Horse Antepost
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
18 Jan 12
20:29
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Mar 03
Anyone here get a 'phone call from BF today about their GN bets? To cut a long story short
they want to change the rules so that if you lay more than one horse they will ADD the liabilities
instead of offsetting them. This is to prevent people going from green to red when horses are
balloted out. In my case they want to increase my liability from £60 to approx £2600 in one fell
swoop.
I suggested that they should leave 40 horses in, but they said this was not possible. I pointed
out that the only horses that are "ballotable" are numbers 41 onwards but they refused to budge.
Basically, this means that only the professionals will be able to lay on the big handicaps because
most people (like me) won't have enough money in their accounts. It even (potentially) applies
to non-handicaps. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with.
Personally, I think it's unacceptable to make a rule change halfway through, although I realise
they are trying to protect people. Even if it only applied in the future it would be a sledgehammer
to crack a nut.
they want to change the rules so that if you lay more than one horse they will ADD the liabilities
instead of offsetting them. This is to prevent people going from green to red when horses are
balloted out. In my case they want to increase my liability from £60 to approx £2600 in one fell
swoop.
I suggested that they should leave 40 horses in, but they said this was not possible. I pointed
out that the only horses that are "ballotable" are numbers 41 onwards but they refused to budge.
Basically, this means that only the professionals will be able to lay on the big handicaps because
most people (like me) won't have enough money in their accounts. It even (potentially) applies
to non-handicaps. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with.
Personally, I think it's unacceptable to make a rule change halfway through, although I realise
they are trying to protect people. Even if it only applied in the future it would be a sledgehammer
to crack a nut.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 121
|
By:
I had email as well. Surely the death knell for antepost handicaps on Betfair, especially on the place markets.
|
|
By:
I had email as well. Surely the death knell for antepost handicaps on Betfair, especially on the place markets.
|
|
By:
It sounds crazy that they can't work out a better system somewhere between the two extremes.
If I PM you, will you send me the email? I only got a telephone call. |
|
By:
I have no idea what PM means but am happy to send a copy of the email
|
|
By:
Sorry. PM = personal message. Look out... I'm sending it now
 |
|
By:
Great value for punters: it's overround by 125% now, whereas it was under 110% for
a while last week. Clearly the layers are already pulling out. |
|
By:
This is alarming for layers (and therefore backers), Pete. I don't get your 'leave the top 40 in' bit, though? Can you expand a bit please?
I assume they won't be adopting this for non-handicaps? Not many will be in the mix although the Arc field, for instance, can sometimes challenge the safety factor. |
|
By:
They(Betfair) are having a meeting to discuss this very issue right now.
If say there r 100 entires in the G.N. I will need £60,000 instead of £600per round of bets. Should Betfair decide to carry out this procedure only they themselves will be able to make the market. The "professionals" Pete will be looking for a quicker return and not want to tie their money up for up to 12 months in one market! |
|
By:
Any news yet. I cannot understand why this has not caused uproar on the forum.
|
|
By:
if this were'nt working why did'nt they
change the rules before? strange. |
|
By:
Headmaster,
What I meant was that they could subtract your lowest 40 stakes from your liablities. I've laid 120 horses, so it wouldn't give me much leeway even then, but it would be better than completely ignoring my book. The other thing I said to the bloke was that you can include every horse from 1-40 once the weights are out, but he didn't want to discuss that either. I was thinking of the Arc myself, when I mentioned non-handicaps. FF - good point, I hadn't thought of it like that. |
|
By:
I've just tested that theory and it holds no water. I've laid 120 horses and the
smallest 40 stakes add up to less than 10% of my field money. I can see where BF have a problem but I reckon they ought to be able to come up with a better solution e.g. hold back 10% of my field money against balloted horses. As FF points out, no one will want to lay a penny on the ante-post markets otherwise. The GN market for the following year gets going straight after the race, but it'll be quiet this year. Perhaps I'll promise them, as a gentleman, that I won't knock 'em. See if they accept that. |
|
By:
In my telephone conversation they advised that they would adjust the Grand National market 'sometime next week'. Does anyone know when?
I have only layed on the place market for up to £400 per horse but this is going to decrease my available balance by over £1200, which would have been 're-invested' in the Cheltenham markets. My bets account for £2600 of the £15170 in the place market so if you multiply that by 5 and include the £177000 matched in win market there is going to be an awful lot on money that will be not available to lay in already struggling Cheltenham markets and the big handicaps that lead up to the Festival. I would also hazard a guess that Betfair could tell if any of these funds were 'at risk' if they wanted to. Why couldn't they give everyone a small limit on their account to cover this sort of liability which could be raised upon application depending on previous track record? |
|
By:
bit confused here
are you saying that you need a separate amount available to lay each horse ie you lay something to a £1000 liability but that liability cannot be used to lay other horses ? |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Is their game-plan to have as much of OUR money tied up in THEIR accounts over many months?
I'm guessing that would run into £millions! Whatever their stance and their reasons, it's all utter balls, and as one poster said, it is definitely the end of trading on ante-post racing for me, and I'd surmise 99% of others too!   |
|
By:
It's so crazy I can't believe they'll go through with it. At the moment, I'm still
optimistic. I'd like to hear more views from layers who dabble in thousands rather than the piffling amounts I play for. Basically, it's a way of holding a lot more money in client funds, but it will back-fire if the clients just take their money and go purple. |
|
By:
Will change on 31st Jan when the market is suspended for the G.N.entries.
|
|
By:
What about other races like The Gold Cup?
Have they similar plans for ALL ante-post races? |
|
By:
Jolly - did you work on the National? Have you spoken to BF?
|
|
By:
They told me it would be next week as well.The entries are the week after though.
|
|
By:
Yes Pete. I have worked on the National. This is my major book of the year.I am currently fielding just over £7000 and would expect to be in excess of £30,000 by race day. Not happy about the situation. They have made a material change to a market that has already run 75% of its lifespan, dispite there never having been a loss incurred by Betfair on any horse racing market as a result of horses being ballotted out and the possoble resultant debit balance to a customers account ending up as a loss to betfair.This is a fall out from the Voler La Vedette situation and sod all to do with customer protection. That is only a by product.
|
|
By:
Thanks Jolly. You're in a very similar position to me, with 2-3 times as much taken. We're
hardly big pro players, are we? I would guess, from watching the market all year, that someone - maybe two or three people - will be in for five figure liabilities. Ironically, their books are likely to be solid green at the moment. They'll have to stomach a huge loss in liquidity for 9 weeks because of a whimsical rule-change by Betfair. |
|
By:
This is absolutely crazy. I'm pretty new to antepost laying but surely not many people will be able to lay a substantial book with these new rules. I've been laying for small stakes in the ****s market at the moment so hopefully I should be alright.
|
|
By:
This is absolutely crazy. I'm pretty new to antepost laying but surely not many people will be able to lay a substantial book with these new rules. I've been laying for small stakes in the ****s market at the moment so hopefully I should be alright.
|
|
By:
This is absolutely crazy. I'm pretty new to antepost laying but surely not many people will be able to lay a substantial book with these new rules. I've been laying for small stakes in the ****s market at the moment so hopefully I should be alright.
|
|
By:
****s*
|
|
By:
128% and counting. Most of the leading fancies are better prices with the bookies.
|
|
By:
Looks like BF have already taken steps to avoid this 'problem' (from their point of view?). The following clause is now stated in the rules for the ante-post market for the Cheltenham Bumper.
"Please be aware that due to a high possibility of balloted out runners in this race exposure offset may not be available. When the number of entries totals less than the allowed safety figure then exposure offset will be available again." I have never seen this statement before in ante-post markets. Wonder when BF inserted this into the Bumper market rules? - does anyone know? This may be the clause which will be inserted into the Grand National ante-post rules. Good point made about the Arc ante-post rules - will have to look out for this when it becomes available. |
|
By:
ITB
That clause is on some of the other Cheltenham markets that have been newly created. The big difference with the National is that people have been laying bets since April last year, so it will be a retrospective rule change in this case. To be honest - call me naive - I still can't believe they'll go through with it; but it wouldn't be the first time they've shown a cavalier disregard for their clients. With Cheltenham in March, the National in April, the ****s in May and the Derby in June it seems like a silly time to cramp liquidity for the layers. No layers, no backers. No backers, no commission. If I can free up some cash I might try out the purple place and see how I get on over there. |
|
By:
Ha ha. G u i n e a s gets starred out! I can't think what's offensive about that.
Let's see if the rest of the old money is baaaaadd! Sovereign Farthing Groat Shilling Florin Ha'penny Crown Ten bob  |
|
By:
In the same situation. Had a phone call saying the market was changing and have £4k of bets on this. I have a green book but was told I could have to deposit funds. Have done the National for the last 4 years and to be honest of those ballotted out the last few years I doubt they are 10% of takings of the market. The best backed horses that have missed out have tended to be the low handicapped Cheltenham winners/placed horses ie. Junior last year.
|
|
By:
What's your plan now Billy? I've got my book green, but if they go ahead it totally
ruins my liquidity for Cheltenham. I think they could be cutting off their nose to spite their face. It's also very unsporting (to put it mildly) to change the rules halfway through. |
|
By:
Pete
I think that the reason why g u i n e a is starred out is because it is a "racial slur" on Italians (google it and you will see what I mean). For the same reason the "any **** in his armour" thread on the Cheltenham 2012 Forum appears to have had "c h i n k" starred out. BF must have very sensitive filtering software these days. Isn't it a wonderful world? |
|
By:
It will be interesting to see if the dreaded clause is removed when the **** hurdle is updated for the five day stage. With a maximum field of 30, I think, 34 have been declared. Of the four with a chance of being balloted out only £171 has been matched with £167 of this on Temlett which is 31st on the list.
|
|
By:
As you say Pete I am sure they will lose more on commission than what they would lose from any charlatans just taking the cash on the lowest handicapped and disappearing off into the sunset. It must be pretty easy to spot those with this laying pattern.It doesn't make any business sense as the odds will be longer on many horses now that many other exchanges and punters will back elsewhere. I am awaiting a phone call back from betfair. I reckon a 20% balloted out liability on a market like this would ie for me £800 would be a workable solution. Allow those with a long term account 3 years or more and good trading history to be able to lay without the balloted out liability.
|
|
By:
The BS hurdle has been updated and the clause is still there.
Even better is the big race at Doncaster. Maximum field 22. The only horse that could be balloted out is Extalar. Amount matched on Extalar - not a bean. |
|
By:
Another interesting fact.
Looking at the Thyestes the amounts matched on the 13 horses not guaranteed a run currently totals £87. Bearing in mind £74 of this is on Quadrillion and On His Own the two horses most likely to run it does beg the question is this new rule worthwhile in ordinary handicaps. |
|
By:
The big golf tournaments are all NRNB but they don't seem to have the clause in them.
I don't know if it's arbitrary or what. I was taking a few bets on The Open but I've suspended operations till things become clearer. Billy - 20% seems more than generous and should keep everyone happy. I'd have thought 10% was sufficient, but 20% is better than 100%. TBH, they must know who the fly boys are; the ones with 2 (or many more) accounts. They can't be silly enough to miss them for long. Anyone who is playing games must get flagged up pretty quickly. Why pick on people like us who keep the markets alive? We're footsoldiers in the army of layers who've made BF what it ....er... used to be. I've never even paid PC - but maybe I shouldn't say that here in case they find a way to hammer me. |