Feb 19, 2015 -- 11:34AM, gatespeed wrote:
BJTThe 2nd horse parimutual div was 3.6 however the declared div was 1.9.Your maths above is missing the high probability that a rebate was given to the punter that had roughly 4k on the 1st place with 6-10% paid on top of the 1.00 that was the true div of 1.00So what does the tab do? It subtracts the available payout to the other place getter by modifying their declared odds from the true pari-mutual odds. whats worse is the the tab system can cater for this meaning rebates are programmed into the system. I have seen this happen at least a dozen times in the past, and have been the dismayed punter that looks up at the final odds and the declared div with bewilderment.Before you come back with a retort, have a look through the results from that Bathurst card and show me one race where the place pool was within koo wee of the place pool in the first event (90% of win pool) and then one race where the final div differed from the declared div.
No my maths is showing the true odds with no rebate, as 1.90 for the 3.60 horse, that comes down purely to the guarantee of minimum of 1 dollar dividend.
I have the true odds of the favourite at around 77-78 cents, meaning that for every dollar put on that horse, close to 3700 I believe, needed to be paid out 22-23 cents more than the dividend should have paid.
This is the money that has come off the second place dividend. It has nothing to do with rebates as I have shown.
Without rebates, the numbers work out to around 1.90 left to payout to second place. That is without any rebates taken into consideration. If there were rebates, then it could have only bought the price in even more.
Let's work it out your way.
5700 in the pool, 4900 available to be paid out after the TAB gets their cut.
4000 on the favourite, receiving a 6-10% rebate. Let us average that to 8% for you on your figures.
That means, out of the 4000 on the favourite, they are paying out 4320 of the 4900 available on that horse alone, leaving 580 dollars to be paid out on the second placed horse. Right?
Considering there was nearly 800 placed on this horse, and only 580 available to be paid out, for what you say to be accurate, means the second horse would have paid out about 72 cents. Certainly not 1.90. No? It is impossible for what you say to be anywhere near accurate.
I will humor you though, and go through the rest of the card and show you the difference.
R2. 357% market, 3 dividends.
R3. 354.2% market, 3 dividends.
R4. 356.6% market, 3 dividends.
R5. 361% market, 3 dividends.
R6. 348.6% market, 3 dividends.
R7. 358.3% market, 3 dividends.
R8. 353.1% market, 3 dividends.
R9. 355.8% market, 3 dividends.
R1. 169.8% market, 2 dividends.
Race 1 was certainly overbet. I would also argue that Race 6 was overbet, hence why it was under 351%, but very marginally, and would not have been enough to take the dividend under 1.00.
Being overbet, doesn't equate to rebates though. How are the 2 mutually inclusive?
In a 2 dividend pool, they pay out to 200%, and should have a 234% pool so they take 17% of each, leaving 200% left to pay out.
At 170%, after taking 34%, they are left with 136% where 65% of the money has to be paid at in inflated dividend, because of their guarantee to the punter to never lose money on a winning bet unless a dead heat.
The facts of this race are this:
1. The TAB will get their 17% before worrying about the punter.
2. The minimum dividend paid out is 1.00. These punters get that money guaranteed.
3. The favourite was overbet and true dividend was ~78 cents.
4. The payout on the other runners once the must haves, are then paid out based on the money placed on them.
There is NOTHING to suggest a rebate paid of more than 0%, because if there was, there wasn't enough money left to payout to 1.90. The numbers you suggest would have left less money than was available to be paid, so would have been 1.00 for the second placed horse. Nowhere near 1.90.
I understand you have an issue with rebates, and may feel you have seen this happen a dozen times before, but stand back for a second, and think about the numbers involved. What you say, is not accurate, and impossible.
Feb 20, 2015 -- 10:19AM, shiraz wrote:
I have made it very clear many times on this forum (showing my ignorance) that I have a very limited interest in horse race betting.........I think the market is 'saturated' and I cannot find an acceptable 'edge', therefore I do not bet seriously. Any betting I have knowledge of with rebates are on sports fixed odds betting.I have been very forthcoming, but.............You did not answer my two questions.
He won't answer questions, as I think he has no idea of the answers. Just a guy that likes to make noise.
Feb 21, 2015 -- 12:54AM, henryluca wrote:
One the one hand I read about corporates refusing bets , closing accounts or limiting to threepence ...then up pops the topic of rebates to encourage trade....From what I read mark Read offers 11% rebate...paid in 24 hours......my first thought is "big woop" ......but I try to avoid gimmicks( qantas club is a gimmick but confess to being a member)
Don't believe he offers anything now. Don't think he runs books any more. He is an agent for Citibet, and runs a syndicate on HK races. Last I looked anyway. Certainly was offering 11%, but I believe the takeout of HK is 25% or so, so brings you not far under TAB anyway after the rebate, and you can get much better than that on Citibet anyway.
And the rebates, are for totes, not for fixed odds.