OZmium Sports Betting and Horse Racing Forums

OZmium Sports Betting and Horse Racing Forums (http://forums.ozmium.com.au/index.php)

- Horse Racing (http://forums.ozmium.com.au/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Smart punters..... (http://forums.ozmium.com.au/showthread.php?t=12140)

I am just putting my intestines back in after I split my sides laughing at that one

what about blocking posts of ppl that go completely off topic :P
jk, but seriously what do you guys think of what these fellas did??

Quote:

Originally Posted by HO*** WHISPERER

what about blocking posts of ppl that go completely off topic :P
jk, but seriously what do you guys think of what these fellas did??

Pretty clever indeed... One of the blokes who got stung is not a happy chappy, and is looking at a way out (how unusual for a book) .. But if they are gunna offer Best Tote or Unitab odds, they do that to attract business.. so stiff, they were outsmarted by a group of legends.. and must pay IMHO

By offering best tote, it really says how pathetic the books are in general.. they are betting huge % (those not offereing best tote) whilst others have to offer 116% books to get business.. pretty ordinary, they obvioulsy dont have any blood in their veins... I have taken ALL my business away from the books and am using the tote and Betfair... and am much happier about it...

Why did I move away from the books... one reason... that whinger in the territory, who failed to do his form about 12 months ago and got stung in Brisbane and then screamed the house down because he was left with a big liability on the race.. In the end there was nothing ever proved that was untoward about THAT RACE, but that did it for me... and some of these rogues, turn you off if you are even remotely successful and take a few bob from em... I choose to put my turnover elsewhere, and whinging about being stung on a dog race, does not do them any favours with me.. I won't be going back

Moderator how about allowing the actual name of the animal this part of your site is about to actually appear on the screen *shakes head*

The way I see it, if they only won $200,000, they must have only bet about $22,000 on the favourite. If this dog didn't win, presumably they would have received odds of about $6.5 so their liability for the race was no more than $25,000.

Whilst they still could have lost out plenty, essentially they backed a $1.30 dog at odds of $8.
Certainly one way to get value. If it is not there, make it you***lf.

So on this subject, is there anybody that offers best tote on the dog races? If there is, I doubt they will be in business for long.

Well, at the moment, believe it or not, r s e is being censored. How dumb is that on a h o r s e racing forum???

Moderators, can you fix that up please, because it's going to make things pretty difficult around here if we can't use the word h o r s e.

horse

Quote:

Originally Posted by HORSE WHISPERER

We know who the punters are and if they do it again we will simply bet back on the dog on their tote with their own money, thus losing nothing. By the look of things they had about $25,000 with bookies around Australia."

UNiTAB wagering manager Shane Adams said: "All rules were abided with."

This is no sting, this is smart investing.

The bookies are running a business, they should have this covered from all angles.

They got it wrong, not the punters, and should have bet back on the tote after noticing strange TAB fluctuations (inflated pools).

There is no reason for further investigation, the bookies are crying foul....what about the punters who have to cop books of 140% plus on a regular basis.

Wear it fellas, you got some payback!

I agree they found a loophole and used it....nothing wrong with that.....where in the rules does it say you can not back the whole field with different bet sizes.....it is up to the bookies to see what can and did happen....i bet it won't happen again.....i wonder if it was the same crew that did the sting with the place betting a few years back....that was also on the Qtab on the dogs.....i say good on them.

If any bookmaker is dumb enough or lazy enough to simply use UNITAB figures and not cover these loopholes, then they get what they deserve.

Funny that this hasn't happened before, but I guess they'd only do it if they were pretty sure the dog was going to win.

How much did they actually pay out to win this money though? They bet $75000 on the other 5 runners and they would have got back about $65000 if any of them had won, but what about the winner? I didn't see anything about how much money they'd actually bet on the winner???

Quote:

Originally Posted by HORSE WHISPERER

Crafty betting scheme leaves bookies in the doghouse

Gary Keep and Chris Bassani
21dec05
AN ingenious legal betting sting at the Gold Coast greyhounds ripped more than $200,000 from off-course bookmakers throughout Australia yesterday.

A NSW betting syndicate legitimately involved the Queensland TAB to inflate the odds of a short-priced favourite Lucy's Light, which won by seven lengths.

The syndicate set up legitimate betting accounts with several interstate betting firms including Centreracing, Sportingbet, Sportsbet, Betezy and Adelaide bookmaker Curly Seal.

These firms all offer punters Queensland tote odds on a dog race if requested.

The sting was executed on the second race, a stayers event with only six starters.

It was considered an easy assignment for top stayer Lucy's Light who opened up around Australia as a hot odds-on favourite at a $1.10 return for a $1 investment.

The syndicate backed Lucy's Light with the bookmakers who noticed the short odds and willingly held the bets because at that stage they were up for a minimal payout and stood to win well if the dog lost.

What bookmakers didn't know was that the syndicate would later place $15,000 on each of the other five dogs with Queensland's UNiTAB with only a minute before the race jumped. The bets were placed into phone accounts.

The $75,000 plunge pushed the price of Lucy's Light to $13 when the race started.

The Queensland win pool swelled to $88,645, compared to $12,292 on the Victorian TAB, where Lucy's Light paid $1.40, and $13,729 in NSW ($1.30).

Seal, who faced the largest payout, said he was seeking advice from stewards and his solicitor on the legality of the scheme.

"That's why I can't say too much, but, yes, I held some substantial bets on the winner," he said.

Sportsbet's Matthew Tripp, along with Sportingbet's Michael Sullivan, have reported the race to the Northern Territory Racing Commission.

Tripp said: "I've told all my punters I will pay out at $2 if the NTRC says something was untoward. If the NTRC says nothing is wrong, I will be quite willing to pay out at $13."

Centreracing manager Christian Sawyer has already paid the punters.

"These things happen, good luck to them. We know who the punters are and if they do it again we will simply bet back on the dog on their tote with their own money, thus losing nothing. By the look of things they had about $25,000 with bookies around Australia."

Besides Seal, the other bookmakers are estimated to have paid out between $10,000 to $30,000 each – Seal won't reveal his loss.

UNiTAB wagering manager Shane Adams said: "All rules were abided with."

Brilliant is that not what punting is all about, beat the bookie or the tote.

"These things happen, good luck to them. We know who the punters are and if they do it again we will simply bet back on the dog on their tote with their own money, thus losing nothing. By the look of things they had about $25,000 with bookies around Australia."

Besides Seal, the other bookmakers are estimated to have paid out between $10,000 to $30,000 each – Seal won't reveal his loss."

they are estimating they had $25000 on the dog itself but seal wont reveal his loss so it may be a bit more.