Is it logical to be able to back and lay at 4999/1 or would it upset?

In fact I have just noted that there is an arb there on Scunthorpe. :)

dc

So do you think it is a bad idea Aviboyd? Or is that all you can type?

you are off your Berwick Upon

I reckon they should go up to a google

A sensible question and I don't understand why people don't get this.

Are layers happy to sit in the queue at 1000.0 or should we be a bit more competitive? 5000.0 feels like the right odds to me or is this an upset applecart fing?

5000 isn't logical at all. 10000 is more logical.

I was hoping to be able to steal some at 5000.0

Should we get onto betfair and ask them to move the limits?

1000 increments up to 10000.0 That is logical the more I think about it.

kneecaps likes being able to lay at 1000

filthy arber

GASHWAN 23 Jan 14:48
filthy arber


That is a fascinating comment Mashy. Would you like to expand?

i'm trying to lose weight if anything

I prefer to keep it as it is.

It creates the potential for 'fat finger' errors on a whole new level.

Conversely, I do think it would make sense to be able to back/lay at 1.001, 1.002 etc.

I suspect that it will stay as it is for a while yet. It does seem unfair on the Accrington backer though. And you have to wonder how much faster the long odds would move if it was possible to offer up bigger odds.

It just seems silly to be in a race to get into the queue to lay a 100,000/1 shot at 1000/1.


I agree about having shorter odds too.1.001 should do it.

then 1.01 gubb would be no big deal, would have to wait for the 1.001 gubbage convention

but we already have that in the form of 1000.0 winners?