that the take-out exceeds 30% bringing the technical figure down to below the 70c mark and then rounded down to 60c,even after the division of winning tickets.
Does this perhaps support my contention that any co-mingled pool,whenever a large percentage eminates from outside our borders,results in a nett pool as low as 60%!!!! and explains the frequent R1 place payouts on horses as long as 5/1 and more,and why tote wins can be less than half of S/P.
Is my logic and maths sound or am I just being a speculating conspiracy theorist?

rob faux Wrote:

---

.
> So,if the take-out is 24.5% (as suggested by Vee
> Moodly on another thread) then ,even if not
> another cent was wagered on any other horse in the
> race ,the technical dividend woulld be 76.5c.

> We know that punters are robbed by the rounding
> down,but the final figure should not drop below
> 70c.

> So how did we get to 60c?.........the answer must
> be that the take-out exceeds 30% bringing the
> technical figure down to below the 70c mark and
> then rounded down to 60c.

Got it..

I never really understood what the bitching and moaning was before.

And also this rounding down must be scrapped - daylight robbery..

@MaC:


Got it..

'I never really understood what the bitching and moaning was before.'


Would it be right that I make a purchase of soap powder of 2kg at a PnP for R2; when I get home (or point of pay), it is now 1,60kg and I must pay R2.20?

Reverse logic.... but is the truth!

So, don't we have a case fro referral to the various aurhotities; dominating, false / incorrect labelling, price variation, etc?

:S

The bigger the pool the bigger the payout ?

Lol

Your logic fits in with the Phumelela business model Rob...

( 100% pool - takeout ) div 3 (places)
each 1/3 pot div tickets

3.1million - 20% = 2,480,000 div 3 = 830,000

830,000 div 1,500,000 tickets = R0.55

If takeout bigger, or more winning tickets, dividend must get smaller

The R3,1 million is the nett pool.The takeout has already been taken out.

Einstein Wrote:

---

> The R3,1 million is the nett pool.The takeout has
> already been taken out.

Wow, my mistake, never realised pool was over 3.8million then

Say 3.8 million minus 20% ,1 nett

( 100% pool - takeout ) div 3 (places)
each 1/3 pot div tickets

3.1million div 3 = 1,033,000 div 1,500,000 tickets = R0,70

Although nett 3,099,806 if takeout is 24.5, gross tckets was R4,052,034
And house take is 950k

I think that when 2 horses dominate the betting and both are paying 60c it would appear to indicate a higher take-out than what we have been led to believe!!!!
Let them give us all the facts.........we can't ask more than that!

Mac Wrote:

---

> rob faux Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> .
> > So,if the take-out is 24.5% (as suggested by
> Vee
> > Moodly on another thread) then ,even if not
> > another cent was wagered on any other horse in
> the
> > race ,the technical dividend woulld be 76.5c.


Eish, I think there needs a correction here. The 76.5c dividend is only true for a win ie 1 result. If only one horse was backed for a place, ie 1 of 3 results, (as Jack shows) then the place dividend would be abt 25c.

And doing a what-if scenario on a simple excel spreadsheet shows that it is quite probable for those two heavily backed horses to pay a place dividend of 60c each. What is also interesting is that considering that those two heavily backed horses would both have had a guaranteed dividend of R1 and should both of them had been placed the 3rd place horse would also have paid only R1 as it would have had to partially sponsor the guaranteed payout of the the other two. Sjoe, hope this makes sense.

Mac,that is true .......just trying to get a true picture as there can be no doubt that co-mingling has (and is) not benefitted the local punter..........in fact to the contrary and we need to know why ...........and increased take-out is the only explanation that makes sense.
Mac,can I ask a favour as you obviously good at "what if " forecasting...........perhaps you can do an overview on a question????
If you have a take-put of 24.5%,then the best the nett pool can be is 75.5,but if every rand is being rounded down the overall reduction is obviously frequently more,so reducing the nett pool ...........any idea how much that is likely to average as it may be a large contributor to the overall lack of value on the tote.

RELEASED BY: PHUMELELA GAMING AND LEISURE LIMITED

Bets totalling more than R3 million with Australian tote betting company Tabcorp generated a record TAB Place pool for an ordinary race meeting in South Africa in Race 5 at Scottsville on Sunday.
The net Place pool on the race was R3.1 million and 98.2% of the pool was wagered by a Tabcorp account holder in Australia. Where possible, Tabcorp
RELEASED BY: PHUMELELA GAMING AND LEISURE LIMITED

Bets totalling more than R3 million with Australian tote betting company Tabcorp generated a record TAB Place pool for an ordinary race meeting in South Africa in Race 5 at Scottsville on Sunday.
The net Place pool on the race was R3.1 million and 98.2% of the pool was wagered by a Tabcorp account holder in Australia. Where possible, Tabcorp commingles all bets on South African racing into TAB pools.
The bulk of the Tabcorp customer’s Place bets on the race were on first and second favourites, Chosen Goddess and Orange Blossom respectively, with some R1.35 million net bet on each. More than R80,000 net was also wagered on each of Dirtydealin Mamma, Mrs Ching and Fantasy Rock.
Orange Blossom duly won and Fantasy Rock ran third, but Chosen Goddess could manage only fourth and did not qualify for a Place payout, resulting in a significant overall loss for the Tabcorp account holder.
The race was scheduled to start 2.30pm, but only got underway 95 seconds later which was 28 seconds after the last of the Australian punter’s bets.
Due to queries from several customers, TAB would like to point out yet again that all pools on South African races close when the runners break from the starting gate. No bets, locally or internationally, can be taken after that.
It takes up to 30 seconds after pools close for all bets struck before the off to be processed by TAB’s Amtote betting system and a maximum of 30 seconds after that for the final provisional payouts to be displayed.
Vee Moodley, Executive Director Sports Betting at Phumelela, pointed out that the Tabcorp customer’s bets had created value in the TAB Place pool on all horses apart from the first and second favourites. “There was time for South African punters to assess the value created by the huge bets on the top two in the betting. We welcome international participation in TAB pools because overall our South African customers benefit from this participation,” Moodley said.
“I would like to add that on the face of it the bets taken by the Australian punter do not make sense and consequently we have requested Tabcorp to provide with us with an explanation,” he said.