Author Topic: Tabcorp (Read 455883 times)

Bubbasmith · O.P. « 2010-Oct-15, 09:11 PM »

I have posted this discussion on the Racing Talk Australia banner although it relates to Tabcorp's declaration on Supertab on race one this evening on Singapore race one won by Rocket Man as I believe the thread would get lost posting under International Racing banner.

Supertab co-mingles its pools with the Singapore tote, however on its website Tabcorp has the following rider...
Key points where the Singapore betting rules differ from the SuperTAB betting rules are as follows:

* Dividends are rounded down to the nearest 20c.
* For the Win pool:
o Minimum dividend is $1.20
o Minimum starters is 4

Prior to the running of the race the Supertab not only displayed the approximate win dividend of $1.20 for Rocket Man but showed the pool was co-mingled.Rocket Man paid $1.20 on the Singapore, the guaranteed win dividend, however Supertab declared a win dividend of $1.04. I rang customer service to seek an explanation why the dividend on Supertab was not declared as $1.20 but was told that the Singapore tote, for "technical reasons", had withdrawn the Supertab investments from their co-mingled pool.I was then told all other up-coming races will be co-mingled.

Praiseworthy, I would be pleased to know why Singapore would want to exclude Supertab investments on this particular race where Tabcorp are winners at the expense of punters who backed the winner ?

calgary · « 2010-Oct-15, 10:27 PM **Reply #1** »

The response here will be interesting

jfc · « 2010-Oct-16, 04:48 AM **Reply #2** »

Look at the free money opportunities available at UNiTAB

1.20 Guaranteed minimum from Victorian TAB
67 UNiTAB Fixed prices
126
51

Market = unbelievable 87.5%

http://unitab.com/racing/2010-10-15/race-SS1.html

Anyone clever to have exploited that would be brought down to earth by the curious amendment down to $1.04.

Considering UNiTAB introduced post result dividend changes, maybe Singapore is just following suit?

With the minor difference that Singapore adjusts downward.

praiseworthy · « 2010-Oct-16, 06:36 AM **Reply #3** »

yes I did note that last night Bubba - I will have an answer hopefully today or worst case Monday.

Bubbasmith · « 2010-Oct-16, 07:33 AM **Reply #4** »

Jfc

Singapore tote did not adjust down but paid the guaranteed $1.20. Tabcorp, alone, reduced the dividend to $1.04, when for "technical reasons ",

Singapore excluded Supertab investments from their pool.

praiseworthy · « 2010-Oct-16, 11:59 AM **Reply #5** »

Quote from: calgary on 2010-Oct-15, 10:27 PM

The response here will be interesting

well calgary, bubba - here it is;

At 21:19 47 the link dropped between Singapore and Tabcorp
At 21:20:13 the link was re-established
At 21:20:43 Race 1 jumped (close sell message from Singapore not received by Raceday so manually closed)

Although the link had been re-established, Tabcorp's final collations were not received by Singapore and they decided to remove us from the pool.

As a consequence, local minimum dividend rules were automatically applied and $1.04 was paid for the win. ($1.20 was paid in Singapore) .

Most importantly, this morning the adjustments were made of 16 cents in the dollar to winning investors - so if you backed it you will now have the correct dividend.

pw

calgary · « 2010-Oct-16, 12:07 PM **Reply #6** »

Quote from: praiseworthy on 2010-Oct-16, 11:59 AM

Most importantly, this morning the adjustments were made of 16 cents in the dollar to winning investors - so if you backed it you will now have the correct dividend.

Good move

Peter Mair · « 2010-Oct-16, 06:39 PM **Reply #7** »

ON THE 10 SING RACES THE NSW TAB PAID DIVIDENDS ONE-THIRD MORE THAN VIC TAB

Tabcorp punters betting on Singapore races should have an account with the NSW TAB.

The co-mingling of the VIC TAB pool with Singapore means VicTAB punters face a substantiolly higher take-out from the pool.

Last night, the 10 sing winners paid a total of $70 on VIC TAB but $90 on the NSW TAB -- which takes only 15% and not 20% from the pool.

This is another example of Tabcorp not protecting its customers in Victoria -- for decades VIC TAB punters have got a raw deal from a Tabcorp that does not protect its customers.

Bubbasmith · « 2010-Oct-16, 07:10 PM **Reply #8** »

PW

What happens to a punter who bet in cash at a TAB ( eg. Crown Casino Supertab ), got paid $1.04 and went home ?

Peter Mair · « 2010-Oct-16, 08:34 PM **Reply #9** »

THE HYPOTHETICAL PUNTER AT CROWN CASINO ONLY GOT 'ROBBED' OF 15% -- THE TOTAL 'ROB' ON THE NIGHT WAS 30%+

Authorized · « 2010-Oct-16, 10:22 PM **Reply #10** »

Quote from: Bubbasmith on 2010-Oct-16, 07:10 PM

PW

What happens to a punter who bet in cash at a TAB ( eg. Crown Casino Supertab ), got paid $1.04 and went home ?

Surely they only placed that bet so they could show their grand children they backed Rocket Man ?

praiseworthy · « 2010-Oct-16, 10:33 PM **Reply #11** »

bubba - in answer to your very reasonable question. Fortunately the bulk of the money was on account - clearly it is harder to ensure all cash punters get the adjustment - and perhaps the example of someone who has had a big night at the casino, collected and gone home is the worst case scenario. I think there was something like 40 tickets from the retail network impacted.

Do bear in mind that whilst not ideal, the 'process' that happened lst night was correct in terms of once singapore excluded tab vic from the pool then local rules applied - of course the 'right' thing to do was to pay the $1.20.

Now onto Peters comments. Yes the takeout is higher - because local rules apply when you pool. I am bemused by Peters comments as the fact that australia is the 2nd lowest parimutuel take out in the world is usually disregarded by folks like him.

The liquidity due to pooling with singapore is 50 to 60 times greater but the takeout is slightly higher. So for a $5 punter pete may be right, but for a serious punter I suspect you'd take certainty offered through the liquidity.

Authorized · « 2010-Oct-16, 10:38 PM **Reply #12** »

Fixed odds is closed for internet users for the UK tonight, is it still available on TAB-ACTIVE ?

praiseworthy · « 2010-Oct-16, 10:42 PM **Reply #13** »

you talking nsw tab? if so no matter what device you won't get fixed odds

vic is open form what I can see

Authorized · « 2010-Oct-16, 10:47 PM **Reply #14** »

Peter Mair · « 2010-Oct-17, 06:48 AM **Reply #15** »

BET MORE TO WIN MORE / BIGGER POOLS MEANS BIGGER DIVIDENDS

Yesterday in a promotional ploy, some commentator reminded punters that 'the more you bet the more you win' --- and I have previously taken Tabcorp to task for the 'mistake' on 2KSKY of linking bigger co-mingled pools on VICTAB's Singapore racing with bigger dividends, the opposite is the case.

The following extract seems to go close to the same mistakes.

First it 'blames' a lower (but still excessive) takeout on the NSW TAB for the lower VIC TAB dividends -- Tabcorp should not co-mingle into pools that cost punters more.

Second a 33% difference over a full program is not slight even for small punters -- and serious punters would be well advised to get a better price somewhere else.

Yes the takeout is higher - because local rules apply when you pool. I am bemused .... the fact that australia is the 2nd lowest parimutuel take out in the world is usually disregarded by folks like him.

The liquidity due to pooling with singapore is 50 to 60 times greater but the takeout is slightly higher. So for a $5 punter pete may be right, but for a serious punter I suspect you'd take certainty offered through the liquidity.

praiseworthy · « 2010-Oct-17, 09:02 AM **Reply #16** »

pete you don't understand wagering well enough to make claims like that.

any suggestions on where the 'serious punter' would have got set for the $1.20 on rocket man?

Peter Mair · « 2010-Oct-17, 10:49 AM **Reply #17** »

ONE PROBLEM IS THE DEAL WITH SINGAPORE, ANOTHER WAS SOMEONE TRYING TO FIX IT 'ON THE RUN'

With a $5 minimum bet in Singapore the 'guaranteed' $1.20 minimum dividend is the equivalent of the $1.04 convention in Australia.

Presumably someone in Singapore or Victoria, or both, realised that VIC TAB was going to lose on the race so the VIC TAB pool was not mingled.

One can be sure that if this were to happen regularly the terms of the mingling deal would be changed.

...............only after a 'protest' was lodged did VIC TAB do what it should have done from the outset -- and paid the $1.20.

For the future, if the VIC TAB money does not 'get on' in Singapore, for whatever reason, the rule should be that VIC TAB still pays the dividend declared in Singapore.

Antitab# · « 2010-Oct-17, 11:39 AM **Reply #18** »

With all due repect to Praiseworthy, who is a good guy that link story is complete bunkum and PR bullshit. After the race the Tabt showed a pool of in excess of $7 million it now shows $61800. Every other race ever at Singapore including every other race at that program shows the co mingled final pool. They then conveniently pulled the Singapore money out.

I was aware of the anomoly and had a bet 10 times bigger than every before at Luxbet and Betstar at SuperTab +5%. $1.21 a $1.00 chance was to good to miss. I was on the phone to the TAB as soon as they posted the dividend. In a call that lasted 45 minutes it was made clear to me that the TAB hadnt realised they were actually going to lose on one of the 2 trillion races a year they bet on a year and changed their rules on the run.

It was a disgraceful, dishonest, shabby, deceitful, illegal act from a grubby company.

If they were fair dinkum, why wouldnt they now declare the dividend of $1.20 and pay out any cash punters who collected their ticket from Saturday morning onwards at the correct price.

praiseworthy · « 2010-Oct-17, 01:41 PM **Reply #19** »

anti tab - when I got the info I did suggest that there may be some 'conspiracy theories' around the issue - I was guaranteed that the set of events that occurred are what happened, and I thus believe it.

The $1.20 rule is well known - we even promoted the fact when pooling commenced - below is from the press release that highlighted the changes in rules;

Minimum dividends:
For STC hosted pools, the minimum Win dividend is $1.20 and the minimum Place dividend is $1.00. (Under VICTAB rules, the minimum dividend on both Win and Place pools is generally $1.04)

Singapore removed us from the pool not the other way round - thus the final of tab investments of $61,000 was being correctly displayed.

ps - its about 60,000 races a year we bet on - i know at times it seems like 2 trillion, but it is a little less than that!

Antitab# · « 2010-Oct-17, 03:38 PM **Reply #20** »

The link to Singapore was there 5 minutes after the race with 7 million in the pool and the pool and magically rejoined for co mingling of every other race that night. If your fairy story is true why wouldnt they declare a dividend of $1.20 as they new that was the minimum div payable? Secondly wht hasnt that dividend been amended now or are you hoping the majority of punters arent smart enough to know the rules and can be unknowingly cheated?

sobig · « 2010-Oct-17, 04:00 PM **Reply #21** »

For your info antitab the final Singapore pool was over $15m (app $A12m)

praiseworthy · « 2010-Oct-17, 04:06 PM **Reply #22** »

anti tab - could it be that if you've backed it with a corproate at tote+5%and they are paying you only $1.04 +5%?

Bubbasmith · « 2010-Oct-17, 06:22 PM **Reply #23** »

PW

Whether Antitab backed it or not with the corporates, is irrelevant, the dividend still has not been amended ( Sunday 7.00 pm EDST= nearly two days after the race ). Regardless, Tabcorp's Race Day Department knew that a minimum win dividend of $1.20 is applicable to any co- mingled Singapore pool and should have declared that minimum dividend. As Tabcorp has gone along with Singapore's higher takeout rate with the PR spin of more stable dividends with the larger pool they are stuck with that minimum dividend.I am betting they never thought that they would get caught out with that anomaly.

I cannot wait until Rocket Man goes around in another small field at 20's on.

Peter Mair · « 2010-Oct-17, 07:00 PM **Reply #24** »

THIS MATTER HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THE OFFICE OF THE VICTORIAN COMMISSIONER FOR RACING INTEGRITY