Anyone else see this?

[shari91]

Mate i dont want to sound rude here but what you are saying is not correct. I think you will find they have refunded his bets on that race, not for the entire day.

They also clearly state he placed multiples totaling almost $5,000. Why would they bother to mention what bets he had placed on other races?

1:38 - shows print outs of several bets after explaining he'd placed $5k in bets that day with one of these bets circled in red with an arrow "winning bet"

2:46 - "And then they rang me and said we're not paying you any winnings on that bet. And in fact we're going to refund all your bets and not pay you on that.

[Stockdale]

It does say they cancelled his "other" bets Stockdale. So I think the 5k was a total of all outstanding bets he had open.

Although I do agree he likely boxed the 6 dogs apart from 2 faves though. And taking it 5 times would likely set of alarms when the 72k payout came up.

@Brettels, not that we know either way. But unlikely a 5k/day bettor would have a $5 bet on 4 dogs in order.

It shows his betting statement with 3 or 4 similar bets on the race, so only one of them was a winner while the "other" 2 or 3 would have lost.

[Stockdale]

1:38 - shows print outs of several bets after explaining he'd placed $5k in bets that day with one of these bets circled in red with an arrow "winning bet"

2:46 - "And then they rang me and said we're not paying you any winnings on that bet. And in fact we're going to refund all your bets and not pay you on that.

Yeah saw that, they all look like First 4 bets on the same race. Maybe he put in 3 or 4 different combinations to even out his return, obviously we dont know though

[TennisProFrance]

Stockdale, would you consider his betting pattern on this race to be very abnormal? Or is this your average bet?

Do you think B365 are right to have some suspicions?

[tommygun]

I watched this on the news, bloody disgusting

[shari91]

Yeah saw that, they all look like First 4 bets on the same race. Maybe he put in 3 or 4 different combinations to even out his return, obviously we dont know though

Yeah the bloody printing's too small to really know for sure what those other bets were on.

This would be my luck though... hit a massive First Four and then go through this nonsense. I'd be a lot less calm than Steve was.

[Stockdale]

Stockdale, would you consider his betting pattern on this race to be very abnormal? Or is this your average bet?

Do you think B365 are right to have some suspicions?

The bet type is not that abnormal, its a boxed first 4 that if the outsiders didnt run 1st and 2nd wouldnt have paid nearly as much. I am a big exotic punter and while i wouldnt say boxing 6 or 7 runners in an 8 dog field is the common thing to do it certainly isn't anything that would raise questions thats for sure. The bet amount? Well we dont know what sort of money he has or how much he usually bets. When i go to the track i see upwards of a grand outlayed on exotics all the time so once again while it isn't common for me to see $4,000 first 4s placed it isn't something that would raise any alarms with me

What do Bet365 have suspicions about? In that statement they posted they brought up the fact that 2 dogs were suspended for failing to chase the lure. Thats not something to be suspcious about, some dogs just dont chase. If you do your homework and see a first started going around favourite who you know doesnt chase in a field then you are well within your rights to risk your money on something else winning. Thats gambling. If Bet365 want to cancel peoples bets based on this then they will be shown the door very quickly.

[Stockdale]

Yeah the bloody printing's too small to really know for sure what those other bets were on.

This would be my luck though... hit a massive First Four and then go through this nonsense. I'd be a lot less calm than Steve was.

Lol i know, i got paid out on the wrong div one day for much, MUCH less than this and was starting to rage inside lol. I would be struggling to control myself if i was him

[Duff85]

This guy will get his full sum almost guaranteed. Advantage of the stupid fukks being regulated here in Australia. They might be able to pull this shit in Alderney and Malta, but they won't get away with it here.

[shari91]

Stockdale, if you get a chance check out this link: http://www.racehorsetalk.com.au/inde...,17016.45.html

pages 4 and 5

I Googled Steve's full name and found a discussion where people are talking about how the pool was manipulated (which obviously isn't illegal) and how the declared dividend seems off. They go into the details of it whereas I was obviously just going by memory and not the technicalities. But what do you think? Does what they're saying make sense at all?

[brettels]

It does say they cancelled his "other" bets Stockdale. So I think the 5k was a total of all outstanding bets he had open.

Although I do agree he likely boxed the 6 dogs apart from 2 faves though. And taking it 5 times would likely set of alarms when the 72k payout came up.

@Brettels, not that we know either way. But unlikely a 5k/day bettor would have a $5 bet on 4 dogs in order.

Wasn't the winning dog the least favourite? That would explain his low stake for that particular first 4

[Stockdale]

Wasn't the winning dog the least favourite? That would explain his low stake for that particular first 4

Yes it was, but he didnt choose them 1-2-3-4 in order. He boxed the runners so it didnt matter what order they finished, he just got lucky that the rank outsider won and next outsider ran 2nd

[brettels]

But saying he boxed 6 doesn't make sense, wouldn't he only be allowed to box 4?

Remember, I don't bet the dogs or use 365 so going into boxing 6 random dogs and being allowed to win a first 4 is something new to me! People would win big every day!

[shari91]

Some of these from elsewhere are interesting:

"This story has actually been out for a while, it was reported in the Northern Territory/Darwin newspaper on the Friday before the (Darwin) cup.
I can't find it online but the story was the punter decided to bet up after getting his tax return so threw 5000 on a first 4 at ipswich.
Clearly the result fell favourably for him race wise, but it still doesn't quite fit for me as a completely honest/innocent transaction for either party."

"I heard it on ABC radio, the punter was said to be a well-known NT businessman, Steve Brunker."

"Made him out to look like a recreational punter who had to check his combinations after the race etc ... yet he mentions later 'investing' $12,992 on the first 4 ... at Ippy dogs!"

"Although this punter has been portrayed as a punter who just happened to "strike it lucky" I am sure he knew what he was doing. Knowing the race was " just another dog race" that would not attract any special attention.eg not a jackpot race where smarties are attracted like bees around a honey pot, the punter set up the corporate bookie for a killing,
A. He had to ensure the TAB declared a dividend. If no punter gets the First4 the TAB jackpots the pool to another race. On the other hand the corporate bookie must pay the punter if he has the winning combination .To do so they take the amount invested on the TAB ( Tatts in this case ) reduce that gross pool by the takeout rake , then divide that amount by what the punter had on the winning combination. In this case in question, based on the pool size on the Tatts website, and the punter's $5 on the winning combination,the dividend would have been (3540x.75 )/5=$531.00.
B. No doubt this punter backed the winning combination for a minimal amount on the TAB to ensure the dividend was declared for a $1 investment. It is of interest that $1510.46 was carried over as a jackpot to another race. As a rough guess I calculate he may have had around 14% ( I am open about that % ) of the dividend so that it could be declared as $14,632.60.
C. Whoever was at the wheel at Bet365 must have been asleep, as how could they let the punter have $4,992 on the First4 on an obscure dog race , unless they were all wet behind the ears and thought they had another mug in their clutches.
D. To save face ,they must pay up , otherwise they might as well pack up and head back to The Old Dart."

"The pools for the first 4 on the day at ipswich were reasonably consistent between 2200 and 2700. The race in question, which was R2 had a pool of 4700 (given the dividend QLD must allow a full payout for 25%).
It is obviously somewhat out of line with the other races. There are also only around 1700 combinations for the first four, and given he had the winning selection 5 times I assume that he was reasonably well covered through the race."

[Duff85]

Possibly a jackpot of some variety in the UniTAB pool too - which would instantly boost the payout the books have to pay. If he stung them using that, they would prob try to get rid of him.

Edit: Just saw your post above Shari - the jackpot in the pool looks like a winner.

Either way he hasn't done anything other than nail these clowns to the wall and they need to pay up.

For the record I may be the only poster who has been to the Ippy Dogs - what a brag :-)

[brettels]

It doesn't make sense that he bet the 5k on the winning bet, it would be over a 70 million dollar win! Where are people getting that from?

I've never heard of him, still think he did get lucky!

[shari91]

Possibly a jackpot of some variety in the UniTAB pool too - which would instantly boost the payout the books have to pay. If he stung them using that, they would prob try to get rid of him.

Edit: Just saw your post above Shari - the jackpot in the pool looks like a winner.

Either way he hasn't done anything other than nail these clowns to the wall and they need to pay up.

For the record I may be the only poster who has been to the Ippy Dogs - what a brag :-)

haha Ippy dogs! I'd love to go just to say I went!

Reading more about this I'm starting to get pissed that there are obviously tricks to making money on the dogs that I'm clueless about. I need to put down the form guide and start doing some research. I knew generally about manipulating the tote but these posters are talking about the details like it's every day knowledge. No way in hell would I ever be able to figure it all out without some help.

[brettels]

Haha

I've been to ippy but not the ippy dogs

[Stockdale]

Stockdale, if you get a chance check out this link: http://www.racehorsetalk.com.au/inde...,17016.45.html

pages 4 and 5

I Googled Steve's full name and found a discussion where people are talking about how the pool was manipulated (which obviously isn't illegal) and how the declared dividend seems off. They go into the details of it whereas I was obviously just going by memory and not the technicalities. But what do you think? Does what they're saying make sense at all?

Just had a read of that, what some people are saying doesnt quite add up though.

The First 4 pool was $4,720. The take out for the tab is about 22.5% which leaves $3,658 in the pool. For a full dividend to be paid you need to have at least a 0.25 (25%) stake. So say there was only one 0.25 unit winner on the TAB, that would mean they would get the pool so the Dividend would be declared at 4x $3,658 so that the 0.25 unit stake equals whats in the pool. So that would mean they payout at a dividend of $14,632. Which is exactly what it did pay out so obviously it means there was only 1 single winner of the first 4 on Tattsbet.

With pool manipulation, well its possible but there are much easier pools to manipulate than a First 4 one so i highly doubt they would have done that. Could they have known the dog was just a useless non chaser and put $500-1,000 on it to win at the start of betting bringing its odds into $1.10 and drawing in the mug follower money on both the win pool and first 4 pool? Sure that is possible but its just a theory with nothing to back it up and even if true there is absolutely nothing wrong with it so good on him

[Optional]

haha Ippy dogs! I'd love to go just to say I went!

Reading more about this I'm starting to get pissed that there are obviously tricks to making money on the dogs that I'm clueless about. I need to put down the form guide and start doing some research. I knew generally about manipulating the tote but these posters are talking about the details like it's every day knowledge. No way in hell would I ever be able to figure it all out without some help.

Interesting stuff.

But the suggestions you posted above from another forum above sound a little fanciful to me. About him making a 1 unit bet on Vic TAB to ensure there was a 1 person win for 14% of the pool. So much risk and so much that could go wrong in that theory for mine.

[Duff85]

Haha

I've been to ippy but not the ippy dogs

Did you wind the windows up, lock the doors and accelerate through there as quickly possible?

[Stockdale]

But saying he boxed 6 doesn't make sense, wouldn't he only be allowed to box 4?

Remember, I don't bet the dogs or use 365 so going into boxing 6 random dogs and being allowed to win a first 4 is something new to me! People would win big every day!

Nah you can box up all 8 runners in the field if you want. It would cost $1,680 per unit so if the dividend paid less than that you would be losing money regardless if the bet won

[brettels]

Did you wind the windows up, lock the doors and accelerate through there as quickly possible?

Haha NOO

8 years ago I was the reason others were winding there windows up and locking there doors!

Only went once for a party!

[brettels]

Nah you can box up all 8 runners in the field if you want. It would cost $1,680 per unit so if the dividend paid less than that you would be losing money regardless if the bet won

Yeah? That's stupid betting strategy I think! The guy was very lucky but not in his case!

[Stockdale]

Some of these from elsewhere are interesting:

"This story has actually been out for a while, it was reported in the Northern Territory/Darwin newspaper on the Friday before the (Darwin) cup.
I can't find it online but the story was the punter decided to bet up after getting his tax return so threw 5000 on a first 4 at ipswich.
Clearly the result fell favourably for him race wise, but it still doesn't quite fit for me as a completely honest/innocent transaction for either party."

"I heard it on ABC radio, the punter was said to be a well-known NT businessman, Steve Brunker."

"Made him out to look like a recreational punter who had to check his combinations after the race etc ... yet he mentions later 'investing' $12,992 on the first 4 ... at Ippy dogs!"

"Although this punter has been portrayed as a punter who just happened to "strike it lucky" I am sure he knew what he was doing. Knowing the race was " just another dog race" that would not attract any special attention.eg not a jackpot race where smarties are attracted like bees around a honey pot, the punter set up the corporate bookie for a killing,
A. He had to ensure the TAB declared a dividend. If no punter gets the First4 the TAB jackpots the pool to another race. On the other hand the corporate bookie must pay the punter if he has the winning combination .To do so they take the amount invested on the TAB ( Tatts in this case ) reduce that gross pool by the takeout rake , then divide that amount by what the punter had on the winning combination. In this case in question, based on the pool size on the Tatts website, and the punter's $5 on the winning combination,the dividend would have been (3540x.75 )/5=$531.00.
B. No doubt this punter backed the winning combination for a minimal amount on the TAB to ensure the dividend was declared for a $1 investment. It is of interest that $1510.46 was carried over as a jackpot to another race. As a rough guess I calculate he may have had around 14% ( I am open about that % ) of the dividend so that it could be declared as $14,632.60.
C. Whoever was at the wheel at Bet365 must have been asleep, as how could they let the punter have $4,992 on the First4 on an obscure dog race , unless they were all wet behind the ears and thought they had another mug in their clutches.
D. To save face ,they must pay up , otherwise they might as well pack up and head back to The Old Dart."

"The pools for the first 4 on the day at ipswich were reasonably consistent between 2200 and 2700. The race in question, which was R2 had a pool of 4700 (given the dividend QLD must allow a full payout for 25%).
It is obviously somewhat out of line with the other races. There are also only around 1700 combinations for the first four, and given he had the winning selection 5 times I assume that he was reasonably well covered through the race."

It is quite common that there is no div on Tattsbet so i wouldnt be surprised if he backed himself on tatts for a 0.25 unit to ensure a full dividend was paid. Once again just a theory though and nothing wrong with what he has done

[Stockdale]

It doesn't make sense that he bet the 5k on the winning bet, it would be over a 70 million dollar win! Where are people getting that from?

I've never heard of him, still think he did get lucky!

70k not Million :P

He spent $5k on the race but only had the winning combination/dividend 5 times

[shari91]

Just had a read of that, what some people are saying doesnt quite add up though.

The First 4 pool was $4,720. The take out for the tab is about 22.5% which leaves $3,658 in the pool. For a full dividend to be paid you need to have at least a 0.25 (25%) stake. So say there was only one 0.25 unit winner on the TAB, that would mean they would get the pool so the Dividend would be declared at 4x $3,658 so that the 0.25 unit stake equals whats in the pool. So that would mean they payout at a dividend of $14,632. Which is exactly what it did pay out so obviously it means there was only 1 single winner of the first 4 on Tattsbet.

With pool manipulation, well its possible but there are much easier pools to manipulate than a First 4 one so i highly doubt they would have done that. Could they have known the dog was just a useless non chaser and put $500-1,000 on it to win at the start of betting bringing its odds into $1.10 and drawing in the mug follower money on both the win pool and first 4 pool? Sure that is possible but its just a theory with nothing to back it up and even if true there is absolutely nothing wrong with it so good on him

I guess the part of all of this that sticks with me is that apparently Aussie bookies have taken precautions to try to ensure they don't get nailed due to tote manipulation after that Lucy's Light case. And bet365 hadn't. So whether this was an innocent bet or not, Steve didn't do anything wrong and it's not his fault that bet365 dropped the ball. Changing their rules after the fact and offering him a payout only makes it that much worse. They need to settle this and just hope it goes away quickly.

[shari91]

Yeah? That's stupid betting strategy I think! The guy was very lucky but not in his case!

When I first moved here I did this all the time. Figured the more runners I picked, the more money I'd make. Only took a few times of getting paid out way less than I'd paid for the ticket until I chucked that theory on it's arse.

[TennisProFrance]

This was an interesting quote:

This was a very well organised
rort manipulating totes in the same manner as the Lucys Light affair and kudos
to those that pulled it off. They havent done anything illegal so are entitled
to get paid.

The bloke on TV is just the bowler.

It's probably something like this, but as mentioned, it's playing the game and pulling the wool over bookies eyes. Not really on the scale of Barney Curley but nice to see them pull one off. For those who don't know Barney Curley just google him.

[brettels]

70k not Million :P

He spent $5k on the race but only had the winning combination/dividend 5 times

the dividend, 14k+ for every dollar, if it was 5k bet on that dvidend it would be over 70 mill, its what others in other forums say, the way i read what they are saying. so yeah, nevermind.

I still hope justin7 calls ch7 and puts his hand up, i can see them flying him to australia to be on Today Tonight with the punter explaining how he got bet365 to pay up. This place would become over run with aussie members! It would be amazing.

[brettels]

When I first moved here I did this all the time. Figured the more runners I picked, the more money I'd make. Only took a few times of getting paid out way less than I'd paid for the ticket until I chucked that theory on it's arse.

First of all, you silly girl!

2nd, you're still here? i thought you were long gone to costa rica??!!

[shari91]

First of all, you silly girl!

2nd, you're still here? i thought you were long gone to costa rica??!!

Still here darling. In court trying to get out. Yet bloody again.

But I'm watching Go Back To Where You Came From on SBS right now and have for the past 2 nights... and as much as I hate being trapped in this country at the moment (because no one should be trapped) and hate a few of the policies here ie gay marriage... watching this mini series has really made me grateful for where I currently live. The fact that I'm so outraged that a sportsbook isn't paying out a punter really drives home what a first world problem that is. If you haven't been watching it and you ever have the time (I started to PM you tonight to ask if you were watching because I wanted to talk to you about it but got a live chat call and got distracted), do so. And then PM me after with your thoughts. 3 episodes.

[Optional]

Just started watching Episode 1 on SBS2

Can't believe Peter Reith went on this.

I rent out a room to a 'boat person' btw.

[shari91]

Just started watching Episode 1 on SBS2

Can't believe Peter Reith went on this.

I rent out a room to a 'boat person' btw.

I had no preconceived notions about him because I wasn't here during the whole Children Overboard issue obviously. But my Aussie friends who have watched have really changed their perception about him. He's not perfect but I think you might be surprised a bit. And also by Imogen. So happy you're watching it - let me know what you think when you're done. I only wish it had been broadcast on every fta channel so it got the exposure it deserved. I feel like a very different person after watching this for the past 3 nights. (And you're a good man Charlie Brown... but you know I already felt that way )

[Dux90]

Some of these from elsewhere are interesting:

"This story has actually been out for a while, it was reported in the Northern Territory/Darwin newspaper on the Friday before the (Darwin) cup.
I can't find it online but the story was the punter decided to bet up after getting his tax return so threw 5000 on a first 4 at ipswich.
Clearly the result fell favourably for him race wise, but it still doesn't quite fit for me as a completely honest/innocent transaction for either party."

"I heard it on ABC radio, the punter was said to be a well-known NT businessman, Steve Brunker."

"Made him out to look like a recreational punter who had to check his combinations after the race etc ... yet he mentions later 'investing' $12,992 on the first 4 ... at Ippy dogs!"

"Although this punter has been portrayed as a punter who just happened to "strike it lucky" I am sure he knew what he was doing. Knowing the race was " just another dog race" that would not attract any special attention.eg not a jackpot race where smarties are attracted like bees around a honey pot, the punter set up the corporate bookie for a killing,
A. He had to ensure the TAB declared a dividend. If no punter gets the First4 the TAB jackpots the pool to another race. On the other hand the corporate bookie must pay the punter if he has the winning combination .To do so they take the amount invested on the TAB ( Tatts in this case ) reduce that gross pool by the takeout rake , then divide that amount by what the punter had on the winning combination. In this case in question, based on the pool size on the Tatts website, and the punter's $5 on the winning combination,the dividend would have been (3540x.75 )/5=$531.00.
B. No doubt this punter backed the winning combination for a minimal amount on the TAB to ensure the dividend was declared for a $1 investment. It is of interest that $1510.46 was carried over as a jackpot to another race. As a rough guess I calculate he may have had around 14% ( I am open about that % ) of the dividend so that it could be declared as $14,632.60.
C. Whoever was at the wheel at Bet365 must have been asleep, as how could they let the punter have $4,992 on the First4 on an obscure dog race , unless they were all wet behind the ears and thought they had another mug in their clutches.
D. To save face ,they must pay up , otherwise they might as well pack up and head back to The Old Dart."

"The pools for the first 4 on the day at ipswich were reasonably consistent between 2200 and 2700. The race in question, which was R2 had a pool of 4700 (given the dividend QLD must allow a full payout for 25%).
It is obviously somewhat out of line with the other races. There are also only around 1700 combinations for the first four, and given he had the winning selection 5 times I assume that he was reasonably well covered through the race."

I do not know anything about dog racing so not sure how it got so high, that being said just the fact that they tried to settle and pay him to shut up makes them sketchy IMO. I googled some stuff on B365 and it just seems like they are not reputable they seem to have no prob taking people money if they loose. They also changed the rules and post dated it which is another shady move. My whole issue with this is that there are way more loosing gambler than winning ones unless there is something major I am missing which is possible is that amount of money going to bankrupt the company? NO. Pay the man his money fire the people who work there that let something like this happen and move on try to get a good reputation back cause stuff like this is going to make them loose a lot more money than if they just paid the bloke. Just my 2 cents.