There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Hi there just thought I would highlight this to Antone who places a reverse forecast on Betfair Exchange.Yesterday I put a reverse forecast on the exchange for the 4.15 at Beverley. The bet was successful in Freak out winning (which I also had as a winning single on the exchange) and Strawman finishing second.
However just before the off the fav got withdrawn.
For my winning single there was a reduction of 25% which is fine, however for the winning reverse forecast, Betfair came back to inform me that if there is a horse withdrawn then all reverse forecast bets are void! They returned my stake.
I questioned this telling them if I had bet on Sportsbook, or any other bookie or tote, the winning bet would have stood with a suitable 25% reduction.
Their answer was just that’s their rules.
I found this totally unacceptable, I WILL NEVER BET A REVERSE FORECAST ON THE EXCHANGES AGAIN.
However just before the off the fav got withdrawn.
For my winning single there was a reduction of 25% which is fine, however for the winning reverse forecast, Betfair came back to inform me that if there is a horse withdrawn then all reverse forecast bets are void! They returned my stake.
I questioned this telling them if I had bet on Sportsbook, or any other bookie or tote, the winning bet would have stood with a suitable 25% reduction.
Their answer was just that’s their rules.
I found this totally unacceptable, I WILL NEVER BET A REVERSE FORECAST ON THE EXCHANGES AGAIN.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 11
|
By:
Thanks for letting us know. I can see why you did the reverse forcast too on the stable. Im a fan of the yard.
|
|
By:
thanx
|
|
By:
I know it's probably very frustrating and infuriating if you were unaware of it - but that has always been the rule PTFC.
|
|
By:
Yep. It has been the rule forever and completely mental - as if you couldn't work out a reasonably fair formula to apply a deduction. It's a joke but not a company who is interested on improvements any longer. They still don't have an automated way of settling if there's any dead-heat involved. Still, it is 1723 .... oh, wait a minute ......
|
|
By:
Never been any different rule as far as i remember and a similar scenario in the past would have returned the stake , sounds harsh but the rules are there for all to read.
In the past there's always been a different rule for bookmaker forecasts , example Hills vs Ladbrokes when one voided if a non runner but the other went win only on the remaining selection , two ways of looking at the fairness of both rules and will only come down to personal opinion , i sat on the Ladbrokes fair play rules committee for several years and the bane of my life was always the non runner in a forecast debate. Good luck mate  |
|
By:
As others have said, the FC and RFC markets have always been voided on NRs.
It is a topic that has been debated on here in the past, and the issue is always how to determine the equivalent of a Reduction Factor that will be fair to both backers and layers. |
|
By:
Hayden , so what is it now with laddies and hills ?
|
|
By:
My rules committee days were a good while ago Howard but there's still a difference amongst how the major companies settle bets.
Where you have placed a forecast bet, i.e. you’ve declared which horses you think will finish first and second, in most cases wagers are declared void when one or more of your selections is the non-runner. However, this is not an absolute rule. For example, Coral and Ladbrokes will instead revert your bet to a win single for the horse you have backed that remains in the field. If you place a forecast bet and another horse(s) other than yours is withdrawn, it’s likely that your picks will remain live however they may be subject to a Rule 4 deduction. Forecast bets are only permitted in races of three runners or more. So, if you have bet on a race and non-runners take the field size down to two, your stake will be refunded and your bet voided. |
|
By:
Thanks to all who responded, yes I know now it is the rules, but it is ONLY with Betfair Exchange, and does not apply to the Betfair Sportsbook rules and that to me is totally unfair. If Sportsbook applies a rule 4 then why not Exchange?
Say it’s a classic race with 8 runners and the outsider of the field @ 500/1 gets withdrawn at the start, with not a penny put on any reverse forecast that involves the outsider, Betfair exchange will still void all reverse forecasts in the race! This is not right, and I will take my reverse forecasts bets elsewhere. Get real Management and put some thought into dealing with this. |
|
By:
"If Sportsbook applies a rule 4 then why not Exchange?"
I would guess (only a guess) that there is enough margin built into the SB bet that BF are able to apply a R4-style deduction that is unfair to the layer (ie themselves) without actually making the bets unprofitable, and clearly they would rather have a small profit than none. Whereas on the Exchange they need to be exactly fair to backers and layers? That, after all, is why the Exchange has RFs and not R4s (which are, on average, slightly over-generous to backers)? Given that BF are forgoing their commission on this market by voiding it, I am sure they would rather apply a reduction of some sort were there a way of doing it that would not turn away either backers or layers? But I do understand your frustration - the situation you outline is one I (and I am sure many on here) have been in more than once. |
|
By:
Agree with longbridge regarding fairness to layers and backers alike.
|