Betfair's Latest Wheeze - Grand National Betting Rules Change

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

****s*

128% and counting. Most of the leading fancies are better prices with the bookies.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Gopher - your calculations just confirm what we knew already, i.e. hardly anyone bets the
likely-to-be-balloted horses. They're normally long handicap jobs aswell, aren't they?

According to my records, four horses with significant funds bet on them were balloted out last year - Always Waining, Junior, Merigo and Ballyfitz. My snapshots of prices in the run up to the race show a total share of the book of about 10% for all of the balloted out horses, from Always Waining down to Regal Heights.

I think that BF may have missed the consequences of their proposals. For example, the new rule says "When the number of entries totals less than the allowed safety figure then exposure offset will be available again." In most (all?) cases, these races have reserves which are not stood down until after the ante-post book closes, so exposure offset is never available - Catch 22!

Having said that, I think it is reasonable to allow for the risk of naive players finding they have an unbudgeted dark red screen when bets on balloted out horses are voided. It would be good if they could do this without killing the market.

and now Aerial looks to be a non runner there will not need to be a ballot at Doncaster on Saturday.

Any news from the people who were expecting telephone calls?

I've not had this.
But I've backed horses in this race.

I have been told that it applies only to ante post horse race markets.  I agree that it shouldnt have been changed after a market has been activated.  The limitation is already in place on the Cheltenham markets.

I got an email from them today saying they'd ring me tomorrow if it suits me.

Actually, they said the bloke who originally rang will ring me. That doesn't sound
like much of a plan - he clearly wasn't in a position to make decisions last time
so I don't know what's changed since then. Anyway, I'll update here if I hear.

Also expecting a call today

This has confused me........

So if a punter has layed a horse(s) and now Betfair has said it wants to raise the liability on the horse(s) where does Betfair get the money from? Does it automatically come ut of the punters Betfair bank? If so what happens if there is no funds in the punters betfair bank?

Meatloaf. BF normally allows offsetting so that the money you lay on one horse reduces
your exposure on any other horse you lay in the same race. Only one horse can win, after all.
Unfortunately, with the National, and some other races, a horse can be balloted out.
Normally, a non-runner is a loser, but with a balloted horse bets are voided. This means
that your exposure will increase because your field money has decreased (there's no
reduction factor like there is on day of the race markets). What they are doing now is
adding liabilities up instead of offsetting them against money fielded.

Oh sorry. To finish answering your question....

BF don't want to be left holding the parcel when the music stops, so they reckon the
layer chalks the prices therefore the layer can stand the bets. It's a fair point really.
I guess they've been caught a few times and now they're tightening it up.

I got my call today. The bloke was very helpful and decent. It sounds like they're dealing
with things on a client-by-client basis. In my case, I've agreed not to make my position
any worse than it is and they've agreed not to dock my account by the sum of my liabilities.
D-Day is January 31st.

Same here Pete I think they are looking to help us out until after the National. We will see what the account turns to on Jan 31st.

I must be a bit slow and stupid - I can't follow the justification for this.

If I back a horse, and it is balloted out, I get my money back.

If I lay a horse, and it is balloted out, the same thing.  Yes???

With horses balloted out, my potential liabilities on the other horses are unaffected.  Yes?  ???

it is whether you lay more than 1 horse in the race.
balloted out horses you lose the stake(field money).

Billy

The only thing that wasn't clear was whether I agreed not to bet on it at all. I thought
that that was what he wanted, but then he said not to get too worried till after Jan 31st.
I want to play fair, because I think they're trying to be helpful. At the moment I'm only
laying horses that are bigger winners in my book.

What did you think? Maybe you can cover your liabilities. I can't. Not rich enough!

Pete
I can't cover with my balance, but my understanding was that they will cover me to what I have laid so far but any new lay bets will be under the new rules and therefore reduce my current balance. I hope that I've understodod correctly as now is the time to lay with two big trials and a 120% + book and not all runners declared.

I can't cover with my balance, but my understanding was that they will cover me to what I have laid so far but any new lay bets will be under the new rules and therefore reduce my current balance. I hope that I've understodod correctly as now is the time to lay with two big trials and a 120% + book and not all runners declared.

I know.

I'm a bit gutted, but I kind of agreed with yer man that I would lay no more till I had the money
to cover it. I don't want to go back on what I said, because I think he was trying hard to be fair.
I've redirected what funds I have into Cheltenham and I'm hoping I'll be able to pick the National up
again in March.

It is a bollix, really, but if they're in danger of being ripped off, I can't blame them.

Just thinking.... the 2013 GN market is going to be very slow to get going.
I wonder if they'll give dispensation to selected layers.

I play the market with a bot and match thousands of bets. I've told bf that the new rule will stop me playing these markets and they have accepted it. I don't think they do special dispensations and neither should they either. They've made a rule change and it wil cost them liquidity and that's it.

Should mean bigger margins for manual layers?

Bigger margins for manual layers?

I doubt there are many people who come in and lay single horses. Not enough to make a market, anyway.

The minute you lay the second horse that you don't fancy, you double your liability. Third horse, treble it.

It would be interesting to compare liquidity from last year to this year in races where the new rule applies.

The GN 2013 will be the real test, though, because betting would normally be rolling along by the middle of
April, wouldn't it?

well the GN is normally one of my biggest books of the year. normally turn over 2-3 % of the ante post market but that will have to change now. shame really. market will look v skinny for next years from the beginnning.

Pete

The way I was told it on Thursday, you don't double the liability by laying 2 horses. Your liability is your biggest loss only, with no offset for the second lay. It still deters the big layers, though.

I have written to them asking for clarification of exactly how it works in practice. I've also asked if stakes on scratched horses (e.g. Beautiful Sound and Meanus Dandy) will be offset to reduce the liability.

The guy I spoke to was very pleasant but didn't seem to understand the likely impact on the market. I pointed out to him that the total matched on the Thyestes was £2006 this year, and suggested that Betfair compare this with the market size in previous years. (My guess is that it was about 80% down).

It is hard to argue with the purpose of this change, but they need to think through how the impact can be limited (e.g. offsetting stakes on scratched runners and allowing offset for the top 40 in the handicap, neither of which will increase risk for them), otherwise the ante-post markets on races such as this will shrink dramatically. They may not be able to implement this for 2012 though, because they will need to write and test the software for the change.

Rydal

Yes, you're right. I was assuming that the layer lays each horse to lose £x, which is pretty much what I do. Of
course, everyone has different ways of doing it.

Interesting point about the software updates, though I guess this isn't a huge change.

As for the impact on the market size, I don't understand why this isn't obvious to them. Maybe
they think it's worth it for the extra money they'll be holding (albeit in client accounts)
and the closing of a loophole for possible fraud. It certainly flies in the face of all the rumours
on here about credit accounts!

We will see what the account turns to on Jan 31st

Well my balance was reduced by about £1200 which is a bit of a surprise as I was assured by the helpdesk twice last week that the place market would not be affected !!

Anybody elses balance been affected?

Yes I've been wiped out. Have called Betfair and been told balance should be restored tomorrow when the market opens.

Why have they wiped out the balance Billy? This is disgraceful

My understanding is the  balance to cover bets already laid on the national will be activated once the market reopens. We were warned it was being changed but as long as the balance is restored tomorrow I am ok with that. I don't agree with the change I still think the market should just be subject to a % of your laid bets to account for balloted out horses. I would have thought it would have made sense to ride out the 2012 GN market with the current rules and change it for next year.

I've no idea what's happened. They seem to have lent me about £4k. There's nothing in the
figures to explain it. It's made me quite...er... apprehensive.

It is good to know that my £1200 has gone to a good cause.

Hee hee

I can't work out what they've done. I need to ring them.

OK. I had a word with them and apparently they're working down the list at the moment, doing the
scratched horses. They've given me the expected credit, but it sounds like it was a bit bigger
than my liability. His advice was, "don't spend it". Tomorrow it should all be settled down
(or settled up, I suppose).

I hope I am as pleasantly surprised as you are Pete with my new balance when it occurs. £2.43 in my Australian market to play with tonight.

What BF giveth, BF can taketh away Billy. I'm only using my own money till I see what they
do next.

It's been interesting finding out that I'm not the only one who bets like I do. I seldom
have any spare balance in my account. Keeps me from frittering it on silly bets, too.

Betfair’s Customer Commitment
3.1 We'll provide helpful and professional customer service when you need it.

My experience over the last week, a customer of 10 years - Total Charges - £22,577.84p

Email received – 18/1 - As part of a racing review we have realised that there is a risk to customers that trade on certain ante-post markets horse racing markets. As a service to customers trading on markets we allow liabilities to be offset against other trades, if the trades are successful enough monies can be re-used for repeat trades  However in certain Ante-post markets there are occasions when horses can be taken out of a market and not settled as losers. As a result of this we are going to have to withdraw draw this liability offset in these markets .
Please could you contact betfair on 0844 871 0000 so we can advise you how this is going to affect your current positions.
Kind regards,
Betfair Helpdesk

Telephone call advised of a potential liability on Grand National – TBP market.  After cancelling all outstanding bets to free up funds to meet the new liability the following Email received – 20/1 upon enquiring when changes were to take place - Further to you enquiry regarding changes to our Antepost markets, I can confirm that the Grand National Ante Post "To Be Placed" market will not be updated. The date for the changes to take place on the Grand National Antepost Winners Market is the 31st January. I hope this answers you questions, however if you require anything further, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Kind regards,
Betfair Helpdesk Duty Manager
Email sent - 20/1 - Is this a change in policy?  I just wonder why I got the original email and was then told when I telephoned that my Grand National market (I have no bets outstanding on the win market) would be affected.  Does this mean that this new rule only applies to win market and not place markets?

Email response – 20/1- Thank you for your e-mail.  It is a change in policy, at the moment only the Win market for the Grand National is affected.  I am sorry about the e-mail you received as, no, your To Be Placed bets will not be affected.  This was an administrative error.  Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further enquiries.
Kind regards,
Betfair Helpdesk

After a sigh of relief I began reinstating bets.

31/1 – credit balance disappears.  Email sent - Has there been another change in policy or is this another administrative error?

Response - Thank you for your e-mail.  I can confirm the place market has now been affected by the change in policy on the Grand National Markets. It is not an administrative error.
Kind regards,
Betfair Helpdesk

Betfair’s Customer Commitment

3.1 We'll provide helpful and professional customer service when you need it.

Words and figures differ !

Just read about this on general horse racing forum. Haven't time to read all posts but my initial reaction is utter disbelief that BF can even consider changing the rules in a market which has already been open for at least 9 months . If they apply this to all AP markets they might as well not bother having them .

Just noticed they have a similar statement in rules for Betfair Handicap . Again this seems to have been introduced sometime after the market has been open without the rule .This changing of the rules retrospectively is an outrage . BF now so arrogant they think they can do what they like. I suggest this isn't simply bad customer service but plain breach of contract with customer

Just noticed they have a similar statement in rules for Betfair Handicap . Again this seems to have been introduced sometime after the market has been open without the rule .This changing of the rules retrospectively is an outrage . BF now so arrogant they think they can do what they like. I suggest this isn't simply bad customer service but plain breach of contract with customer

The experiences encountered by the Gopher just highlight the contempt betfair have for their clients.
I also agree with you wiseguy that these changes to the G.N market are definitely a breach of contract. You cannot make retrospective changes to a market that is 75% to its completed term. We need someone who has legal experience to take out an injunction against Betfair preventing from applying these new rules until a new market is in place.

The statement is on a further 12 races at Cheltenham.  Mainly the handicaps but also the Bumper.

I'm surprised no one has complained to IBAS. Have just spoken to a person there who sounded very interested in the case.COME ON BOYS & GIRLS-GET WRITING!!

I'll not be complaining. I think they've been forced into this to prevent themselves
being ripped off by people with two accounts playing silly beggars. In my case BF
have handled it very fairly, and after the initial fright, I've no cause for complaint.

I do have a concern about my forays into the ante-post arket from now onwards, but I
don't think their new rules are draconian considering the inventiveness of crooks in
this industry. If I was being ripped off, I'd do what I could to prevent it.

PETE, You yourself said"its unacceptable to make a rule change halfway through". Not only is it half way through its 75% of the way through. I have been advised by Betfair they have made NO LOSS on ante-post markets by people playing "silly beggars" as you put it. There is at least a ray of hope, albeit minute, by complaining to IBAS. What they have done is illegal. How disappointing!

Market reopened, no balance. Have spoke to Betfair and looking into it but noone seems in control of this.

Doing a quick rough calculation on the Grand National placed market the top 40 entries account for 67% of the matched funds, top 50 - 80%, and top 60 - 94%. 

I bet the cut off will be nearer No. 60 than No. 40 so it suggests the recent actions are not really warranted.

Jolly - Yes, it's a shoddy way to do things. Yes, I suspect it's more of an accounting
decision than a security decision. Yes, I think they will be the ones who ultimately
pay the price. I'm just saying that, in my case, they have made a very fair adjustment
and I find myself in a position where complaining would be churlish.

I'm still irritated that I won't be able to play on next year's Grand National (unless
I am prepared to recycle every penny from this year's). I'm also worried about other good
ante-post races e.g. the Arc, but BF seems intent on killing golden geese.

BillyBucket
31 Jan 12 17:36 Joined: 10 Oct 10
Yes I've been wiped out. Have called Betfair and been told balance should be restored tomorrow when the market opens.

Has anybody had their funds restored?  I am still waiting.

No still waiting for funds to be restored even though the person assured me last night it will be restored from lunchtime today.

Three phone calls, still waiting.

Interesting quote from the front page of today's Racing Post regarding the number of Grand National entries.

"It is the lowest figure since 1996, when the same number of entries were made and only 27 went to post"

Gopher

There seem to be much fewer drop-outs these days. Entry fees have increased so much (£2000 in 2007, increasing to £4500 in 2011 - I haven't seen the 2012 figures)that entries are more likely to be fit to race and lower weights seem to stick in to get their money back.

Last year there were 102 entries and 62(61%)declared. The same attrition rate would have 50-51 declarations this year, with 40 racing and the rest balloted out.

How many of the entrants aren't yet qualified? They have until March 20th to do so. Little Josh is one - any more?

Quel Esprit and Shakervilz are two more

HECTOR’S CHOICE (FR)
LITTLE JOSH (IRE)
MINELLA THEATRE (IRE)
PSYCHO (IRE)
QUANTITATIVEEASING (IRE)
QUEL ESPRIT (FR)
SCHINDLER’S GOLD (IRE)
SHAKERVILZ (FR)

Tartak?

Tartak is eligible.

Thanks HM, you're a marvel with this sort of stuff.

No probs, stront.  Idle hands etc.

Are any of you laying in this market? Your cash balance just melts away. I think we'll
see the prices tightening up again soon.

Back in the game now, but not sure how long for with this new rule. Eventually got my balance back, will probably try and even out and call it a day on my GN days.

Speaking with Betfair the trigger that caused this change seem to come from the first goalscorer market when players were in the market and not playing. I think the GN markets and first goalscorer markets are miles apart. One lasting a year and one a few days. I've wrote with alternatives and see if anything comes back.

They've known about the issue with the goalscorer markets for at least 4 years because
there was a long thread about it on another site in 2007.

I was concerned last year about the National when I realised the effect balloted horses might
have on my book and I rang them up. They just shrugged their shoulders and said, "That's
the way it is, Chummy".

I know it's harsh on the backers, but I think a non-runner's a non-runner. It's no worse
being balloted than it is betting a horse that doesn't even enter. Is it? I know I won't get
much support for that point of view (I've tried before ).

PS I was reading the rules for the Melbourne Cup yesterday. A non-runner is a loser there.
Australians are like me - black and white with no shades of grey. That's the way to go!

I agree Pete it's not exactly going to be a surprise which horses are bottom of the handicap and likely to be balloted out. Layers odds would take this into account as well. The bottom ten in this years national would be 1000/1 and if they get in , good luck to the punters.

I'm in contact with betfair about an unexplained reduction in my balance of about £200 a couple of days ago. Is this the reason why its happened?

By way of explanation, I back horses in the GN market throughout the year, with a view to laying off at a later date and ultimately ending up with a green book by the time Grand National day comes around.

Sounds like it. The change happened on the 31st.

I am a backer in these markets and love chipping away at something at 100+ over the winter for something like the National. It is blindingly obvious that liquidity is going to be shot to pieces if they stick by this approach- a real shame in my opinion. Smacks of taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I like PeteTheBloke have spoken to people at the helpdesk recently and have the same opinion even allowing for the U-turn on the place market.

Last week I highlighted the position with the Skybet Chase where 22 were guaranteed a run but the rule was still applied when 23 were declared at the 5 day stage.  With the Betfair Hurdle all 24 still in at today's stage are guaranteed a run, no horses will be balloted out but the rule has still been applied.

Of the £58329 currently matched I am responsible for laying £744 of it, yet I have £366 tied up in this market which I cannot use to lay on other horse to balance my book so it gives you some idea of the likely amount of funds that could be used to give a more liquid market.   

I emailed the helpdesk at 18.31 to advise them but nothing has been done.

Ridiculous to apply this to any races that don't have a history of considerable balloting imo.  A/P markets on here are pathetic - this is the last thing they need.

I like PeteTheBloke

Thanks Gopher. I like you too.

Seriously, though, does anyone have figures for last year's National? I have no evidence, but my
recollection is that there was some serious trade being done by this stage. Since the start of Feb
this year we've seen a very slow book. Or is it my imagination?

The thing is, BF isn't a bookie so they may be content to look at this from an accountant's point
of view (a short-sighted accountant, at that). I think it's completely ludicrous, myself. I could
have laid thousands in the last week if I had the money. There must be loads of layers in the same
position.

Well, the weights are out and I'm starting to get p1ssed off again. My book is going to look
terrible if they do ballot a few horses and the irony is that I _might_ actually end up in the
situation Betfair are trying to avoid because of their stupid rule change. If I was in
a position to lay some bets, the ballotable horses would form a negligible part of my book,
but as it is, I'm completely hamstrung.

PLEA TO BETFAIR: at least let us lay the top 40 in the handicap. They can't be balloted whatever
else happens.

Given the lack of scratchings to date, I am starting to feel grateful that the new rule discouraged my laying activities.

Pete, you must have huge greens for Seabass and Treacle?

I wouldn't say "huge" but they are amongst my better winners. I can't afford to lay them
because of the fact that I previously laid them at big prices. I can't even work out if I
can afford to lay anything - I just go down the list one horse at a time, place the bet and
see if fires back a 'funds insufficient' notice or not.

It's very frustrating, but I'm getting most of my Cheltenham books greened up and I'm hoping
to get involved again in 2 weeks. I've had to pull my horns right in as far as Epsom and Newmarket
go. How do things look for you?

And, incidentally, the fact that the GN is all green doesn't make me feel any better at all
because I've barely laid anything worth talking about since the rules change came into effect,
which means I could take a serious hit on any ballotted horses. I'm quite nervous about it.

I was saying to another forumite in PMs the other day, some layers must have very deep pockets
when you look at the amounts matched in February.

I have now confined myself to the GN, and funded enough to level out. Given the low numbers of scratchings to date, the current over-round for the GN doesn't look attractive for laying at present anyway. I have a solid green book which is robust to most feasible balloting scenarios, but if the ballotings reach Killyglen,the screen will go red.

The place market is more interesting, but eats up the capital. The really frustrating thing is that removing the exposure of the top 40 weights (and scratched horses) would release a lot of cash.

The really frustrating thing is that removing the exposure of the top 40 weights (and scratched horses) would release a lot of cash.

Precisely.

And your comment about the over-round is very true too.

Bump!

This issue is still rearing its head. BF don't know their elbows from their rear ends - half their
staff are totally ignorant of the problem and the other half barely understand it.

The Cross Country at Chelt has just had the rule applied because the number of entries "may
exceed the safety threshold at some point in the future". They had been going to apply the rule at
this point and then remove it later. I pointed out that it was completely unreasonable to switch the
rule on and off arbitrarily.

The BF h'cap hurdle (beware layers) has the rule applied BUT DOES NOT MENTION IT in the terms and conditions
on the right hand side. I expect they'll get round to it sometime.

The Welsh National was a joke. I was told clearly that the rule didn't apply and then got a call a few
hours later asking me not to place any bets till they had a meeting about it. The next day the rule was
applied.

I've written them a long email asking them to explain, but I don't hold much hope. I paid them quite a lot of
money last year (it seems a lot to me, anyway) and I don't see why I shouldn't expect clarity, even if I don't
like the rules.

The rules change has made a big difference to my GN laying activities with bets down by 95% year on year. The market this year has been difficult to cover with double the number of runners compared to last year as well as the new rules. Despite this, the market has attracted more business, so someone out there must be tying up large quantities of cash by laying the market. I can't understand the logic in doing this unless they are being extended credit.

Rydal, you're a brave layer to be playing at all in my opinion. I reckon that I'd need £100,000+
in my account to play on the Grand National the way I would like to. My only explanation is that
people are comparing to the building society and deciding that they may as well stick their life savings
in here instead. I can't do it myself, but I suppose £100,000 is small beer to some people.

I did manage to get some clarification from BF. It amounted to this: handicaps and the Champion Bumper
assume the rule applies; they have no intention to apply the rule to other non-handicap races. I pointed
out that they should be more careful to post the rules correctly when they add a race... they're going to try!

Pete

My exposure to date has been kept at a low level - a grand. I set it up in April and when it became clear how messy the market was, confined my activities to balancing the book, which I have done.

In retrospect, I wish I hadn't bothered in the first place. Next year, I'll leave the market alone until the entries are announced.

I can't fathom the motivation of those who are making the market - lending money unsecured to BF for 12 months at low margins isn't a sensible activity if you have to work to manage 230 positions.

Rydal

That pretty much sums up my view too. Even tying up a grand leaves you hamstrung. I would
have committed a third of that and still taken £30,000+ on the race.

Anyway, onwards and upwards... what d'you make of that £4,000 at 2.08 on the Arkle? Is it yours

.... not guilty!