Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
In case of interest:
The UK Tote Group and Singapore Pools have signed a new agreement to commingle pools.
The agreement sees both organisations combine liquidity with customers of Singapore Pools betting into the UK Tote’s pools on British racing meetings. This creates bigger UK pools, ensuring a better customer experience for racing fans in the UK and in Singapore and an improved financial return to the sport.
The agreement was made in partnership with Arena Racing Company and Racecourse Media Group as the media rights holders for British racing’s 59 racecourses. Singapore Pools have been long-standing partners of British racing, hosting local pools on the sport. This collaboration between these stakeholders further deepens the relationship, benefiting racing fans and the sport.
Simon Leong, Chief Product Officer of Singapore Pools, expressed his enthusiasm for the new commingling arrangement with the UK Tote. He said, "We are delighted to collaborate with the UK Tote on this new front, which not only provides our customers access to larger pools but also contributes to British horseracing which have been telecasted in Singapore since 2010. We deeply appreciate our longstanding partnership with British racing and look forward to further strengthening the communal horseracing ties shared between us. Singapore Pools will continue to bring quality products from around the world to Singapore and elevate the racing experience for all."
The UK Tote Group and Singapore Pools have signed a new agreement to commingle pools.
The agreement sees both organisations combine liquidity with customers of Singapore Pools betting into the UK Tote’s pools on British racing meetings. This creates bigger UK pools, ensuring a better customer experience for racing fans in the UK and in Singapore and an improved financial return to the sport.
The agreement was made in partnership with Arena Racing Company and Racecourse Media Group as the media rights holders for British racing’s 59 racecourses. Singapore Pools have been long-standing partners of British racing, hosting local pools on the sport. This collaboration between these stakeholders further deepens the relationship, benefiting racing fans and the sport.
Simon Leong, Chief Product Officer of Singapore Pools, expressed his enthusiasm for the new commingling arrangement with the UK Tote. He said, "We are delighted to collaborate with the UK Tote on this new front, which not only provides our customers access to larger pools but also contributes to British horseracing which have been telecasted in Singapore since 2010. We deeply appreciate our longstanding partnership with British racing and look forward to further strengthening the communal horseracing ties shared between us. Singapore Pools will continue to bring quality products from around the world to Singapore and elevate the racing experience for all."
Show More
If you were being honest you would mention the take out on these pools so your customers can see if it is a better customer experience as claimed.
The take outs are very transparent & available…there’s also the SP guarantee so if our payout is under SP we match it. Also available via most major bookmakers. Racing industry also benefits directly. World Pool race days also offer huge value to the punter (races often even an ‘underound’. Very hard to see a negative in the Tote expanding its pool base globally &, thus, enhanced liquidity.
westberks Joined: 08 May 08
Replies: 32024 Apr 24 12:49
The take outs are very transparent & available…
When will this be happening and when will we know the take outs?
Replies: 32024 Apr 24 12:49
The take outs are very transparent & available…
When will this be happening and when will we know the take outs?
Have you told them that you are " seeding " the pools ( illegally imo ) ? Also have you told them where you can find out what pools and to what extent are being bet into by the Tote itself. ?
with 99% of the Tote wins i have seen being EXACTLY the same as SP its a complete waste of time imo.
with 99% of the Tote wins i have seen being EXACTLY the same as SP its a complete waste of time imo.
Simply not true and again, totally, transparent here: https://totepoolliveinfo.com/ you can compare as much as you like stretching back years, should you wish.
Pool deduction rate
19.25% (The net pool is therefore 80.75% of the gross pool) on races governed by the
British Horseracing Authority. 20% (The net pool is therefore 80% of the gross
pool) on races governed by the Horse Racing Ireland.
Calculation of dividends
The total of the funds invested plus any funds brought forward form the gross pool. If the gross pool is guaranteed to a particular amount, then this amount forms the gross pool unless the total of the funds invested plus any funds brought forward is greater than the guarantee.
The net pool is divided by the total stakes on the winner of the race to obtain a calculated dividend. The calculated dividend is then rounded down to the next 10 pence to obtain the payable dividend declared to a £1 stake, with the following exceptions: (i) If the calculated dividend is greater than 90p and less than £1.10, the payable dividend will be £1.10. (ii) If the calculated dividend is 90p or below, the payable dividend will be £1.02.
(iii) Notwithstanding (i) and (ii) above, in the case of a dead-heat for first place if the calculated dividend is 60p or below, the payable dividend will be 60p. (See rule on Dead-Heats below.)
Holders of winning tickets are then paid in proportion to their stakes.
If the winning horse is part backed, i.e. there is less than £1 of winning tickets in the pool, the net pool is the calculated dividend. In accordance with the rules above, this is then rounded down to the next 10 pence to obtain the payable dividend to a £1 stake. The balance of the gross pool which has not been won will be carried forward to another race as decided by Tote. The deduction from any pool is only taken at the time the funds are won, so this is added back to the net rollover to be included within a subsequent pool.
Example 1: Suppose we have a Tote Win pool where the net fund available for distribution after the deduction has been removed is £1,000 and the total amount invested on the winning horse is £0.80.
As the winning horse is part-backed, then the net pool of £1,000 is the calculated dividend.
The total amount paid out on the winning horse is only (0.80 x £1,000) = £800, so the remaining £200 which has not been won will be carried forward to a subsequent Tote Win pool.
The deduction from any pool is only taken at the time the funds are won, so the 19.25% deduction is added back to the net funds carried forward. Therefore the gross carry-forward in this example is £200.00 / (1 - 19.25%) = £247.68.
If the winning horse is not backed, then the entire gross pool will be carried forward to another race as decided by Tote.
Note that any guarantee is disregarded for the purposes of carry-forwards.
19.25% (The net pool is therefore 80.75% of the gross pool) on races governed by the
British Horseracing Authority. 20% (The net pool is therefore 80% of the gross
pool) on races governed by the Horse Racing Ireland.
Calculation of dividends
The total of the funds invested plus any funds brought forward form the gross pool. If the gross pool is guaranteed to a particular amount, then this amount forms the gross pool unless the total of the funds invested plus any funds brought forward is greater than the guarantee.
The net pool is divided by the total stakes on the winner of the race to obtain a calculated dividend. The calculated dividend is then rounded down to the next 10 pence to obtain the payable dividend declared to a £1 stake, with the following exceptions: (i) If the calculated dividend is greater than 90p and less than £1.10, the payable dividend will be £1.10. (ii) If the calculated dividend is 90p or below, the payable dividend will be £1.02.
(iii) Notwithstanding (i) and (ii) above, in the case of a dead-heat for first place if the calculated dividend is 60p or below, the payable dividend will be 60p. (See rule on Dead-Heats below.)
Holders of winning tickets are then paid in proportion to their stakes.
If the winning horse is part backed, i.e. there is less than £1 of winning tickets in the pool, the net pool is the calculated dividend. In accordance with the rules above, this is then rounded down to the next 10 pence to obtain the payable dividend to a £1 stake. The balance of the gross pool which has not been won will be carried forward to another race as decided by Tote. The deduction from any pool is only taken at the time the funds are won, so this is added back to the net rollover to be included within a subsequent pool.
Example 1: Suppose we have a Tote Win pool where the net fund available for distribution after the deduction has been removed is £1,000 and the total amount invested on the winning horse is £0.80.
As the winning horse is part-backed, then the net pool of £1,000 is the calculated dividend.
The total amount paid out on the winning horse is only (0.80 x £1,000) = £800, so the remaining £200 which has not been won will be carried forward to a subsequent Tote Win pool.
The deduction from any pool is only taken at the time the funds are won, so the 19.25% deduction is added back to the net funds carried forward. Therefore the gross carry-forward in this example is £200.00 / (1 - 19.25%) = £247.68.
If the winning horse is not backed, then the entire gross pool will be carried forward to another race as decided by Tote.
Note that any guarantee is disregarded for the purposes of carry-forwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSZPsAKWd8k
I would advise anyone betting with the Tote watch the video then decide.
I would advise anyone betting with the Tote watch the video then decide.
The tote win pool dividends NEVER beat the odds on Betfair. Don't waste your time.
It's pretty easy to match s.p. when the s.p. odds are clipped last minute or so.
There is absolutely no value in betting Tote odds. None.
Someone with a degree in ten a penny qualifications like marketing should be ignored.
It's pretty easy to match s.p. when the s.p. odds are clipped last minute or so.
There is absolutely no value in betting Tote odds. None.
Someone with a degree in ten a penny qualifications like marketing should be ignored.
...so why do most pro racing punters ONLY bet into the pools nowadays? Cos they're banned from everywhere else. Jumping-cuckoo-monk clearly not even a restricted punter
...so why do most pro racing punters ONLY bet into the pools nowadays? Cos they're banned from everywhere else. Jumping-cuckoo-monk clearly not even a restricted punter
That's a lie, You've taken away the incentive for pro racing punters to bet into the pools.
A pro punter could look at a 30/1 horse at the bookies, assess it's true odds to be 40/1, place a £1 bet on the tote pool knowing the punter favourite bias would likely see a pay out of 50/1 if it won.
You got your 20%, but now you want it all.
so why do most pro racing punters ONLY bet into the pools nowadays
How the feck would you know who is a pro punter?
The fact you've made that statement shows how clueless you really are.
There is no edge in win pools. NONE. Stop lying.
How the feck would you know who is a pro punter?
The fact you've made that statement shows how clueless you really are.
There is no edge in win pools. NONE. Stop lying.
I bet on bf btw. This place. No restrictions to winners on here. You really are a berk
Have I upset you btw about the uselessness of your marketing degree?
Use open university, get a decent degree so you don't have to spend half your useless career spamming lies on here, berk
Use open university, get a decent degree so you don't have to spend half your useless career spamming lies on here, berk
"Stop lying"...interestingly aggressive, so let's take a World Pool day where many races have been bet as an underround...can you say there is no value in an underrounded book? (Please say 'yes')
so let's take a World Pool day where many races have been bet as an underround.
Show me evidence, your claims mean NOTHING
Show me evidence, your claims mean NOTHING
Tell us how many millions the tote have made by seeding the pools( please tell us)Is this information private if so why?
Its just stats, darling: https://totepoolliveinfo.com/ look up any World Pool day & see: Royal Ascot. 29/07/2023 King George VI & Queen Elizabeth Stakes Day. 01/08/2023 Goodwood Cup Day. 02/08/2023 Sussex Stakes Day. 03/08/2023 Nassau Stakes Day. 23/08/2023 International Stakes Day.24/08/2023 Yorkshire Oaks Day. 25/08/2023 Nunthorpe Stakes Day. 09/09/2023 Irish Champion Stakes Day. 07/10/2023 Sun Chariot Stakes Day. 21/10/2023 British Champions Day. Next up: 04/05/2024 2000 Guineas Day.
The pros must be loving it. A few races 6 months a part. I'll have a look at your "data" in a bit
What about the pros who want to make a profit in the other 350 days a year?
Got the data on non-world pool underrounds petal?
What about the pros who want to make a profit in the other 350 days a year?
Got the data on non-world pool underrounds petal?
This thread is about Singapore betting into everyday British pools that provide godawful value in all tote markets which have been seeded close to the off by the Tote.
Why seed near the off? To bet at 80p in the pound on value of course. Lovely algorithms.
Seeding should be done at the start of the day to attract custom
Not near the off to take the cream.
Bet on betfair odds is my advice. You might not get much on but getting plenty on at poor value is worse!
Why seed near the off? To bet at 80p in the pound on value of course. Lovely algorithms.
Seeding should be done at the start of the day to attract custom
Not near the off to take the cream.
Bet on betfair odds is my advice. You might not get much on but getting plenty on at poor value is worse!
"6 months a part"...totally understand differing view points but that's just silly...yes, its Flat only (& many more that are non-UK which can still be accessed from here, mind)...but, fair, only make it your port of call on World Pool days, that's fine too
Let me get this straight. You say the majority of pro-punters bet into pools.
1) How do you know this?
2) If you do know, then are they making profits from every day non-world pool tote pools?
3) If so show me the underrounds on British racing tote pools.
I find it hard to believe that pros earn enough on world pool days when there are so few of them.
1) How do you know this?
2) If you do know, then are they making profits from every day non-world pool tote pools?
3) If so show me the underrounds on British racing tote pools.
I find it hard to believe that pros earn enough on world pool days when there are so few of them.
First 6 months of 2024: https://worldpool.hkjc.com/news-content.aspx?in_file=20240125150000.html&b_c... ...try it next month (both Guineas days & see what you think)...esp Swinger and Quinellas (mostly over a £1M in the pot for each, do check)...if you don't like/see no value, no worries, but there's a reason 20+ countries are involved (IMO)
There was a reason thousands of intelligent people got ripped off billions by Bernie Madoff, but if you can't see they were conned then I can't help you.
(this very site offers pool betting access cos people do want a Placepot etc etc & also rely on liquidity, so back to the original point: Added liquidity is good for all)
Some anomalies a few times year hardly substantiate your claim that most pro-bettors play the pools after being restricted at the books
That's just an outright lie.
You seed the pools late and clip the s.p.s
Sketchy or allegedly corrupt behaviour.
It will be interesting seeing the downfall of the Tote
Answer the following bullet points. The subject pertaining to this thread you started
Let me get this straight. You say the majority of pro-punters bet into pools.
1) How do you know this?
2) If you do know, then are they making profits from every day non-world pool tote pools?
3) If so show me the underrounds on British racing tote pools.
I find it hard to believe that pros earn enough on world pool days when there are so few of them.
Finally can you explain the wild disparity I often see between the tote win GUIDE to the returned tote dividends? Very rare to see the odds lengthen in the punters favour. Is this variation a result of your last second seeding and snipping of value or is it the old "lag" computers doncha know?>
That's just an outright lie.
You seed the pools late and clip the s.p.s
Sketchy or allegedly corrupt behaviour.
It will be interesting seeing the downfall of the Tote
Answer the following bullet points. The subject pertaining to this thread you started
Let me get this straight. You say the majority of pro-punters bet into pools.
1) How do you know this?
2) If you do know, then are they making profits from every day non-world pool tote pools?
3) If so show me the underrounds on British racing tote pools.
I find it hard to believe that pros earn enough on world pool days when there are so few of them.
Finally can you explain the wild disparity I often see between the tote win GUIDE to the returned tote dividends? Very rare to see the odds lengthen in the punters favour. Is this variation a result of your last second seeding and snipping of value or is it the old "lag" computers doncha know?>
At least westberks has had the dignity to reply to most of the questions. Thankyou.
Sadly but unsurprisingly the seeding question remains unanswered.
Sadly but unsurprisingly the seeding question remains unanswered.
It is only fair at this stage to acknowledge that the homespun notion of a Tote where small-scale, casual punters could bet between themselves is ancient history, and has been for at least 20 years. There are big professional operators using automated programs of their own to squeeze cash from every major pool betting system on the planet. In many cases, the operators actually pay them to play, via rebates, because of the precious liquidity they bring to the pools.
But it is unusual, to say the least, for the pool operator itself to get involved in the same way. And although its precise mechanics are not verifiable, being in a position to see exactly how the big players operate could presumably give give the Tote’s programmers a decent head start on them.
Now few tears will be shed over that, but it still leaves no one the wiser about exactly how much the Tote is making from PGS, what proportion of the money in its pools is “proprietary”, or why PGS is continuing now that crowds are back on track. If the Placepot pool at Cheltenham, for instance, really requires “seeding”, then the game is surely up. For the sake of fairness and transparency, these are all questions that deserve an answer.
But it is unusual, to say the least, for the pool operator itself to get involved in the same way. And although its precise mechanics are not verifiable, being in a position to see exactly how the big players operate could presumably give give the Tote’s programmers a decent head start on them.
Now few tears will be shed over that, but it still leaves no one the wiser about exactly how much the Tote is making from PGS, what proportion of the money in its pools is “proprietary”, or why PGS is continuing now that crowds are back on track. If the Placepot pool at Cheltenham, for instance, really requires “seeding”, then the game is surely up. For the sake of fairness and transparency, these are all questions that deserve an answer.
When all the Tote detractors on here can explain in some detail what difference it makes to the end user i.e the punter it appears to be a lot of accusations with no evidence to show the take out or so called "seeding" has any detrimental effect on dividends?
In reality, the fact they match SP is a big improvement on what the Tote used to be when Lord Wyatt was running it albeit it should never have been sold off as there was a charter that said it belonged to the British Public.
Anyway maybe you can clarify GC? Explain how the pools are being "seeded" etc and how the Tote benefit from risking their own money to boost pools other than encouraging more bettors to play? There may be an argument that there is no risk due to the takeout percentage but can that be substantiated.
At the end of the day the big players and the Tote themselves do not know the results any more than the casual punter does before races start?
In reality, the fact they match SP is a big improvement on what the Tote used to be when Lord Wyatt was running it albeit it should never have been sold off as there was a charter that said it belonged to the British Public.
Anyway maybe you can clarify GC? Explain how the pools are being "seeded" etc and how the Tote benefit from risking their own money to boost pools other than encouraging more bettors to play? There may be an argument that there is no risk due to the takeout percentage but can that be substantiated.
At the end of the day the big players and the Tote themselves do not know the results any more than the casual punter does before races start?
westberks, I'll be happy to debate on tv, why it's insider trading on the placepot.
Debate it here Clydebank? Explain why you think insider trading is possible?
All your questions are answered on the video which I posted on this thread earlier ....
April 24, 2024 1:48 PM BST
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSZPsAKWd8
April 24, 2024 1:48 PM BST
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSZPsAKWd8
I have no interest or trust of YT videos GC, are you saying that you have no actual evidence of your own regarding the accusations made?
I am genuinely intrigued and interested because everything I have read on here for ages is repeated again and again but I have yet to see anybody give definitive examples of what they claim and try as I might I cannot see what the Tote are doing that is detrimental to punters.
I am genuinely intrigued and interested because everything I have read on here for ages is repeated again and again but I have yet to see anybody give definitive examples of what they claim and try as I might I cannot see what the Tote are doing that is detrimental to punters.
If you have no interest in the video then wtf will people waste their time trying to educate you
If you are genuinely intrigued and not being a contrarian from the get go watch the vid
If you are genuinely intrigued and not being a contrarian from the get go watch the vid
Just clicked the link "video is not available anymore", hmm
here it is
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSZPsAKWd8k&t=3s
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSZPsAKWd8k&t=3s
I take it that your education came via the video then JCM? Does the fact that something is on YT mean that it is factual or truthful iyo?
Surely you can educate readers with a couple of simple facts e.g what are the Tote doing that is detrimental to punters, you must know why you are attacking them?
Surely you can educate readers with a couple of simple facts e.g what are the Tote doing that is detrimental to punters, you must know why you are attacking them?
Weren't you a copper? The youtube video presents the background to the complaints about the Tote
Why should I regurgitate what is known and said in the video.
You know nothing about the allegations so why not get the background?
Why should I regurgitate what is known and said in the video.
You know nothing about the allegations so why not get the background?
The major complaint is about late seeding.
Seeding was introduced during covid when there were no on track punters.
Problem is after covid they were allowed to continue seeding
Problem is insiders have said the Tote seeds in the last minute or so on value permutations thus betting against its customers with data only available to the Tote.
So they bet into the pools at 80p in the £1 on value.
That sound ethical to you?
Watch the video, maybe you can put up a defence
Seeding was introduced during covid when there were no on track punters.
Problem is after covid they were allowed to continue seeding
Problem is insiders have said the Tote seeds in the last minute or so on value permutations thus betting against its customers with data only available to the Tote.
So they bet into the pools at 80p in the £1 on value.
That sound ethical to you?
Watch the video, maybe you can put up a defence
Exactly JCM, I prefer to deal with facts as presented by the accuser (s), so far not a single one on here has presented any evidence other than directing readers to a video of complaints if I am getting your gist correctly? I have no knowledge or opinion either way which is why I have asked for evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Tote.
Insiders/informants.
You were a copper, so you might have come across informants.
The accusation needs to be investigated.
Damning if true
You on the side of truth and fairplay?
You were a copper, so you might have come across informants.
The accusation needs to be investigated.
Damning if true
You on the side of truth and fairplay?
If you don't believe the accusations fair enough.
Leave quietly, you have no skin in the game.
Leave quietly, you have no skin in the game.
Thanks JCM, I still do not understand how the Tote benefit even if the accusations are true though?
"When all the Tote detractors on here can explain in some detail what difference it makes to the end user i.e the punter it appears to be a lot of accusations with no evidence to show the take out or so called "seeding" has any detrimental effect on dividends?"
I have Cagliari, at least a couple of times. It's complicated, but I'd imagine the Placepot dividend is reduced by 5-10% because of it. It's a bit like the government putting up the tax rate and no one realising they have. I don't think it gives them an advantage on the win and place markets, but that might be simply because I can't work out how it does.
In it's simplest form it works like this..
There are two outcomes. BLACK and WHITE.
There are 3 punters. The Tote, SHAGGY and VELMA
Each ticket is £15
The Tote picks 2 tickets. It first picks BLACK, and because it knows it already has picked black it's second pick is WHITE.
Shaggy buys 1 ticket. He draws out BLACK.
Velma then buys a ticket. She doesn't know what Shaggy has picked. For simplicity purposes assume there's a 50% chance she picks each colour.
There is no commission.
What if Velma picks WHITE?
There is £60 in the pool and 2 winners.
If it's WHITE, Velma wins £30 and the Tote wins £30
If it's BLACK, Shaggy wins £30 and the Tote wins £30
What if Velma picks BLACK?
If it's BLACK, Shaggy wins £20, Velma wins £20 and the Tote wins £20
If it's WHITE, the Tote wins £60.
There are 4 possibilities, and for simplicity, each has an equal chance
After 4 games The Tote is +£30 -£10 £0 £0
It's £20 up. Vera is £10 down and Shaggy is £10 down
And this is all because the Tote knows it's own picks. Not because of any skill.
I have Cagliari, at least a couple of times. It's complicated, but I'd imagine the Placepot dividend is reduced by 5-10% because of it. It's a bit like the government putting up the tax rate and no one realising they have. I don't think it gives them an advantage on the win and place markets, but that might be simply because I can't work out how it does.
In it's simplest form it works like this..
There are two outcomes. BLACK and WHITE.
There are 3 punters. The Tote, SHAGGY and VELMA
Each ticket is £15
The Tote picks 2 tickets. It first picks BLACK, and because it knows it already has picked black it's second pick is WHITE.
Shaggy buys 1 ticket. He draws out BLACK.
Velma then buys a ticket. She doesn't know what Shaggy has picked. For simplicity purposes assume there's a 50% chance she picks each colour.
There is no commission.
What if Velma picks WHITE?
There is £60 in the pool and 2 winners.
If it's WHITE, Velma wins £30 and the Tote wins £30
If it's BLACK, Shaggy wins £30 and the Tote wins £30
What if Velma picks BLACK?
If it's BLACK, Shaggy wins £20, Velma wins £20 and the Tote wins £20
If it's WHITE, the Tote wins £60.
There are 4 possibilities, and for simplicity, each has an equal chance
After 4 games The Tote is +£30 -£10 £0 £0
It's £20 up. Vera is £10 down and Shaggy is £10 down
And this is all because the Tote knows it's own picks. Not because of any skill.
Using data not available to all in a pool betting system by its operator would probably be deemed as insider trading
If they have info say in placepots of underbet selections on off 1st race that are taking out a good % of the market then they can place those bets at 80p in the pound roughly.
If they are placing these bets as an act of seeding or building the pot they have an unfair advantage
Seeding when the pools aren't matured at the beginning of the day I would say is acceptable.
All tote has to do is prove the seeding doesn't take place at the off.
As far as I'm aware they won't do it and the question gets ignored.
So the punter who has a winning placepot loses 20% to the Tote in commission and if the tote have won on their own placepot a further deduction to Fred's winnings is taken
ALLEGEDLY
If they have info say in placepots of underbet selections on off 1st race that are taking out a good % of the market then they can place those bets at 80p in the pound roughly.
If they are placing these bets as an act of seeding or building the pot they have an unfair advantage
Seeding when the pools aren't matured at the beginning of the day I would say is acceptable.
All tote has to do is prove the seeding doesn't take place at the off.
As far as I'm aware they won't do it and the question gets ignored.
So the punter who has a winning placepot loses 20% to the Tote in commission and if the tote have won on their own placepot a further deduction to Fred's winnings is taken
ALLEGEDLY
A lot of ifs buts and maybes but no actual facts as yet? If you feel so strongly and believe what you are accusing them of have you reported your suspicions to the GC or the FCA or any other statutory body?
If not why not?
If not why not?
...Thats why when i posted the video i clearly put " you decide " But heres some more copy and paste whilst i am here ...
One claim – in a document seen by the Guardian - suggests the Tote could have made at least £3m from proprietary trading since PGS made its debut, and that as much as 40% of many day-to-day Placepot pools is actually comprised of the Tote’s own money.
The claim is hard to verify and, when contacted on Monday, the Tote declined to comment on these figures on the record. It insists, however, as it did when PGS launched, that its aim is to make pools more stable, transparent, fair and better for all customers.
One claim – in a document seen by the Guardian - suggests the Tote could have made at least £3m from proprietary trading since PGS made its debut, and that as much as 40% of many day-to-day Placepot pools is actually comprised of the Tote’s own money.
The claim is hard to verify and, when contacted on Monday, the Tote declined to comment on these figures on the record. It insists, however, as it did when PGS launched, that its aim is to make pools more stable, transparent, fair and better for all customers.
..... I contacted the GC commission about this about a year ago. Waste of time but it gave me peace of mind.
Far from toothless given their propensity for handing out huge fines to bookies JCM, do you think they would exempt the Tote if they uncovered wrongdoing as alleged?
Why not submit a FOI request and perhaps find out if any other complaints have been made?
Why not submit a FOI request and perhaps find out if any other complaints have been made?
Thank you for contacting the Gambling Commission about the Tote who operate under the licence TDCO Limited.
You have contacted us to check if it is legal for a gambling business to buy tickets in its own pool.
Thank you for raising this matter with us.
By way of background, gambling businesses are required to be transparent and operate fairs terms and practices for its customers. I have added a link to the relevant information on our website below which you should find helpful to review.
Customers knowledge of who they are participating against - Gambling Commission
While it is not illegal for them to participate in their own pool, it must be made clear in their terms and conditions that they do so. This is so the customer can make an informed decision as to whether they want to place bets under those terms. Having reviewed the gambling business's terms and conditions, there is information regarding this within section 14.8
It is not clear from your correspondence whether you have a specific dispute regarding a bet you placed with the Tote, but I understand that you have contacted the gambling business for information regarding this matter.
If you are not happy with their response, then you may want to raise a formal complaint. You can do this by following the complaints process within their terms and conditions. We recommend that you fully exhaust the complaint process available to you.
Please see our website here for information on making a complaint.
After exhausting the complaint process, you are welcome to send us the outcome of your complaint/relevant evidence if you think the business is in breach of their licence conditions. While we cannot assist with individual complaints, information passed to us can help inform our regulatory work and ongoing compliance activity.
Thank you for contacting us, we have made a record of your complaint against the gambling business as per our compliance process.
Basically said if its in the terms and conditions it allowed. !!
You have contacted us to check if it is legal for a gambling business to buy tickets in its own pool.
Thank you for raising this matter with us.
By way of background, gambling businesses are required to be transparent and operate fairs terms and practices for its customers. I have added a link to the relevant information on our website below which you should find helpful to review.
Customers knowledge of who they are participating against - Gambling Commission
While it is not illegal for them to participate in their own pool, it must be made clear in their terms and conditions that they do so. This is so the customer can make an informed decision as to whether they want to place bets under those terms. Having reviewed the gambling business's terms and conditions, there is information regarding this within section 14.8
It is not clear from your correspondence whether you have a specific dispute regarding a bet you placed with the Tote, but I understand that you have contacted the gambling business for information regarding this matter.
If you are not happy with their response, then you may want to raise a formal complaint. You can do this by following the complaints process within their terms and conditions. We recommend that you fully exhaust the complaint process available to you.
Please see our website here for information on making a complaint.
After exhausting the complaint process, you are welcome to send us the outcome of your complaint/relevant evidence if you think the business is in breach of their licence conditions. While we cannot assist with individual complaints, information passed to us can help inform our regulatory work and ongoing compliance activity.
Thank you for contacting us, we have made a record of your complaint against the gambling business as per our compliance process.
Basically said if its in the terms and conditions it allowed. !!
CagLIARiG is only trying to ruin the thread, ignore him and he will go away and annoy someone else.
Exactly how does trying to understand the accusations ( unfounded btw) ruin a thread second again? Is it because it ruins your self indulged delusions that only you can be right and do not want the facts or truth to interfere?
Cagliari, I wouldn't say the GC is toothless, but it is clueless
Did you not read my explanation, or fail to understand it?
The GC was warned that Football Index was effectively a PONZI scheme, and still did feck all. Not because it couldn't, but it is totally incompetent and ignorant, and lacking in understanding. As we have also seen with ACs.
Agreed they are clueless and inept Clydebank but if you are right in your suspicions I would push them on the basis that Tote are breaching the terms of their licence regardless of their T @ Cs allowing them to seed the pools? You are the only poster who has given an example that could carry some weight and given me an understanding of where potential wrongdoing is being perpetrated, so thanks for that.
It's basic ethics, transparency, best practice, etc - purely common sense that no betting operator should be playing in their own markets.
The bloke that runs the meat raffle down the pub - what would it look like if he won two weeks running?
It doesn't matter if he just got very lucky or if he is a villain - the optics are awful! - and can easily be avoided. You could kill all the "conspiracy theories" (many of which do look to involve underhand practices) by just doing the right thing - don't play in your own markets.
It's a good job the Betfair "cross matcher" is "best execution", so it is purely to ensure that THEIR customers get the best possible price!
The bloke that runs the meat raffle down the pub - what would it look like if he won two weeks running?
It doesn't matter if he just got very lucky or if he is a villain - the optics are awful! - and can easily be avoided. You could kill all the "conspiracy theories" (many of which do look to involve underhand practices) by just doing the right thing - don't play in your own markets.
It's a good job the Betfair "cross matcher" is "best execution", so it is purely to ensure that THEIR customers get the best possible price!
CagliariG25 Apr 24 11:56Joined: 16 Jul 22 | Topic/replies: 8,690 | Blogger: CagliariG's blog
You are the only poster who has given an example that could carry some weight and given me an understanding of where potential wrongdoing is being perpetrated, so thanks for that.
Fair play to CB29 taking the time to write it out - but if you couldn't see the possibilities for abuse or bad practice for yourself - you probably need to find a different thread to interrogate and it does really undermine you claims of a career as an investigator of some sort.
You are the only poster who has given an example that could carry some weight and given me an understanding of where potential wrongdoing is being perpetrated, so thanks for that.
Fair play to CB29 taking the time to write it out - but if you couldn't see the possibilities for abuse or bad practice for yourself - you probably need to find a different thread to interrogate and it does really undermine you claims of a career as an investigator of some sort.
I was merely asking for substantiated facts TM, something that is bereft on here and this thread in particular. You have just confirmed that the posters revert to personal attacks when unable to back up their unfounded accusations, Clydebank being the only one who was able.
Low intellect usually the reason btw, so you fit right in with the way the OP was subjected to personal abuse, nothing new for you tbf!!
Low intellect usually the reason btw, so you fit right in with the way the OP was subjected to personal abuse, nothing new for you tbf!!
tbf, regarding intellect - you are the only one that couldn't see the (mathematical) potential for mal-practice!
I admit until I read Clydebanks post I did not see it, but if I was the only one why could nobody else answer when I first declared my interest?
I would challenge you to find a single person who could have deduced where wrongdoing might be going on before his post?
I would challenge you to find a single person who could have deduced where wrongdoing might be going on before his post?
There have been dozens of threads ffs (pretty much every time westberks spams - he get the same reply).
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that being the last person to "act" (in many scenarios), especially in a "pool" betting situation, is a massive advantage. Especially if you know everybody else's picks!
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that being the last person to "act" (in many scenarios), especially in a "pool" betting situation, is a massive advantage. Especially if you know everybody else's picks!
My apologies for not reading every thread that makes unfounded accusations and believe anything that is posted TM, I did say I was interested and intrigued because I genuinely could not see the advantage for the Tote purely on this thread.
Are you against trying to establish facts by asking perfectly reasonable questions?
Are you against trying to establish facts by asking perfectly reasonable questions?
I told you to watch the video which details how the Tote could benefit.
But you for some reason wanted it in writing from posters and waste people's time
You are after an argument not truth.
Maybe you feel comfortable going after one man bands like Brimardon and not big corp.
Any evidence won't be shown on here, that would be a stupid thing to do wouldn't it? Show one's hand?
Genuinely intrigued my @rse
But you for some reason wanted it in writing from posters and waste people's time
You are after an argument not truth.
Maybe you feel comfortable going after one man bands like Brimardon and not big corp.
Any evidence won't be shown on here, that would be a stupid thing to do wouldn't it? Show one's hand?
Genuinely intrigued my @rse
Apologies - I didn't realise you were new to the forum.
The facts are obviously really important - but actually the optics concern me more. Betfair, the Tote, etc could make all of this go away simply by acknowledging that they "could" have an advantage and therefore it would be completely unethical/wrong for them to operate in their own markets.
The fact that a regulator does not understand this (or does understand it but still permits it) is mind-boggling! Have you considered a job with the GC at all?
The facts are obviously really important - but actually the optics concern me more. Betfair, the Tote, etc could make all of this go away simply by acknowledging that they "could" have an advantage and therefore it would be completely unethical/wrong for them to operate in their own markets.
The fact that a regulator does not understand this (or does understand it but still permits it) is mind-boggling! Have you considered a job with the GC at all?
The tax implications on that video outlined would possibly be reason for said company not being forthcoming with how many times they won their own pool TM
Why would you not provide evidence on here if you had any JCM? You could have given a simple answer right at the point I said I was interested if you had any, what difference would it have made?
Explain where I have been argumentative as opposed to asking pertinent questions IYO or are you again reduced to personal abuse because you have no facts in any shape or form?
Explain where I have been argumentative as opposed to asking pertinent questions IYO or are you again reduced to personal abuse because you have no facts in any shape or form?
unless the people checking their processes understand the system, the loopholes or backdoor methods that a company could be using to hide their illicit operations id say you've as much chance of proving something as gaze has of finding his grail
so as with most of these things they either need to fck up royally to expose themselves or someone needs to blow the whistle
Why wont you watch the video that would have given you the answers to all the qs you have asked, Cag?
How important do you think you are to demand the details around this subject in writing?
I don't like saying hello to more than one person in a morning let alone repeat stuff that has been said many times on here just because some bone idle poster cant click a play button
You are a time waster.
I've cut you some slack because I have felt sorry for your past incarnations on here but no more.
It's like trying to educate pork, I'm afraid
How important do you think you are to demand the details around this subject in writing?
I don't like saying hello to more than one person in a morning let alone repeat stuff that has been said many times on here just because some bone idle poster cant click a play button
You are a time waster.
I've cut you some slack because I have felt sorry for your past incarnations on here but no more.
It's like trying to educate pork, I'm afraid
well that highlighted to many that other things are going on, it had the stories of the seeding and bot stuff brought into the spotlight, as per sporting options and the seeding that was done using ringfenced funds, i've no idea iof the tote do stuff on those lines but if they do then if they have any sense it's inhouse and hidden so well no one on the outside will find it
Thank you for your assistance JCM it is what a Forum is all about and maybe helped plenty who may now understand that facts are not important when abusing the likes of the OP and who may now understand that all the accusations are actually unfounded and have no basis in fact, YET.
Other than Clydebank none of you were able to answer a simple question which would perhaps help others to understand why the OP was being abused by posters who gave the appearance of being in possession of actual facts?
The main maxim in English law is " He who alleges a fact must prove it, nothing shall be admitted in evidence that does not immediately tend to prove or disprove any fact or point in issue or question" i.e Get your facts correct before you make accusations, if you can't, don't!!
HTH
Other than Clydebank none of you were able to answer a simple question which would perhaps help others to understand why the OP was being abused by posters who gave the appearance of being in possession of actual facts?
The main maxim in English law is " He who alleges a fact must prove it, nothing shall be admitted in evidence that does not immediately tend to prove or disprove any fact or point in issue or question" i.e Get your facts correct before you make accusations, if you can't, don't!!
HTH
As a copper did people make accusations and you investigate them?
Did you ever ask a q that the person declined to answer and went away thinking well I'm not suspicious, I'll proceed no further.
I rather think you might in both instances.
Useless
Did you ever ask a q that the person declined to answer and went away thinking well I'm not suspicious, I'll proceed no further.
I rather think you might in both instances.
Useless
the op shouldn't be spamming the tote on here at all, that is most definitely in the t&cs for this place
Hold on I've got a sworn affidavit rolled up in a pork pie hat, I'll take a photo of it using this potato and offer it as proof.
5 mins to upload
5 mins to upload
Report this thread if you are not happy with the legality of what is being said, Cagliari.
Simple.
Simple.
It should be completely obvious to anyone who is not completely thick, that last second seeding with access to actual dividends is open to abuse.
dave, we have been on the opposite sides of a few discussions and violently agreed on some others - but I have always admired your ability (which I sometimes lack) to be succinct.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/racing/2024/04/29/tote-betting-singapore-deal-po...
Nothing new about the Tote interfering with their own pools.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+GREAT+TOTE+SWINDLE%3B+We+reveal+how+the+Tote+shortchanged+winning...-a0145710577
IN THE summer of 1978, Tote Bookmakers were concerned about a successful punter who regularly placed multiple Tote forecast bets shortly before the relevant races started. In the days before computerisation, there was not enough time to include his bets in the racecourse pool, so the punter was paid out at Tote dividends unaffected by his own bets.
A junior employee of Tote Bookmakers reached an agreement with Jeff Wells, the managing director of Tote Credit, that this punter's bets, and similar ones, would be transferred to Tote Credit for later transmission into the pool - after the race had started, and sometimes after it had finished.
Two years later, the then Home Secretary, William Whitelaw, was informed: "Not all the bets were transmitted, but all bets which included winning money were transmitted. The effect of this was to reduce the dividends on each occasion."
Whitelaw's informant was Francis Aglionby, a Crown Court judge appointed the previous year to investigate the Tote's procedures for including off-course bets in on-course pools. A summary of Aglionby's findings was published in 1980, but his full report remained confidential. Under the 30-year rule, it was not due to be released until 2010.
The Racing Post has now seen the full report.
Aglionby's inquiry originated in John McCririck's exposure of the manipulation of a Tote dual forecast dividend at Carlisle on July 4, 1979. McCririck was then an award-winning investigative journalist with The Sporting Life.
When Shine On, at 11-1, beat Tina's Gold, at 20-1, in an 18-runner handicap, and the Tote dual forecast paid a derisory 45p for a 10p stake, McCririck refused to accept the Tote's assertion that it was "just one of those inexplicable turn-ups".
An anonymous telephone caller told McCririck that the reason the dividend was so small was that a pounds 50 dual forecast on the winning combination had been sent by Tote Credit to Carlisle after the race. It was not the only occasion on which bets were transmitted after the result of the race was known.
Bruce George, Labour MP for Walsall South, joined The Sporting Life in calling for the resignation of Woodrow Wyatt, the Tote's blustering chairman. When Sir Timothy Kitson and Bob Mellish, chairman and vice-chairman of the All-Party Racing and Bloodstock Committee, urged the Home Secretary to act, Wyatt withdrew his opposition to an inquiry, and Aglionby began his investigation.
His report reveals that there had been complaints about the procedures for transmitting off-course bets into on-course pools since at least 1968 and that, as early as 1963, "transmission of bets to the course after the result of the race was known was approved". AGLIONBY concluded that the procedures in force between September 1, 1977, when Tote Credit Limited was established, and July 17, 1979, when the practice of transmitting bets after the result was known was prohibited, were unfair and open to abuse.
"Unfortunately," he reported, "abuses and malpractices did occur, resulting in loss to the public, because on occasions punters did have their winnings improperly reduced."
When dividends - calculated but yet to be declared - looked particularly high, "revisions occurred from time to time, always resulting in a substantial downward movement of the dividend".
When other bookmakers wanted to place hedging bets into Tote pools, the bets were collated by the Tote but were not transmitted to the racecourse until after the result was known. Aglionby reported: "I found that, from time to time, not all these trade bets were transmitted. All the winning bets were transmitted but not all the losing ones."
That was the case on April 7, 1979, when off-course trade bets totalling pounds 60 on Lake City, the winner of the 2,000 Guineas Trial at Salisbury, were transmitted and included in the win pool, but pounds 51 of losing bets were not.
In the same race, revised 'reads' - informing the racecourse of off-course bets to be included in the pool - resulted in a reduction in the dual forecast dividend, from pounds 62.86 to pounds 5.77.
In June 1979, a senior supervisor in the racing room at Tote House invented a fictitious name and, after the race results were known, transmitted hedging bets under the invented name. On one occasion the effect was to reduce a dual forecast dividend from pounds 5.68 to pounds 4.99.
In the case of the Carlisle race, the intention had been to transmit pounds 5 on the winning combination, a decision that Aglionby described as "unjustified". In error, a pounds 50 winning bet was placed in the pool, as a result of which the dividend was reduced from pounds 13.41 to 45p.
The malpractices were not systematic. According to Aglionby, "these various abuses and malpractices were not the consequence of any arrangement by employees of the Tote for their own financial advantage", but were motivated by "misplaced enthusiasm". Staff acted to help the Tote's finances, rather than their own. Aglionby found that neither Wyatt nor the Tote's senior management team were aware of the abuses. There was one exception. Aglionby firmly rejected Wells's claim that he was ignorant of the malpractices. The managing director of Tote Credit resigned.
On Sunday: The tale of the Old Bailey jury that was nobbled
CAPTION(S):
Woodrow Wyatt: blustering chairman of the Tote with customary cigar' John McCririck: sparked the inquiry by refusing to accept the Tote's version of events surrounding a derisory Tote dual forecast dividend
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+GREAT+TOTE+SWINDLE%3B+We+reveal+how+the+Tote+shortchanged+winning...-a0145710577
IN THE summer of 1978, Tote Bookmakers were concerned about a successful punter who regularly placed multiple Tote forecast bets shortly before the relevant races started. In the days before computerisation, there was not enough time to include his bets in the racecourse pool, so the punter was paid out at Tote dividends unaffected by his own bets.
A junior employee of Tote Bookmakers reached an agreement with Jeff Wells, the managing director of Tote Credit, that this punter's bets, and similar ones, would be transferred to Tote Credit for later transmission into the pool - after the race had started, and sometimes after it had finished.
Two years later, the then Home Secretary, William Whitelaw, was informed: "Not all the bets were transmitted, but all bets which included winning money were transmitted. The effect of this was to reduce the dividends on each occasion."
Whitelaw's informant was Francis Aglionby, a Crown Court judge appointed the previous year to investigate the Tote's procedures for including off-course bets in on-course pools. A summary of Aglionby's findings was published in 1980, but his full report remained confidential. Under the 30-year rule, it was not due to be released until 2010.
The Racing Post has now seen the full report.
Aglionby's inquiry originated in John McCririck's exposure of the manipulation of a Tote dual forecast dividend at Carlisle on July 4, 1979. McCririck was then an award-winning investigative journalist with The Sporting Life.
When Shine On, at 11-1, beat Tina's Gold, at 20-1, in an 18-runner handicap, and the Tote dual forecast paid a derisory 45p for a 10p stake, McCririck refused to accept the Tote's assertion that it was "just one of those inexplicable turn-ups".
An anonymous telephone caller told McCririck that the reason the dividend was so small was that a pounds 50 dual forecast on the winning combination had been sent by Tote Credit to Carlisle after the race. It was not the only occasion on which bets were transmitted after the result of the race was known.
Bruce George, Labour MP for Walsall South, joined The Sporting Life in calling for the resignation of Woodrow Wyatt, the Tote's blustering chairman. When Sir Timothy Kitson and Bob Mellish, chairman and vice-chairman of the All-Party Racing and Bloodstock Committee, urged the Home Secretary to act, Wyatt withdrew his opposition to an inquiry, and Aglionby began his investigation.
His report reveals that there had been complaints about the procedures for transmitting off-course bets into on-course pools since at least 1968 and that, as early as 1963, "transmission of bets to the course after the result of the race was known was approved". AGLIONBY concluded that the procedures in force between September 1, 1977, when Tote Credit Limited was established, and July 17, 1979, when the practice of transmitting bets after the result was known was prohibited, were unfair and open to abuse.
"Unfortunately," he reported, "abuses and malpractices did occur, resulting in loss to the public, because on occasions punters did have their winnings improperly reduced."
When dividends - calculated but yet to be declared - looked particularly high, "revisions occurred from time to time, always resulting in a substantial downward movement of the dividend".
When other bookmakers wanted to place hedging bets into Tote pools, the bets were collated by the Tote but were not transmitted to the racecourse until after the result was known. Aglionby reported: "I found that, from time to time, not all these trade bets were transmitted. All the winning bets were transmitted but not all the losing ones."
That was the case on April 7, 1979, when off-course trade bets totalling pounds 60 on Lake City, the winner of the 2,000 Guineas Trial at Salisbury, were transmitted and included in the win pool, but pounds 51 of losing bets were not.
In the same race, revised 'reads' - informing the racecourse of off-course bets to be included in the pool - resulted in a reduction in the dual forecast dividend, from pounds 62.86 to pounds 5.77.
In June 1979, a senior supervisor in the racing room at Tote House invented a fictitious name and, after the race results were known, transmitted hedging bets under the invented name. On one occasion the effect was to reduce a dual forecast dividend from pounds 5.68 to pounds 4.99.
In the case of the Carlisle race, the intention had been to transmit pounds 5 on the winning combination, a decision that Aglionby described as "unjustified". In error, a pounds 50 winning bet was placed in the pool, as a result of which the dividend was reduced from pounds 13.41 to 45p.
The malpractices were not systematic. According to Aglionby, "these various abuses and malpractices were not the consequence of any arrangement by employees of the Tote for their own financial advantage", but were motivated by "misplaced enthusiasm". Staff acted to help the Tote's finances, rather than their own. Aglionby found that neither Wyatt nor the Tote's senior management team were aware of the abuses. There was one exception. Aglionby firmly rejected Wells's claim that he was ignorant of the malpractices. The managing director of Tote Credit resigned.
On Sunday: The tale of the Old Bailey jury that was nobbled
CAPTION(S):
Woodrow Wyatt: blustering chairman of the Tote with customary cigar' John McCririck: sparked the inquiry by refusing to accept the Tote's version of events surrounding a derisory Tote dual forecast dividend
Wyatt was not even sacked for that, friends in high places.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539