Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
If there was a 3 horse race priced as follows : horse (a) 2.0
horse (b) 3.65
horse (c) 4.4
if horse (A) was withdrawn, what would the price on betfair be of horse (B) and (C) ?
Tks in advance.
horse (b) 3.65
horse (c) 4.4
if horse (A) was withdrawn, what would the price on betfair be of horse (B) and (C) ?
Tks in advance.
Show More
It all depends on the reduction factor.
Each horse has a reduction factor ( in the graph area by horses name).
If horse A had a reduction factor of 51.5% then horse B will be 3.65 multiplied by 48.5% making it a 1.77 shot
Each horse has a reduction factor ( in the graph area by horses name).
If horse A had a reduction factor of 51.5% then horse B will be 3.65 multiplied by 48.5% making it a 1.77 shot
In a NEW Market - OR ... After the Betfair REDUCTION FACTOR? -
Which would probably be 2 different answers.
In a NEW Market ...
3.65 would become 8/11 FAV
4.4 would become 11/8
If the REDUCTION FACTOR was a True 50% - then - as it is applied to BOTH potential Winnings AND Stake - would it not make both the 3.65 and 4.4 chances equal to 2.0 shots EACH.
Meaning ... ZERO Win OR Lose, whichever won.
circa £27 on the 3.65 - to Return circa £100 ... Less 50% = £50 = £50 Return
circa £23 on the 4.4 - to Return circa £100 ... Less 50% = £50 = £50 Return
Total Stakes = £50 as above ... Return = £50 - whichever wins.
Profit/Loss = Zero ... LESS COMMISSION
Which would probably be 2 different answers.
In a NEW Market ...
3.65 would become 8/11 FAV
4.4 would become 11/8
If the REDUCTION FACTOR was a True 50% - then - as it is applied to BOTH potential Winnings AND Stake - would it not make both the 3.65 and 4.4 chances equal to 2.0 shots EACH.
Meaning ... ZERO Win OR Lose, whichever won.
circa £27 on the 3.65 - to Return circa £100 ... Less 50% = £50 = £50 Return
circa £23 on the 4.4 - to Return circa £100 ... Less 50% = £50 = £50 Return
Total Stakes = £50 as above ... Return = £50 - whichever wins.
Profit/Loss = Zero ... LESS COMMISSION
@onlooker I don't follow your maths.
If the RF for horse A was 50% as expected,
then bets on horse B at horse B 3.65 would be RF'd down to 1.825 and bets on horse C at 4.4 would be RF'd down to 2.2 (so more like 6/5 and 5/6 than 11/8 and 8/11, though I avoid fractional odds like the plague)
If the RF for horse A was 50% as expected,
then bets on horse B at horse B 3.65 would be RF'd down to 1.825 and bets on horse C at 4.4 would be RF'd down to 2.2 (so more like 6/5 and 5/6 than 11/8 and 8/11, though I avoid fractional odds like the plague)
I was wondering what would the prices be if a new market was established? tks.
1.82 ans 2.2 is the answer assuming you take the 50% prob removed and spread in in proportion between the other 2.
apologies i could have just said "longbridge has the correct answer" 
COULD SOMEONE POST THE MAN WITH HIS HEAD IN HIS HANDS ,i am amazed how some guys end up on a gambling site
@brassneck.
I know what you mean. How did you arrive at the prices you quoted? They imply a 110% book when the market pre-the NR was a 100% one - doesn't feel likely to me.
I know what you mean. How did you arrive at the prices you quoted? They imply a 110% book when the market pre-the NR was a 100% one - doesn't feel likely to me.
Can someone answer this question please.....Have a free 2500£ bet. Any sport
But has to be rolled 8 times before withdrawal......best way t o play it?
Thanks
But has to be rolled 8 times before withdrawal......best way t o play it?
Thanks
longbridge 18 Sep 18 12:29
@onlooker I don't follow your maths.
------------------
Well - At least I explained my figures - unlike the vast majority, on nearly all, threads on here.
Hard to see what wants outlining further than I posted - However I will break it down even more ...
As you have just posted to brassneck - 'the market pre-the NR was a 100% one'
Assuming that the Backer backs ALL 3 horses to RETURN £100 - whichever horse won - then his Stakes outlay will ALSO TOTAL £100.
In this instance
£50 an A @ 2.0 = Return £100
circa £27 on B the 3.65 chance = Return circa £100
circa £23 on C the 4.4 chance = Return circa £100
circa rounded-up/down figures for convenience of example.
Therefore = ZERO Profit or Loss - whichever horse wins in this 100% book (as per a Betfair Pre-Race Market)
Horse A - the 2.0 chance - becomes a NON-Runner ... meaning £50 Stake Returned to Backer
Backer's TOTAL Stake outlay NOW = £50
Backer's RETURNS now subject to 50% REDUCTION FACTOR - Winnings AND STAKE.
Thus ...
circa £27 on B the 3.65 chance = ORIGINAL Return circa £100 ..
[b[now becomes[/b] ... circa £27 on the 3.65 - to Return circa £100 ... Less 50% = £50 - NOW = £50 Return
circa £23 on C the 4.4 chance = ORIGINAL Return circa £100 ...
now becomes ... circa £23 on the 4.4 - to Return circa £100 ... Less 50% = £50 - NOW = £50 Return
Total Stakes [b]now becomes £50 ... (The £50 on the NON-Runner, horse A, having been RETURNED to the Backer)
Total Stakes = £50 as above ... Return = £50 - whichever wins.
Profit/Loss = Zero ... LESS COMMISSION
* as I posted at 12:11 ... Hard to envisage how it can be put any clearer - in fact, it cannot.
@onlooker I don't follow your maths.
------------------
Well - At least I explained my figures - unlike the vast majority, on nearly all, threads on here.
Hard to see what wants outlining further than I posted - However I will break it down even more ...
As you have just posted to brassneck - 'the market pre-the NR was a 100% one'
Assuming that the Backer backs ALL 3 horses to RETURN £100 - whichever horse won - then his Stakes outlay will ALSO TOTAL £100.
In this instance
£50 an A @ 2.0 = Return £100
circa £27 on B the 3.65 chance = Return circa £100
circa £23 on C the 4.4 chance = Return circa £100
circa rounded-up/down figures for convenience of example.
Therefore = ZERO Profit or Loss - whichever horse wins in this 100% book (as per a Betfair Pre-Race Market)
Horse A - the 2.0 chance - becomes a NON-Runner ... meaning £50 Stake Returned to Backer
Backer's TOTAL Stake outlay NOW = £50
Backer's RETURNS now subject to 50% REDUCTION FACTOR - Winnings AND STAKE.
Thus ...
circa £27 on B the 3.65 chance = ORIGINAL Return circa £100 ..
[b[now becomes[/b] ... circa £27 on the 3.65 - to Return circa £100 ... Less 50% = £50 - NOW = £50 Return
circa £23 on C the 4.4 chance = ORIGINAL Return circa £100 ...
now becomes ... circa £23 on the 4.4 - to Return circa £100 ... Less 50% = £50 - NOW = £50 Return
Total Stakes [b]now becomes £50 ... (The £50 on the NON-Runner, horse A, having been RETURNED to the Backer)
Total Stakes = £50 as above ... Return = £50 - whichever wins.
Profit/Loss = Zero ... LESS COMMISSION
* as I posted at 12:11 ... Hard to envisage how it can be put any clearer - in fact, it cannot.
@onlooker
£27 on NB to return £50 is odds of 1.85. Yet you say it would become the 8/11 Fav. 8/11 is 1.72
So the bet I'm not clear on is how you get from "a £27 bet to return £50" to "8/11".
£27 on NB to return £50 is odds of 1.85. Yet you say it would become the 8/11 Fav. 8/11 is 1.72
So the bet I'm not clear on is how you get from "a £27 bet to return £50" to "8/11".
sorry for the misconception/confusion - longbridge.
My detailed breakdown of the REDUCTION FACTOR application to the Market, is SEPARATE from my guesstimation of what the Prices would be if it were an entirely DIFFERENT/SEPARATE Market - NOT a Reduction Factor applied Market - priced up between just the other 2 horses.
I marginally misinterpreted the OP opening post as if he meant just a straight 2-horse race - Horse A NEVER having been part of that equation... and NOT 8/11 representing the Reduction Factor applied price - that never being my intention.
My detailed breakdown of the REDUCTION FACTOR application to the Market, is SEPARATE from my guesstimation of what the Prices would be if it were an entirely DIFFERENT/SEPARATE Market - NOT a Reduction Factor applied Market - priced up between just the other 2 horses.
I marginally misinterpreted the OP opening post as if he meant just a straight 2-horse race - Horse A NEVER having been part of that equation... and NOT 8/11 representing the Reduction Factor applied price - that never being my intention.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539