Forums

Australian

There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
FTP1
28 Apr 13 04:39
Joined:
Date Joined: 09 Jan 07
| Topic/replies: 18 | Blogger: FTP1's blog
I thought i had better open an account with Tom Waterhouse as Tom tells us he knows what punters want. So i just tried to have $100 on a $17 chance at Tamworth race 2 and after processing for over two minutes i was allowed to have $62 on the horse. That's right $62. How can this be?? He is spending $50 million a year on advertising and then when he gets a customer he won't bet them. This i really can't understand. Embarrassing really.

All Open Bets
  Date: 28/04/2013 1:20:01 PM      
TKT#
Date
Type
Event
Outcome
Bet
Status

16902208    28/04/2013
13:19         Thoroughbred Racing    Tamworth Race 2 - Advanced Inland Security    5. Hot Harry    $62.00
@ 17.00    Partially Accepted

So i asked the live chat what was going on and got the usual blah blah blah.

TW chat: All bets are assessed by our Wagering Team and on some occasions we may not be able to accept a client's full bet and they may be partialled to a lesser bet amount

ME:what you cant get on to win more than $1000?

TW chat:It depends on a number of factors, each bet will be assessed individually if required. So on some occasions clients may see a bet partialled such was the case here.

Hard to believe but its true

Just another parasite in the industry.

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 1 of 5  •  Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 197
By:
Strapped
When: 28 Apr 13 05:25
is also fond of 'letting the cat out of the bag' apparently
By:
Kye
When: 28 Apr 13 05:30
I got knocked back on BF extra for a $100 on a 2.90 fav. All corporates are the same.
By:
eight ball
When: 28 Apr 13 06:00
That's a bit weird Hot Harry was a Late Scratching ?
By:
spyvspy27
When: 28 Apr 13 06:23
Only weird if they didn't refund the $62 Mr Blackball Laugh
By:
The Bricklayer
When: 28 Apr 13 08:44
He real name is Tom ****house
By:
The Bricklayer
When: 28 Apr 13 08:45
****
By:
The Bricklayer
When: 28 Apr 13 08:49
I once asked for $1000 @ 1.25 on A Rugby league match. Tom bet me $25
By:
Joel
When: 28 Apr 13 08:56
$6.25 is quite a lot of money these days
By:
bigted.
When: 28 Apr 13 08:57
By:
spyvspy27
When: 28 Apr 13 09:02
1 thing i find a touch puzzling, Waterhouse money is regarded as smart money, TW says he backed her to win 300k, yet all the on course bookies could do is keep turning her price out, something they never do when Waterhouse money comes for a runner
By:
AsoTahi
When: 28 Apr 13 12:38
what would be most interesting is to actually see what TW was betting SP on MJ and Robbie for that fact. I went and had a look at his site and it was supposedly the officially price of $3.00.
By:
powerfan
When: 28 Apr 13 13:50
spyvspy2 - TW says he backed her to win 300k

Creative writing - TW LAID All Too Hard for 300k which, roughly translated by TW, means he backed all other runners (of which MJ is one) to win 300k
By:
spyvspy27
When: 28 Apr 13 22:40
Powerfan, I do understand what it means to lay a runner, but if I read the screenshot of his book correctly, MJ was a liability of around 4k, not 300k win, Rain Affair was about a 180k win and was they only horse he had running for him on the book, that says he must have backed  MJ or he was telling a porkie
By:
wombleoz
When: 28 Apr 13 22:58
on racing review he said he backed MJ in the Sydney ring
By:
Beat The OverRound
When: 28 Apr 13 23:18
I doubt that he did for any substantial amount, certainly not to lose $300k, the course odds tell a different story.
The Waterhouse family is shrouded in controversy, and it's been proven beyond doubt where there's smoke, there's fire.
His book probably reflects a big bet on More Joyous, when he realised the jig was up, but I'll guarantee, he actually won on the race (paperwork aside).
By:
Otto_Von_Bismarck
When: 29 Apr 13 00:47
Tom didn't back ATH, greatest load of crap I've ever heard.. More Joyous was treated through the week, Tom didn't know, 2nd biggest load of crap.
By:
Otto_Von_Bismarck
When: 29 Apr 13 00:58
MJ was treated on Thurs with an antibiotic, Tom didn't know?
By:
Chariots
When: 29 Apr 13 01:40
Spy your reading of the screenshot of Tom's book shows that you have no idea what you are looking at. The figures shown next to each horse is the amount of the total payout on each horse not the liabilty. The payout of $4500 has to be offset against the total hold on the race. I am not saying that his book tells the complete story but on what was shown MJ was a substantial winner and ATH was a very bad result.
By:
spyvspy27
When: 29 Apr 13 01:51
If its the actual payout as you say Chariots, would you like to tell me how he can have a negative payout on Rain Affair?
Shouldn't it read as zero payout if no one backed it, or x amount if someone did back it?
By:
spyvspy27
When: 29 Apr 13 01:54
Also if its just the payout, then he paid out of over 300k on ATH, surely that is also offset against the total hold?
By:
Live_in_Hope
When: 29 Apr 13 01:56
wheres the screen shot?
By:
spyvspy27
When: 29 Apr 13 01:57
spyvspy27 • April 28, 2013 10:40 PM BST
Powerfan, I do understand what it means to lay a runner, but if I read the screenshot of his book correctly, MJ was a liability of around 4k, not 300k win, Rain Affair was about a 180k win and was they only horse he had running for him on the book, that says he must have backed  MJ or he was telling a porkie

Chariots, NB I did say if I read it correctly, I await your explanation for my previous 2 posts
By:
spyvspy27
When: 29 Apr 13 02:02
You there Chariots, your wheels haven't fallen off have they?
By:
Chariots
When: 29 Apr 13 02:09
Rain Affair is shown as a negative takeout and that indicates that he has backed that horse and his profit would be the negative figure plus the hold if it won.  All Too Hard had a takeout of $336,275 and that had to be offset against the hold of $114,673 making it  loser of $221k.

MJ had a take out of $4500 (probably a bet or bets of $1500 @ $3) making it a winner of $110k.

If he did actually place bets on MJ himself they are not recorded in this ledger.

Have seen the screenshot on another forum and not technically savvy enough to upload here.
By:
Joel
When: 29 Apr 13 02:09
Screen shot here

.

http://instagram.com/p/YmX_CDBzeF/#
By:
Live_in_Hope
When: 29 Apr 13 02:16
tah joel
By:
Dark....Target
When: 29 Apr 13 02:19
If Tom only held $110k on the race i'll eat my hat.

Its an unusual looking screenshot / ledger to say the least...
By:
spyvspy27
When: 29 Apr 13 02:20
That explains it, so his bets on Rain Affair are recorded, but not his bets on MJ, he said he backed MJ, backing a horse is different to holding it
By:
spyvspy27
When: 29 Apr 13 02:23
Or maybe he did back MJ and also layed it for more, thats why there is only 1500 shown as bet on it, he may have taken 31,500 on it and bet 30k back i suppose
By:
Live_in_Hope
When: 29 Apr 13 02:28
i know of $100K that didnt find its way into his bag
By:
Chariots
When: 29 Apr 13 02:29
That is a possibility spy he could have taken a substantial bet on MJ and backed it back  That would come out in any stewards inquiry.

Not saying Tom is innocent but many willing to condemn without real evidence.
By:
TheElephant
When: 29 Apr 13 02:34
Tom stated on TVN he backed MJ in the Syd ring......... and the flucs were 2.50 - 3.10 ?
Callender on TVN also stated there was plenty of 3.80 in the ring ?
By:
spyvspy27
When: 29 Apr 13 02:39
Singo did speak up pre race, so TW did have plenty of time to back MJ to so his book doesn't show anything untoward, as i'm sure it won't.

Mr Elephant, word spreads pretty quickly, if there was something untoward, other bookies knew it was TW only jettisoning money so his book doesn't show MJ as a big loser, so they all wanted a piece of it. As I said earlier, Waterhouse money is smart money, and when they bet, the price heads south not north.

Will be interesting if they have the time when all his bets were placed on it
By:
dos dedos mis amigos
When: 29 Apr 13 02:54
v small hold for our biggest bookie imo
By:
CHANTECLARE
When: 29 Apr 13 03:00
Im wondering weather the total hold matches up with all those
HUGE bets that he craps on about pre race?
I remember him saying 1 punter had 15k on RA with him.
And there were plenty bigger.
By:
spyvspy27
When: 29 Apr 13 03:03
That is his net hold though, as his back bets come off the gross hold, its obvious he had more on RA than he took on it and he had only 1500 less on MJ than he took on it, if he didn't bet anything back, the hold would've been a lot more to be fair
By:
CHANTECLARE
When: 29 Apr 13 03:10
Also i remember reading somewhere that Tom ran 2 different operations.

     1 for the mugs.   ie;  me
And  1 for the pros.   ie; Lets.

So are they both included in the 1 book?
By:
Otto_Von_Bismarck
When: 29 Apr 13 04:06
They should have a Royal Commission into it. Multi million dollar Industry, Maybe the Jocks might go back to riding properly for awhile.
By:
Dark....Target
When: 29 Apr 13 04:14
Same book Chante, only difference, smarties get let on for feck all, mugs + VIP's (big spending mugs) can get on for whatever they like.
Page 1 of 5  •  Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com