Wonder what the Tote's explanation will be?

Australia Wagga on Tuesday 14/01/2020
45678
Double DividendsRace 7 Paying
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999
2 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999
3 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999
4 999 999 131 942 999 131 856 999
5 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999
6 311 423 430 386 393 0.8 253 700
7 240 378 314 197 403 22.8 175 716
8 999 999 999 999 999 705 999 999

This is Wagga race 7 double dividends after the race is closed.
As you can see the double 6 and 6 is paying 80 cents.
The 6 in race 7 was 2nd favourite at 12-10 while the favorite no.7 was 8-10.
In the 2nd leg the 6 opened 2-10 and was backed into 1-20.
So the favourite and favourite double (8-10 and 2-10) is paying R22-80 and the 2nd fav and fav double is paying 80 cents.
The double pool according to the tote was R17994.
The tote take out is 20 or 25% so in other words nearly all the R17994 was on the 6 and 6 double.
Well the fav 7 won the 1st and the fav 6 won the 2nd leg and somehow it paid R22-80.
We are co-mingled into Ubet tote in Australia and I looked up the payouts on Ubet and that very same double only paid 2-60.

This seems very strange to me,have asked for an explanation and still waiting on their reply.

Bookmakers who offer the open bet should see who played this double with them and ban those people, clearly tote manipulation here by flooding one outcome and leaving the rest to pay outlandish amounts.

Another matter here is who knew this particular race wasn't going to be commingled? There should be clear trails to follow here and an investigation by any competent individual with access to the data should be able to come up with the right conclusions.

Worrying to note that these things need to be pointed out to them by punters.

Thor wrote: Bookmakers who offer the open bet should see who played this double with them and ban those people, clearly tote manipulation here by flooding one outcome and leaving the rest to pay outlandish amounts.

Another matter here is who knew this particular race wasn't going to be commingled? There should be clear trails to follow here and an investigation by any competent individual with access to the data should be able to come up with the right conclusions.

Worrying to note that these things need to be pointed out to them by punters.

Pool TotalsRace 7 Paying
Pool Total
Win 54327
Place 21076
Swinger 3240
Exacta 7519
Pool Total
Trifecta 2794
Quartet 6370
Double 17994

The double pool was R17994.An amount like that would surely be co-mingled.
But It obviously wasn't co-mingled looking at the two different payouts.
Why are they showing that double pool then?

The double pool was R1171.

The pool was manipulated

Surely could only be manipulated by the people who actually work at the tote as they the only ones who could not co-mingle a certain race.
Let me guess their excuse,we had connectivity problems and couldn't access the host's pool.

naresh wrote: The double pool was R1171.

The pool was manipulated

Naresh did you get that double pool from Tabonline?
Tabgold are still showing R17994.
I think I might know why Tabgold are showing that pool.
Bookies will not payout more than the pool total,so they might think that certain bookies get their pool totals from Tabgold and not Tabonline.

www.tabtouch.com.au/racing/2020-01-14/st/8

So the double is legit then.
But still smacks of manipulation,probably the Ozzies.

Quite strange that this error on the Pool amount happens in the same race as this dividend being declared?

I think that the manipulation here is local. From the size of the double pool the bet is clearly not popular in Aus. All it takes is a local R1000 placed here on the decoy combination, as was done here. Have someone input the wrong higher pool on our local site as an FYI for bookies to pay against. Then hit the winning doubles on the Open Bet and be paid to a Max of R17k, when in reality as seen the pool was only around R1000. Nobody has any reason to doubt the pool info on tab gold, and as far as I know, is the official record of the pools.

This manipulation has ZERO to do with Australia, and all to do with the false pool total, and open bets being played.

We need answers.

Well I have got no answers from Tabgold.
Maybe Bob can get clarification from them about what happened here.
They are members on this site so probably have read this but don't seem to answer any questions put to them.

I asked for a reply, hopefully by tomorrow

Hi Bob

Just to give some clarity with regards to this thread:

The payout of R22.80 is correct, as per the commingled payout.
This double was commingled into the TABCorp pools, as originally disseminated.
The double pool contribution from SA was a total of R 138 (therefore not much of an influence as the contribution to the pool from SA was less than 1%)

We hope that this gives all some clarity on this subject.