General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
25 Sep 12
14:44
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Jan 02
Not only is that margin far higher than any sports betting company in this country but it comes with absolutely no risk, so no need for a pricing or risk department either so it has lower associated costs. I know the Tote has a monopoly, which I believe Betfred acquired for 5 years? but it must be run by a bunch of dinosaurs to still to be taking 25-30% of winnings from all bets (save the commission that other betting operators clearly get when taking tote bets on behalf of the tote) from all sources. This is the 21st century where the internet reduces the costs of betting even further and the Tote must compete with exchanges taking 90% less of your winnings (ignoring premium charges)
Why is there no price discrimination at all? For example reducing the takeout if you bet through the internet, or reducing the take out through volume of bets (meaning the more money you place, the bigger discount you get). It's no wonder the Tote takes such a small proportion of money staked.
Why is there no price discrimination at all? For example reducing the takeout if you bet through the internet, or reducing the take out through volume of bets (meaning the more money you place, the bigger discount you get). It's no wonder the Tote takes such a small proportion of money staked.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 20
|
By:
The following prevail for Betfair customers, and therefore presumably all customers.
· Totewin Deduction 13.5% Net Pool=86.5% of stakes · Toteplace Deduction 18% Net Pool=82% of stakes · Toteexacta Deduction 26% Net Pool=74% of stakes · Totejackpot Deduction 29% Net Pool=71% of stakes · Toteplacepot Deduction 27% Net Pool=73% of stakes · Totequadpot Deduction 26% Net Pool=74% of stakes · Totetrifecta Deduction 26% Net Pool=74% of stakes · Toteswinger Deduction 30% Net Pool=70% of stakes · Totescoop6 Deduction 30% from each pool Net Pool= 70% of stakes It's safe to infer that that they know customers can perceive harsh margins in a "win single" context, and so that particular bet has a fairer margin. Enter into place, forecast and accumulator territory though and it's enough of a mathematical minefield for them to be incredibly stingy. What about in-house tote systems at greyhound stadiums? They take roughly 23% out of the pools, no? To me they've always seemed favourable to the trackside bookmaker's prices. |
|
By:
For example reducing the takeout if you bet through the internet, or reducing the take out through volume of bets (meaning the more money you place, the bigger discount you get). It's no wonder the Tote takes such a small proportion of money staked.
Totally agree Clydebank. Tote direct outlets do get around 70% of the takeout (after gp tax & levy) but why should those betting through the tote's own internet betting site have to subsidise those who choose to bet through external outfits. |
|
By:
The deductions are totally outdated & far too high. They should be moving to high turnover low margin.
They should also be quoted in the same terms as bookmaker shows. A 30% deduction is not the same as a 130% overround. |
|
By:
What do you think the take out is for football pools?
|
|
By:
this lot....http://www.footballpools.com/cust
is something close to 30% I believe. I opened an account with them 18 months ago approx and either emailed or spoke to live chat and asked them as I couldn't find it anywhere on the website. From memory the figure they gave me was close to 30% |
|
By:
I'm pretty sure it is a hell of a lot more than that.
I think it is nearer to double your figure. No great surprise that they don't advertise the fact. The probelm is that unlike almost all other pool bets where there are easy comparisons it is almost impossible to estimate the takeout from football pools based on the dividends paid. |
|
By:
Because:
- Joe Public is a mug The sharper players will however also play:- - inflated prices on rags; LEADING TO - arbitrage opportunties vs. TOTE & exchanges/fixed-odds. There is of course ignoring high-rolling turnover players qualifying for rebates from certain totaliser operators... Like any every other market - fish & sharks... |
|
By:
"Thank You for contacting The Football Pools.
I have been advised that our Expenses and Commissions figure are or around the 25.5%. This as a standard take out for this game and works very similar to the tote. There is also Pools betting duty to pay which is 4.5% for our Super 6 Pool" |
|
By:
What game was that for?
I'm sure I read somehwere that that the traditional 8 score draw pool has a crazy takeout of 60%+. |
|
By:
Just read your reply again and see that you mentioned it was for "Super 6 pool".
No idea what that is but maybe the newer products run at more traditional pool take out levels whereas the older products are far worse value. |
|
By:
Do they give rebates to big turnover players ?
This is common practice in Australia with some of the Tote operators. |
|
By:
Bearing in that a 30% take-out is over 42% over-round
 |
|
By:
As for the Swinger bet, their greed killed the bet at birth
|
|
By:
Castiron, many of the tote direct outlets give cashback to the bigger players. The tote themselves did it before Done took them over, don't know if they still do. It's not public knowledge though.
|
|
By:
The Euro and UK lotteries deducts 50%
Camelot operates the lottery and out of its 50% they give 12% to the government, 28% to UK Good Causes; 5% to retailers and keep 5% for running the lottery |
|
By:
and that 5% is RIDICULOUSLY high!
|
|
By:
On this subject does anybody know what the take-out is for all these bingo games that the sites now have? Finding figures seems extremely difficult which leads me to believe the takeout is extortionate when compared to other betting options.
|
|
By:
Re Camelot's 5%, Branson offered to do it on a non-profit basis. He was offered millions by Camelot to drop out which he reported to the lottery watchdog body. When the head of that body was asked by the press if Branson had reported that bribe to him he replied (on tv) "he may have done, I can't recall" (bet he could recall his own envelope). Given Branson was a tory supporter in the days of the Thatcher govt the mind boggles at the size of the brown envelopes that must have been handed out to the tories to reject Branson's offer. The fact Branson made the same non-profit offer when Camelot's contract came up for renewal (Blair years - Branson was then a new labour supporter) and was knocked back suggests the new tories must also have had their fill at the Camelot trough.
|
|
By:
Surely the more people you get betting on horse racing, the more interest there is in the sport going forward? Fixed odds bookies have to bet to a decent margin else they'd get picked off. The Tote/racing doesn't have that problem. That's a competitive advantage it's never used, happy to plod along with exorbitant take outs that were ok 20-30 years ago when betting on horse racing was seen as almost the only form of betting.
|
|
By:
Glaring example today 2-35 Newmarket 15 Rnrs---The csf paid more than the tote Trifecta
CSF £48.14; TRICAST £236.17 TRIFECTA £47.00 Pool: £1,668.18 - 26.21 winning tickets. nuff said |