General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I have a question for tennis fans. I note that the Madrid mens outright winner is in overround on the lay side at about 102% (due to worries about Nadal starting maybe?). Now what would happen if my mate who has about $1000 in his account aggressively went and layed the whole field multiple times over to get a huge green on everyone (plenty of money coming to do this and say lay 20,000 all up Nadal, 10,000 Djoker, 10,000 Murray etc (off course in increments so that the green allows him to do it again. Then come Wednesday Nadal pulls out and there is a huge red on his book (because the lays of Nadal are void). Who picks up the tab?
I presume this has been done before in the past with someone busting badly but what would the consequences be?
I can remember about 10 years ago or even more where Nadal and Federer were both about 2.50 to win the tournament and ended up both withdrawing. That would have caused huge problems all round.
I presume this has been done before in the past with someone busting badly but what would the consequences be?
I can remember about 10 years ago or even more where Nadal and Federer were both about 2.50 to win the tournament and ended up both withdrawing. That would have caused huge problems all round.
Show More
In markets in which bets on runners who do not participate are made void, generally your exposure would be set to be the highest potential loss, regardless if nominally all green.
This applies in the Top Team Batsman markets in cricket, prior to confirmation of runners. If 13 players were listed and each player was available to lay at price 12, if you were to lay each player for £100 and be matched in full, despite nominally being all green to the amount of £100 on each player, your exposure would be £1100.
I'm not sure if the Tennis Outright Winner markets have been reset from the original all bets stand position to reflect the possibility of void selections as above?
If so, your mate would unable to lay any player to an amount exceeding his available funds, despite nominally being all green. If not, your friend would be liable and could potentially be pursued for the amount exceeding the funds held in his account.
This applies in the Top Team Batsman markets in cricket, prior to confirmation of runners. If 13 players were listed and each player was available to lay at price 12, if you were to lay each player for £100 and be matched in full, despite nominally being all green to the amount of £100 on each player, your exposure would be £1100.
I'm not sure if the Tennis Outright Winner markets have been reset from the original all bets stand position to reflect the possibility of void selections as above?
If so, your mate would unable to lay any player to an amount exceeding his available funds, despite nominally being all green. If not, your friend would be liable and could potentially be pursued for the amount exceeding the funds held in his account.
Cheers Dave23, that makes sense. I did hear some horror stories a few years ago where this happened and I think BF took a bath. Makes sense to change the markets to reflect this. Yes a non runner is voided in the tennis. Btw "my mate
my mate" was not a euphemism for me if you were wondering. I just saw the action and thought that it would present a conundrum. Ah yes off course the cricket is another type market where this could happen too. And yes I guess if my mate did do this he would still be liable. Cheers
I believe Betfair now aim to make it such that it's near impossible for a customer to have a potential exposure beyond their available funds, as with the cricket markets. There was the infamous MSE first goal-scorer market many years ago, where a similar situation to that you described occurred.
* I didn't doubt you at all.
* I didn't doubt you at all.
makes sense as that would be the natural evolution. Did not know about the MSE first goal-scorer but have heard and witnessed other huge blunders in the early days. I will let my mate know not to try his cunning plan :)
MSE story is here - read from the top as full horror dawns - people who know nothing about gambling and thought they'd found a money-printing machine realise their huge green book is actually a five-figure red book
https://www.betangel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4712
https://www.betangel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4712
As far as I know tennis tournaments DO allow exposure offsetting. Golf majors still do too.
It's not allowed on ante-post handicap horse races (e.g. Grand National) but is usually allowed
on non-handicaps (unless the racing team unilaterally change the rules, which they do sometime,
usually without notifying anyone else).
It's not allowed on ante-post handicap horse races (e.g. Grand National) but is usually allowed
on non-handicaps (unless the racing team unilaterally change the rules, which they do sometime,
usually without notifying anyone else).
Tyco, generally in tennis outright markets, not all potential winners are listed. Thus, all bets could be losers.
If all possible winners are listed for a market, then bf calculates your net exposure, and you can lay all outcomes as many times as you like as long as your net exposure does not exceed available funds. I have done this in the IPL outright market.
Note, a week or so ago, bf changed the net exposure calculation, as there appeared to be a bug in it. I know this because my exposure took a big drop with the last 'technical update'.
If all possible winners are listed for a market, then bf calculates your net exposure, and you can lay all outcomes as many times as you like as long as your net exposure does not exceed available funds. I have done this in the IPL outright market.
Note, a week or so ago, bf changed the net exposure calculation, as there appeared to be a bug in it. I know this because my exposure took a big drop with the last 'technical update'.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539