Home » Racing & Sport » Dividend Doesn’t Add Up

Dividend Doesn’t Add Up

On the low side!

The Kenilworth eighth race quartet dividend, which closed a successful L’Ormarins Queen’s Festival of Racing opening day, may have had Saftote punters scratching their heads.

With Anthony Andrews riding the R67 winner Ballad Of The Sea in an improved performance, and the supremely consistent tote favourite Streetfighting Man going missing, the payout of ‘just’ R21327-70 certainly appears on the low side.

The quartet pool on the race was R350 791, and we would have guesstimated a payout of at least double of what was declared.

Consider too that other horses missing from the top four, besides the favourite, were Manetheren (R10-10 a win), American Landing (R11-40 a win) and Hundreds (R11-70 a win).

Then add in the fact that 15 horses ran, and two of the swingers paid as much as R54-40 and R87-40, the Exacta paid R551-10 and the Trifecta R5988-70 – then the quartet just doesn’t add up somehow.

Veteran punters are the best judges of payouts and this one looks low.

We will send the query to Saftote and let’s see what they have to say.

Any comments from seasoned punters?

Have Your Say

Comments Policy
The Sporting Post encourages allcomers to feel free to have their say in the spirit of enlightening the topic, the participants and the originator of the thread. However, if it is deemed to be either offensive, insulting, personal, false or possibly unsubstantiated, the Sporting Post shall, on it's own assessment, alter or remove comments.

15 comments on “Dividend Doesn’t Add Up


    I won 23 % . I thought it might pay about 35 000 plus

    1. Editor says:

      Easy game!


        Mine was pure fluke and luck …..I couldn’t say I applied any general rules or logic to it. And, it was last minute stuff.

  2. Philip Goldberg says:

    Very poor dividend

  3. Dennis The Menace says:

    It was noted the pick 6 at Vaal on Tuesday the dividend very low for horses odds!!

    1. Justice says:

      Dennis the game we love seems to be getting Dodgier by the day from the breeding , auctioneering and now suspect calculations on dividends . come on man !!!!

  4. Philip Goldberg says:

    I love Saftote answer when you demand an audit on a dividend.
    They throw the calculation:
    Pool divided by winning tickets = dividend.
    But never an explanation on the breakdown of winners.
    eg)time and place of bets struck, size of bet etc

    Food for thought:
    Don’t tell me with computer fraud nowadays, that I cannot get hold of an old tote machine/computer.
    Connect it somehow to the main computer hub with the ability to throw in a ticket or two after the race.
    Should be as easy as pie.


    On the horsey…I do follow all Bolgers Teofilo’s keenly in Ireland ( Ballad of the Sea by Teofilo)

  6. Ian Jayes says:

    This is very interesting and harks back to the past. TAB (Bop) subsequently to become TAB (Northwest) was a separate tote operation, yet it paid the same dividends as TAB (Tvl) and TAB (OFS), yet money bet on TAB (Bop) did not change the pre-race dividends shown by TAB (Tvl) and TAB (OFS). The Newmarket Turf Club enquired into this, sent their CEO to investigate and received a letter from TAB (Bop) saying they “layed off” on our tote.
    At this time there were numerous occasions when dividends showing at the start of races were greatly reduced when the actual dividends were declared. The Newmarket stewards instructed an employee to photograph the tote board at the start of races and after the dividend was declared. Numerous discrepancies were found but TAB (Tvl) and the Witwatersrand Association of Racing Clubs (WARC) did not pursue the issue.
    Not long after this there was the “Bluffing” incident at Gosforth Park where a horse of that name showing over R10-30 for a win at the time of the start, after winning over 1000 metres paid a dividend of only R2-50. There was an uproar on course and Trainer Brett Warren was castigated for his reaction to what happened. The Jockey Club promised an Inquiry and the investigating officer of the Jockey Club told the Newmarket stewards that R100,000 was bet on this horse after the official starting time of the race. He said the difficulty was to establish the actual time of the race. I told him that should not be a problem, as all he had to do was take the time the horses took to run the race, take the film of the race and deduct that from the time shown on the clock on the toteboard when the horses passed it and he would have within a second or two the time the race started. He promised to do this, but reported back to the Newmarket stewards that the film of that race was missing from the Jockey Club offices.
    This was all part of a dossier of issues, including Affidavits, that I submitted to the Provincial authorities asking for an official Inquiry into the integrity of our totes and other related matters.
    For my trouble I had to defend a defamation action. I did not get support from the people in horseracing and had to fight on alone. The Plaintiff sued for R100,000 damages and costs and settled out of court for no damages and paid his own costs.
    The integrity of our totes has never been inquired into and I am not surprised to hear people complaining about suspect dividends. I have dealt with all the above in my autobiography “Footsteps, Heartbeats and Hoofbeats” published by Amazon. Anyone with a real interest in the welfare of horseracing would do well to read it.

  7. Gavin Langeveldt says:

    If you use the trifecta dividend as a guide with the favourite missing.
    Estimated dividend for the quartet should have been at least 50K.
    But some punter got lucky and scooped the lotskie.

  8. Preston says:

    Not a expert or an actuarial, but just offering my observation on the rather low payout.Firstly the gross pool will have to be reduced by the refund due to the scratching of Horse No 13 and No 17 , this refund includes various combination mixs i.e ppl who included these horses for Ist /2nd/3rd or 4th. Each position will have a different cost associated with it i.e if you put 13 for first , you will probably get a refund of R7 but if you include 13 for only 4th position , your refund will only be R2.

    Secondly I see Anton Marcus ran second on a 28/10 horse. Some punters may have taking Anton Marcus as a roving banker which does add to the number of winners to the gross pool.

    Lastly the pool payout is also reduced by the no of fractional winners.

    Editor. Hope my 2cents helps

    1. Editor says:

      Fair comment Preston – will we ever know?

    2. Pops says:

      May be wrong ,but was horses 13 and 17 not scratched before the tote (Quartet)betting on this race was opened.If that was so then there would be no Quartet ticket that would have had a 13 or 17 .Therefore No refunds to reduce gross Pool
      Why would the pool payout be reduced by the number of fractional winners.Are not most Quartet bets fractional,1%,10% 23%.
      When we see a payout of 5 tickets and a dividend of say R 235 000 can mean there were many 1% 5% 50% winning tickets and no 100% winning ticket.Fractional betting is the name of the game.
      Marcus.Many punters take field to win with a fancied horse(jockey) to run second.And this well may have been the case.


    It makes sense to me Preston

    1. Preston says:

      Thanks William.

      @Pops, I am not sure about the timing of the scratching for horse 13 and 17. My assumption is based that the scratching occurring during the race. If this is not so, then my point may be invalid.

Leave a Comment

‹ Previous

Some Fancied First Timers Today

Next ›

A Right Royal Eagle

Popular Posts