Home » Racing & Sport » TAB Explain Freak Place Dividend

TAB Explain Freak Place Dividend

Assumption is the mother of bad punter picks

Easy money as Inferno storms home at R9-80 a place!

Singapore would not allow international commingling because of the very short-priced favourite in Saturday’s 12th race at Kranji – with the even money favourite paying a freakish R9-80 for a place dividend on the tote.

TAB have provided an explanation in response to Sporting Post reader queries after new Singapore rising star Inferno (1) was the star of the show in Saturday’s Gr1 Singapore Guineas.

In the twelfth race on the programme, Inferno started the tote favourite in the nine horse field and paid R1-20 for a win and R9-80 a place.

A TAB spokesman explained that Singapore would not allow international commingling because of the very short-priced favourite – so ultimately only South African punters and some PGI premium international customers bet into the Race 12 pools.

The bulk of the bets in the R236 138 net Win pool went on Inferno (No 1), but for whatever reason less than R1 000 was wagered on the same horse in the net place pool of R29 138.

In the Win Gross pool of S$23592, there was S$21593 bet on Inferno. In the Place Gross pool of S$2908, there was only S$78 bet on Inferno.

Probably 99% of players decided no point in backing him for a Place!

Have Your Say

Comments Policy
The Sporting Post encourages everyone to feel free to comment in the spirit of enlightening the topic being discussed, to add opinions or correct errors. All posts are accepted on the condition that The Sporting Post can at any time alter, correct or remove comments, either partially or entirely.

All posters are required to post under their real and verified names, you can adjust your display name on your account page or to send corrections privately to the Editor. The Sporting Post will not publish comments submitted anonymously or under pseudonyms.

The views of any individuals that are published are NOT necessarily the views of The Sporting Post.

11 comments on “TAB Explain Freak Place Dividend

  1. Andre Van Aswegan says:

    I thought that all betting on Kranji racing was through the pari mutual tote between Singapore Turf Club and the SA Tote.
    It is an absolute disgrace that the SA tote did not favour SA punters with information that their was no pari mutual tote in play with Kranji for the race.
    To read that ‘South African punters and some PGI premium international customers bet into the Race 12 pools’ has shown me that the SA Tote is being is being manipulated and punters are getting screwed royally.
    I suggest that the author of this article takes a look at the rules of the SA Tote regarding commingling with foreign jurisdictions.
    Now I know how and why Tote pools whenever a large estimated pool is expected for a pick 6 is able to jump by a few hundred thousand or million Rand or so in literally seconds. PGI premium customers are being commingled into our pools without us being told.
    I want to know if this is legal. Punters need answers from the Tote and our gambling authorities.
    Punters should be told at all times by the Tote whether the pools are being commingled and with whom and which is the prominent jurisdiction when rules apply.
    It’s about time we deserve truthful answers and not conmindless bs.

  2. H. W. Smith says:

    There is nothing freakish about the payout. The headline should be TAB explains sinister actions after inexplicable payout.
    TAB did not tell us that we were betting into a ghost pool for one of the biggest races run in Singapore.
    This malignant disease of misinformation needs to stop.

  3. Roderick Mattheyse says:

    A proper explanation would have included:

    If there were any bets placed and cancelled
    The value of the places bets cancelled
    Number of canceled bets
    Time of the canceled bets
    Who authorized canceled bets
    Channel/location of cancelled bets

  4. Anand Chetty says:

    Firstly, it’s rubbish that a decision whether co-mingling may be permitted can be done literally on a whim, and secondly, has any investigation been done to determine whether any place bets were wagered and then cancelled? If so, that’s tote payout Manipulation.

  5. Tony Mincione says:

    What exactly is a “PGI Premium Customer”? Be nice to know who we playing against, and if the playing field is level.

    I think I know, but it’s not bad practice to ask questions you know the answer to.

    1. Editor says:

      We have submitted the queries to Phumelela for feedback.

  6. Roderick Mattheyse says:

    Tony M – to answer your rhetorical question – the playing filed is not even they get rebates us locals don’t

  7. Andre Van Aswegan says:

    Dear Mr Editor. Instead of reporting to us that you have submitted queries to Phumelela, rather advise us of the queries and to whom you submitted your queries.
    If you get no joy from the Phumelela representatives, we can make up our own minds about what we think of that employee. The future is uncertain for horse racing while the the future of Phumelela employees is secured because we are informed that noone will be retrenched. Business Rescue has rescued Phumelela but not horse racing.
    Nothing will change until we get openness and honesty. If it is not going to come freely, you need to start upping the ante and make it known to the Phumelela employees that their names will be splashed around.
    We need to work out as soon as possible who is the wheat and who is the chaff in the new hierarchy of horse racing.

    1. Editor says:

      The Sporting Post has been an informal liaison portal for a variety of queries with the various racing entities over the years.
      Some answer us, others just choose to ignore – very often dependant as to who we are dealing with at that time and for a variety of reasons from a lack of interest, inability to answer to arrogant discourtesy.
      For the record, many of the queries from our readers are dealt with behind the scenes via email etc.
      The additional submissions in this particular case were a summary of the various – we felt valid – comments posted on the article about the Kranji payout on Saturday.
      There is a team in the betting division at Phumelela that have dealt with us for some time. We see no purpose in singling out one individual as they are responding – albeit maybe not always at the level of depth or detail that fully satisfies the query.
      Let’s play the ball rather and keep the channels of communication open.

  8. theunisj says:

    What channels of communication if the communication only comes from one side.

    1. Editor says:

      It’s two way Theunis
      We feed reader/ punter complaints/queries / questions – they respond – usually fairly promptly.

      Please add your surname
      Many thanks

Leave a Comment

‹ Previous

Mauritian Magician On A Roll

Next ›

Monday Racing Magic

Popular Posts