TAB to monitor oversees bets

The distortions are not solely due to some large international bets...I queried, last year, a small meeting at Exeter where the 2nd or 3rd in the betting paid R159,20 a PLACE per the official dividends on the Tabgold website...this differed vastly from the dividends shown on Racingpost for the same race...there have been other anomalies but this one stood out so I made enquiries of Gold Circle but never got a satisfactory response...

That was the last time I took a bet on my Telebetting account as one had not idea what the payout will be...a 20/1 paying R1,20 a place to a 1/1 paying R4,00 a place...how did these anomalies start and where does it end ?? I know that each pool is a stand-alone and that dividends are based on the number of winning tickets for each pool...but some payouts don't make sense even if one builds in a tolerance for the "lunatic" bets that can sometimes happen through design or error (wrong horse taken and too late to cancel)...

Look into bets that are cancelled late as much as we look into large bets placed...trace the origins thereof...each ticket in the pool has a reference to its origin...or limit a bet that is going to distort the pool eg. if the bet is more than 20% of the existing pool, it must be flagged and rejected rather than accepted so that the operator can take their +-20% take-out thereof...

And when one looks at the horses on which the large bets have supposedly been placed, it doesn't make sense...any person betting that amount of money (even if a foreign currency) has some semblance of sense or good luck to have accumulated that money in the first place...the Flamingo Park Race 2 baffles me... why would one place a large bet on a Bill Human runner when the stable has not had a winner in a very long time (please correct me if I have erred)...and the Sham stable didn't talk up their first timer to the extent that it should be favourite...both horses were more than 10/1 with bookies...so there was no logic (from all available information - stable talk, stable form, fixed price betting, etc) to the supposed bets that made them favourites...

When they get to the bottom of this (if they have the will be look beyond the take-out they get from these large bets), methinks the answer/s will be a lot closer to home...

The Madji Wrote:

---

> But on the other hand guys.... this is the third
> or foutth response to gripes on this forum. Is
> this not an improvement. If they say nothing there
> is bitching...if they reply they are spindoctors,
> reactive... warra warra...eishhhhh.


Would you agree that the only reason a response has been given is because of the noise being made.

As the man in charge, and a complaint is received, you should take note of that complaint. That is your duty. Don't wait till the complaints start piling up.

This issue about tote payouts changing just before and after the race is an ongoing issue, and has been raised a long time ago.

And it has been blamed on overseas bets.

I have mentioned on a very much earlier post, that I knew a guy who with a runner, who would place a R2000 bet on a horse to draw money to it, then cancel the bet just before the race, and back another horse. Tote manipulation , yes.

And not just on win/place payouts. I have seen quartet and trifecta payouts change. Fortunately, this is now a rare thing.

The point is, As a man in charge of revenue, I would want to know what comes in and what goes out.

I want to see what sale(bets) are been made and where they are been made.

I would also want to see what orders are changed, as in cancelled bets been changed to another bet, and I would want to know the source/location of these bets.

Check out your engine room Mr VM...the guys running your computer systems.

These guys have all the info at their finger tips.....date of bet, time of bet, location of bet, be it bet placed or bet cancelled. They can also give you a runaround.

Hence my earlier point, JUST WHO ARE THE AUDITORS OF RACING IN SOUTH AFRICA, and what guidllines are they working to.

Observer1...I'm a CA and RA and can tell you that a cursory examination by the external auditor will only pick these up if anomalies, by chance, are part of the samples taken for detailed checking...the onus is on the internal audit department and logic to pick up these anomalies and check them thoroughly through to a detailed finding...but, there is no incentive on internal audit to check as these large bets increase the take-out by inflating the pools...this same take-out increases the revenue and indirectly the profitability of the operator...if you can tolerate the damage being done to the credibility of the "sport" and there are no consequences for not following up and resolving or stopping, then the status quo applies...

Furthermore, the auditor gets paid by the entity they have to write the report on...the pressures within the industry due to poor regulation of who can and does audits means that margins are squeezed, time on audits is reduced and detailed testing (which takes time) is reduced...so the possibility is quite remote that the auditor will, firstly, discover these anomalies and, secondly, report thereon in the audit report...

I don't understand them. Their TAGLINE is hit them hard. yet when they get hit hard they want to monitor.

the only reason I would imagine someone doing this is they have all to comes with the tote and the win is greater if they push out the price at the off.

or they are trying to effect the Exotics to eliminate scratching. but the exotic pools are so small. cant imagine that being practical on small race days.

or the punter is out of his mind.

Guys i think Vee is trying to move forward with us, the last few emails and phone calls we have had together have been a move in a positive direction..


The more interactions we have with the operators etc the better in the long run, i personally love scandal and would love for everything to go tits up all the time,but its not good for the game.


that is all

ps i have some scandal ()

TNaicker Wrote:

---

> Observer1...I'm a CA and RA and can tell you that
> a cursory examination by the external auditor will
> only pick these up if anomalies, by chance, are
> part of the samples taken for detailed
> checking...the onus is on the internal audit
> department and logic to pick up these anomalies
> and check them thoroughly through to a detailed
> finding...but, there is no incentive on internal
> audit to check as these large bets increase the
> take-out by inflating the pools...this same
> take-out increases the revenue and indirectly the
> profitability of the operator...if you can
> tolerate the damage being done to the credibility
> of the "sport" and there are no consequences for
> not following up and resolving or stopping, then
> the status quo applies...
>
> Furthermore, the auditor gets paid by the entity
> they have to write the report on...the pressures
> within the industry due to poor regulation of who
> can and does audits means that margins are
> squeezed, time on audits is reduced and detailed
> testing (which takes time) is reduced...so the
> possibility is quite remote that the auditor will,
> firstly, discover these anomalies and, secondly,
> report thereon in the audit report...


Point noted.

The reality of transformation, not always in the best interest of the funder.

Reminds me of a country called South Africa, that I live in, seeing my tax contributions intended to improve things, been abused.

Please excuse my sarcasm, not directed at you.

hibernia Wrote:

---

> Guys i think Vee is trying to move forward with
> us, the last few emails and phone calls we have
> had together have been a move in a positive
> direction..
>
>
> The more interactions we have with the operators
> etc the better in the long run, i personally love
> scandal and would love for everything to go tits
> up all the time,but its not good for the game.
>
>
> that is all
>
> ps i have some scandal ()

I am more cynical.................I think that ignoring us didn't work!..........we didn't go away!!!
Our observations have become undeniable and embarrassing.
Plan B in operation.
Communication is better of course..........for them and us (tu).

Observer1...don't understand the comment "The reality of transformation, not always in the best interest of the funder."

I've highlighted with SAICA and IRBA the many problems faced by the profession but decision-making requires courage and that is sadly lacking...I've also provided possible solutions but, the profession has been under political pressure for the last 15 years and so people in decision-making positions toe a politically correct line...

One of the main problems I have is that our last two Ministers of Finance had no finance / commerce - related qualification so a all team of backroom specialists were required to do the work...even under apartheid, Chris Stals (Reserve Bank Governor) had a Doctorate in Economics and Barend du Plessis and Derek Keys has Masters in Accounting qualifications (I stand corrected)...now, with the amount of money the government collects, we can do a lot more...just no political will to do so and no consequence for not doing so...

The other problem is that we think there is a shortage of skills in this country...I beg to differ...we have sufficient skills that are not best utilised / deployed...under-employment is a swear-word in this country even though it is a reality and it justifies the exorbitant salaries paid to executives in public and private sector as if everything must be done to incentive these few people to keep their "skills" in this country...

Apologies to all for going off topic...

Thhey should monitor themselves, wrt R3 and how on earth after the race is run strong fav, is not tote fav. Wta joke. Lots of punters I know got done in big time

TNaicker Wrote:

---

> Observer1...don't understand the comment "The
> reality of transformation, not always in the best
> interest of the funder."
>
> I've highlighted with SAICA and IRBA the many
> problems faced by the profession but
> decision-making requires courage and that is sadly
> lacking...I've also provided possible solutions
> but, the profession has been under political
> pressure for the last 15 years and so people in
> decision-making positions toe a politically
> correct line...
>
> One of the main problems I have is that our last
> two Ministers of Finance had no finance / commerce
> - related qualification so a all team of backroom
> specialists were required to do the work...even
> under apartheid, Chris Stals (Reserve Bank
> Governor) had a Doctorate in Economics and Barend
> du Plessis and Derek Keys has Masters in
> Accounting qualifications (I stand
> corrected)...now, with the amount of money the
> government collects, we can do a lot more...just
> no political will to do so and no consequence for
> not doing so...
>
> The other problem is that we think there is a
> shortage of skills in this country...I beg to
> differ...we have sufficient skills that are not
> best utilised / deployed...under-employment is a
> swear-word in this country even though it is a
> reality and it justifies the exorbitant salaries
> paid to executives in public and private sector as
> if everything must be done to incentive these few
> people to keep their "skills" in this country...
>
> Apologies to all for going off topic...


Off topic maybe, but spot on, on the "toe the political line",

Spot on about "insufficient skills". This country has plenty of skills, just not politically correct, from a citizen point of view( irrespective of color, as per the constitution, yes)

And yes we have under skilled, overpaid appointments, to the detriment of this country.

So, as for my comment, this is the reality of transformation.

I have never been against transformation, and will never be, but the way it is been done is taking this country 30 years back.

Reminds me of a song "starting all over again, it's gonna be rough"

How can the operator stop anyone betting on any horse for any amount? On what basis can they reach such a sanction?

Surely anyone can bet any amount on any horse on the tote? (Cancelling large bets is a different matter, but still cannot really be sanctioned against due to the very nature of the rules governing SA pool betting.)

The operator placing these large bets to somehow manipulate the dividends simply can't happen without public knowledge thereof. They have to account for all expenditure to their auditor. I'm Pretty sure that Phumulela nor any of its agents or assigns are allowed to bet on the outcome of a race that they stage. Not to mention the cost associated on backing dubious horses. And how do they account for winning bets that they fluke? So it seems highly unlikely that it is operator money striking these bets.

IMO there is nothing sinister happening here. Just some bloke/lass (probably pissed), with too much money, taking stupid bets. He/she obviously hasn't worked out that our pools are small and that the bets being struck have a major detremental impact to their possible profit.

Why everything has to be continually interpreted as some sort of evil conspiracy on this forum escapes me.

I agree with Hibs. I appreciate Vee making an effort to look into the matter and at least try and put measures in place that assist in making things fairer for all concerned

If there isn't some reasonable explanation provided for the anomalies in payouts then the operator will continue to lose punters either to the bookies (where they can fix their prices and have some certainty of their return) or to other forms of gambling due to loss of credibility in the sport...I don't see any conspiracy; I just think that the operators, in their interests, should review / investigate these anomalies to protect the integrity and credibility of the sport...no use complaining about the evils of bookies and what they are / not doing when you cannot manage what you provide (the tote)...a man can see a speck of dust on another man's forehead but cannot see a pack of fleas on the tip of his nose...