Merriguy,
The TABs do not work together to give parity. The Win divs are usually very similar since people can see any discrepancies and will back them on the other TABS and/or avoid them on the TAB where odds are too short. With exotic dividends, particularly trifectas, it is not possible to get approximates so you often get massive unders or overs (compared to what the "true" div should be based on the placegetters odds). I think you will find that in the long run it probably wont make much difference which TAB you go with as I believe they all take the same % off the pool so in theory the divs should work out the same over the long term. Some days 1 TAB will pay higher divs - the next day it will probably be the other way round. Personally I do not like placing bets on things where you have no idea of the odds (ie. trifectas) - but thats just my opinion.

Manikato,
I tend to agree with Mark - in the example you give the simple answer is that if the race was run slower then UP would not have been 15 lengths behind at the 600M (if the jockey is any good) - he would probably have only been a few lengths behind and therefore could still have won the race. With all these "theories" the advocates will quote specific examples that prove their theory whilst ignoring any races that don't follow the pattern. Whilst there are some that do have a degree of merit (eg. inside barriers at certain tracks/distances) in most cases the benefit is overestimated by the punting public so you tend to get good "overs" on the "disadvantaged" horses.

__________________
"Computers can do that????" - Homer Simpson