Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
25 Jun 25
22:57
Joined:
Date Joined:
18 Feb 02
Article By Ed Grimshaw
ow the Tote Turned Pool Betting Into a **** Casino Game (And Nobody Said a Word)
Another "Bookmaker Scam"- Where is Punter Representation Nowhere only the Guardian and a Podcast Highlights the issue
HORSE RACINGSPORT
Ed Grimshaw
6/25/20256 min read
The House Always Wins—Literally
There's a delicious irony in the fact that whilst racing spends endless hours debating whether a horse received a "peach of a ride" or was "done no favours", the industry has sat in complete silence whilst the Tote systematically **** its own pools for four years.
You'd think someone might have mentioned it.
The revelation that the Tote now accounts for up to 60% of certain Placepot pools would be laughable if it weren't so serious. It's rather like discovering that the local poker school has been letting the house dealer play every hand whilst keeping everyone else's cards face-up on the table. Except in this case, the house dealer has been losing £13.5 million a year, which raises some uncomfortable questions about either their competence or their honesty.
A Masterclass in Moving the Goalposts
Let's be clear about what happened here. Pool betting worked perfectly well for nearly a century on a simple principle: punters compete against each other, the house takes a cut, everyone knows where they stand. It's not rocket science, and it certainly didn't need "improving" by having the operator become the biggest player in their own game.
But COVID provided the perfect cover story. Racing was behind closed doors, pools were thin, something had to be done. Fair enough. What started as emergency "seeding" to provide liquidity, however, has morphed into the Tote becoming the whale in its own pool. They've gone from emergency life support to systematic market manipulation, and somehow convinced themselves this represents customer service.
It's a bit like a bookie deciding to improve punter experience by backing horses themselves in every race, then expressing surprise when customers start asking awkward questions.
The Great Racing Silence
What's most remarkable about this whole affair isn't the Tote's behaviour—desperate times, desperate measures, and all that—but the industry's collective shrug.
Where exactly were racing's great and good whilst this fundamental rewiring of pool betting took place? The BHA appears to have been studying form guides. The Racecourse Association was presumably discussing catering arrangements. The racing media seems to have been looking the other way, perhaps mesmerised by the latest trainer-jockey combination statistics.
Even the pundit class—never normally short of an opinion about anything from whip rules to weighing room fashion—has maintained an almost monastic silence. You can find 47 different takes on why a particular horse should or shouldn't have won at Kempton on Wednesday, but serious analysis of the Tote fundamentally altering British pool betting? Tumbleweed.
Credit where it's due, the AK Bets podcast has at least acknowledged the elephant in the room, with episodes titled "The Tote: Not All As It Seems (Exhibit 87)" and references to "Totes Not-Amazeballs." When your most pointed industry criticism comes from a podcast sponsored by an independent bookmaker, you know the mainstream media has collectively lost its nerve.
Information Asymmetry for Dummies
The Tote's current setup would make a card sharp blush. They can see every bet in real-time, adjust their own positions accordingly, and somehow this gets filed under "customer service improvements."
It's the equivalent of playing poker against someone who can see your cards, knows exactly what's in the deck, and controls when the betting rounds end. The only thing missing is them wearing a green visor and dealing from the bottom of the pack.
Traditional pool betting worked because everyone was essentially flying blind—you could see the pools develop, but nobody had perfect information. Now we have one participant with god-mode visibility competing against everyone else, and apparently this represents progress.
The Tote's own terms and conditions do mention they might participate in pools, buried somewhere between the bit about minimum stakes and maximum payouts. It's rather like a restaurant mentioning in small print that the chef might occasionally eat half your dinner before serving it. Technically disclosed, practically useless.
The Numbers Don't Lie (Unlike Everything Else)
Here's the really entertaining bit: despite four years of intensive pool manipulation—sorry, "customer experience enhancement"—the Tote is losing money hand over fist. Net losses of £13.5 million in 2023, with operating losses doubling year-on-year.
If seeding pools genuinely improved customer satisfaction and attracted more business, you'd expect a company to be thriving, not hemorrhaging cash like a two-year-old with a leg injury. The financial results rather suggest the seeding serves a different purpose entirely—managing the Tote's own risk rather than enhancing anyone else's experience.
It's performance art, really. "Watch us improve pool betting by losing millions whilst secretly dominating our own markets." You couldn't make it up.
Regulatory Theatre
The Gambling Commission's investigation, whilst welcome, has all the urgency of a stewards' inquiry into a dead-heat for last place. The Tote has been operating this system for four years, but only now are we getting serious regulatory attention.
Meanwhile, the practice continues whilst the investigation dawdles on. In any sensible regulatory environment, conflicts of interest this fundamental would trigger immediate suspension pending review. Instead, we get regulatory theatre: lots of stern letters and formal processes whilst the problematic behaviour continues unabated.
It's rather like allowing a jockey to keep race-riding whilst investigating whether they've been stopping horses. The investigation might be thorough, but the damage continues in real-time.
What This Actually Means for Punters
Strip away the jargon about "liquidity enhancement" and "customer experience", and you're left with a simple truth: pool betting has been fundamentally altered without punters' knowledge or consent.
Every Placepot ticket purchased in the last four years has been bought under false pretences. Punters thought they were competing primarily against other punters; instead, they've been unknowingly playing against the house with perfect information and unlimited capital.
It's the difference between a fair fight and being mugged, frankly.
Traditional pool strategies—backing overlooked selections in thin pools, avoiding over-backed favourites—become meaningless when you can't distinguish between genuine market pressure and operator manipulation. Four years of accumulated wisdom about pool behaviour has been rendered obsolete, and nobody bothered to mention it.
The Silence of the Lambs
Racing's failure to engage with this issue reveals something deeply troubling about the sport's relationship with its betting customers. Owners obsess over prize money distribution but ignore fundamental changes to betting markets that determine their horses' commercial value. Trainers worry about track conditions but show no interest in betting integrity. Journalists analyse every tactical nuance of race-riding but somehow miss the systematic rigging of pool markets.
It's a collective failure of institutional responsibility that would be impressive if it weren't so damaging.
The sad truth is that racing has become so dependent on betting revenue that it's lost the courage to question how that revenue gets generated. As long as the money keeps flowing, nobody wants to ask uncomfortable questions about where it's coming from or how it's being extracted.
A Modest Proposal
Here's a radical thought: what if pool betting went back to being actual pool betting?
Real-time disclosure of seeding percentages would be a start. Imagine that—punters actually knowing what they're buying before they buy it. Revolutionary stuff.
Operational separation of seeding activities from the main Tote business would help too. Let an independent entity provide liquidity if it's genuinely needed, funded through transparent levies rather than secret market participation.
Most importantly, racing's governing bodies need to rediscover their spines. The BHA and others have a responsibility for betting integrity that extends beyond checking whether horses are properly declared. They need to engage with these issues rather than pretending they don't exist.
The Bottom Line
The Tote seeding scandal isn't just about regulatory technicalities or business models—it's about whether racing still believes in treating its customers honestly.
Pool betting worked for nearly a century because it offered something genuinely different: transparent peer-to-peer competition with clear operator roles. The quiet abandonment of these principles, without consultation or even acknowledgement, represents a betrayal of trust that the sport can ill afford.
Racing likes to talk about integrity—drug testing, race-fixing investigations, betting restrictions. But integrity means more than just ensuring horses try their best. It means maintaining honest markets and transparent relationships with the people who fund the sport.
The UKGC investigation offers a chance for reset, but only if racing's establishment finds the courage to demand better. The current silence suggests they'd rather not know, which tells you everything about where their priorities really lie.
Pool betting deserves better. Punters deserve better. And frankly, racing deserves better than this systematic erosion of the principles that made pool betting work in the first place.
Time to break the silence. The horses are running, but nobody's watching the tote board.
ow the Tote Turned Pool Betting Into a **** Casino Game (And Nobody Said a Word)
Another "Bookmaker Scam"- Where is Punter Representation Nowhere only the Guardian and a Podcast Highlights the issue
HORSE RACINGSPORT
Ed Grimshaw
6/25/20256 min read
The House Always Wins—Literally
There's a delicious irony in the fact that whilst racing spends endless hours debating whether a horse received a "peach of a ride" or was "done no favours", the industry has sat in complete silence whilst the Tote systematically **** its own pools for four years.
You'd think someone might have mentioned it.
The revelation that the Tote now accounts for up to 60% of certain Placepot pools would be laughable if it weren't so serious. It's rather like discovering that the local poker school has been letting the house dealer play every hand whilst keeping everyone else's cards face-up on the table. Except in this case, the house dealer has been losing £13.5 million a year, which raises some uncomfortable questions about either their competence or their honesty.
A Masterclass in Moving the Goalposts
Let's be clear about what happened here. Pool betting worked perfectly well for nearly a century on a simple principle: punters compete against each other, the house takes a cut, everyone knows where they stand. It's not rocket science, and it certainly didn't need "improving" by having the operator become the biggest player in their own game.
But COVID provided the perfect cover story. Racing was behind closed doors, pools were thin, something had to be done. Fair enough. What started as emergency "seeding" to provide liquidity, however, has morphed into the Tote becoming the whale in its own pool. They've gone from emergency life support to systematic market manipulation, and somehow convinced themselves this represents customer service.
It's a bit like a bookie deciding to improve punter experience by backing horses themselves in every race, then expressing surprise when customers start asking awkward questions.
The Great Racing Silence
What's most remarkable about this whole affair isn't the Tote's behaviour—desperate times, desperate measures, and all that—but the industry's collective shrug.
Where exactly were racing's great and good whilst this fundamental rewiring of pool betting took place? The BHA appears to have been studying form guides. The Racecourse Association was presumably discussing catering arrangements. The racing media seems to have been looking the other way, perhaps mesmerised by the latest trainer-jockey combination statistics.
Even the pundit class—never normally short of an opinion about anything from whip rules to weighing room fashion—has maintained an almost monastic silence. You can find 47 different takes on why a particular horse should or shouldn't have won at Kempton on Wednesday, but serious analysis of the Tote fundamentally altering British pool betting? Tumbleweed.
Credit where it's due, the AK Bets podcast has at least acknowledged the elephant in the room, with episodes titled "The Tote: Not All As It Seems (Exhibit 87)" and references to "Totes Not-Amazeballs." When your most pointed industry criticism comes from a podcast sponsored by an independent bookmaker, you know the mainstream media has collectively lost its nerve.
Information Asymmetry for Dummies
The Tote's current setup would make a card sharp blush. They can see every bet in real-time, adjust their own positions accordingly, and somehow this gets filed under "customer service improvements."
It's the equivalent of playing poker against someone who can see your cards, knows exactly what's in the deck, and controls when the betting rounds end. The only thing missing is them wearing a green visor and dealing from the bottom of the pack.
Traditional pool betting worked because everyone was essentially flying blind—you could see the pools develop, but nobody had perfect information. Now we have one participant with god-mode visibility competing against everyone else, and apparently this represents progress.
The Tote's own terms and conditions do mention they might participate in pools, buried somewhere between the bit about minimum stakes and maximum payouts. It's rather like a restaurant mentioning in small print that the chef might occasionally eat half your dinner before serving it. Technically disclosed, practically useless.
The Numbers Don't Lie (Unlike Everything Else)
Here's the really entertaining bit: despite four years of intensive pool manipulation—sorry, "customer experience enhancement"—the Tote is losing money hand over fist. Net losses of £13.5 million in 2023, with operating losses doubling year-on-year.
If seeding pools genuinely improved customer satisfaction and attracted more business, you'd expect a company to be thriving, not hemorrhaging cash like a two-year-old with a leg injury. The financial results rather suggest the seeding serves a different purpose entirely—managing the Tote's own risk rather than enhancing anyone else's experience.
It's performance art, really. "Watch us improve pool betting by losing millions whilst secretly dominating our own markets." You couldn't make it up.
Regulatory Theatre
The Gambling Commission's investigation, whilst welcome, has all the urgency of a stewards' inquiry into a dead-heat for last place. The Tote has been operating this system for four years, but only now are we getting serious regulatory attention.
Meanwhile, the practice continues whilst the investigation dawdles on. In any sensible regulatory environment, conflicts of interest this fundamental would trigger immediate suspension pending review. Instead, we get regulatory theatre: lots of stern letters and formal processes whilst the problematic behaviour continues unabated.
It's rather like allowing a jockey to keep race-riding whilst investigating whether they've been stopping horses. The investigation might be thorough, but the damage continues in real-time.
What This Actually Means for Punters
Strip away the jargon about "liquidity enhancement" and "customer experience", and you're left with a simple truth: pool betting has been fundamentally altered without punters' knowledge or consent.
Every Placepot ticket purchased in the last four years has been bought under false pretences. Punters thought they were competing primarily against other punters; instead, they've been unknowingly playing against the house with perfect information and unlimited capital.
It's the difference between a fair fight and being mugged, frankly.
Traditional pool strategies—backing overlooked selections in thin pools, avoiding over-backed favourites—become meaningless when you can't distinguish between genuine market pressure and operator manipulation. Four years of accumulated wisdom about pool behaviour has been rendered obsolete, and nobody bothered to mention it.
The Silence of the Lambs
Racing's failure to engage with this issue reveals something deeply troubling about the sport's relationship with its betting customers. Owners obsess over prize money distribution but ignore fundamental changes to betting markets that determine their horses' commercial value. Trainers worry about track conditions but show no interest in betting integrity. Journalists analyse every tactical nuance of race-riding but somehow miss the systematic rigging of pool markets.
It's a collective failure of institutional responsibility that would be impressive if it weren't so damaging.
The sad truth is that racing has become so dependent on betting revenue that it's lost the courage to question how that revenue gets generated. As long as the money keeps flowing, nobody wants to ask uncomfortable questions about where it's coming from or how it's being extracted.
A Modest Proposal
Here's a radical thought: what if pool betting went back to being actual pool betting?
Real-time disclosure of seeding percentages would be a start. Imagine that—punters actually knowing what they're buying before they buy it. Revolutionary stuff.
Operational separation of seeding activities from the main Tote business would help too. Let an independent entity provide liquidity if it's genuinely needed, funded through transparent levies rather than secret market participation.
Most importantly, racing's governing bodies need to rediscover their spines. The BHA and others have a responsibility for betting integrity that extends beyond checking whether horses are properly declared. They need to engage with these issues rather than pretending they don't exist.
The Bottom Line
The Tote seeding scandal isn't just about regulatory technicalities or business models—it's about whether racing still believes in treating its customers honestly.
Pool betting worked for nearly a century because it offered something genuinely different: transparent peer-to-peer competition with clear operator roles. The quiet abandonment of these principles, without consultation or even acknowledgement, represents a betrayal of trust that the sport can ill afford.
Racing likes to talk about integrity—drug testing, race-fixing investigations, betting restrictions. But integrity means more than just ensuring horses try their best. It means maintaining honest markets and transparent relationships with the people who fund the sport.
The UKGC investigation offers a chance for reset, but only if racing's establishment finds the courage to demand better. The current silence suggests they'd rather not know, which tells you everything about where their priorities really lie.
Pool betting deserves better. Punters deserve better. And frankly, racing deserves better than this systematic erosion of the principles that made pool betting work in the first place.
Time to break the silence. The horses are running, but nobody's watching the tote board.
Show More
Its not all doom and gloom then as I didnt realise thgey are losing money hand over fist.
I'm not sure that losing figure relates to the placepot, I'm sure I've read an article that said they were doing a tidy business with the pots once the seeding started.
Before BF I used to do PP's regularly with some success along with the inevitable many frustrations.
Howe4ver,they are time consuming ad I no longer bother.
They offer value if you are prepared to put in the work.
Howe4ver,they are time consuming ad I no longer bother.
They offer value if you are prepared to put in the work.
They were a decent bet when you didn't have to go in the pot. They were also better when people could put in non-runners without knowing.
It's rather like a restaurant mentioning in small print that the chef might occasionally eat half your dinner before serving it.
The key questions are how and when they seed the placepot pools ?
Do they use pool information not available to other players to determine the seed ? Do they have a time advantage ?
If they just chucking in random lines , before the off , to boost the pool to attract more outside punters to play then is that a problem ?
If they have guaranteed say a 25K pool and 1 min before the off there is 22K in the pot - so they chuck in a 3K worth of random lines themselves - Is that a problem ? - That's an interesting one ....
Do they use pool information not available to other players to determine the seed ? Do they have a time advantage ?
If they just chucking in random lines , before the off , to boost the pool to attract more outside punters to play then is that a problem ?
If they have guaranteed say a 25K pool and 1 min before the off there is 22K in the pot - so they chuck in a 3K worth of random lines themselves - Is that a problem ? - That's an interesting one ....
It's been going on for much longer than 5 years.
The strategy is the work of the Colossus bet mob.Their leader used to post on here,he organised a few xmas parties and was known as the magician.
(one of his posts is near the top in General Betting)
They used to bet the last minute placepot bets when Betfred ran the tote.
I've no idea how much they paid for each ticket but you can guarantee it was profitable for them and this went on for years before Betfred sold the tote.
The problem now is that both the Tote and the colossus strategy is in the same hands.
This has nothing to do with seeding and it's most deceitful of the tote to claim otherwise.
It's all about extra profit. The tote aren't happy with a punter paying £1 for what is a 73p ticket they also want the punter
to go head to head against a strategy by the cleverest betting people in the country.
The strategy is the work of the Colossus bet mob.Their leader used to post on here,he organised a few xmas parties and was known as the magician.
(one of his posts is near the top in General Betting)
They used to bet the last minute placepot bets when Betfred ran the tote.
I've no idea how much they paid for each ticket but you can guarantee it was profitable for them and this went on for years before Betfred sold the tote.
The problem now is that both the Tote and the colossus strategy is in the same hands.
This has nothing to do with seeding and it's most deceitful of the tote to claim otherwise.
It's all about extra profit. The tote aren't happy with a punter paying £1 for what is a 73p ticket they also want the punter
to go head to head against a strategy by the cleverest betting people in the country.
If only the racing/betting industry had a Daily Paper - you'd imagine if they did, this would have been headline news a long time ago!
A few references to peer-to-peer (RIP) - but no mention of what Betfair are doing operating in their own markets and the potential integrity issues associated with that.
A few references to peer-to-peer (RIP) - but no mention of what Betfair are doing operating in their own markets and the potential integrity issues associated with that.
Thanks for posting that mrcombustible, a few of us used to try (and fail)and discuss this with wet berks when he would come on here with his weekly spam.
Smelt a rat for Years regarding the placepot.....Always thought that the big dividends were won by the tote themselves most of the time.So if they are winning it we the punters can never get a roll over.
They say that despite the lack of clarity that The Tote is still losing money despite seeding their own pools. I wouldn't be too sure about this. Yes the actual holding company for "The Group" is showing a loss but the pool itself is highly profitable.
This is going to take a proper piece of work to get to the bottom of. All accounts for the group and its subsidiaries need reviewing in detail. The most recent figures on companies house for the year ending 24/09/23 for UK Tote Group Ltd show the following:
Operating loss (£12,364,000)
Underling EBITA (3,275,000)
The second figure is in effect the "cash" loss once intangibles/depreciation are excluded - for example the writing off of the original goodwill associated with the purchase from Betfred. The previous years figure was a profit of £2,916,000.
The £3,275,000 loss figure is broken down as follows amongst the subsidiary companies:
TPoolCo Limited and its 100% subsidiaries (B2B) £22,700,000 - Profit
TDCO Limited (B2C) (£15,124,000) - Loss
Group central costs payments to racing (£7,674,000) - Loss
Group central costs - overheads (£3,177,000) - Loss
Underlying EBITA (£3,275,000) - Loss
TPool Co Ltd is highly profitable. These accounts need pulling for a detailed look at the income streams and seeding activities. The losses are a result of purchase write offs and digital website/brand development amongst other things for the related companies.
Is it too much to ask for The Racing Post to do a detailed investigation of all this?
This is going to take a proper piece of work to get to the bottom of. All accounts for the group and its subsidiaries need reviewing in detail. The most recent figures on companies house for the year ending 24/09/23 for UK Tote Group Ltd show the following:
Operating loss (£12,364,000)
Underling EBITA (3,275,000)
The second figure is in effect the "cash" loss once intangibles/depreciation are excluded - for example the writing off of the original goodwill associated with the purchase from Betfred. The previous years figure was a profit of £2,916,000.
The £3,275,000 loss figure is broken down as follows amongst the subsidiary companies:
TPoolCo Limited and its 100% subsidiaries (B2B) £22,700,000 - Profit
TDCO Limited (B2C) (£15,124,000) - Loss
Group central costs payments to racing (£7,674,000) - Loss
Group central costs - overheads (£3,177,000) - Loss
Underlying EBITA (£3,275,000) - Loss
TPool Co Ltd is highly profitable. These accounts need pulling for a detailed look at the income streams and seeding activities. The losses are a result of purchase write offs and digital website/brand development amongst other things for the related companies.
Is it too much to ask for The Racing Post to do a detailed investigation of all this?
I don't think any of the spivs/grifters at the Racing Post are qualified (or independent) enough to conduct an investigation. You'd need a proper qualified journalist and one that wasn't dependant on the betting industry for his wages.
It's exactly the king of subject matter that the Racing Post proactively avoid.
It's exactly the king of subject matter that the Racing Post proactively avoid.
westberk will be along shortly to tell you all about some great world pool offers....
If they just chucking in random lines , before the off , to boost the pool to attract more outside punters to play then is that a problem ?
If you really believe that Johnny please PM me as I have some "Magic Beans" you may be interested in.!
If you really believe that Johnny please PM me as I have some "Magic Beans" you may be interested in.!
They started this crime of buying into their own pools under the guise of "Boosting " and creating interest in small midweek pools, but if you believe that WHY is the crime still continuing on the larger pools such as Cheltenham and Royal Ascot etc.
I believe the strategy the Tote were doing was the bedrock of Zeljko Ranogajec's fortune. I cottoned on to the strategy and why it was profitable myself when I opened an account with Colossusbets. But the strategy only works if you are paying lower than general rates of commission. With the Tote ofc playing in their own pools at zero commission, it will be profitable. Surprised to see the Tote making such a huge loss, but that clearly suggests their costs make the old business model no longer viable. I've mentioned how and why on here and I had maybe a 10 to 15 minute conversation with a racing journalist about and he seemed interested to run a story on it but nothing materialised.
Don't get me started on the incompetent Anti Gambling Commission.
Don't get me started on the incompetent Anti Gambling Commission.
There was definitely an element of "fear of reprisals" in running a story.
Hadn't noticed Joe's post there. It does look highly dodgy doesn't it!
Hadn't noticed Joe's post there. It does look highly dodgy doesn't it!
The whole strategy is based on "insider knowledge". The more tickets you buy the more inside knowledge you have. So you need a big bank. The Tote doesn't need a big bank, to pay into the pool ofc. It's effectively an IOU to itself. And it plays at zero commission, so it's not a level playing field.
The Gambling Commission is incompetent in the technicalities so wouldn't understand.
Racing is getting a £7m+ kick back based on Joe's post, so where would be their motivation to do anything about it? If they were to clean it up themselves they'd assumingly make less money.
Bury head in sand, carry on and hope the truth never comes out.
The Gambling Commission is incompetent in the technicalities so wouldn't understand.
Racing is getting a £7m+ kick back based on Joe's post, so where would be their motivation to do anything about it? If they were to clean it up themselves they'd assumingly make less money.
Bury head in sand, carry on and hope the truth never comes out.
How is the loss of £13.5m calculated ? Is this just the gross loss on seeding monies invested - have they conveniently ignored the 27% slice of gross seeding stakes that finds its way into normal income ?
Nobody knows anything factual about what is happening, but the silence over the matter is ominous.
Nobody knows anything factual about what is happening, but the silence over the matter is ominous.
@kincsem
"A simple example from my simple brain would be a Tote pool on a race of ten horses.
One horse is at odds of 100+ and as I think it has a chance I put a bet on it forcing the odds down to 85. But the Tote people might lose a chunk of their pool to my bet so they follow me in and force the odds down to 12s ..... and everyone is happy?"
I may be being slow, but I don't see how that would help the Tote. Imagine there's 100k in the pot. They're going to keep 27k of that and pay out 73k regardless of result. Why would they care whether that goes to the one punter who has backed an overlooked outsider or to tens of thousands of punters on the jolly?
The only way I can see it working is if they knew the true probabilities/odds of all the runners and put their own money into the pool on those where the price was value. In that case the Tote could certainly benefit from dropping its own money in the seconds after it has closed the pools to outsiders and before it publishes the final shape of the pools. But that would require having knowledge of the genuine true probabilities/odds of the runners. Do we really think they have that?
"A simple example from my simple brain would be a Tote pool on a race of ten horses.
One horse is at odds of 100+ and as I think it has a chance I put a bet on it forcing the odds down to 85. But the Tote people might lose a chunk of their pool to my bet so they follow me in and force the odds down to 12s ..... and everyone is happy?"
I may be being slow, but I don't see how that would help the Tote. Imagine there's 100k in the pot. They're going to keep 27k of that and pay out 73k regardless of result. Why would they care whether that goes to the one punter who has backed an overlooked outsider or to tens of thousands of punters on the jolly?
The only way I can see it working is if they knew the true probabilities/odds of all the runners and put their own money into the pool on those where the price was value. In that case the Tote could certainly benefit from dropping its own money in the seconds after it has closed the pools to outsiders and before it publishes the final shape of the pools. But that would require having knowledge of the genuine true probabilities/odds of the runners. Do we really think they have that?
Novel way of avoiding Corporation Tax. Must have read The Mafia playbook.
The problem is the people running the tote are far too smart for the people running the gambling commission.
longbridge
But that would require having knowledge of the genuine true probabilities/odds of the runners. Do we really think they have that?
yes, absolutely, prices on the off and permutations already in the pool.
But that would require having knowledge of the genuine true probabilities/odds of the runners. Do we really think they have that?
yes, absolutely, prices on the off and permutations already in the pool.
That's single race pools (maybe) , not for the placepot though.
A blindfolded chimp would be too smart for the absolutely clueless GC
Come on then what do you guys think the tote are doing ?...is it a knowledge advantage or a time advantage ?
Even the opening article only gets as far as "betting into their own pools".
Even the opening article only gets as far as "betting into their own pools".
Both. Imagine at pool close for everyone else they noticed not 1 single ticket had favs through the card in small fields. What would they do?
as per swifty but doubt they could say much more because it could end in court
if you wanted to bet into my pool, i would just ensure that the dividend paid also included some (or alot) paid back to me, in addition to the official reduction you as a punter are getting under the price you should have got
i'll give you another type of example, one pool company that shall remain nameless used to piggy back another pool company, they displayed the same odds right up until the dividend was declared, when the supplier would say give a return of 4.0 but them that won't be named suddenly had between 5 & 10% lower return
if you wanted to bet into my pool, i would just ensure that the dividend paid also included some (or alot) paid back to me, in addition to the official reduction you as a punter are getting under the price you should have got
i'll give you another type of example, one pool company that shall remain nameless used to piggy back another pool company, they displayed the same odds right up until the dividend was declared, when the supplier would say give a return of 4.0 but them that won't be named suddenly had between 5 & 10% lower return
there's another thing my pool would do too, when i paid myself on my winning pool bets, it wouldn't be on my books, it would be to a mysterious winning account that doesn't pay tax and are based off shore
Johnny it's a knowledge advantage, a terms (commission) advantage and a time (all last millisecond) advantage.
Ever collect Panini football stickers as a kid? How many spares (doubles trebles and up) would you get before you were even close to filling the album? Effectively The Tote fills their album straight up without a single spare card.
Ever collect Panini football stickers as a kid? How many spares (doubles trebles and up) would you get before you were even close to filling the album? Effectively The Tote fills their album straight up without a single spare card.
just on westberks, has he posted since the chelt festival or has someone told him to stfu?
re: possible separate winning account separate from the main business. If that was true it's getting very dark indeed.
who knows clyde, thing is the point he makes about visibility, re the timing, the amounts / % and how it all affects the take is the main issue because it allows all manner of underhand tactics
doesn't take much to join dots and go back to the sporting options farce
doesn't take much to join dots and go back to the sporting options farce
In the (presume) old days of the big Scoop 6/Jackpot rollovers, the reasons you have large syndicates is so that in the Panini example, you don't waste your money on spare cards. It's a massive advantage.
One of the big issues (I believe) is that the Gambling Commission gave them the green light to implement it. If, 4 years later, they were to turn round and properly rule against it, they would be admitting their own incompetence.
I agree on the commission advantage - but whether it's the tote or another independent syndicate that makes no difference to the other punters , unless they have also have a knowledge or time advantage.
Knowledge advantage - so they have an algorithm that calculates the "underbet" lines just before the off , and places their own lines a millisecond before the off of the first race. That's some algorithm , considering some races are still hours away and markets are weak. How would you define 'underbet" if you were setting the parameters ? Some sort value calculation or something else ? Seems a tricky one to me.....
Anybody think they are placing bets after the pools have closed to everybody else ?
Knowledge advantage - so they have an algorithm that calculates the "underbet" lines just before the off , and places their own lines a millisecond before the off of the first race. That's some algorithm , considering some races are still hours away and markets are weak. How would you define 'underbet" if you were setting the parameters ? Some sort value calculation or something else ? Seems a tricky one to me.....
Anybody think they are placing bets after the pools have closed to everybody else ?
A roulette wheel only needs a couple of % advantage to win millions. I would think seeding into your own pools knowing other players bets would give you a far bigger advantage.
On single races I would agree , but we can all see the tote prices right up to the off , but not in absolute real time as they can - so yes an advantage there if that is what they are doing.
But the placepot is a different beast .....can they really spot value lines through the card, at the last second ?
But the placepot is a different beast .....can they really spot value lines through the card, at the last second ?
id not worry about through the card, the poss divs are known at the end of leg 5
Johnny, by far the biggest advantage is the no spare cards advantage. On Placepots I reckon that's probably worth close to an extra 10% on actual punter bets taken. There will be different ways of working out the advantage, and making it seem smaller than it actually is. That's not really applicable to single races as the number of runners to number of tickets renders that advantage to almost negligible. But in The Placepot, where the number of permutations is a big ratio to the number of tickets, or the old rollover on the Scoop 6, the advantage is huge.
For the layman, who doesn't get the mathematics, a way to visualise the advantage, is to think of all the spares you accumulate when you buy football stickers
For the layman, who doesn't get the mathematics, a way to visualise the advantage, is to think of all the spares you accumulate when you buy football stickers
OK - so the algorithm searches primarily for underbet lines , rather than value lines ...in the millisecond before the off ? Is that what you are saying ?
Easier definitely , better than playing blind , but still clumsy if you don't know which are value lines and which aren't ?
Surely there has to be some form of 'value' assessment or you'd be overweight on the huge rags , if you just looked at lines ?
Easier definitely , better than playing blind , but still clumsy if you don't know which are value lines and which aren't ?
Surely there has to be some form of 'value' assessment or you'd be overweight on the huge rags , if you just looked at lines ?
I'm saying this. If there were 456 stickers in a sticker book the algorithm would buy each sticker once. Everyone else who buys 456 stickers ends up with loads of spares.
But in a pool betting scenarios, having loads of spares can mean you have many tickets in the winning horse/line and none in some of the losers?
I think I'm just missing what you mean exactly by the sticker analogy?
I think I'm just missing what you mean exactly by the sticker analogy?
Well yes - but so is the Tote if it seeds losing horses/lines?
If the Tote is buying £60,000 of lines, it will be weighted and it's covering every reasonable permutation and that gives them a huge percentage advantage. Joe Martha John and Mary etc don't know what each of them are picking. Probabilities dictate they'll be replicating their picks. If Rangagajec buys £60,000 of tickets he has to pay the Tote £15k for the privilege, thus negating the advantage of covering every line (the no spares sticker advantage). So The Tote are taking an extra 10p in the £ (my guesstimate) of punters buying placepot tickets.
and further as elise points out, do we know if the algorithm and the guaranteed profit from the bets placed into the pool, form part of The Tote's profit and loss in their accounts or not?
i don't trust them at all and since they took over the irish tote and kicked all the uk users back to the uk site i refuse to bet
elise • June 26, 2025 3:39 PM BST
did you pay for your stickers longbridge?
I used to go to school with a kid whose dad owned a corner shop. He'd bring a box in every morning, we used to finish it quite quickly.
Although I do recall the Liverpool badge was as rare as hen's teeth.
did you pay for your stickers longbridge?
I used to go to school with a kid whose dad owned a corner shop. He'd bring a box in every morning, we used to finish it quite quickly.
Although I do recall the Liverpool badge was as rare as hen's teeth.
BoosterRooster18 Mar 23 10:48Joined: 17 Feb 01 | Topic/replies: 420 | Blogger: BoosterRooster's blog
So yesterday, Gold Cup day, seeded pools. According to racing post placepot pool size approx 1.5 million, 45 winning units, dividend £23 k.
Champion hurdle day 2019, pre covid, pre seeding. Pool size 1.3 million, 10.5 winning units, dividend £ 91 k.
Similar set of results, arguably more favs placed yesterday, though also 2 boil overs. 96 runners and 2 races paying 4 places champion hurdle 2019 day, 104 runners, and only 1 race paying 4 places yesterday. So you could argue either way which was easiest to win.
Yet 91k vs 23k, for the non seeded vs seeded needs some explaining IMO.
How on earth is the seeding giving punters better value and not ripping them off?
Liquidity may well be down, though that is unsurprising with the amount of accounts that the Tote have either closed or heavily restricted.
Tote have a lot of explaining to do IMO. Why on earth are they seeding the festival pools?????
Not seen Rooster post for a while , hope he is ok.
More conspiracy theories than facts. The bottom line is the TOTE have no more idea of a PP dividend than the punters and the size of perms would be a massive risk where there are decent field sizes e.g Royal Ascot.
Plenty of punters could attest to receiving less than their stake returned from perms when dividends are low, happens plenty when fields are small as well when the favs are placed.
Plenty of punters could attest to receiving less than their stake returned from perms when dividends are low, happens plenty when fields are small as well when the favs are placed.
swifty, i had a friend who lived next door who stole 2 boxes from the newsagents opened the lot and still was missing all the ones that they made you pay for lol
The Post Office scandal started off with lots of conspiracys, odds on another one soon.
elise, I don't think they even released the ones everyone wanted for about a month!
Do we even know that they are picking all their selections before the off of the first race?
They could be putting say 50k lines spread out accordingly on the first race, then waiting for the result, then choosing their selections for the second race before they put up the running up totals, and so on through the card.
A great advantage if there are non runners pulled out after the first race has started... A short priced fav pulled out, 5 runners down to 4 etc
They could be putting say 50k lines spread out accordingly on the first race, then waiting for the result, then choosing their selections for the second race before they put up the running up totals, and so on through the card.
A great advantage if there are non runners pulled out after the first race has started... A short priced fav pulled out, 5 runners down to 4 etc
elise, I remember accumulating over 50 Sandy Jardines, assuming a printing glitch!
I think you can be confident that does not happen Reg, Lord Wyatt was caught out and doubtful if they would not have been in prison by now.
we we all confident the funds were ringfenced in certain exchanges until spt options went t1ts up and then we found out plenty were not and were also seeding, using punters money
@regbutler
"Do we even know that they are picking all their selections before the off of the first race?
They could be putting say 50k lines spread out accordingly on the first race, then waiting for the result, then choosing their selections for the second race before they put up the running up totals, and so on through the card.
A great advantage if there are non runners pulled out after the first race has started... A short priced fav pulled out, 5 runners down to 4 etc"
That would be hard to do without being noticed? The total money running on all runners in (eg) Race 3 should be the total shown as on each of the placed runners in Race 2 before the result of R2 is known?
"Do we even know that they are picking all their selections before the off of the first race?
They could be putting say 50k lines spread out accordingly on the first race, then waiting for the result, then choosing their selections for the second race before they put up the running up totals, and so on through the card.
A great advantage if there are non runners pulled out after the first race has started... A short priced fav pulled out, 5 runners down to 4 etc"
That would be hard to do without being noticed? The total money running on all runners in (eg) Race 3 should be the total shown as on each of the placed runners in Race 2 before the result of R2 is known?
"If the tote is buying £60,000 of lines , it will be weighted " - If they aren't looking for underbet lines what affects the weighting ?
I don't get the sticker analogy at all...The tote don't know the winners / what's in the packet ?
I don't get the sticker analogy at all...The tote don't know the winners / what's in the packet ?
Longbridge, perhaps I didn't explain it very well
Say, race 2 throws up 5,000 tickets going through, of which the T0te have 2,000 themselves. They can see how the other 3,000 tickets are spread out on race 3 and pick their own choices accordingly, with perhaps knowledge of a non runner, a gambled on outsider etc not known to the public before race 1.
As Cag says, unlikely perhaps but it wouldn't surprise me
Say, race 2 throws up 5,000 tickets going through, of which the T0te have 2,000 themselves. They can see how the other 3,000 tickets are spread out on race 3 and pick their own choices accordingly, with perhaps knowledge of a non runner, a gambled on outsider etc not known to the public before race 1.
As Cag says, unlikely perhaps but it wouldn't surprise me
https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/about-us/freedomofinformation/print/uk...
Tweet from Glen Alcoe
Upshot of the original totegate expose:
- Mirror group sued for damages
- Big Mac sacked
- Tote Chairman knighted and gets a life peerage
No wonder the mainstream aren't keen.
An era when a journo being indebted to a bookie was a sackable offence. How quaint. Unimaginable now!
Upshot of the original totegate expose:
- Mirror group sued for damages
- Big Mac sacked
- Tote Chairman knighted and gets a life peerage
No wonder the mainstream aren't keen.
An era when a journo being indebted to a bookie was a sackable offence. How quaint. Unimaginable now!
The Tote do know what's in the packet. They don't know the winners ofc. But then they've got all the winners covered, so it doesn't matter
.
https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/about-us/freedomofinformation/print/uk-tote
https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/about-us/freedomofinformation/print/uk-tote
Going back to the 456 stickers analogy. If one of the stickers was a winner, whoever that winner is, The Tote has it. But it might be one of the 456 stickers that other people don't have.
Meant to add, that would mean the right number of winning tickets going through
It just surprises me the time it takes sometimes for the running up totals to come up for the next leg. Should be instant after the weigh in
It just surprises me the time it takes sometimes for the running up totals to come up for the next leg. Should be instant after the weigh in
i don't really care that they seed, i care that we don't know how they operate and how it affects the end user, add to that the safety of peoples funds
the other aspect is that most gambling companies are so complex and operate across numerous countries via different platforms that we cannot be clear about who is doing what and we don't have a regulator that can audit any of them
the other aspect is that most gambling companies are so complex and operate across numerous countries via different platforms that we cannot be clear about who is doing what and we don't have a regulator that can audit any of them
By your theory Clydebank how many lines did the TOTE have to cover for any day at Royal Ascot?
They don't really need to bother at RA, smaller gaffs with fewer runners far easier to manipulate.
They cannot manipulate the results regardless of field size barstool but my point is about economical viability to cover every outcome as Clydebank alludes to!! It would be folly without knowing the results and dividend beforehand which obviously they do not and it is the dividend which is important, not the pool size.
I thought you told me they weren't looking for underbet lines ? Are they just perming every runner at the last minute or just "reasonable" permutations (whatever that might mean) ?
Sorry if I'm not getting it.
Could you please clarify exactly what you think they are doing and when ?
Sorry if I'm not getting it.
Could you please clarify exactly what you think they are doing and when ?
I believe if they guarantee a pool of £100,000 and the pool size is only £80,000, they don't put £20,000 into the pool but buy £20,000 of tickets, at the very least they should show what those lines are.
Sheer Greed, not happy with the extortionate 23% takeout, no these shysters want to manipulate other people's chances of winning.
18 winners on Fri at Royal Ascot, does anyone know any of them, did the Tote own any, if so how many, why was such a large pool interfered with in the first place, how much are the Tote putting back into racing, nowonder Berksy disappeared.
18 winners on Fri at Royal Ascot, does anyone know any of them, did the Tote own any, if so how many, why was such a large pool interfered with in the first place, how much are the Tote putting back into racing, nowonder Berksy disappeared.
think they've said tom, they can seed up to 50% but i'd need to go read it again
there was also a bit on timing, like from 4hrs out up to 30secs before (sorry i will go find it when i get 5), but the question was who monitors / polices that and any other activity that they do, it's fine saying we seed but there's no understanding of the how / what in detail
I'll be honest,I struggle to get my head around how that can possibly be seen as okay under their present arrangements, with nothing checked
Until you know exactly what they are doing and when ,how do you know how greedy or unethical it might be ?
... Because the fact they would even consider manipulating their own pools is reprehensible if not Illegal.
What do you think they are doing that's so bad ? You have a strong opinion that they are cheating - How ?
Just for the record , I'm not saying that they are not betting with an edge that we don't have , but I'm not as convinced as others as to how big that edge may be.
We've had some pretty wild stuff already , blatant tax evasion , and after time stuff.
Just for the record , I'm not saying that they are not betting with an edge that we don't have , but I'm not as convinced as others as to how big that edge may be.
We've had some pretty wild stuff already , blatant tax evasion , and after time stuff.
which is why i said very early on it isn't about them doing it it's the real visibility of it and the rules that they adhere to
this isn't new, i got pished off ages ago and gave up bothering with them and it, there were others that kept on at westberk and raised the issue on here and elsewhere
I obviously have not put much though into this but how about ...
The Tote seed the pool by duplicating every placepot combination chosen by punters.
Perhaps the Tote does that four times.
Punters are attracted to the massive placepot pool not realising that although it is a big pool all the combinations are covered many times.
The placepot pool is massive but it is impossible for the dividends to be massive.
Before the placepot pool closes the final move by the Tote is to duplicate all punter combinations a fixed number of times.
The the Tote close the placepot pool.
Punters investing more and more into the already massive pool means massive commission to the Tote.
The Tote seed the pool by duplicating every placepot combination chosen by punters.
Perhaps the Tote does that four times.
Punters are attracted to the massive placepot pool not realising that although it is a big pool all the combinations are covered many times.
The placepot pool is massive but it is impossible for the dividends to be massive.
Before the placepot pool closes the final move by the Tote is to duplicate all punter combinations a fixed number of times.
The the Tote close the placepot pool.
Punters investing more and more into the already massive pool means massive commission to the Tote.
This is how they make a profit.
EXTREME example there is a 5 horse race 1/3 7/1 16/1 25/1 25/1.
10 minutes before the meeting starts the fav is withdrawn leaving it as win only and all the N/R tickets
going on what was the second fav. It therefore follows that the other 3 offer fantastic value.
A horse that was 10/1 an hour before the meeting start has been backed in to 4/1.
That selection will be under represented in the pool.
They can only benefit from this information if they leave their bets to the last minute.
They will also be aware of certain combinations that in the past have less tickets than they perhaps should.
For example they might have noticed there is value in a combination of the middle 6 in the betting in a 12 runner handicaps.
They'll have loads of information like that pointing to combinations that should be value.
Like i said before this strategy was thought of by the cleverest betting people in the country.
There is no late bets or inside knowledge about the bets already placed.
It would be counter productive to have too much of an edge.
EXTREME example there is a 5 horse race 1/3 7/1 16/1 25/1 25/1.
10 minutes before the meeting starts the fav is withdrawn leaving it as win only and all the N/R tickets
going on what was the second fav. It therefore follows that the other 3 offer fantastic value.
A horse that was 10/1 an hour before the meeting start has been backed in to 4/1.
That selection will be under represented in the pool.
They can only benefit from this information if they leave their bets to the last minute.
They will also be aware of certain combinations that in the past have less tickets than they perhaps should.
For example they might have noticed there is value in a combination of the middle 6 in the betting in a 12 runner handicaps.
They'll have loads of information like that pointing to combinations that should be value.
Like i said before this strategy was thought of by the cleverest betting people in the country.
There is no late bets or inside knowledge about the bets already placed.
It would be counter productive to have too much of an edge.
thats why i put on ppots only at small-field meetings and as late as poss. sometimes miss em completely
A Masterclass in Moving the Goalposts
Let's be clear about what happened here. EXCHANGE betting worked perfectly well for nearly 15 YEARS on a simple principle: punters compete against each other, the house takes a cut, everyone knows where they stand. It's not rocket science, and it certainly didn't need "improving" by having the operator (PAUDY) become the biggest player in their own game.
But COVID provided the perfect cover story. Racing was behind closed doors, pools were thin, something had to be done. Fair enough. What started as emergency "seeding" to provide liquidity, however, has morphed into PAUDY becoming the whale in its own pool. They've gone from emergency life support to systematic market manipulation, and somehow convinced themselves this represents customer service.
systematic market manipulation
^^^^ this. impacting the starting prices (SP's) in UK and Irish horseracing.
OK .................... Now each and every one of you cnts was told this was happening. i showed you. did you listen ? did you fk. all the £108, oh fk off Hulk you're delusional yadda yadda. yes you predicted 33/34 movements correctly, you got lucky.
it'll happen today, it'll happen tomorrow. i'll win today. i'll win tomorrow. because i know what PAUDY is doing. i've seen it. i see it. every day.
you're guessing. i'm not.
you were all told
Let's be clear about what happened here. EXCHANGE betting worked perfectly well for nearly 15 YEARS on a simple principle: punters compete against each other, the house takes a cut, everyone knows where they stand. It's not rocket science, and it certainly didn't need "improving" by having the operator (PAUDY) become the biggest player in their own game.
But COVID provided the perfect cover story. Racing was behind closed doors, pools were thin, something had to be done. Fair enough. What started as emergency "seeding" to provide liquidity, however, has morphed into PAUDY becoming the whale in its own pool. They've gone from emergency life support to systematic market manipulation, and somehow convinced themselves this represents customer service.
systematic market manipulation
^^^^ this. impacting the starting prices (SP's) in UK and Irish horseracing.
OK .................... Now each and every one of you cnts was told this was happening. i showed you. did you listen ? did you fk. all the £108, oh fk off Hulk you're delusional yadda yadda. yes you predicted 33/34 movements correctly, you got lucky.
it'll happen today, it'll happen tomorrow. i'll win today. i'll win tomorrow. because i know what PAUDY is doing. i've seen it. i see it. every day.
you're guessing. i'm not.
you were all told
From the Tote website.
Pool Guarantee Service (PGS)
As part of our commitment to provide bigger and more compelling pools for all customers to bet into, the UK Tote operates the Pool Guarantee Service (PGS), which provides seeding to the pools operated by UK Tote. PGS is a pre-set automated system that seeds the pools by placing actual bets into the Tote pools.
PGS seeds the single leg pools by placing bets that add layers of liquidity at predetermined times to make the pools deeper and more robust as they build. Seeding commences up to four hours in advance of the requisite race and may continue up to 30 seconds before the scheduled off time.
PGS also seeds some multileg pools such as the Placepot, to make the pool sizes consistently larger and in some instances to enable the Tote to guarantee the total pool size. Seeding in the Placepot and other multileg pools commences at the start of the day of the meeting. Seeding times vary but the majority of seeding bets on multileg pools are placed 4 minutes before the scheduled off time of the first race.
In total, PGS is pre-configured to contribute anything up to 50% of the estimated value of any Tote pool in which seeding takes place. Estimated pool sizes are determined by reference to publicly available information, including pool sizes for comparable events. PGS does not seed any multileg pools in which customer bets routinely roll over, such as the Jackpot and Scoop6.
The seeding bets placed by PGS are just like any other customer bets. They are subject to the Tote Betting Terms and Rules and the standard take out rates applicable to all bets which makes their contributions to total pool volumes the same as all other customer bets. Overall, PGS loses more than it wins from the seeding bets it places across all products. After the costs of pool operation applicable to all pool bets have been paid, the balance of the take out deducted by the Tote from the seeding bets is applied to offset these losses. Over time this exercise typically leaves a net profit for the Tote which is used to help promote the Tote business.
In its operation, PGS relies entirely on information that is publicly available in the betting market. The data it uses about the Tote pools themselves is available to all customers at Totepoolliveinfo.com. It is not part of the Tote pool betting system and does not see or have any information about any individual bets placed by other customers into the Tote pools.
The operation of PGS is referred to in the Tote Terms and Conditions (28.4) available here. The UK Tote pools that are seeded by PGS are shown in the Table below:
Pool Guarantee Service (PGS)
As part of our commitment to provide bigger and more compelling pools for all customers to bet into, the UK Tote operates the Pool Guarantee Service (PGS), which provides seeding to the pools operated by UK Tote. PGS is a pre-set automated system that seeds the pools by placing actual bets into the Tote pools.
PGS seeds the single leg pools by placing bets that add layers of liquidity at predetermined times to make the pools deeper and more robust as they build. Seeding commences up to four hours in advance of the requisite race and may continue up to 30 seconds before the scheduled off time.
PGS also seeds some multileg pools such as the Placepot, to make the pool sizes consistently larger and in some instances to enable the Tote to guarantee the total pool size. Seeding in the Placepot and other multileg pools commences at the start of the day of the meeting. Seeding times vary but the majority of seeding bets on multileg pools are placed 4 minutes before the scheduled off time of the first race.
In total, PGS is pre-configured to contribute anything up to 50% of the estimated value of any Tote pool in which seeding takes place. Estimated pool sizes are determined by reference to publicly available information, including pool sizes for comparable events. PGS does not seed any multileg pools in which customer bets routinely roll over, such as the Jackpot and Scoop6.
The seeding bets placed by PGS are just like any other customer bets. They are subject to the Tote Betting Terms and Rules and the standard take out rates applicable to all bets which makes their contributions to total pool volumes the same as all other customer bets. Overall, PGS loses more than it wins from the seeding bets it places across all products. After the costs of pool operation applicable to all pool bets have been paid, the balance of the take out deducted by the Tote from the seeding bets is applied to offset these losses. Over time this exercise typically leaves a net profit for the Tote which is used to help promote the Tote business.
In its operation, PGS relies entirely on information that is publicly available in the betting market. The data it uses about the Tote pools themselves is available to all customers at Totepoolliveinfo.com. It is not part of the Tote pool betting system and does not see or have any information about any individual bets placed by other customers into the Tote pools.
The operation of PGS is referred to in the Tote Terms and Conditions (28.4) available here. The UK Tote pools that are seeded by PGS are shown in the Table below:
sticker tickets latest
euan ferguson signed LE goes for minimu 100 quid on ebay because it was only in irish editions of stickers,
not sure how much the tote charge for EUAN,
imagie how much he,d cost if he,d kicked a ball in last months
who does he even play for now ?
euan ferguson signed LE goes for minimu 100 quid on ebay because it was only in irish editions of stickers,
not sure how much the tote charge for EUAN
, imagie how much he,d cost if he,d kicked a ball in last months
who does he even play for now ?
more sticker news last season was the last season where PANINI had the sole rights to premier lg stickers
Alex Frost the Totes CEO.
https://insidersport.com/2023/12/27/alex-frost-uk-tote-group-sbc-leaders/
https://insidersport.com/2023/12/27/alex-frost-uk-tote-group-sbc-leaders/
So, on it's winning tickets , in say a placepot, the tote collects the net payout plus 27% takeout
plus the 27% takeout on it's loosing bets. How can this be allowed?
Tote exacta bets used to regularly pay more than CSF's (another rip-off by the way) but recently
that is the case rarely. Are they seeding Exacta pools?
plus the 27% takeout on it's loosing bets. How can this be allowed?
Tote exacta bets used to regularly pay more than CSF's (another rip-off by the way) but recently
that is the case rarely. Are they seeding Exacta pools?
was on hols last week and managed to get couple of placepots on at Ra first 2 days, im sure on both days say race 2 or 3 the running totals( dividends ) were adjusted.
Whats going on there ???
Whats going on there ???
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539