La Mer,

I would have thought that "watch the pool size" (no matter who your service provider is) is so obvious to all that it's not worth mentioning.

And how realistic is your example of $200 on a 20-something? For a start the winnings exceed bookmakers' obligations so would any fixed-price operator accept that much exposure, unless the client was a known consistent loser?

The pool size is very prominently displayed so it's unlikely that any sane person would try plonking that much on a longshot.

If they did then they would get real-time feedback on much they had crushed the pool. That dramatic reality-check would probably leave them with a lesson they'd remember for the rest of their life.

I'd imagine that if Mr Big Enough was trying to put substantial bets like that on AusTote then he would merely put a number of smaller bets, monitoring the effect of the diminishing returns each time.

Once the premium got squeezed then maybe he'd try shopping around elsewhere, although I suspect that Triple-Tote limits of a $100 means he could only plonk on $4. I wouldn't know.

I remind all of my new table which combines my original data with KennyVictor's BestTote figures, and suggests that AusTote is still a clear winner.

That should be the important issue here, rather than speculation about Winston's alma mater.