Integrity of the tote and GC

Hi,

I would've thought you were the appointed third party otherwise WTF are they, and other bookmakers, paying all those fees for? Is there somewhere I can complain about the so called gambling commission?

Feck



Dear Mr. Feck

Thank you for your email reagrding the tote scoop six.

It is not a requirement of the Tote to implement these changes but something they recognize will improve transparency and customer satisfaction. In regards to your correspondence with the Tote this is a matter you would be best advised to take up directly, with the Tote.  The processing of the Pools and dividends are subject to a number of external audits to ensure their integrity, from a regulatory point of view the Commission has seen no evidence to suggest there is any question of malpractice.


If you have concerns about the integrity of the pools you are advised to follow the complaints procedure shown below:

Complain, in writing, to the licence holder concerned providing as much detail as possible. You should keep a full record of the complaint. If you are not satisfied with the outcome, ask the licence holder to refer the dispute to their appointed independent third party for investigation. The independent third party should then contact you in the course of their investigation.


If there are any further queries then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Davy Cowie
Gambling Commission


Hi,

It's now the 2nd October. Today there was a massive scoop 6 rollover with 1 winning ticket. No running on tickets were shown for leg 1 OR LEG 3. After the 5th leg the running on tickets were shown as 8 on the winner and 5 on the favourite. As the winner was favourite that meant there should have been 13 tickets running on to the final leg but another 2 miraculously appeared from somewhere. The technology and software required to update the running on tickets for this pool would cost nothing more than a few hundred quid yet a government owned organisation finds it beyond them. Is it not about time the GC "ensured fairness in gambling"?

Regards

Feck

PS You can check the running on tickets here http://www.scoop6.co.uk/results/. In leg 5 there are 8 on the winner and 5 on the favourite but in the final leg there are 15 tickets.



Hi,

Check out this link http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Ashforth+Pr... and this section in particular

In 1979, McCririck hit the jackpot with "Totegate". On July 4, at Carlisle, Shine On, at 11-1, and Tinas Gold, at 20-1, finished first and second in an 18-runner handicap. The dual forecast paid 45p to a 10p stake.

Persistence enabled McCririck to establish that the Tote had developed a practice of putting winning off-course bets into the racecourse pool after the race result was known.

Further persistence persuaded a reluctant Home Secretary, Willie Whitelaw, to set up an independent inquiry from which Woodrow Wyatt, the Tote chairman, was lucky to escape with his job.

While it was 31 years ago, it would be naive to think it couldn't happen in the era of rip-off Britain at a time when faith in the "professional" classes that carry out "external" audits is rock bottom. There's only one way to ensure it can't happen and that's to show the running on tickets for any pool, any leg ASAP. If my laptop can calculate the running on totals for the 6th leg of a million ticket pool using a brute force algorithm in less than a second then why can't the tote's processor? Why are they holding these back?

If you don't think that's worthy of consideration then what exactly is it the GC do?

Regards

Feck   



From: The Gambling Commission 
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 3:37 PM
To: 'Feck'
Subject: RE: Integrity of the Tote


Dear Mr Feck



Thank you for your email regarding the Tote Scoop 6



We have discussed the matter you refer to and the new system is said to be a few weeks a way from launch. A timeframe for when this will be available to customers has been requested.



It is not a requirement of the Tote to implement these changes but something they recognize will improve transparency and customer satisfaction. In regards to your correspondence with the Tote this is a matter you would be best advised to take up directly, with the Tote.  The processing of the Pools and dividends are subject to a number of external audits to ensure their integrity, from a regulatory point of view the Commission has seen no evidence to suggest there is any question of malpractice and cannot comment on every “theoretical” possibility put to us.



Yours sincerely



Davy Cowie

Gambling Commission
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Feck [mailto:]
Sent: 06 August 2010 18:20
To: The Gambling Commission
Subject: Re: Integrity of the Tote



Hi,



In what way is it resolved? They told me they were installing a new system which would be up and running for the Derby (2 months ago) and they would then be able to update the totals quicker and show the running on tickets for the first leg. From what I can tell nothing has changed. No 1st leg totals were shown for yesterday's record jackpot which would theoretically give them the chance to stick in combos after the first race result was known. They also told me they would keep me up to date with what was happening but they haven't. You've not exactly scared the **** out of them.



Regards



Feck



From: The Gambling Commission

Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 1:17 PM

To: 'Feck'

Subject: RE: Integrity of the Tote



Dear Mr Feck



Thank you for your email regarding the Tote Scoop 6



I can inform you that Gambling Commission compliance managers held a meeting with the Tote in which this matter was discussed. In relation to your complaint; the tote informed the Commission that they have responded to yourself directly and the matter is now resolved. The Commission is currently satisfied with the approach taken.





Yours sincerely



Davy Cowie

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

From: Feck [mailto:]
Sent: 04 August 2010 10:03
To: The Gambling Commission
Subject: Re: Integrity of the Tote



Hi,



Did anything ever come of this?



Regards



Feck



From: The Gambling Commission

Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 3:27 PM

To: ''

Subject: RE: Integrity of the Tote



Dear Mr Feck



Thank you for your correspondence dated 23 May 2010 about a problem with the Tote and scoop 6.  The Commission will consider the issues that you raise in order to decide what, if any, further action is necessary.



The Commission will consider further investigation of the questions you raise if we consider they relate to a breach of our Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP) or provide wider concerns relating to the three licensing objectives. These are to keep crime out of gambling, to ensure gambling remains fair and open and to protect children and vulnerable people from being harmed or exploited by gambling.



As I am sure you will understand it won’t normally be possible to provide you with specific feedback on any action taken.  Thank you for taking the time to contact us about your concerns.



Yours sincerely



Davy Cowie

Gambling Commission

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

From: Feck [mailto:]
Sent: 23 May 2010 13:25
To: The Gambling Commission
Subject: Integrity of the Tote



Hi,



8 days ago (15th May 2010) I placed a scoop 6 combination and as I had several place lines running I was keeping an eye on the scoop 6 running totals which can be viewed on the day at http://club.totesport.com/totepoolLiveInf... The relative page at that site tells you how many tickets remain in the pool and how many of those are running on to each horse. On the day in question I was viewing the place totals for the last leg (leg 6) as the result came in. I calculated the total number of tickets on the three placed horses as 228 which should have meant a place dividend of over £800. Fifteen minutes later the page stated there had been 322 winning tickets and that the dividend would be £555.20 yet the running totals still suggested there were only 228 winning tickets. At that point I started a thread on the betfair forum (view at http://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/24057381/Scoop_6_place_dividend_looks_wrong

- there's also an article in the guardian that contains a summary of the affair http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010... Around 20 minutes after that thread appeared the totals suddenly changed so that the total number of tickets on the 3 placed horses totaled 322.



I wrote to the tote (twice) asking them to explain these discrepancies but have so far heard nothing. If you go to the following page http://www.scoop6.co.uk/results/15052010.htm you can view these discrepancies for yourself. Click on the 'Show how tickets ran' link for leg 5 and you'll notice the following - there are 944 winning tickets on the placed horses (note that the favourite was placed so the 134 tickets on the Fav are counted) but the 'Tickets remaining after this race' shows only 725. If you now click on 'Show how tickets ran' for the last leg you'll notice that the total number of tickets on all horses is 725 and the total number of tickets on the 3 placed horses is 228. That's exactly what was showing on the tote's own screen after the race was finished prior to the 'update' when 219 tickets were spread over the runners to make the totals agree with the tote's 322 winners. Of the original 725 tickets that were showing 31% (228) were winners, of the 219 that were added later 43% (94) were winners. Am I the only one that finds the differences in those percentages to be "statistically significant"?     



The tote told the guardian "the error came about when the ticket details were transmitted incorrectly after the fifth leg with some bets not being included through human error". While the totals in leg 5 suggest a mistake was made I just can't fathom how it could've occurred. I had previously complained to the tote before about their failure to show the totals for leg 1 until after the result was known as this cast doubts on the integrity of the bet (how are we to know that combinations that include the first winner aren't being inserted after the first winner is known?). The same applies to legs where there's a stewards enquiry as they don't update the total till after the weigh-in which sometimes means no updates for the following leg (why can't they show the figures 'subject to weigh-in'). Their reply to that particular complaint was that the bets came from various sources and there was sometimes a delay in receiving them. Does this mean they are still receiving bets after the result is known. If not, why can't they show the first leg totals after leg one. Consider the following.



Suppose a million lines have been placed on the scoop 6 and that (ridiculously) they've all been placed as single lines. The bet id, the unit stake and the numbers of the 6 selections for one line could be stored in 11 bytes. The entire one million lines could therefore be stored in 11 million bytes which is less than 11 MB. An 8 mbps home internet connection  could download all of that information in around 10 seconds. Using my £400 laptop I set up a test which used a MySQL table containing 1 million rows each of which had a bet id column, a unit stake column and 6 integer columns to store the numbers of the 6 selections (which I assigned randomly). I then ran a query that counted the number of running on tickets for the last leg based on 3 randomly selected places for each of the first 5 legs. The query took 0.8 secs to come up with the totals. When you consider in reality we're talking about very much less than 1 million lines (many lines placed as a combo can be stored in much less memory and be checked far quicker) and that once a combo or line is beat there's no need to check it again it's hard to see where the tote's problem lies. Put it this way, if they transmitted the few seconds worth of data to me, I could display the running on totals on a website for the first leg within seconds of receipt and for subsequent legs (subject to weigh in) within seconds of the previous leg's result. Once the data's received, all that's required is to input results correctly and a few seconds of processing power to cover all 6 leg updates.



So what's the tote's problem? The data arrives to them in dribs and drabs over a lengthy time period but, once it's there, we should only be talking about a few MB of data. Certainly they've got the jackpot, the placepots and individual race pools to look after and transmit at the same time but it's still not a lot of information. Why would their system not deal with a section of the information in the last leg of the scoop 6 in question. Why would "human error" result in a subgroup of lines not being available to the server? Have they got 6 Sinclair spectrum's that require manual input sharing the workload? If betfair had the tote hardware and software, would it crash because a volleyball game was being shown live? It all sounds dodgy to me. Are they allowing bets to be transmitted after results are known. Can bets withheld due to "human error" be altered? The only way the tote can know for sure is if they've got the few megabytes of data that make up all the lines in a pool in their possession when the first leg is only a few seconds old. If that's the case, how could the error under discussion possibly happen?



Make no mistake, this needs investigating because "human error" just doesn't do it for me. Personally I think the entire block of data that covers a pool should be available for download as soon as is possible and certainly before the first leg result is known. That way there would be no possibility of manipulation after the event.

Regards

Feck

As the winner was favourite that meant there should have been 13 tickets running on to the final leg but another 2 miraculously appeared from somewhere

There was withdrawn horse in that race with 2 tickets which explains where those 2 tickets came from so my apologies for that misinfo.

Feck

The GC are a waste of time. I was in a long discussion (in writing on email) with them about laying owners, specifically a owner caught laying his own horse sagains my back bet.

asking then to void or anul the bet - as betfair had refused to do so.

They finally worte to me and confirmed that as far as they are concerned it is perfectly acceptable  and legal for registered owners to lay thier own horses in britain, and they would accept no further corresponce with me on that issue.

you almost could not make it up.....




you coudl not make it up

I know HF claimed he had BHA permission to lay his own horses....

but i have GC permission in writing.

I was aware I'd get no joy from them magician. I only updated the position on this in the hope the Guardian would take up the case again and cause them both a bit of embarrassment. It's now almost 5 months since the tote told the GC they were about to introduce new updating software. If the tote have all the combos at the off of the first leg (as they claim) it should be possible to update the first leg in seconds and subsequent legs (subject to weigh-in) as soon as the result of the previous leg is known. The coding required is micky mouse.

Incidentally, the GC tell me if I wish to complain about the GC I should contact the GC.

Surely it is up to the Tote if they want to display the breakdown unless you think they are being fraudulent in which case go to the police.

Do you think the police might get them to confess Banks? Maybe they could arrest the entire financial sector while they're at it.

It wouldn`t be difficult to prove if you wanted to investigate it.

Do you have evidence that Tote are fraudulently manipulating the pools then?

It wouldn`t be difficult to prove if you wanted to investigate it.

Wouldn't it? You think the tote, who are seemingly reluctant to let people know what their pool bets running on totals are, will give me access to their computer code?

FFS Banks. I wrote to an organisation that charges bookmakers thousands of pounds in fees supposedly in return for "ensuring fairness in gambling" asking them to ensure fairness in gambling and you seemingly have a problem with this?

FFS Banks. I wrote to an organisation that charges bookmakers thousands of pounds in fees supposedly in return for "ensuring fairness in gambling" asking them to ensure fairness in gambling and you seemingly have a problem with this?

You sound a little touchy.

Reading your posts above it seems that you made the mistake anyway.

You sound just like one of the FOBT conspiracists.

I will ask again - do you have evidence that indicates that the Tote are acting in a fraudulent manner?

You're the one that sounds touchy. You actually sound like one of those cap doffers who thinks the powers that be are above reproach. Are you against the tote showing accurate running on totals?

The mistake I made (and pointed out myself) doesn't invalidate anything else I wrote.

8 days ago (15th May 2010) I placed a scoop 6 combination and as I had several place lines running I was keeping an eye on the scoop 6 running totals which can be viewed on the day at http://club.totesport.com/totepoolLiveInfo... The relative page at that site tells you how many tickets remain in the pool and how many of those are running on to each horse. On the day in question I was viewing the place totals for the last leg (leg 6) as the result came in. I calculated the total number of tickets on the three placed horses as 228 which should have meant a place dividend of over £800. Fifteen minutes later the page stated there had been 322 winning tickets and that the dividend would be £555.20 yet the running totals still suggested there were only 228 winning tickets.

Does adding winning tickets after the result constitute fraudulent activity? I don't know? It may have been an error but their explanation raised more questions than it answered. The Guardian obviously felt the same as they did an article on it after the original thread.

Are you against the tote showing accurate running on totals?

Not sure I`m fussed either way. I guess they would show them all if they could as it makes a bit of a story out of the scoop 6 on a Saturday afternoon.

Not being the most IT literate I may be wrong however I suggest that the error was probably caused by their processing of data.

Are their systems similar to the US where their systems know the total amount in the pool but don`t know the selections on all the tickets until after 3 races were run and all tickets processed?

I would imagine that your allegation that they "added winning tickets after the result" is not true. Have you asked them if there would have been additional winners "added" whatever the result was? I would hazard a guess that there would be.

It is no different to a betting shop who might know how much they have taken but not know liabilities until after an event has started because the bets need to be captured/translated.

Good conspiracy though!

I wrote to the tote (twice) asking them to explain these discrepancies but have so far heard nothing. If you go to the following page http://www.scoop6.co.uk/results/15052010.htm you can view these discrepancies for yourself. Click on the 'Show how tickets ran' link for leg 5 and you'll notice the following - there are 944 winning tickets on the placed horses (note that the favourite was placed so the 134 tickets on the Fav are counted) but the 'Tickets remaining after this race' shows only 725. If you now click on 'Show how tickets ran' for the last leg you'll notice that the total number of tickets on all horses is 725 and the total number of tickets on the 3 placed horses is 228. That's exactly what was showing on the tote's own screen after the race was finished prior to the 'update' when 219 tickets were spread over the runners to make the totals agree with the tote's 322 winners. Of the original 725 tickets that were showing 31% (228) were winners, of the 219 that were added later 43% (94) were winners. Am I the only one that finds the differences in those percentages to be "statistically significant"?


The tote told the guardian "the error came about when the ticket details were transmitted incorrectly after the fifth leg with some bets not being included through human error". While the totals in leg 5 suggest a mistake was made I just can't fathom how it could've occurred. I had previously complained to the tote before about their failure to show the totals for leg 1 until after the result was known as this cast doubts on the integrity of the bet (how are we to know that combinations that include the first winner aren't being inserted after the first winner is known?). The same applies to legs where there's a stewards enquiry as they don't update the total till after the weigh-in which sometimes means no updates for the following leg (why can't they show the figures 'subject to weigh-in'). Their reply to that particular complaint was that the bets came from various sources and there was sometimes a delay in receiving them. Does this mean they are still receiving bets after the result is known. If not, why can't they show the first leg totals after leg one. Consider the following.



Suppose a million lines have been placed on the scoop 6 and that (ridiculously) they've all been placed as single lines. The bet id, the unit stake and the numbers of the 6 selections for one line could be stored in 11 bytes. The entire one million lines could therefore be stored in 11 million bytes which is less than 11 MB. An 8 mbps home internet connection  could download all of that information in around 10 seconds. Using my £400 laptop I set up a test which used a MySQL table containing 1 million rows each of which had a bet id column, a unit stake column and 6 integer columns to store the numbers of the 6 selections (which I assigned randomly). I then ran a query that counted the number of running on tickets for the last leg based on 3 randomly selected places for each of the first 5 legs. The query took 0.8 secs to come up with the totals. When you consider in reality we're talking about very much less than 1 million lines (many lines placed as a combo can be stored in much less memory and be checked far quicker) and that once a combo or line is beat there's no need to check it again it's hard to see where the tote's problem lies. Put it this way, if they transmitted the few seconds worth of data to me, I could display the running on totals on a website for the first leg within seconds of receipt and for subsequent legs (subject to weigh in) within seconds of the previous leg's result. Once the data's received, all that's required is to input results correctly and a few seconds of processing power to cover all 6 leg updates.



So what's the tote's problem? The data arrives to them in dribs and drabs over a lengthy time period but, once it's there, we should only be talking about a few MB of data. Certainly they've got the jackpot, the placepots and individual race pools to look after and transmit at the same time but it's still not a lot of information. Why would their system not deal with a section of the information in the last leg of the scoop 6 in question. Why would "human error" result in a subgroup of lines not being available to the server? Have they got 6 Sinclair spectrum's that require manual input sharing the workload? If betfair had the tote hardware and software, would it crash because a volleyball game was being shown live? It all sounds dodgy to me. Are they allowing bets to be transmitted after results are known. Can bets withheld due to "human error" be altered? The only way the tote can know for sure is if they've got the few megabytes of data that make up all the lines in a pool in their possession when the first leg is only a few seconds old. If that's the case, how could the error under discussion possibly happen?

Are all their overseas bets placed directly on to the same server or do they manually add these into the UK pool?

As Banks has said do you actually have any evidence of fraudulent activity or is the sum total of your argument that their is a suggestion that there may be something going on.

If you followed that reasoning through who is to say the 15 winning tickets rolling on are all genuine entries. Presumably all your going on is the information supplied by the organization you are accusing of malpractice. If you expect the GC/Police or whoever to jump into action every time someone dreams up a possible fraud in relation to gambling, the regulatory burden on companies would stifle business and close firms.

On a seperate point it seems distasteful how happy you are to simply cut and paste GC staff details while you hide behind your username. I assume and hope the GC haven't been wasting fee payers money on engaging with an individual addressing himself only as Mr Feck! Perhaps any further correspondence they send you should adopt a tone more fitting with the contempt you hold them, as you state your intention is merely to embarrass the Tote or GC not to actually resolve a genuine problem.

Typical Guardian reader.

Are all their overseas bets placed directly on to the same server or do they manually add these into the UK pool?

They claim all combinations for all legs are relayed to them such that they have all bets shortly after leg 1.

Are all their overseas bets placed directly on to the same server or do they manually add these into the UK pool?

They claim all combinations for all legs are relayed to them such that they have all bets shortly after leg 1.

No idea then.

Why don`t you put in a bid to buy the Tote and then you will be allowed to see more financial details about them before deciding whether to put in a bid.

You could have question 1 as "are there any fiddles that I should know about that need to be maintained to avoid the finger of suspicion falling on the previous owners once my bid is successful and I am running the operation?"

Failing that you will have to make do with quietly seething in a corner I`m afraid.

good point clive.

Look through the submissions to the gambling commission on inrunning betting and you will see there is a letter from someone signed "The Magician". And they wonder why nobody takes their points seriously

As Banks has said do you actually have any evidence of fraudulent activity or is the sum total of your argument that their is a suggestion that there may be something going on.

My point is that if they wish to protect their integrity they should show the running on tickets before each leg (shortly after the start in the case of leg 1).


If you followed that reasoning through who is to say the 15 winning tickets rolling on are all genuine entries.

You've obviously not read the thread but anyway, if previous leg totals were shown correctly we would know 15 tickets should be running on which is my whole point.


Presumably all your going on is the information supplied by the organization you are accusing of malpractice. If you expect the GC/Police or whoever to jump into action every time someone dreams up a possible fraud in relation to gambling, the regulatory burden on companies would stifle business and close firms.

As I said earlier, I don't expect anything. Read the thread.


On a seperate point it seems distasteful how happy you are to simply cut and paste GC staff details while you hide behind your username. I assume and hope the GC haven't been wasting fee payers money on engaging with an individual addressing himself only as Mr Feck!

They are not MI5. If you mean he may be embarrassed that he's been publicly outed as a GC employee then I take your point.



Perhaps any further correspondence they send you should adopt a tone more fitting with the contempt you hold them

I thought they were already doing that.


, as you state your intention is merely to embarrass the Tote or GC not to actually resolve a genuine problem.

My hope was the embarrassment might induce them to resolve the problem.



Typical Guardian reader.

I don't buy newspapers.

Typical clive.

It sounds like there is nothing that will convince you that things are OK.

I will ask again do you have evidence to suggest what the Tote is doing is fraudulent?

You appear to want the authorities to deal with what is essentially a customer service problem for you. If I were a licence payer I would feel pretty agrieved that a proportion of my fees was being spent on things like this.

I'm sure the response you've received includes the fact that the tote pools are audited independently. Presumably the organization conducting the audit are also involved in this elaborate cover up??

I'm still not entirely sure whether you are saying

a) There's a genuine fraudulent offence taking place (agree very serious but believe such accusations should be based on evidence not opinion)

b) You accept there isn't a problem but are worried that the tote do everything to stop such scurrilous accusations being taken seriously (doesn't appear to be an immediate danger judging by the quite straight forward response you've recieved from the regulatory body and lack of activity from the tote)

c) You are on some fairly dull and meekly supported crusade aimed at those you feel are worthy of your wrath today. As i say it would be far more preferable for those having to fund the GC, that they just ignore such correspondence and spend their time on more meaningful things. At least that way they've met the expectations of the magical feck alliance! (who i don't suppose contribute anything to their running costs.)

Banks, read the 3rd paragraph in my 12:40 post. The problem is a micky mouse one that the tote claimed 5 months ago they had already solved. I first raised the issue of leg 1 totals years ago. Why are we still waiting for transparency? Remember, we're talking about a mob with previes (as shown below). If their current system cannot show the correct running on totals then their programmer(s) could be changing combinations without their knowledge. The only way we AND THE TOTE can know for sure this isn't happening is to show the correct totals for each leg. Considering the small amount of data involved they could even make the entire list of combos available for download shortly after the first race.

In 1979, McCririck hit the jackpot with "Totegate". On July 4, at Carlisle, Shine On, at 11-1, and Tinas Gold, at 20-1, finished first and second in an 18-runner handicap. The dual forecast paid 45p to a 10p stake.

Persistence enabled McCririck to establish that the Tote had developed a practice of putting winning off-course bets into the racecourse pool after the race result was known.

Further persistence persuaded a reluctant Home Secretary, Willie Whitelaw, to set up an independent inquiry from which Woodrow Wyatt, the Tote chairman, was lucky to escape with his job.

While it was 31 years ago, it would be naive to think it couldn't happen in the era of rip-off Britain at a time when faith in the "professional" classes that carry out "external" audits is rock bottom. There's only one way to ensure it can't happen and that's to show the running on tickets for any pool, any leg ASAP. If my laptop can calculate the running on totals for the 6th leg of a million ticket pool using a brute force algorithm in less than a second then why can't the tote's processor? Why are they holding these back?

Perhaps you and Clive should write in to the tote hierarchy letting them know you fully support their system of misinformation and start a campaign for its retainment. As you BHA guys often say "it's tradition".

It seems you need to read your own thread (appreciate its a chore.)

I thought you are whinging about a lack of information not misinformation. I'm sure if your campaign group blossoms to 3 supporters the Tote with very little else on at present, will have no option but to crumble and begin to publish the information which as you say should be quite straight forward. I suppose the danger for large organisations pandering to such cranks is it just encourages them to pursue further conspiracies and take up more of their time and resource.

Please note that's a personal view not one approved by the wider executive board.

Interesting you should refer to a matter from 31yrs ago... i'm sure alot has happened in the meantime in relation to gambling and scandal. Betfair cross matching, Ladbrokes casino issues, various integrity matters (lets not get your partner in crime started) but i 'd be surprised to find any link in the modern day tote structure or management with those from 1979. Your own post shows the scandal wasn't even sufficient to lose the then chairman his job. (Probably a whitewash)

In 1979 Jeremy Thorpe was on trial for conspiracy to murder amongst other things, presumably that precludes the liberals being in government now.

Time moves on perhaps you should. FOBT's may give you some decent material and supporters.

Clive82 that is an eloquent "**** off Feck" response!

You clearly feel very strongly about the status-quo clive. With any luck one of the tory rags will take up your cause and maybe even campaign for the running on totals to be omitted from additional randomly chosen legs on a regular basis.

I'm surprised you'd "be surprised to find any link in the modern day tote structure or management with those from 1979" given their system cannot, as yet, update their totals quickly and correctly. Their explanation as to why that is certainly belongs to that era. How the bookmakers must wish betfair were using their technology. They'd be boasting they handle more transactions a day than the combined stalls of Camden market.

Was the winter of discontent not in 1979? Couldn't possibly happen again, could it?

I wonder what sort of wage these two clowns are on

Was the winter of discontent not in 1979? Couldn't possibly happen again, could it?

Another left wing victim no doubt. Why is it that such people are always looking out for someone else to blame for things. It must make life very miserable.

Thanks god I don`t live in a Labour area. I would find it far too depressing.

Let me guess, the recession's the fault of the unemployed and the immigrants and absolutely nothing to do with wholesale fraud in the financial sector. You sound like the sort of cnut that gets on in this country.

Apologies mr feck you've lost me again (private education not everything it claims to be) Are you now blaming the tote for the financial crisis? You seem obsessed with financial fraud, have you had a bad experience with a time share deal gone belly up? Perhaps thats the fault of Trevor Beaumont.

Don't really see the relevance of the immigrants comment, suffice to say i'm sure many of the naughty bankers you no doubt want to string up will not be UK citizens and therefore by definition immigrants. You seem to have a very narrow view of immigrants, they're not all unemployed you know.

To paraphrase a fellow mason "calm down dearest its only a tote bet!" Your arguments are lot more coherent when you stick to precise conspiracies rather then global ones.

Enjoy your evening, i'm off to look at tommorrows scoop 6 races.

I wonder what sort of wage these two clowns are on LaughLaugh

What on earth has that got to do with anything?

Your victim traits are shining through brightly. Jealousy is not an endearing quality in fact it looks a little pathetic if I`m honest.

What on earth has that got to do with anything?

I think it's got everything to do with it. If a persons IQ was proportionate to their wage we wouldn't have a tote run by clowns incapable of implementing a simple computer or a BHA being shafted rotten by bookmakers.

Enjoy your evening, i'm off to look at tommorrows scoop 6 races.

Which legs are you guaranteed the winners of tomorrow clive?

*  a simple computer programme

The pools totals are very often wrong when the payout is likely to be considerable. This does not have to be a Scoop 6 or run-on Jackpot pool.

On Leger day at Doncaster many peole would have singled Rewilding in the placepot, which was thereby inflated and returned three-figure odds. The amount actually paid out was about four times less than illustrated on the toat site.

You just have to cross your fingers and hope if you place a value toat multiple. Or lay off your stake and place your faith in your original selections.

I just wait till the final leg and slip my entry in and hope nobody takes any notice of the mouthy anorak who tends to pick up on it and then continue to beat his solo drum despite the resounding echo!!

If you are genuinely concerned with the current financial climate benefit cuts, rises in the price of special brew,homelessness and unemployment... My golf clubs could do with a clean. Always happy to play my part in the big society.

I think it's got everything to do with it. If a persons IQ was proportionate to their wage we wouldn't have a tote run by clowns incapable of implementing a simple computer or a BHA being shafted rotten by bookmakers.

Do you realise how stupid you sound?

Typical Labour supporting keyboard warrior who is frustrated by their lack of influence in society.

If you spent as much time trying to do something constructive you might actually enjoy life.

Cheers clive. What's your address?

Banks, I sound stupid? What's the next project for you and your buddy? Defending Lord Haw-Haw's SP reforms.

Clive is no buddy of mine but whatever I do next can`t make me look as ridiculous as you on your high horse always looking for somebody or something to moan about.

Some gainful employment (if you can find anyone crazy enough to employ you) might help although I doubt it would last too long with your attitude. You would probably end up trying to sue them for infringing your human rights over some victim type issue.

Geeza job Banks. Racing for change. I can do that. I can make silly suggestions.

Geeza job Banks. Racing for change. I can do that. I can make silly suggestions.


I`m afraid I don`t hand out the Racing for Change jobs however if I did you would no doubt be head and shoulders above all other applicants.

I reckon you are one of those who think they could do better than anyone who has a decent job yet miraculously has never held such a position to be able to prove this.I

Robin Ewe Joined: 12 Jan 02
Replies: 304 08 Oct 10 13:20   


good point clive.

Look through the submissions to the gambling commission on inrunning betting and you will see there is a letter from someone signed "The Magician". And they wonder why nobody takes their points seriously 


Robin Ewe

What is your point?
Why target me now for something that has been public for 2 years
What is your motivation to ridicule me?
Why imply I am so how mischevious or demented for wirting to the Gamblgin comission using this name - when presumably you have read my submission and justification for the use of the "the Magician"

A submission in response to the Gambling Commission’s paper “In-running (In -Play) betting: Issue paper”

1. Introduction and background

1.1 I have been involved in the racing industry for more than 20 years, and for the last 5 years have been betting with variously betting exchanges but predominantly Betfair. As such my commentary may focus on Betfair occasionally but you should consider the comment equally relevant to other exchanges and high street shops. As a hobby (away form my fulltime occupation) I run various complex ‘bots’ on betting exchanges to; monitory markets, develop betting algorithms, detect corrupt betting patterns, and various other ideas I am working on. Additionally I bet with high street firms and on course bookmakers.

1.2 My ‘bots’ bet on virtually every horse race that Betfair offer globally including Australia, UK, Ireland, and USA as the main components each day. I do extensive data analysis and back testing of betting patterns, and comparison of betting patterns between the different countries and hence regulatory regimes.

1.3 Some of my ‘bots’ are not profit making but are used to capture market activity for technical analysis. Others are profit making. These ´bots’ ultimate place significant bets each day for very small net percentage returns – and as such I contribute significant commission to betting exchanges and as such the Levi.

1.4 Additionally I have been a vocal advocate of betting exchanges on many issues – and I believe in total they are good for racing in the UK. Additionally I have been a vocal opponent to Betfair on several issues.

1.5 I was a significant voice in encouraging Betfair to increase their IR warnings on the market menu, and am in continuing discussion with Betfair regarding the fairness of their markets, transparency of their rules, and provision of information for their clients.

1.6 I have recently provided evidence that photo bets where being matched by people that knew the result prior to market suspension. This apart from being totally unfair and unacceptable - is also obviously and clearly against the objectives of the gambling act especially the second licensing objective. As such I requested and Betfair to cancel such bets and Betfair has obliged in doing so. This had not been the MO in the recent past. This decision ushers in a new era where people can begin to bet with confidence in the knowledge that the result becomes known their bets will be cancelled. This type on confidence is what Betfair should welcome and the GC should enforce.

1.7 In general for a bet to be fair it needs to be struck where no discrepancy in material information exists between one counterparty and the other. Inside information is an obvious example and inherently wrong, despite its acceptance as ‘the life blood of the industry’. I believe there is no place in the administration of racing for people that hold those views.

1.8 I would highlight my comments and concerns relate to IR betting on horse racing – while my generic comments about fairness and time delays may be applicable – I do not seek to comment on IR of other sports except to compare the inconsistent application of ‘fairness’ across the various sports.
I HAVE REMOVED THE MAIN BODY AND DETAIL OF MY SUBMISSION FROM HERE
2.45 You may be aware that I have had strong views on the fairness of IR for several years. And to this extend in mid 2007 I had software developed that allowed every Betfair user to run an analysis of their Betfair horse racing bets. This software and database was developed
and maintained at considerable financial cost to me. The program and some of my motivations for it can be found here; http://betfairdata.googlepages.com/home. Several hundred individual have now used this software (based purely on a few threads I started on the Betfair forum, and no wider ‘advertising’) – indicating there is a clear demand from Betfair users to be able to see their PnL divided into pre-off and IR. Additionally they can separate their bets by picture provided and as such begin to see the real impact of time delay on their profitability. They can dissect SIS v´s ATR v´s RUK and see the impact of the differing time delays.

2.46 If you read the various threads I have stared in the general betting forum you will see multiple users of my IR segregator have come back thanking me for the information it has provided them. Many have found that while they are net winners on Betfair, they where surprised to learn they where winning on pre-off betting and giving a big portion of that money back IR (so winning 100 a day pre-off but losing 40 a day IR for example).

2.47 Betfair or other exchanges or bookmakers to my knowledge do not currently provide this level of granularity in the PnL statements they provide for clients. Despite the fact that they will allow you to separate the profitability of your soccer bets from your horse racing bets they will not provide a separation of IR and pre-off. The provision of this data is insignificant from a technological point of view, and these reasons it is not supplied need to be questioned by the GC.

2.48 I would ask the GC to enforce the provision of such information for the public. The GC must support maximum transparency in betting statements for punters to give them maximum opportunity to protect themselves from loss making areas. I would ask that the GC make it a requirement of any operator exchange or high street, that they cannot offer IR betting unless they proactively provide statement segregation that allows their clients to simply separate their IR from Pre-off betting. This is required for reasons of fairness, transparency and because they a distinctly different products with different risk profiles and fairness levels. I cannot see any argument against the provision of this transparency for the public punter.

3. Collusions

3.1 As alluded to in the introduction this submission is placed by a private individual with no formal alignment or alliance to any betting operator or commercial betting related enterprise.

3.2 I would ask that the GC make serious attempts to implement of my two requests given in 2.43 and 2.48 as implementation of these two points would 1) satisfy point two of the objectives 2) provide all the information and protection available while still allowing adults to bet on all the fair products they wish too

3.3 I make this submission under my Betfair username pseudonym ‘The Magician’ because under my real name I am essentially unknown in betting circiles. Virtually all of my discussion and dialogue on betting is conducted under the moniker of The Magician on the Betfair forum. Which you can easily verified

3.4 Finally I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the information and suggestions I have made here. Additionally there are several pieces of information I am not prepared to put in writing, but would discuss off the record

Regards,

Betfair Forum user ‘The Magician’

Note: due to the use of master and sub accounts on Betfair to run my various bots, I post under mulptile forum names – as each sub account
needs its own name. As such I post under

The Magician
The Magician ( )
The Magician (1)
The Magician (2)
The Magician (3)
The Magician (4)
The Magician (5)
The Magician (6)

Robin

I ask you to repsond, and be as transparent as that, especially

3.3 I make this submission under my Betfair username pseudonym ‘The Magician’ because under my real name I am essentially unknown in betting circiles. Virtually all of my discussion and dialogue on betting is conducted under the moniker of The Magician on the Betfair forum. Which you can easily verified

and perhaps state your specific reason for attacking me in this maner, do we have history I am unaware of that you seel to belittle me?

if so - you better be prepaired to justify your attack and match my level of integrity ( that I ahve spent years developing on this forum.

The Magician

I can see where Robin's coming from here in fairness!

If you consider that a serious submission, you're massively overestimating the level of importance that other people attatch to internet forums.

(FWIW That's not intended as a slur on your integrity or meant to ridicule you in any way, it's simply intended to point out that you've misjudged things here IMO )

To you (and I) and a handful of others, the postings on here are a pretty important part of gambling life and exchange of information. Through being here a long time we have a feel for who makes sense and who doesn't

To the GC, and 99% of the population it's a bunch of people talking crap in cyberspace.

Lori

I partially agree with you - but that is why I gave considerable introduction to try and give credance to my submission.

Naturally the GC, totally ignored it.

I also think I recall Robin having an axe to grind with me previously, so lets hope he comes back and clarifies transparently if he has an axe with me, or I have missunderstood his tone (which can happen in text)

Fair enough
FWIW, either way, It doesn't make them ignoring it anything close to being right.

Story in today's RP. The comments that follow sum it up.

Tote apologetic following Scoop6 dividend error

By Graham Green 7:04PM 25 OCT 2010

THE Tote on Monday launched an internal investigation after admitting both the win and place dividends from Saturday's Scoop6 were incorrectly declared following a manual error.


One of the horses in the final leg, the 3.40 race at Newbury, was wrongly transmitted as a non-runner, and therefore additional units were included in the 'unnamed favourite' selection.


As a result there were only 13 winners of the bet, not 14 as previously stated.

Each of the winners will receive an amended dividend of £31,341.60, instead of £29,102.90.

The consolation fund has also been adjusted, with an enhanced dividend of £52.90 payable to punters who selected the six placed horses. The original place divided was £51.

Any players who placed bets online or by telephone will automatically have their payments adjusted.

However, betting shop customers who have qualified for a place dividend should collect their winnings, and then contact the Tote by writing to the Customer Services Department, Westgate House, Tote Park, Chapel Lane, Wigan WN3 4HS, with proof of purchase to receive additional payment.

Totepool spokesman George Primarolo said: "We apologise for the inconvenience this has caused to Totescoop6 customers.

"We would like to assure all players that we take such matters seriously and will be conducting a full and thorough investigation internally to ensure that this manualerror is not repeated again."



Visions of an abacus by candlelight spring to mind. 


"Manual error" - why is the calculation not completely computerised. This is a serious issue as it would suggest this and the other pools may be dependant on a single point of failure. RP you are right to run this story and Tote get you act together.

Someone has dug them up on this otherwise it would've been swept under the carpet (NAP).

I hope some might take you a bit more serious now feck.

Quite often you watch the first leg of the placepot and think that the pool should be gutted but when the running totals come up , half the pool is still left.

In addition to your instance there was one at killarney in august where the final totals did not add up to the actual dividend.

Quite often in the Irish placepot pools you would see money being added after race 5(no updates from race 2-5)again this is shambolical.

In other tote pools we see the actual amounts being placed on each horse or each exacta in real time so we can see where if any the value lies.Why can't they do this with the placepot/jackpot/scoop 6 to show us what is being placed before the first race.

I think everyone nowadatys should keep an open mind.After all it was the punters of AP and UB the unveiled an online
poker cheating scandal that reveiled both sites had employees and many many associates who opened accounts
and the site could see everyones hole cards.We as you can guess 10's of millions was stolen from players accounts
when the cheating insiders looked at their own hole cards and also all their opponents hole cards.
What was interesting was early into the investigation the so called professional expert security
department told the accusers that their was no cheating.It was the players who finally got both sites(owned by the same people)
to admit that the some employees of the site where cheating.
No one was ever arrested and the sites are still playing back the players who where cheated.Which racing has never done when
cheating in horse racing has been proven.

Forgetting about how simple it is to get this right (there could even be a facility to download EVERY bet placed on a pool a few seconds after the first leg is off - it would only be a few MB's) the astonishing thing about all this is that the GC think it's nothing to do with them.