MANIPULATION OF THE TOTE

R3-6 turffontein today; place divided was 2.6 past the winning post but official results says 2.2

.....At the sales yesterday.... I heard that a big punter had a meeting with big P about this issue.... and was laughed at and told he was dreaming..... :S

Just do a little exercise for a week.
1 take pic of tote display as last horse loads, then take pic halfway thru the race, then take pic at the pull up. Check the dividends and how the tote payouts change and you will get a clear picture.
It is interesting to notice how much pools change from time of race till payouts.
Then you will be able to make an informed decision on exactly what is happening!!

I don't believe that there is any conscious manipulation of dividends. Being aware of the system limitations and constraints, it is more likely a delay in the processing of bets taken and not an indication of bets struck after the off. Especially true for co-mingled pools.

Personally I would give them the benefit of the doubt as far as the integrity of the process is concerned but not so the quality of the system.

It should be sorted out as it does provide too much ammunition for speculation and conspiracy theories.

C the pools of Hong Kong, Singapore racing on saftote

Most the winner will pay eg R3 and the place R8 and more.

I always watch this scenario and kill it

I have been watching for some time and am also incredibly suspicious of the payouts. The argument that huge bets are struck at the off doesn't float with me because then you should see cases where odds are much bigger also coming up. But it seems prices get almost exclusively shaved.

Unless, of course, the only guys striking huge bets on the jump already know the result in advance. But that's impossible in this game. Hey? Surely.

The very nature of pari-mutuel dividends suggests that if something shorten something else has to move up.

The earlier suggestion of taking pictures is a good one if the whole board can be captured.

I think the only sinister element is the inefficiency of the system.

The concern is the secrecy with which Saftote handle this issue. You would expect that they would want to provide an explanation,to put minds at rest.Failure to do so suggests the truth will not be well accepted!
Could it be that Saftote ,due to system issues,cannot provide proof that there is no breach of security?
It came to light recently,during a Saftote system failure,that due to the lack of compatibility between commingled systems,it appears that pools are frequently not merged prior to the events,but are held separately and merged in arrears.
If that is the case ,Saftote are not in a position to guarantee the security of that portion of pools that are not on their system,or that those pools cannot be manipulated,post race.
I think that the licencing of commingled pools should be subject to a guarantee that there is only one pool(by creating an automatic interface between systems)and that the pool can be,and is, closed on the jump

From my perspective, what little trust there ever was is gone...too many unexplained anomalies...