There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Sedge 2.05, fav matched at 1.01 pre race. Seems almost weekly now.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 44
|
By:
3.05 even....
|
|
By:
It's very hard to find a good system which works fairly for backers and layers. Most of the time the reduction factors do work reasonably well but for these short price ones it doesn't. Rule 4 doesn't either. It favours punters too much. Nobody has been able to come up with a fair answer.
|
|
By:
Another week, another reduction factor rip-off. Back Apterix pre-race? Tough luck - you've been slammed down to as low as 1.02 through no fault of your own.
When is this palpably inequitable situation going to end? |
|
By:
As a layer I can assure you it is a swings and rounabouts thing. You often get a horse at 5s say with a reduction factor 0f 10%. Doesn't help if you have layed something else.
|
|
By:
The fact that BF shroud their precise methodology in secrecy doesn't help matters. Greater transparency wouldn't go amiss for a start.
|
|
By:
I have read in the past an explanation of how they do it,but tbh I think you would need an a level in Maths to even begin to grasp what they are on about and probably a Ph.D in the right branch of mathematics to make any sort of critique of it.
|
|
By:
A level in Maths to begin to grasp what they are on about. I have an O level and it meant nothing to me.
|
|
By:
As I recall it, they actually came out and said they were intentionally keeping some elements of it a secret. For example, they refuse to give any indication of how and when they adjust the RFs during the day. Presumably that's designed to help avoid manipulation, but it appears to have back-fired somewhat.
Where's Adonis when you need him?  |
|
By:
Another week, another 1.01 rip-off. Haydock 2.40.
|
|
By:
Regarding the Nipper now traded at 1.01 due to this NR. As an Actuary and excellent at Maths how the Nipper can be put down at 1.01 is beyond belief. Can someone from Betfair please contact me and tell me how a horse backed at 1.54 can now be 1.01 with a 34% reduction??? Does NOT stand-up
|
|
By:
@Kriskin
The "how" is pretty public - see section 13.6 of BF's R&Rs. http://www.betfair.com/en/aboutUs/Rules.and.Regulations/ You might argue the "why" (and as others have said, the way BF calculate Win markets reductions on short-priced horses is open to question) but the method of calculating it and the RFs it's calculated from are all out in the open. |
|
By:
Cheers longbridge.
|
|
By:
13.7How the Reductions are applied for Exchange markets
In the win market, reductions will be made on the traded price. For example: if the non-runner's final reduction factor is 25% the traded price on all previously matched bets on other horses will be reduced by 25% - traded price of 8.0 would become 6.0 etc. And these might be further reduced if another horse is subsequently declared a non-runner. In the EW Market, reductions will be made on the traded win price. The advertised place terms will then apply to the revised win prices. For example: if the non-runner's final reduction factor is 25% the traded price on all previously matched bets on other horses will be reduced by 25% - - traded price of 8.0 would become 6.0. If the each Way terms were 1/5th odds for 3 places, the corresponding price for the Place portion of the bet would reduce from 2.4 to 2.0. In the place market, reductions will be made to the potential winnings on the bet only, and not the traded price. For example: if the non-runner's final reduction factor is 25% the potential winnings on all previously matched bets on the other horses will be reduced by 25% - a traded price of 8.0 would become 6.25. For example a £10 bet on a horse to be placed at a traded price of 8.0 would provide winnings of £70. If there is a non-runner with a reduction factor of 25% in the race, that factor will be applied to the £70 of potential winnings leaving potential winnings of £52.50. Therefore the revised traded price will be 6.25. The traded price may be further reduced if any other horse(s) is subsequently declared a non-runner, however odds cannot be reduced below 1.01. Reserves: A reserve runner may appear in the relevant markets but will have a non-applicable reduction factor until Betfair has received confirmation that it is a confirmed runner, in which case an applicable reduction factor may apply to it. For the avoidance of doubt, any reduction factor applicable to a non-runner replaced by a reserve, will be applied to all bets struck on the relevant markets, prior to the removal from those markets of such non-runner by Betfair. Likewise, should a reserve runner become a confirmed runner but subsequently become a non-runner, any reduction factor applicable to such non-runner will be applied to all bets struck on the relevant markets, prior to the removal from those markets of such non-runner by Betfair. HOW IS 1.54 REDUCED BY 34% = 1.01? |
|
By:
1.54 * 0.66 = 1.0164
As they make clear with the "matched bets on other horses will be reduced by 25% - traded price of 8.0 would become 6.0 etc" bit, the RF applies to the whole price, not just the profit bit (ie 1.54 is reduced, not 0.54 reduced and then added back to the 1). You'll see it's done differently for Place, where it is just the profits reduced. Bizarre, isn't it? |
|
By:
They take the traded price/Betfair SP not the true Traded price/SP price for some reason.
ie Traded price maybe 8's and if the reduction factor is 25% the price becomes 6's In the case in question it should be 0.54 - 34% which would give you an sp price of 1.351. They just take the 1.54 - 34% which gives you 1.0164. Totally wrong imo |
|
By:
Sorry for reiterating you Longy, didn't see your post lol
|
|
By:
chalkie
you back a horse that takes up nearly 65% of the market at 1.54. the second fav represents 34% of the market and is withdrawn. you expect the layers to offer you 1.351 - 74% of the market and the outsider at 10/1 And you've been here since 2002!!! |
|
By:
Sawyer understand your point but does not make these rules correct,the horse was trading at 1.09 a few mins ago,it wont go to 1.01 until its virtually the winner in running.We now know the rules, but still does not make them right.These rules probably make the difference to the liquidity on races when there isnt too many runners declared,bad news for everyone.
|
|
By:
the rules have to be like they are.
It's an exchange and in "theory" you are betting against someone else. |
|
By:
The Sawyer ,why do the the rules have to be as they are,when they are patently unfair in certain cases at the moment.I was asked about 8
years ago if I would help come up with a new solution ,but after saying I would ,they never followed it up .My solution would be ,in a flat race 1.05 would be the minimum it could be reduced to ,in a hurdle race 1.06 and a chase 1.08. |
|
By:
Bit of a condescending reply Sawyer lol
It is my opinion(i am allowed) that the system does not work for backers in this and similar scenarios. But the justification of a 1-2 shot becoming a 1-100 shot is a bit hard to take for someone who has backed it. Who would back a 1-100 shot before an event FFS bit different to IR bets I myself had no interest in the race but i have been caught out with a similar bet before. |
|
By:
and the rule 4 deduction would have been 35% in the race in question i believe
|
|
By:
chalkie- u make some good points above
|
|
By:
Chalkie, like everybody else didn't come up with a solution. Rule 4 is certainly not the answer. It massively favours backers and the only reason bookmakers put up with it is that often (not in this case) it can be absorbed because of the overround. On here you need a system which is equally favourable to backers and layers and the reduction factors are overall a much fairer system than rule 4.
|
|
By:
Hi long green thing
I agree 'Rule 4' does not necessarily work always but i don;t see any bookie making too much of a fuss when one gets taken out of a 8 runner or 16 runner and they not only deduct from winnings but also do not pay out on the 3rd or 4th respectively and at the same time shorten the odds. Would take a lot of convincing that reducing a 1-2 to a 1-100 is a fairer system though overall. I am not a maths genius but to average out the fairness would surely mean you would have to have no deduction above say 15% to make it fair when you get a 1-2 becoming a 1-100. Not sure what is the answer is to this or even another problem with a certain dead heat situation, when i believe sometimes you can actually lose money.Can't see the logic in that especially on here. |
|
By:
If you back a horse at less than evens you lose money in a DH as half your bet loses and the other half doesn't win enough to cover that loss. That seems entirely right and fair to me, really not a problem.
|
|
By:
Another week, another 1.01 rip-off. Newton Abbot 3.30
|
|
By:
Decent price for that one
|
|
By:
Another week, another 1.01 rip-off. Market Rasen 1.50.
Early backers once again left wondering why they bother. |
|
By:
Why? Backers on here are better off on this one.
|
|
By:
Eh? Backers who've been RF'd down to 1.01 are better off?
|
|
By:
I'm comparing bookies rule 4's on this race, to the reduction factor on here.
|
|
By:
Bumped for discussion.
|
|
By:
why discuss it isn't going to change
|
|
By:
You'e quite right - nothing that ever changed in human history was discussed first.
|
|
By:
Aaaaand.......SLAM! There's another odds-on shot subjected to betfair's 'Destruction Factor'.
1.40 Ayr. Tens of thousands of pounds now "factored" down to as low as 1.01 |
|
By:
basicly they told me to go fcuk myself
|
|
By:
yesterdays chip wrapper, layers always gain, backers always lose, arbers are in clover
|
|
By:
Yep my 1.17 is about 1.02 now!
How does that work? I can get 1.1 no deductions in the bookies! |