So Landscape will be declared a N/R and a 40p/45p in the £ deduction will be levied on all the other runners.
Nice work if you can get it given that the horse's actual chances of winning are less than 10% and it is being levied on a book with a massive overround.
City Bankers got time for fixing LIBOR rates. Perhaps the bookies should be made to show their books to demonstrate how much they have actually taken on these heavily backed horses - and to explain why they haven't pushed out the other runners.
This looks like a layer's coup, not a backers coup.
Back the second favourites - that's where the value will be!!
Not if the book's 150% it won't be. Bookmakers wouldn't do that would they?
Oh yes they would because, for example, Bet 365's book for the 3.20 reads Pulsating 13/8 (and it isn't even the favourite!), 4/5, 5/1, 7/1, 11/1, 14/1 & 16/1.
Don't exaggerate - that book is 143.5% ;-)
Betfair by the way are currently betting to 148.6% - and the best price book is 117%
Joking aside Bob, those overrounds are shocking. Do bookies assume that all punters are stupid?
Yes of course they are. What I would say is that in that particular race there was a (stupid) gamble on one horse and bookmakers quite rightly need to protect their liabilities (bookmakers in it for profit? No shit Sherlock!). But at the same time they also have to protect exposure to the 'true' favourite and add to that it's an AW race worth tuppence and it was the night before. Exceptional circumstances.
I've just had a look at the first two races at Southwell today and bet365 prices on those races are at 114% and 111% - can't be arsed to check but most other mainstream bookmakers will be about the same. Those 'theoretical' margins are not unreasonable.
Seriously, there has never been a better time to be a punter in terms of low bookmaker margins and choice. For example the big game tonight Liverpool v Chelsea - we are betting to 102.5% (Laddies 104% btw!) - it's not that long ago (although I do go back a long way) that typically a top flight football match would be 112%.
This looks like a layer's coup, not a backers coup.
Back the second favourites - that's where the value will be!!
Not if the book's 150% it won't be. Bookmakers wouldn't do that would they?
Oh yes they would because, for example, Bet 365's book for the 3.20 reads Pulsating 13/8 (and it isn't even the favourite!), 4/5, 5/1, 7/1, 11/1, 14/1 & 16/1.
Don't exaggerate - that book is 143.5% ;-)
Betfair by the way are currently betting to 148.6% - and the best price book is 117%
Joking aside Bob, those overrounds are shocking. Do bookies assume that all punters are stupid?
Yes of course they are. What I would say is that in that particular race there was a (stupid) gamble on one horse and bookmakers quite rightly need to protect their liabilities (bookmakers in it for profit? No shit Sherlock!). But at the same time they also have to protect exposure to the 'true' favourite and add to that it's an AW race worth tuppence and it was the night before. Exceptional circumstances.
I've just had a look at the first two races at Southwell today and bet365 prices on those races are at 114% and 111% - can't be arsed to check but most other mainstream bookmakers will be about the same. Those 'theoretical' margins are not unreasonable.
Seriously, there has never been a better time to be a punter in terms of low bookmaker margins and choice. For example the big game tonight Liverpool v Chelsea - we are betting to 102.5% (Laddies 104% btw!) - it's not that long ago (although I do go back a long way) that typically a top flight football match would be 112%.
And if Betfair (the Exchange that is not the bookie) hadn't come about it would still be 112%.
Still commendable that Bet365 have reduced their margin to such an extent and they probably would have been at the front had Bert and his pals not brought Betfair into existence.
Doesn't explain the need to protect the "real" favourite. The book should be based on money taken not "theory". And a 45p deduction on a "false" fav being withdrawn is, frankly, scandalous.
This looks like a layer's coup, not a backers coup.
Back the second favourites - that's where the value will be!!
Not if the book's 150% it won't be. Bookmakers wouldn't do that would they?
Oh yes they would because, for example, Bet 365's book for the 3.20 reads Pulsating 13/8 (and it isn't even the favourite!), 4/5, 5/1, 7/1, 11/1, 14/1 & 16/1.
Don't exaggerate - that book is 143.5% ;-)
Betfair by the way are currently betting to 148.6% - and the best price book is 117%
Joking aside Bob, those overrounds are shocking. Do bookies assume that all punters are stupid?
Yes of course they are. What I would say is that in that particular race there was a (stupid) gamble on one horse and bookmakers quite rightly need to protect their liabilities (bookmakers in it for profit? No shit Sherlock!). But at the same time they also have to protect exposure to the 'true' favourite and add to that it's an AW race worth tuppence and it was the night before. Exceptional circumstances.
I've just had a look at the first two races at Southwell today and bet365 prices on those races are at 114% and 111% - can't be arsed to check but most other mainstream bookmakers will be about the same. Those 'theoretical' margins are not unreasonable.
Seriously, there has never been a better time to be a punter in terms of low bookmaker margins and choice. For example the big game tonight Liverpool v Chelsea - we are betting to 102.5% (Laddies 104% btw!) - it's not that long ago (although I do go back a long way) that typically a top flight football match would be 112%.
And if Betfair (the Exchange that is not the bookie) hadn't come about it would still be 112%.
Still commendable that Bet365 have reduced their margin to such an extent and they probably would have been at the front had Bert and his pals not brought Betfair into existence.
Doesn't explain the need to protect the "real" favourite. The book should be based on money taken not "theory". And a 45p deduction on a "false" fav being withdrawn is, frankly, scandalous.
It is a tuppence race - pretty much the only money taken last night would have been on the gamble and those stakes will be refunded. The rule 4 would apply to very few bets but I agree that anyone who backed the others at the prices last night has been hard done by - blame the twats who started it though! And as you know Tattersalls Rule 4(c) is part of the Rules of Racing - not a bookmaker derived rule.
I'll pick you up on your last point - and fundamentally disagree. What you are proposing is actually theory - i.e. relying on using the built in margin to deliver profit and always have prices that directly reflect the liabilities. If prices reflected the money taken then pretty much every race would have an odds on favourite!
If you were offering odds on a series of coin tosses you may price it up as 10/11 Heads, 10/11 Tails. If the bulk of the money you saw was for heads would you change the prices to reflect the money - say 4/6 Heads, 6/5 Tails? You would soon be a busted bookie if you did.
Margins bookmakers operate to are tiny - for example last year our Gross Margin was 3.5% and our Net Margin was 1.3%
I'm a poacher and a gamekeeper so I try to keep a balanced view. Gamekeepers turned poacher are the worst ;-)
This looks like a layer's coup, not a backers coup.
Back the second favourites - that's where the value will be!!
Not if the book's 150% it won't be. Bookmakers wouldn't do that would they?
Oh yes they would because, for example, Bet 365's book for the 3.20 reads Pulsating 13/8 (and it isn't even the favourite!), 4/5, 5/1, 7/1, 11/1, 14/1 & 16/1.
Don't exaggerate - that book is 143.5% ;-)
Betfair by the way are currently betting to 148.6% - and the best price book is 117%
Joking aside Bob, those overrounds are shocking. Do bookies assume that all punters are stupid?
Yes of course they are. What I would say is that in that particular race there was a (stupid) gamble on one horse and bookmakers quite rightly need to protect their liabilities (bookmakers in it for profit? No shit Sherlock!). But at the same time they also have to protect exposure to the 'true' favourite and add to that it's an AW race worth tuppence and it was the night before. Exceptional circumstances.
I've just had a look at the first two races at Southwell today and bet365 prices on those races are at 114% and 111% - can't be arsed to check but most other mainstream bookmakers will be about the same. Those 'theoretical' margins are not unreasonable.
Seriously, there has never been a better time to be a punter in terms of low bookmaker margins and choice. For example the big game tonight Liverpool v Chelsea - we are betting to 102.5% (Laddies 104% btw!) - it's not that long ago (although I do go back a long way) that typically a top flight football match would be 112%.
And if Betfair (the Exchange that is not the bookie) hadn't come about it would still be 112%.
Still commendable that Bet365 have reduced their margin to such an extent and they probably would have been at the front had Bert and his pals not brought Betfair into existence.
Doesn't explain the need to protect the "real" favourite. The book should be based on money taken not "theory". And a 45p deduction on a "false" fav being withdrawn is, frankly, scandalous.
It is a tuppence race - pretty much the only money taken last night would have been on the gamble and those stakes will be refunded. The rule 4 would apply to very few bets but I agree that anyone who backed the others at the prices last night has been hard done by - blame the twats who started it though! And as you know Tattersalls Rule 4(c) is part of the Rules of Racing - not a bookmaker derived rule.
I'll pick you up on your last point - and fundamentally disagree. What you are proposing is actually theory - i.e. relying on using the built in margin to deliver profit and always have prices that directly reflect the liabilities. If prices reflected the money taken then pretty much every race would have an odds on favourite!
If you were offering odds on a series of coin tosses you may price it up as 10/11 Heads, 10/11 Tails. If the bulk of the money you saw was for heads would you change the prices to reflect the money - say 4/6 Heads, 6/5 Tails? You would soon be a busted bookie if you did.
Margins bookmakers operate to are tiny - for example last year our Gross Margin was 3.5% and our Net Margin was 1.3%
I'm a poacher and a gamekeeper so I try to keep a balanced view. Gamekeepers turned poacher are the worst ;-)
And I will take you up on one point Bob. I never intended to be a "poacher". I joined Betfair virtually in its infancy and would not have done so had they been a bookmaker. And when they opted to become a bookmaker as well as an Exchange I chose to leave.
As for your comment about Tatts it rather reminds me of the times that the likes of Laddies or William Hill would blame SIS for loss of pictures or misinformation provided regarding prices , incorrect non runners etc etc - when they owned SIS!!!
As for your comment about Tatts it rather reminds me of the times that the likes of Laddies or William Hill would blame SIS for loss of pictures or misinformation provided regarding prices , incorrect non runners etc etc - when they owned SIS!!!
Yes - the good old days!! Not to mention Extel commentaries!!
But comparing SIS and Tatts are not quite the same - bet365 don't own The Jockey Club (yet!!).
The days of Extel commentaries!!! Both addick and bob great points you both make. Bookies and pro gamblers both need the idiot punters and thankfully there are plenty of them out there.
The days of Extel commentaries!!! Both addick and bob great points you both make. Bookies and pro gamblers both need the idiot punters and thankfully there are plenty of them out there.
Typically Extel commentary for a dog race.
"2 quickly away followed by 1, 3, 5, 6, with 4 the back marker. First bend and still 2 from now 5, 3 hampered. Down the back straight it's still 2 being challenged by 5 followed by 6, 4 and 1 with 3 the back marker. Round the final bend it's 2 and 5 neck and neck followed by 6 closing. Up to the line it's 2, 5 - 5, 2 it's close.
I did say that the trainer hadn't had a winner for more than two years so, unless Barney Curley had been training them on the quiet, the chances that one let alone two or three of his winning were next to zero.
Which makes the bookies running for cover in instances such as this even more pathetic. Seriously, since the advent of Betfair, how many times have actual multiple bet coups of this nature been successful? Probably two or three and Curley would have been involved in all of them. And please don't tell me that bookies don't now know the connections between certain owners/trainers with Curley.
Bookies take advantage of the situation by building in a bigger margin. As they do when shortening up a likely N/R on course and also when there is a late gamble - with the excuse that there wasn't enough time to re-price the market so the punter will just have to take it on the chin.
Yet the RP front page has their PR men squealing when a N/R isn't declared costing them a few bob - and publicly stating that the BHA should cover their losses!!!
This looks like a layer's coup, not a backers coup.
Back the second favourites - that's where the value will be!!
Not if the book's 150% it won't be. Bookmakers wouldn't do that would they?
Oh yes they would because, for example, Bet 365's book for the 3.20 reads Pulsating 13/8 (and it isn't even the favourite!), 4/5, 5/1, 7/1, 11/1, 14/1 & 16/1.
Don't exaggerate - that book is 143.5% ;-)
Betfair by the way are currently betting to 148.6% - and the best price book is 117%
Joking aside Bob, those overrounds are shocking. Do bookies assume that all punters are stupid?
Yes of course they are. What I would say is that in that particular race there was a (stupid) gamble on one horse and bookmakers quite rightly need to protect their liabilities (bookmakers in it for profit? No shit Sherlock!). But at the same time they also have to protect exposure to the 'true' favourite and add to that it's an AW race worth tuppence and it was the night before. Exceptional circumstances.
I've just had a look at the first two races at Southwell today and bet365 prices on those races are at 114% and 111% - can't be arsed to check but most other mainstream bookmakers will be about the same. Those 'theoretical' margins are not unreasonable.
Seriously, there has never been a better time to be a punter in terms of low bookmaker margins and choice. For example the big game tonight Liverpool v Chelsea - we are betting to 102.5% (Laddies 104% btw!) - it's not that long ago (although I do go back a long way) that typically a top flight football match would be 112%.
And if Betfair (the Exchange that is not the bookie) hadn't come about it would still be 112%.
Still commendable that Bet365 have reduced their margin to such an extent and they probably would have been at the front had Bert and his pals not brought Betfair into existence.
Doesn't explain the need to protect the "real" favourite. The book should be based on money taken not "theory". And a 45p deduction on a "false" fav being withdrawn is, frankly, scandalous.
It is a tuppence race - pretty much the only money taken last night would have been on the gamble and those stakes will be refunded. The rule 4 would apply to very few bets but I agree that anyone who backed the others at the prices last night has been hard done by - blame the twats who started it though! And as you know Tattersalls Rule 4(c) is part of the Rules of Racing - not a bookmaker derived rule.
I'll pick you up on your last point - and fundamentally disagree. What you are proposing is actually theory - i.e. relying on using the built in margin to deliver profit and always have prices that directly reflect the liabilities. If prices reflected the money taken then pretty much every race would have an odds on favourite!
If you were offering odds on a series of coin tosses you may price it up as 10/11 Heads, 10/11 Tails. If the bulk of the money you saw was for heads would you change the prices to reflect the money - say 4/6 Heads, 6/5 Tails? You would soon be a busted bookie if you did.
Margins bookmakers operate to are tiny - for example last year our Gross Margin was 3.5% and our Net Margin was 1.3%
I'm a poacher and a gamekeeper so I try to keep a balanced view. Gamekeepers turned poacher are the worst ;-)
I see Bet 365's pre-tax profit was only £459 million according to the latest accounts.
This looks like a layer's coup, not a backers coup.
Back the second favourites - that's where the value will be!!
Not if the book's 150% it won't be. Bookmakers wouldn't do that would they?
Oh yes they would because, for example, Bet 365's book for the 3.20 reads Pulsating 13/8 (and it isn't even the favourite!), 4/5, 5/1, 7/1, 11/1, 14/1 & 16/1.
Don't exaggerate - that book is 143.5% ;-)
Betfair by the way are currently betting to 148.6% - and the best price book is 117%
Joking aside Bob, those overrounds are shocking. Do bookies assume that all punters are stupid?
Yes of course they are. What I would say is that in that particular race there was a (stupid) gamble on one horse and bookmakers quite rightly need to protect their liabilities (bookmakers in it for profit? No shit Sherlock!). But at the same time they also have to protect exposure to the 'true' favourite and add to that it's an AW race worth tuppence and it was the night before. Exceptional circumstances.
I've just had a look at the first two races at Southwell today and bet365 prices on those races are at 114% and 111% - can't be arsed to check but most other mainstream bookmakers will be about the same. Those 'theoretical' margins are not unreasonable.
Seriously, there has never been a better time to be a punter in terms of low bookmaker margins and choice. For example the big game tonight Liverpool v Chelsea - we are betting to 102.5% (Laddies 104% btw!) - it's not that long ago (although I do go back a long way) that typically a top flight football match would be 112%.
And if Betfair (the Exchange that is not the bookie) hadn't come about it would still be 112%.
Still commendable that Bet365 have reduced their margin to such an extent and they probably would have been at the front had Bert and his pals not brought Betfair into existence.
Doesn't explain the need to protect the "real" favourite. The book should be based on money taken not "theory". And a 45p deduction on a "false" fav being withdrawn is, frankly, scandalous.
It is a tuppence race - pretty much the only money taken last night would have been on the gamble and those stakes will be refunded. The rule 4 would apply to very few bets but I agree that anyone who backed the others at the prices last night has been hard done by - blame the twats who started it though! And as you know Tattersalls Rule 4(c) is part of the Rules of Racing - not a bookmaker derived rule.
I'll pick you up on your last point - and fundamentally disagree. What you are proposing is actually theory - i.e. relying on using the built in margin to deliver profit and always have prices that directly reflect the liabilities. If prices reflected the money taken then pretty much every race would have an odds on favourite!
If you were offering odds on a series of coin tosses you may price it up as 10/11 Heads, 10/11 Tails. If the bulk of the money you saw was for heads would you change the prices to reflect the money - say 4/6 Heads, 6/5 Tails? You would soon be a busted bookie if you did.
Margins bookmakers operate to are tiny - for example last year our Gross Margin was 3.5% and our Net Margin was 1.3%
I'm a poacher and a gamekeeper so I try to keep a balanced view. Gamekeepers turned poacher are the worst ;-)
I see Bet 365's pre-tax profit was only £459 million according to the latest accounts.
That's no small amount!
I'm not complaining!!
But I was talking about margins - 3.5% Gross lead to a £459m profit. Also, 3.5% was a very good year.
A 1% drop in gross margin (to 2.5%) would have cost us £131m in pre-tax profit.
This looks like a layer's coup, not a backers coup.
Back the second favourites - that's where the value will be!!
Not if the book's 150% it won't be. Bookmakers wouldn't do that would they?
Oh yes they would because, for example, Bet 365's book for the 3.20 reads Pulsating 13/8 (and it isn't even the favourite!), 4/5, 5/1, 7/1, 11/1, 14/1 & 16/1.
Don't exaggerate - that book is 143.5% ;-)
Betfair by the way are currently betting to 148.6% - and the best price book is 117%
Joking aside Bob, those overrounds are shocking. Do bookies assume that all punters are stupid?
Yes of course they are. What I would say is that in that particular race there was a (stupid) gamble on one horse and bookmakers quite rightly need to protect their liabilities (bookmakers in it for profit? No shit Sherlock!). But at the same time they also have to protect exposure to the 'true' favourite and add to that it's an AW race worth tuppence and it was the night before. Exceptional circumstances.
I've just had a look at the first two races at Southwell today and bet365 prices on those races are at 114% and 111% - can't be arsed to check but most other mainstream bookmakers will be about the same. Those 'theoretical' margins are not unreasonable.
Seriously, there has never been a better time to be a punter in terms of low bookmaker margins and choice. For example the big game tonight Liverpool v Chelsea - we are betting to 102.5% (Laddies 104% btw!) - it's not that long ago (although I do go back a long way) that typically a top flight football match would be 112%.
And if Betfair (the Exchange that is not the bookie) hadn't come about it would still be 112%.
Still commendable that Bet365 have reduced their margin to such an extent and they probably would have been at the front had Bert and his pals not brought Betfair into existence.
Doesn't explain the need to protect the "real" favourite. The book should be based on money taken not "theory". And a 45p deduction on a "false" fav being withdrawn is, frankly, scandalous.
It is a tuppence race - pretty much the only money taken last night would have been on the gamble and those stakes will be refunded. The rule 4 would apply to very few bets but I agree that anyone who backed the others at the prices last night has been hard done by - blame the twats who started it though! And as you know Tattersalls Rule 4(c) is part of the Rules of Racing - not a bookmaker derived rule.
I'll pick you up on your last point - and fundamentally disagree. What you are proposing is actually theory - i.e. relying on using the built in margin to deliver profit and always have prices that directly reflect the liabilities. If prices reflected the money taken then pretty much every race would have an odds on favourite!
If you were offering odds on a series of coin tosses you may price it up as 10/11 Heads, 10/11 Tails. If the bulk of the money you saw was for heads would you change the prices to reflect the money - say 4/6 Heads, 6/5 Tails? You would soon be a busted bookie if you did.
Margins bookmakers operate to are tiny - for example last year our Gross Margin was 3.5% and our Net Margin was 1.3%
I'm a poacher and a gamekeeper so I try to keep a balanced view. Gamekeepers turned poacher are the worst ;-)
I see Bet 365's pre-tax profit was only £459 million according to the latest accounts.
That's no small amount!
I'm not complaining!!
But I was talking about margins - 3.5% Gross lead to a £459m profit. Also, 3.5% was a very good year.
A 1% drop in gross margin (to 2.5%) would have cost us £131m in pre-tax profit.
A 1% would represent a pre-tax profit of "only" £328m and for that to happen one of three things would have to have happened:
(1) A lot of successful coups - as discussed this won't happen because of the massive protection bookies afford themselves with an exaggerated book.
(2) A series of extraordinary results favouring the punter.
(3) Incompetent traders.
So (1) ain't gonna happen, (2) might happen but unlikely and if (3) is the core problem then, in my humble opinion, Bet365 would have just one option to rectify the situation - sack the HR Director!
This looks like a layer's coup, not a backers coup.
Back the second favourites - that's where the value will be!!
Not if the book's 150% it won't be. Bookmakers wouldn't do that would they?
Oh yes they would because, for example, Bet 365's book for the 3.20 reads Pulsating 13/8 (and it isn't even the favourite!), 4/5, 5/1, 7/1, 11/1, 14/1 & 16/1.
Don't exaggerate - that book is 143.5% ;-)
Betfair by the way are currently betting to 148.6% - and the best price book is 117%
Joking aside Bob, those overrounds are shocking. Do bookies assume that all punters are stupid?
Yes of course they are. What I would say is that in that particular race there was a (stupid) gamble on one horse and bookmakers quite rightly need to protect their liabilities (bookmakers in it for profit? No shit Sherlock!). But at the same time they also have to protect exposure to the 'true' favourite and add to that it's an AW race worth tuppence and it was the night before. Exceptional circumstances.
I've just had a look at the first two races at Southwell today and bet365 prices on those races are at 114% and 111% - can't be arsed to check but most other mainstream bookmakers will be about the same. Those 'theoretical' margins are not unreasonable.
Seriously, there has never been a better time to be a punter in terms of low bookmaker margins and choice. For example the big game tonight Liverpool v Chelsea - we are betting to 102.5% (Laddies 104% btw!) - it's not that long ago (although I do go back a long way) that typically a top flight football match would be 112%.
And if Betfair (the Exchange that is not the bookie) hadn't come about it would still be 112%.
Still commendable that Bet365 have reduced their margin to such an extent and they probably would have been at the front had Bert and his pals not brought Betfair into existence.
Doesn't explain the need to protect the "real" favourite. The book should be based on money taken not "theory". And a 45p deduction on a "false" fav being withdrawn is, frankly, scandalous.
It is a tuppence race - pretty much the only money taken last night would have been on the gamble and those stakes will be refunded. The rule 4 would apply to very few bets but I agree that anyone who backed the others at the prices last night has been hard done by - blame the twats who started it though! And as you know Tattersalls Rule 4(c) is part of the Rules of Racing - not a bookmaker derived rule.
I'll pick you up on your last point - and fundamentally disagree. What you are proposing is actually theory - i.e. relying on using the built in margin to deliver profit and always have prices that directly reflect the liabilities. If prices reflected the money taken then pretty much every race would have an odds on favourite!
If you were offering odds on a series of coin tosses you may price it up as 10/11 Heads, 10/11 Tails. If the bulk of the money you saw was for heads would you change the prices to reflect the money - say 4/6 Heads, 6/5 Tails? You would soon be a busted bookie if you did.
Margins bookmakers operate to are tiny - for example last year our Gross Margin was 3.5% and our Net Margin was 1.3%
I'm a poacher and a gamekeeper so I try to keep a balanced view. Gamekeepers turned poacher are the worst ;-)
I see Bet 365's pre-tax profit was only £459 million according to the latest accounts.
That's no small amount!
I'm not complaining!!
But I was talking about margins - 3.5% Gross lead to a £459m profit. Also, 3.5% was a very good year.
A 1% drop in gross margin (to 2.5%) would have cost us £131m in pre-tax profit.
A 1% would represent a pre-tax profit of "only" £328m and for that to happen one of three things would have to have happened:
(1) A lot of successful coups - as discussed this won't happen because of the massive protection bookies afford themselves with an exaggerated book.
(2) A series of extraordinary results favouring the punter.
(3) Incompetent traders.
So (1) ain't gonna happen, (2) might happen but unlikely and if (3) is the core problem then, in my humble opinion, Bet365 would have just one option to rectify the situation - sack the HR Director!
There are some days when I so wish that would happen!!
Bob You must be losing custom hand over fist to Betway, now that Bet365 have withdrawn BOG Plus.....?
Errr no - not losing any sleep over it put it that way!! Also you need to bear in mind that horseracing accounts for a small percentage of our turnover.
Wait for the Cheltenham Oddschecker figures - I would be amazed if we weren't still clearly ahead.
I've heard stories of bookmakers closing people's accounts when they win too much or too often. Is this true?
Of course it happens - the bookmakers want mug punters not shrewd ones! In practice bookies can normally dissuade winning punters from betting with them simply by restricting their stakes and withdrawing offers such as Best Odds Guaranteed.
I open an account with, let's say £200. After 12 months of backing 3 horses per day as 3 singles and a trixie each day, let's say I now have £ 10,000 in my betting account.
The bookmaker could close my account and keep all the money? That's outrageous if so!
I open an account with, let's say £200. After 12 months of backing 3 horses per day as 3 singles and a trixie each day, let's say I now have £ 10,000 in my betting account.
The bookmaker could close my account and keep all the money? That's outrageous if so!
Or am I missing something?
They don't keep your money, you simply can't bet with them any more.
I've heard stories of bookmakers closing people's accounts when they win too much or too often. Is this true?
Of course it happens - the bookmakers want mug punters not shrewd ones! In practice bookies can normally dissuade winning punters from betting with them simply by restricting their stakes and withdrawing offers such as Best Odds Guaranteed.
They restrict so their PR men/women can gleefully announce in the media that they don't close accounts. But restricting accounts to as little as 10p or 20p is just a sly way of doing it.
If you really want to upset a bookmaker, try finding a horse/football team etc etc that you can back with a bookmaker and lay at a shorter price on Betfair. Known in the trade as "dirty arbers" they are considered the worst form of punter by bookies. But then that's because the bookmakers' traders don't like being caught with their trousers down!
I open an account with, let's say £200. After 12 months of backing 3 horses per day as 3 singles and a trixie each day, let's say I now have £ 10,000 in my betting account.
The bookmaker could close my account and keep all the money? That's outrageous if so!
Or am I missing something?
They don't keep your money, you simply can't bet with them any more.
So I could still withdraw the 10k, I just wouldn't be able to place any more bets?
I open an account with, let's say £200. After 12 months of backing 3 horses per day as 3 singles and a trixie each day, let's say I now have £ 10,000 in my betting account.
The bookmaker could close my account and keep all the money? That's outrageous if so!
Or am I missing something?
They don't keep your money, you simply can't bet with them any more.
So I could still withdraw the 10k, I just wouldn't be able to place any more bets?
I open an account with, let's say £200. After 12 months of backing 3 horses per day as 3 singles and a trixie each day, let's say I now have £ 10,000 in my betting account.
The bookmaker could close my account and keep all the money? That's outrageous if so!
Or am I missing something?
They don't keep your money, you simply can't bet with them any more.
So I could still withdraw the 10k, I just wouldn't be able to place any more bets?
Yes - but they have been known not to pay out if they feel that "foul play" has occurred.
If you have been successful over that period to that extent it would be unusual for you to keep that sort of money in your betting account because:
(1) Bookies have been known to go bust
(2) Any one bookmaker is unlikely to offer the best odds for all your bets
The other issue is what happens to unclaimed winnings or "sleepers" as they are known - these will, I believe, go back to the bookmaker after a period of time which, to my mind, is totally wrong.
I open an account with, let's say £200. After 12 months of backing 3 horses per day as 3 singles and a trixie each day, let's say I now have £ 10,000 in my betting account.
The bookmaker could close my account and keep all the money? That's outrageous if so!
Or am I missing something?
They don't keep your money, you simply can't bet with them any more.
So I could still withdraw the 10k, I just wouldn't be able to place any more bets?
Yes - but they have been known not to pay out if they feel that "foul play" has occurred.
If you have been successful over that period to that extent it would be unusual for you to keep that sort of money in your betting account because:
(1) Bookies have been known to go bust
(2) Any one bookmaker is unlikely to offer the best odds for all your bets
The other issue is what happens to unclaimed winnings or "sleepers" as they are known - these will, I believe, go back to the bookmaker after a period of time which, to my mind, is totally wrong.
If there are issues of potential fraud or money laundering or a suspicion that the funds are the proceeds of crime then bookmakers, in collaboration with the relevant authorities, will hold funds pending further investigation. That is their legal and regulatory responsibility.
That aside, if an account is closed then any money still in the account will be returned to the customer, but you are correct in that a customer should not keep large sums in their account as bookmakers have been known to go bust! It is not a requirement for bookmakers to hold client funds in separate untouchable, ring-fenced accounts to protect against this, so be sure to check to see if your bookmaker does - some do and some don't. If they do then your money is always safe.
Comments
Nice work if you can get it given that the horse's actual chances of winning are less than 10% and it is being levied on a book with a massive overround.
City Bankers got time for fixing LIBOR rates. Perhaps the bookies should be made to show their books to demonstrate how much they have actually taken on these heavily backed horses - and to explain why they haven't pushed out the other runners.
I've just had a look at the first two races at Southwell today and bet365 prices on those races are at 114% and 111% - can't be arsed to check but most other mainstream bookmakers will be about the same. Those 'theoretical' margins are not unreasonable.
Seriously, there has never been a better time to be a punter in terms of low bookmaker margins and choice. For example the big game tonight Liverpool v Chelsea - we are betting to 102.5% (Laddies 104% btw!) - it's not that long ago (although I do go back a long way) that typically a top flight football match would be 112%.
Still commendable that Bet365 have reduced their margin to such an extent and they probably would have been at the front had Bert and his pals not brought Betfair into existence.
Doesn't explain the need to protect the "real" favourite. The book should be based on money taken not "theory". And a 45p deduction on a "false" fav being withdrawn is, frankly, scandalous.
At the time of withdrawal Up Four It's price was 11/4. It's now 9/4.
A somewhat punitive penalty on those punters who had the audacity to take an early price on Up Four It.
At least Dick Turpin wore a mask.
I'll pick you up on your last point - and fundamentally disagree. What you are proposing is actually theory - i.e. relying on using the built in margin to deliver profit and always have prices that directly reflect the liabilities. If prices reflected the money taken then pretty much every race would have an odds on favourite!
If you were offering odds on a series of coin tosses you may price it up as 10/11 Heads, 10/11 Tails. If the bulk of the money you saw was for heads would you change the prices to reflect the money - say 4/6 Heads, 6/5 Tails? You would soon be a busted bookie if you did.
Margins bookmakers operate to are tiny - for example last year our Gross Margin was 3.5% and our Net Margin was 1.3%
I'm a poacher and a gamekeeper so I try to keep a balanced view. Gamekeepers turned poacher are the worst ;-)
As for your comment about Tatts it rather reminds me of the times that the likes of Laddies or William Hill would blame SIS for loss of pictures or misinformation provided regarding prices , incorrect non runners etc etc - when they owned SIS!!!
But comparing SIS and Tatts are not quite the same - bet365 don't own The Jockey Club (yet!!).
Both addick and bob great points you both make.
Bookies and pro gamblers both need the idiot punters and thankfully there are plenty of them out there.
"2 quickly away followed by 1, 3, 5, 6, with 4 the back marker. First bend and still 2 from now 5, 3 hampered. Down the back straight it's still 2 being challenged by 5 followed by 6, 4 and 1 with 3 the back marker. Round the final bend it's 2 and 5 neck and neck followed by 6 closing. Up to the line it's 2, 5 - 5, 2 it's close.
Result - first trap 4 second trap 3."
Which makes the bookies running for cover in instances such as this even more pathetic. Seriously, since the advent of Betfair, how many times have actual multiple bet coups of this nature been successful? Probably two or three and Curley would have been involved in all of them. And please don't tell me that bookies don't now know the connections between certain owners/trainers with Curley.
Bookies take advantage of the situation by building in a bigger margin. As they do when shortening up a likely N/R on course and also when there is a late gamble - with the excuse that there wasn't enough time to re-price the market so the punter will just have to take it on the chin.
Yet the RP front page has their PR men squealing when a N/R isn't declared costing them a few bob - and publicly stating that the BHA should cover their losses!!!
That's no small amount!
But I was talking about margins - 3.5% Gross lead to a £459m profit. Also, 3.5% was a very good year.
A 1% drop in gross margin (to 2.5%) would have cost us £131m in pre-tax profit.
(1) A lot of successful coups - as discussed this won't happen because of the massive protection bookies afford themselves with an exaggerated book.
(2) A series of extraordinary results favouring the punter.
(3) Incompetent traders.
So (1) ain't gonna happen, (2) might happen but unlikely and if (3) is the core problem then, in my humble opinion, Bet365 would have just one option to rectify the situation - sack the HR Director!
You must be losing custom hand over fist to Betway, now that Bet365 have withdrawn BOG Plus.....?
Wait for the Cheltenham Oddschecker figures - I would be amazed if we weren't still clearly ahead.
In practice bookies can normally dissuade winning punters from betting with them simply by restricting their stakes and withdrawing offers such as Best Odds Guaranteed.
I open an account with, let's say £200. After 12 months of backing 3 horses per day as 3 singles and a trixie each day, let's say I now have £ 10,000 in my betting account.
The bookmaker could close my account and keep all the money? That's outrageous if so!
Or am I missing something?
If you really want to upset a bookmaker, try finding a horse/football team etc etc that you can back with a bookmaker and lay at a shorter price on Betfair. Known in the trade as "dirty arbers" they are considered the worst form of punter by bookies. But then that's because the bookmakers' traders don't like being caught with their trousers down!
If you have been successful over that period to that extent it would be unusual for you to keep that sort of money in your betting account because:
(1) Bookies have been known to go bust
(2) Any one bookmaker is unlikely to offer the best odds for all your bets
The other issue is what happens to unclaimed winnings or "sleepers" as they are known - these will, I believe, go back to the bookmaker after a period of time which, to my mind, is totally wrong.
That aside, if an account is closed then any money still in the account will be returned to the customer, but you are correct in that a customer should not keep large sums in their account as bookmakers have been known to go bust! It is not a requirement for bookmakers to hold client funds in separate untouchable, ring-fenced accounts to protect against this, so be sure to check to see if your bookmaker does - some do and some don't. If they do then your money is always safe.