This is my first post on this forum after having been a regular viewer for some time.

I have a question.
In some races i have observed that have 7 runners, a third place dividend is paid and in some races (more commonly) it is not. I am wondering what factors go towards the decision to pay a third place dividend.

Dont give up on place betting. Cheers. DKEL.

The decision on whether to pay a third place dividend is dependant upon the scratching time.

If there are 7 runners or less there is no third dividend paid unless it is because of a "LATE SCRATCHING" in which case three place dividends are paid.

G'day Chrome Prince,

Is that in every state because I believe that the NSWTAB only pays two divs in the case of late scratchings-please correct me if I am wrong?

Cheers.

Hmm,

Not aware of that, it could be different for each state.

In Victoria, if there are greater than seven acceptors and a scratching is made at the normal cutoff time leaving 7 runners or less, then only two place divvies are paid.

If it is deemed to be "late" (not sure exactly how they determine this) then three divvies are paid.

It has to do with a certain cutoff time.

I'll look into it further and advise.

[ This Message was edited by: Chrome Prince on 2003-05-26 17:18 ]

Further to this post,
A practical example from yesterday shows the problems we punters encounter in our efforts to win in the long-term.
I invested in a trotting race at Wyong with the required number of runners to pay three place divs. However, mayhem ensued and a number of horses fell and dislodged their drivers. It was declared a no-race and rescheduled for later in the day. However, with scratchings, there were to be only six starters in the rescheduled race, meaning only two place divs. Upon hearing of this I contacted the TAB wishing to cancel my bet as the circumstances had changed dramatically and the odds, in my opinion, were now stacked against me. I was told that as I had invested on the internet that I could not cancel my bet and despite my protestations the bet stood.
Well, justice was done and my horse won in the six horse field and paid well for the place.
Yes, I won, but my point is that in all likelihood I would not have bet for the place in such a reduced field. I should have been given the option to cancel my bet as circumstances had changed so dramatically.
It worked out OK this time but overall I think it works against the punter in such circumstances.

Cheers.

xanadu,

That is a ************ disgrace!
There is no way you should have had to bet in that race.
I have cancelled bets previously even though they were placed on the internet, but with 20 minutes before the race.
This was Tabcorp, not sure which TAB you were going through, but this is just not on.

The race was initially called a no race and no dividends were paid, so your bet should have been refunded with the option to replace it or not.
Especially with scratchings and a rescheduled start.
No wonder people are jumping on Betfair and IASBET rather than suffering the poor value and lack of customer service from te TABs in general.

An absolute disgrace. A "no race" means precisely that. All bets should be refunded. Their actions may even be illegal under law.

But if reported correctly, then it's a typical troglodyte attitude to the betting public - AS IF THE TAB HAS A MONOPOLY ON BETTING and the PUBLIC ARE MUGS and should be thankful that the TAB is giving them the privilege of having a bet.

"You wanted to back the horse. It's still running. How dare you inconvenience us by wanting to cancel your bet. The race is going to be held later. What's your problem?"

With an attitude like that they will become irrelevant.