Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Hey all,
Could someone explain an advantage of placing each way bets? I was looking at the odds for a runner on the 19:17 Pontefract for the runner "Right Now". So the odds to win are currently 12 and the odds for a top 2 finish are 3.85 while the each way odds for 2 places are 12.5 with 1/4 odds for a place spot. Therefore, if I was to place an each way bet with £1, it would return £12.50 + £3.13 = £15.63 and if I placed them separately, it would return £12 + £3.85 = £15.85. So what is the value of placing an each way bet? Or would you calculate which would return the highest profit and decide if it is better to place bets separately or place an each way bet?
Could someone explain an advantage of placing each way bets? I was looking at the odds for a runner on the 19:17 Pontefract for the runner "Right Now". So the odds to win are currently 12 and the odds for a top 2 finish are 3.85 while the each way odds for 2 places are 12.5 with 1/4 odds for a place spot. Therefore, if I was to place an each way bet with £1, it would return £12.50 + £3.13 = £15.63 and if I placed them separately, it would return £12 + £3.85 = £15.85. So what is the value of placing an each way bet? Or would you calculate which would return the highest profit and decide if it is better to place bets separately or place an each way bet?
Show More
How often do you beat your wife? EW betting is the biggest con trick ever perpetrated on the betting public, Try this - just recalculate level stakes returns over a long period to having the full stake on the win and nothing on the places, (ie put what you were having on the place on the win instead), - grit your teeth through the losing runs and compare the returns at the end of a year. The whole premise is based on fear of losing, a safety blanket for the individual race, but a flamethrower for profits.
If your not conversant with e/way betting OP and the why's and wherefore's of using it to your advantage i'd leave it well alone.
There are races that present themselves when betting e/way is a poor house certainty , that said some races will present themselves when it's just plain idiotic not to play e/way.
Leave well alone is my advice until you do some research.
Best of luck
There are races that present themselves when betting e/way is a poor house certainty , that said some races will present themselves when it's just plain idiotic not to play e/way.
Leave well alone is my advice until you do some research.
Best of luck
Leave well alone is my advice until you do some research
I'm talking apostrophes here.
I'm talking apostrophes here.
EW betting is the biggest con trick ever perpetrated on the betting public
^^ this
^^ this
if you are in a bookie office and your mate is placing £20 win on a horse you can use his money if you want to back it to be placed.
a lot of bookies will not take place bets on there own
a lot of bookies will not take place bets on there own
Do not bother backing each way on handicaps. But do back each way on non handicaps once you know what you're doing.
Thanks for the replies guys. I've been testing tips for each way bets over the previous 7 months and while it returned profits, I noticed the combined odds were actually better than the odds at each way so it makes no sense why someone would back each way when they can just back on both bets. @steerforth , I'll test as you suggested on the 7 months data I have by just backing the win and see what results I get.
Like most racing/gambling topics (and in life), people making definitive blanket statements are usually talking bollix. Life's not like that and neither is betting. In all fairness to the people making sweeping statements (above), your question is very broad and non-specific.
It's gonna be very dependent on the type of race and the structure of the betting market for any given race.
Sometimes betting EW is utter madness (really poor value), other times it will be some of the best value ever available to you. That's not a sweeping statement or an opinion - it's a mathematical fact.
It's gonna be very dependent on the type of race and the structure of the betting market for any given race.
Sometimes betting EW is utter madness (really poor value), other times it will be some of the best value ever available to you. That's not a sweeping statement or an opinion - it's a mathematical fact.
I think the OP is talking about each way betting on the exchange not with the bookies. The two are miles apart. If bookies it is as you say TM but if exchange it's a massive waste of time as win and place will always (assuming no non-runners when reduction factors will generally work against each way bets) will be a little worse than the individual markets because of the Betfair bot.
Fair enough. If he's only focussed on exchange betting, in the handful of races where EW betting does make some sense (even on the exchange), liquidity (or the complete lack of it) and getting matched will be a problem.
So the people making the bold sweeping statements are probably going to be correct (most of the time)!
So the people making the bold sweeping statements are probably going to be correct (most of the time)!
EW betting is the biggest con trick ever perpetrated on the betting public
The truth.
The truth.
Here’s a thought if each way was so crud why have the 1/4 of the odds that were the norm now gone? On multiples the difference in payout between 1/4 and 1/5 is massive if the odds are decent.
Remember the Sun had the Each Way thief, I placed an acca for Ascot - 6 horse £2 ew paid over £2000 when all were placed.
Remember the Sun had the Each Way thief, I placed an acca for Ascot - 6 horse £2 ew paid over £2000 when all were placed.
If you cant see the upsides of having EW betting in your "toolkit" - you probably shouldn't be betting at all imo - as it indicates you have no understanding of the numbers.
There's truth that some people use EW betting as a "comfort blanket", meaning many people accept poor EW value (knowingly or not) for less volatility/variance in their returns. Long term betting EW is probably costing most of those people money and worse still - betting EW habitually, regardless of specifics is pure madness.
But I'd guess all of the biggest staked (knowingly over-staked) and most confident winning bets (singles) I have ever had in my life have been Each Way bets. Admittedly not many of them would have been on something with so many variables as a horse race. Personally I wouldn't be prepared to massively "over-stake" on any individual/solitary horse race, no matter how tempting - but the argument for EW is equally applicable to horse racing to some extent.
People will argue (sometimes quite rightly) that having 2 stakes to win instead of one stake EW would have returned more over time. While that's often true, it's not a qualified or specific statement and it fails to consider two points:
1) I've had lots of similarly over-staked bets (again, not usually on racing) that haven't won - but have placed - while having very few such over-staked bets that fail to place. So the argument that 2 win stakes would have paid more than betting EW is completely unqualified/baseless unless you know the specifics of the bets, the prices and most importantly my/your win/place/unplaced ratios.
In horse racing with all it's variables and even with the best judgement in the world, you will have unplaced EW bets where you lose two stakes, so over-staking (even when the maths are absolutely in your favour) is a risky proposition on a single event imo.
2) More importantly it completely overlooks the fact that I wouldn't have had the bets at all or to any significant stake, if forced to bet win-only. The only reason I was prepared to stake so heavily on some non-racing bets (relative to usual stakes) was the near certainty in my mind that the win part of the bet was effectively a free bet because the place element of the bet would cover (or very nearly cover) the the win stake. I doubt I would have placed any of my winning-most bets (at the stakes or the prices) in a win-only market.
So we've gone full circle - back to the "comfort-blanket" that EW can provide. But there's a world of difference between the two "comfort-blankets" I have outlined!
There's truth that some people use EW betting as a "comfort blanket", meaning many people accept poor EW value (knowingly or not) for less volatility/variance in their returns. Long term betting EW is probably costing most of those people money and worse still - betting EW habitually, regardless of specifics is pure madness.
But I'd guess all of the biggest staked (knowingly over-staked) and most confident winning bets (singles) I have ever had in my life have been Each Way bets. Admittedly not many of them would have been on something with so many variables as a horse race. Personally I wouldn't be prepared to massively "over-stake" on any individual/solitary horse race, no matter how tempting - but the argument for EW is equally applicable to horse racing to some extent.
People will argue (sometimes quite rightly) that having 2 stakes to win instead of one stake EW would have returned more over time. While that's often true, it's not a qualified or specific statement and it fails to consider two points:
1) I've had lots of similarly over-staked bets (again, not usually on racing) that haven't won - but have placed - while having very few such over-staked bets that fail to place. So the argument that 2 win stakes would have paid more than betting EW is completely unqualified/baseless unless you know the specifics of the bets, the prices and most importantly my/your win/place/unplaced ratios.
In horse racing with all it's variables and even with the best judgement in the world, you will have unplaced EW bets where you lose two stakes, so over-staking (even when the maths are absolutely in your favour) is a risky proposition on a single event imo.
2) More importantly it completely overlooks the fact that I wouldn't have had the bets at all or to any significant stake, if forced to bet win-only. The only reason I was prepared to stake so heavily on some non-racing bets (relative to usual stakes) was the near certainty in my mind that the win part of the bet was effectively a free bet because the place element of the bet would cover (or very nearly cover) the the win stake. I doubt I would have placed any of my winning-most bets (at the stakes or the prices) in a win-only market.
So we've gone full circle - back to the "comfort-blanket" that EW can provide. But there's a world of difference between the two "comfort-blankets" I have outlined!
Great stuff TM , couldn't have put it anywhere near as well myself
As the first on here with a "sweeping statement", I think I should come back and allow that TM makes a valid point. Obviously there are times when making an EW bet at bookies terms provides value if you know what you're looking at.
I should clarify the point I was making. When I said "EW betting is the biggest con..." I should have said "EW terms are the biggest con.." Except when they offer a clear advantage, and I do recognise those cases, ie when the fvt is short and the relative chances of the opposition and field size combine to provide value.
That said, if I really thought the fvt looked the winner I would factor in the loss of the win stake in assessing the value on the place, and I suspect the number of times you'll find it would be low.
I wouldn't put anyone off taking advantage of that set up with any high street/internet bookmaker who will take the bet (although I suspect you won't get many goes). They have it coming. For myself I actualy find it unedifying and I wouldn't do it with any old style "gentleman bookmaker" with whom I had a relationship. (Those were the days).
Betting into the place market on here is an option but for what its worth, I've had a freakish three months in which I've had a huge number of 2nd places, far more than that I would have thought was statistically likely. I ran the figures, (admittedly needing to speculate on 2nd place returns based on typical pre race offers relative to win price, since there are no published returns), working out the difference between halving the stake between the win and "to finish in the first two" markets, and the full stake win only. The former was a loss from a high strike rate on the 2nds. The latter, a small profit from a relatively low win strike rate.
I haven't worked out the return for betting it all onto the first two market, but I suspect that would return a small profit, but from an exceptionally high strike rate that bears no correlation to longer term results looking back.
Smallish sample, but I think it tells me what I need to know.
I should clarify the point I was making. When I said "EW betting is the biggest con..." I should have said "EW terms are the biggest con.." Except when they offer a clear advantage, and I do recognise those cases, ie when the fvt is short and the relative chances of the opposition and field size combine to provide value.
That said, if I really thought the fvt looked the winner I would factor in the loss of the win stake in assessing the value on the place, and I suspect the number of times you'll find it would be low.
I wouldn't put anyone off taking advantage of that set up with any high street/internet bookmaker who will take the bet (although I suspect you won't get many goes). They have it coming. For myself I actualy find it unedifying and I wouldn't do it with any old style "gentleman bookmaker" with whom I had a relationship. (Those were the days).
Betting into the place market on here is an option but for what its worth, I've had a freakish three months in which I've had a huge number of 2nd places, far more than that I would have thought was statistically likely. I ran the figures, (admittedly needing to speculate on 2nd place returns based on typical pre race offers relative to win price, since there are no published returns), working out the difference between halving the stake between the win and "to finish in the first two" markets, and the full stake win only. The former was a loss from a high strike rate on the 2nds. The latter, a small profit from a relatively low win strike rate.
I haven't worked out the return for betting it all onto the first two market, but I suspect that would return a small profit, but from an exceptionally high strike rate that bears no correlation to longer term results looking back.
Smallish sample, but I think it tells me what I need to know.
You can be sure that if you were to start betting on ‘first two’ that you’d suddenly have a lot of 3rd places.
all you assumption are based on someone in lon gterm having 20 0n the nose instead of a 10 ew might or might not be better off,but everyday punters don't work to spread sheets, P/L etc,it doesn't mean the whole 20 goes on the nose they might still just have a tenner on the nose,and for 95% of punters its all about getting a return,it s a brave man who ignores 6,8 20,s + horses getting placed with enhanced places with no return
and betting ew enhanced places at double fig odds makes more sense for 95% of punters than so called shrewdies backing so called EW bets to nothing between 3,s and 5 to 1,for so called pro/serious punters who wont be walking away from punting anytime soon,that makes little sense to me
This has or will eventually just turn into an each to their own thread and as the vast majority of punters never change their ways it won't really go anywhere , lots to do with whether someone is either a one or multi dimensional punter.
Would add though finding days when you can compound an over broke as opposed to the traditional over rounds would make some rethink when involving multiples and i'd say the whole point in my mind is that the bookmaker place terms aren't mean as implied they're actually over generous when you're selective , if it was operationally possible they'd be offering 1/10th a place 1,2,3 in some races and be fully justified in doing so in a business sense.
Good luck today all
Would add though finding days when you can compound an over broke as opposed to the traditional over rounds would make some rethink when involving multiples and i'd say the whole point in my mind is that the bookmaker place terms aren't mean as implied they're actually over generous when you're selective , if it was operationally possible they'd be offering 1/10th a place 1,2,3 in some races and be fully justified in doing so in a business sense.
Good luck today all
All valid - and all confirming there isn't a "one size fits all" or a "yes/no" answer to the question!
I think we proved recently on another thread, that even when you look at just the "filthy each-way races" in isolation, it's pretty difficult to find any two races with betting markets that are identical.
7/2 in one race is a completely different proposition to 7/2 in another race - one might be the fav in a 15 runner NH Handicap, the other might be part of a race that's 2/9, 7/2 and any price you like on the other 6 runners in an 8 runner stakes flat race. To have the same approach and to answer the question the same way, to both scenarios would be insane (imo).
And we haven't even touched on multiples yet!
I think we proved recently on another thread, that even when you look at just the "filthy each-way races" in isolation, it's pretty difficult to find any two races with betting markets that are identical.
7/2 in one race is a completely different proposition to 7/2 in another race - one might be the fav in a 15 runner NH Handicap, the other might be part of a race that's 2/9, 7/2 and any price you like on the other 6 runners in an 8 runner stakes flat race. To have the same approach and to answer the question the same way, to both scenarios would be insane (imo).
And we haven't even touched on multiples yet!
I wouldn't be so dismissive of the importance of variance. If you use a proportional staking system it is possible to make greater profit over time in a lower variance regime than in a higher variance regime that shows a higher level stake profit. It comes down to sequence risk.
The Management
If you cant see the upsides of having EW betting in your "toolkit" - you probably shouldn't be betting at all imo - as it indicates you have no understanding of the numbers.
A translation of that is "you must be stupid if you do not bet each-way"
I thought back to my biggest wins and only one of them was an each-way bet, and that was about four units win, one unit place.
My betting over the years moved from betting on every race, often each-way, to betting on few races, win only, and greatly increasing my bet if the odds were high.
If you bet 1 unit win, 1 place on a 20/1 and it places .... - 1 (win bet) and +4 place bet (20/5=4) for a +3.
If that excites you that is your risk appetite.
It might win and you get +20+3 = 23
But why not 2 at 20/1 = +40
It must be very annoying when your horse wins and you "lose" 17 points (40-23).
If you cant see the upsides of having EW betting in your "toolkit" - you probably shouldn't be betting at all imo - as it indicates you have no understanding of the numbers.
A translation of that is "you must be stupid if you do not bet each-way"
I thought back to my biggest wins and only one of them was an each-way bet, and that was about four units win, one unit place.
My betting over the years moved from betting on every race, often each-way, to betting on few races, win only, and greatly increasing my bet if the odds were high.
If you bet 1 unit win, 1 place on a 20/1 and it places .... - 1 (win bet) and +4 place bet (20/5=4) for a +3.
If that excites you that is your risk appetite.
It might win and you get +20+3 = 23
But why not 2 at 20/1 = +40
It must be very annoying when your horse wins and you "lose" 17 points (40-23).
kincsem24 May 25 12:41Joined: 12 Apr 04 | Topic/replies: 10,578 | Blogger: kincsem's blog
A translation of that is "you must be stupid if you do not bet each-way"
You've turned my much more balance argument into a sweeping statement!
No worries - that's your prerogative.
A more accurate translation would have been "There's a time and a place for most bet types. EW betting is no exception and if you never consider it, you're probably missing some good opportunities".
If you always bet EW you're not doing yourself any favours - probably likewise if you never bet EW.
A translation of that is "you must be stupid if you do not bet each-way"
You've turned my much more balance argument into a sweeping statement!
No worries - that's your prerogative.
A more accurate translation would have been "There's a time and a place for most bet types. EW betting is no exception and if you never consider it, you're probably missing some good opportunities".
If you always bet EW you're not doing yourself any favours - probably likewise if you never bet EW.
No criticism intended at all here kincsem but your post proves the thread is going nowhere as we're all mostly singing from different hymn sheets , majority of the thread feedback isn't like for like as we're comparing having a bet whether it be to win a certain amount or looking for a biggest win or even because it's what a punter does every race anyway vs pure exploitation , totally different gambling mindset and there's absolutely nothing wrong with either.
So we're back to each to their own again
So we're back to each to their own again
Perfectly summed up
If you always bet EW you're not doing yourself any favours - probably likewise if you never bet EW.
If you always bet EW you're not doing yourself any favours - probably likewise if you never bet EW.
kincesem
that's the point your not hoping to walk away after a starting of losing betys you,ll happily have 60 losers on 33,s shot if 2 at 33,s winners follow shortly afterwards, but your social punter would like to see the returns in his pockets if a few of those 60 33,s shots were placed,especially with enhanced odds,it harder to see why a 7 day a week forever punter like nevo for example bets ew
that's the point your not hoping to walk away after a starting of losing betys you,ll happily have 60 losers on 33,s shot if 2 at 33,s winners follow shortly afterwards, but your social punter would like to see the returns in his pockets if a few of those 60 33,s shots were placed,especially with enhanced odds,it harder to see why a 7 day a week forever punter like nevo for example bets ew
I liken it to football punters who don't give a bit back/forgot a bit of winnings by greening up/cashing out etc, how many last 10 mins,last min,in jury time goals that rob you of any winnings could you stomach before changing your strategy or walking away ?
Davros24 May 25 12:40Joined: 09 Mar 02 | Topic/replies: 673 | Blogger: Davros's blog
I wouldn't be so dismissive of the importance of variance. If you use a proportional staking system it is possible to make greater profit over time in a lower variance regime than in a higher variance regime that shows a higher level stake profit. It comes down to sequence risk.
I think that's what I was saying - perhaps I didn't put it well. I've never had a high tolerance for variance; not because I don't have the discipline or the patience to ride it out - I do.
Winning strategies (for me) back in the glory-years of Betfair would demand a very high tolerance of variance. But I'm older (hopefully wiser) and I don't need the stress (or the money). You could say I've turned into an old ponce in terms of my betting! But if you can evolve and find ways that allow you to significantly flatten out your variance (without paying through the nose for the privilege), why wouldn't you? imo. Each way betting isn't necessarily a guarantee of doing that - but it's a simplistic example.
A stress free journey is better than a stressful one imo, if they both get you to the same destination at the same time - and if the stress free journey gets you there more quickly, then it's a no-brainer!
Davros - as an aside, are you one of the old-timers that has been tempted back by the transition from PC to EF (or have I mixed you up with somebody else from back in the day)?
I wouldn't be so dismissive of the importance of variance. If you use a proportional staking system it is possible to make greater profit over time in a lower variance regime than in a higher variance regime that shows a higher level stake profit. It comes down to sequence risk.
I think that's what I was saying - perhaps I didn't put it well. I've never had a high tolerance for variance; not because I don't have the discipline or the patience to ride it out - I do.
Winning strategies (for me) back in the glory-years of Betfair would demand a very high tolerance of variance. But I'm older (hopefully wiser) and I don't need the stress (or the money). You could say I've turned into an old ponce in terms of my betting! But if you can evolve and find ways that allow you to significantly flatten out your variance (without paying through the nose for the privilege), why wouldn't you? imo. Each way betting isn't necessarily a guarantee of doing that - but it's a simplistic example.
A stress free journey is better than a stressful one imo, if they both get you to the same destination at the same time - and if the stress free journey gets you there more quickly, then it's a no-brainer!
Davros - as an aside, are you one of the old-timers that has been tempted back by the transition from PC to EF (or have I mixed you up with somebody else from back in the day)?
@steerforth
"admittedly needing to speculate on 2nd place returns based on typical pre race offers relative to win price, since there are no published returns"
they should all be here:
https://promo.betfair.com/betfairsp/prices
"admittedly needing to speculate on 2nd place returns based on typical pre race offers relative to win price, since there are no published returns"
they should all be here:
https://promo.betfair.com/betfairsp/prices
This thread (only a couple of pages) eventually got onto the the topic of how each way betting can be worthwhile even when it's bad value. We were looking at the question from the point of view of a punter actually having to put the money down on the day, rather than doing it theoretically on paper.
https://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/31725101/luck-on-sunday-patrick-veitch?origpost_id=561406173&pg=1
https://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/31725101/luck-on-sunday-patrick-veitch?origpost_id=561406173&pg=1
in an hr since thread started I,d have had to have swallowed no return from
principality 28,s
double A 28,s
principality 28,s
double A 28,s
Thanks screaming , first thing i noticed unfortunately were the posts from Sparrow & Smirnoff 
May 24, 2025 -- 2:19PM, longbridge wrote:
@steerforth"admittedly needing to speculate on 2nd place returns based on typical pre race offers relative to win price, since there are no published returns"they should all be here:https://promo.betfair.com/betfairsp/prices
Thanks - I had a feeling someone would point out something I'd missed. I hadn't really looked for it.
Some ‘ professional people’ like 5 - 7 runners,normal 1/4…..
God Bless sparrow (I'd like to think I was always patient and kind to him on this topic) but he just couldn't ever get his head around Each Way betting or the time to deploy it.
And ironically, he would often only bring it up after the (most filthy) Each Way bet of the year had just won! Essentially complaining at the most inopportune and inappropriate of moments - telling all the each-way thieves what mugs they were - while they were busy counting their plentiful ill gotten gains!
He'd happily point out that the winner had paid 7 or 8 or 9 on the exchange but had returned a "pitiful" Industry SP of 3/1 or 7/2 or 4/1. But he just couldn't get his head around the fact that this also meant Each Way players were getting 1.60 or 1.70 or 1.80 for the place, on a horse that had gone off at 1.12 or 1.15 or 1.20 in the Betfair Place Only market.
Obviously the horse (be it 3/1, 7/2 or 4/1 ISP) would have gone off about that same price in the BF EW market!
But he just couldn't see past the disparity between BFSP in the win market and ISP (which was based on EW being an available option).
Hopefully by now he's a pint with Barry Dennis (up there) and seen the light. RIP.
Screaming - a very fair point you make about the harsh reality versus in theory or paper trading!
And ironically, he would often only bring it up after the (most filthy) Each Way bet of the year had just won! Essentially complaining at the most inopportune and inappropriate of moments - telling all the each-way thieves what mugs they were - while they were busy counting their plentiful ill gotten gains!
He'd happily point out that the winner had paid 7 or 8 or 9 on the exchange but had returned a "pitiful" Industry SP of 3/1 or 7/2 or 4/1. But he just couldn't get his head around the fact that this also meant Each Way players were getting 1.60 or 1.70 or 1.80 for the place, on a horse that had gone off at 1.12 or 1.15 or 1.20 in the Betfair Place Only market.
Obviously the horse (be it 3/1, 7/2 or 4/1 ISP) would have gone off about that same price in the BF EW market!
But he just couldn't see past the disparity between BFSP in the win market and ISP (which was based on EW being an available option).
Hopefully by now he's a pint with Barry Dennis (up there) and seen the light. RIP.
Screaming - a very fair point you make about the harsh reality versus in theory or paper trading!
The Management
If you cant see the upsides of having EW betting in your "toolkit" - you probably shouldn't be betting at all imo - as it indicates you have no understanding of the numbers.
I did have place betting in my toolkit.
For a number of years I place-laid horses in the Epsom Oaks and Derby.
My preference was to place-lay five horses if I could.
It was often, not always, profitable.
My edge (if it was) is I study pedigrees (see foalmare.com).
And quite a few in the Oaks and Derby would, as the old saying goes "not get the distance in a horsebox".
But my main bets on those two races were win bets.
I seldom backed the winner as I bet hig odds.
One year I backed the last in the Oaks and the last in the Derby (a pity I did not place lay those two).
If you cant see the upsides of having EW betting in your "toolkit" - you probably shouldn't be betting at all imo - as it indicates you have no understanding of the numbers.
I did have place betting in my toolkit.
For a number of years I place-laid horses in the Epsom Oaks and Derby.
My preference was to place-lay five horses if I could.
It was often, not always, profitable.
My edge (if it was) is I study pedigrees (see foalmare.com).
And quite a few in the Oaks and Derby would, as the old saying goes "not get the distance in a horsebox".
But my main bets on those two races were win bets.
I seldom backed the winner as I bet hig odds.
One year I backed the last in the Oaks and the last in the Derby (a pity I did not place lay those two).
I like a bit of place laying myself, kincsem.
I utilise it in various scenarios - but the "will he or won't he" situations around going on the going, getting the trip, pace in a race (or lack of it), etc, etc, are probably my favourite use of it.
Over simplifying it a bit - but you also get scenarios where you think a strongly fancied or "talking" horse" will either absolutely p1ss-up or completely bomb, making the place market a sensible alternative to the win market for layers.
Which just goes to show, there is a time and a place for all sorts of bets.
I utilise it in various scenarios - but the "will he or won't he" situations around going on the going, getting the trip, pace in a race (or lack of it), etc, etc, are probably my favourite use of it.
Over simplifying it a bit - but you also get scenarios where you think a strongly fancied or "talking" horse" will either absolutely p1ss-up or completely bomb, making the place market a sensible alternative to the win market for layers.
Which just goes to show, there is a time and a place for all sorts of bets.
May 26, 2025 -- 10:44AM, kincsem wrote:
The ManagementIf you cant see the upsides of having EW betting in your "toolkit" - you probably shouldn't be betting at all imo - as it indicates you have no understanding of the numbers.I did have place betting in my toolkit.For a number of years I place-laid horses in the Epsom Oaks and Derby.My preference was to place-lay five horses if I could.It was often, not always, profitable.My edge (if it was) is I study pedigrees (see foalmare.com).And quite a few in the Oaks and Derby would, as the old saying goes "not get the distance in a horsebox".But my main bets on those two races were win bets.I seldom backed the winner as I bet hig odds.One year I backed the last in the Oaks and the last in the Derby (a pity I did not place lay those two).
Hi Kincsem you know that I respect your knowledge, however as you said those two races (the derby more so) are terrible races for long shots.
I did back Was @ 50/1 in the Oaks and last year EW’d Wind Chimes at 50/1 or 66/1 because of her form with Sosie.
You mentioned that you bet less, that’s the same as me as I now look for the races that throw up the surprises, it’s why I like the Guineas for example.
Have you narrowed your focus of attention to certain races now and if so what are they typically.
I typically like foreign racing where multi form lines come into play and bias comes into play with how the market is set up and certain trainers records for races or travelling a horse.
14/1 2nd place, 5th odds, you don't even double your money and people say great selection, great bet. You'll go skint if you think that'll work.
5th the odds was put in to squeeze the balls out of the under odds markets even more.
Big Mac would have been saying it too, unlike the people on tv now.
Big Mac would have been saying it too, unlike the people on tv now.
For the French 2000 they were happy to offer 5 places.
For the 1000 Guineas with the hot hot Fav for the Aga they only offered 5th 1,2.3!!! (Only two places were up for grabs)
So that was obviously a terrible race to play EW, you have to adapt. The goal posts are continually being moved in the bookies favour.
I always thought Cheltenham a rip off with 3 places a race with a Mullins hot pot making it like the French 1000.
For the 1000 Guineas with the hot hot Fav for the Aga they only offered 5th 1,2.3!!! (Only two places were up for grabs)
So that was obviously a terrible race to play EW, you have to adapt. The goal posts are continually being moved in the bookies favour.
I always thought Cheltenham a rip off with 3 places a race with a Mullins hot pot making it like the French 1000.
5th odds a place is a gift when the mathematics say it should be either a 10th or 12th.
As you say each to their own, I like multiples and the payout at 1/5 is altered dramatically compared to 1/4.
Group 1’s were always 1/4 the odds and should be because with the domination of O’Brien on standard terms you’re playing for 2 places.
So I agree ew isn’t good.
Group 1’s were always 1/4 the odds and should be because with the domination of O’Brien on standard terms you’re playing for 2 places.
So I agree ew isn’t good.
I can recall a very happy Dr Jim Hay after his horse won at Ascot, in the big sprint, at a big price.
He was singing the virtues of betting each way and shopping around for boosted place terms. Think he said sly were offering 5 places and he filled his boots! He said why take 3 when you can get 5!
What he didn’t say was how he staked it.
He was singing the virtues of betting each way and shopping around for boosted place terms. Think he said sly were offering 5 places and he filled his boots! He said why take 3 when you can get 5!
What he didn’t say was how he staked it.
But now they price up races anti post with 8 runners and offer only two places. That’s wrong by the EW terms. If they know of a likely non runner don’t list or put a market up because it’s false.
8 runners = 3 places.
8 runners = 3 places.
Before my time Barstool, but crikey they really have squeezed the stuffing!
Before my time barstool…..quarter the odds in a small field…
Quest for fun looks a fair e.w bet at 7/1 6 places tomorrow, York 5.00
Should shorten up if they get rain.
Should shorten up if they get rain.
Squeezed the pips out of everything.
Can anyone else remember how they cut and cut the old Chart Forecast on the greyhounds?
Can anyone else remember how they cut and cut the old Chart Forecast on the greyhounds?
Back in the grim days of the seventies big companies ( Lad's for example ) went 1/8th odds a place 1,2,3 when the fav was odds on.
chart fcast for greyhounds ,great days
the beige/orangey greyhound racecard sat morning hackney dogs in laddies
the beige/orangey greyhound racecard sat morning hackney dogs in laddies
Remembering the wall chart horse racing forecast and how that went for a burton following that 3 horse race between Little Owl , Venture To Cognac and Great Dean in the bad old days.
If you can find that video somewhere the late Jim Wilson's pulling up of Little Owl at around 4/11 put paid to that f/cast chart , would be a thread of epic proportions if that race was yesterday and might put yesterday into some perspective.
If you can find that video somewhere the late Jim Wilson's pulling up of Little Owl at around 4/11 put paid to that f/cast chart , would be a thread of epic proportions if that race was yesterday and might put yesterday into some perspective.
1st time poster30 May 25 17:15Joined: 25 Dec 05 | Topic/replies: 57,251 | Blogger: 1st time poster's blog
the beige/orangey greyhound racecard sat morning hackney dogs in laddies
Assume you mean the Jackson & Lowe wall-chart?
I had a mate that swore if they Napped a Trap One at Bristol - you would always collect - tbf he never bought a round and often wanted a loan.
the beige/orangey greyhound racecard sat morning hackney dogs in laddies
Assume you mean the Jackson & Lowe wall-chart?
I had a mate that swore if they Napped a Trap One at Bristol - you would always collect
- tbf he never bought a round and often wanted a loan.
Brings back memories
Mark Coton's account:-
"The 1982 Fulwell Chase at Kempton Park appeared
a mundane contest. True, the Gold Cup winner
Little Owl was in attendance but he faced only
two rivals in Venture To Cognac and Great Dean.
"Venture To Cognac had some useful form to his
credit but had become injury-prone and was
considered to need the run. As for Great Dean,
he had been pulled up at lowly Fontwell and
needed a miracle if he was to win such
a valuable prize.
"Little Owl was sent off the 4-11 favourite,
Venture To Cognac 5-2 with Great Dean appearing
for all the world a lost cause at 66-1.
"As far as winning the race was concerned,
Great Dean was virtually friendless.
On the course and in the betting shops it was
only the odd `just-for-fun' merchant and
habitues of the `outsider-of-three' system who
gave him even a moment's consideration.
"Or so it seemed. But dotted about the country
were a handful of shrewd punters who had spotted
the chance to make a killing on the race.
A chance, that's all. Those shrewdies didn't
_expect_ to pickup but knew exceptional value
when they saw it.
"And what a killing! Not only were these punters
expecting to receive odds of around 150-1 on
their bet, they were also gleefully awaiting
the chance to make fools of the big bookmakers.
"For once, the bookmakers had made a `rick' and
a mighty serious one at that.
"The mistake was in the format for the then
relatively new Computerised Straight Forecast
(CSF), which allowed for inflated dividends should
a long-priced outsider make the frame in a small
field.
"The Fulwell Chase offered an ideal chance to
exploit this loophole. All it needed was for
Little Owl to fail to complete the course (as
he had done at Cheltenham on his previous start)
and this would enable Venture To Cognac to win
with Great Dean hopefully putting in a clear round
to come second.
"The race went entirely to script for these
backers. Little Owl leading and seemingly
going well, swerved and was pulled up by
jockey and part-owner Jim Wilson at the 10th.
"This left Venture To Cognac clear of the already
tailed-off Great Dean. The former sauntered round
to win by a distance and Great Dean, with forecast
backers holding their breath, completed in his own
time to earn a place in the history books.
"Little Owl's bit had reportedly slipped, but
the bookmakers were not happy, especially when
they realised the extent of their liabilities.
"Payment was held back while BOLA and the racing
authorities carried out an investigation into
the race. No evidence of any misdemeanour was
produced and the bookmakers, suitably chastened,
paid out.
"They also called in their computer people to
change the format of the CSF to avoid such inflated
dividends in small fields in the future, and
the result was what is disingenuously referred
to as the `Harmonic formula' for producing CSF
dividends. Today, if Venture To Cognac were to
beat Great Dean in identical circumstances, backers
would receive odds of only 15-1.
"This was a blatant over-correction and the few
punters who were on were crying foul after
after the 1989 Eclipse in which Nashwan at 2-5
beat 200-1 shot Opening Verse. Those that had
the combination were dismayed to receive odds
of only 24-1 (the Tote paid over 50% better at
38-1), which provides a fine indication of
the high level of profit bookmakers build into
the CSF."
Mark Coton's account:-
"The 1982 Fulwell Chase at Kempton Park appeared
a mundane contest. True, the Gold Cup winner
Little Owl was in attendance but he faced only
two rivals in Venture To Cognac and Great Dean.
"Venture To Cognac had some useful form to his
credit but had become injury-prone and was
considered to need the run. As for Great Dean,
he had been pulled up at lowly Fontwell and
needed a miracle if he was to win such
a valuable prize.
"Little Owl was sent off the 4-11 favourite,
Venture To Cognac 5-2 with Great Dean appearing
for all the world a lost cause at 66-1.
"As far as winning the race was concerned,
Great Dean was virtually friendless.
On the course and in the betting shops it was
only the odd `just-for-fun' merchant and
habitues of the `outsider-of-three' system who
gave him even a moment's consideration.
"Or so it seemed. But dotted about the country
were a handful of shrewd punters who had spotted
the chance to make a killing on the race.
A chance, that's all. Those shrewdies didn't
_expect_ to pickup but knew exceptional value
when they saw it.
"And what a killing! Not only were these punters
expecting to receive odds of around 150-1 on
their bet, they were also gleefully awaiting
the chance to make fools of the big bookmakers.
"For once, the bookmakers had made a `rick' and
a mighty serious one at that.
"The mistake was in the format for the then
relatively new Computerised Straight Forecast
(CSF), which allowed for inflated dividends should
a long-priced outsider make the frame in a small
field.
"The Fulwell Chase offered an ideal chance to
exploit this loophole. All it needed was for
Little Owl to fail to complete the course (as
he had done at Cheltenham on his previous start)
and this would enable Venture To Cognac to win
with Great Dean hopefully putting in a clear round
to come second.
"The race went entirely to script for these
backers. Little Owl leading and seemingly
going well, swerved and was pulled up by
jockey and part-owner Jim Wilson at the 10th.
"This left Venture To Cognac clear of the already
tailed-off Great Dean. The former sauntered round
to win by a distance and Great Dean, with forecast
backers holding their breath, completed in his own
time to earn a place in the history books.
"Little Owl's bit had reportedly slipped, but
the bookmakers were not happy, especially when
they realised the extent of their liabilities.
"Payment was held back while BOLA and the racing
authorities carried out an investigation into
the race. No evidence of any misdemeanour was
produced and the bookmakers, suitably chastened,
paid out.
"They also called in their computer people to
change the format of the CSF to avoid such inflated
dividends in small fields in the future, and
the result was what is disingenuously referred
to as the `Harmonic formula' for producing CSF
dividends. Today, if Venture To Cognac were to
beat Great Dean in identical circumstances, backers
would receive odds of only 15-1.
"This was a blatant over-correction and the few
punters who were on were crying foul after
after the 1989 Eclipse in which Nashwan at 2-5
beat 200-1 shot Opening Verse. Those that had
the combination were dismayed to receive odds
of only 24-1 (the Tote paid over 50% better at
38-1), which provides a fine indication of
the high level of profit bookmakers build into
the CSF."
Bookies also build an extra layer of profit into "bad EW races" but the unique thing in UK/IRE betting is that multiples split into separate bets for win and place: - so while you will be multiplying a loss on the win part, you should be multiplying a profit on the place part.
Against that edge, jockeys on beaten horses are quite often intent on getting their mounts OUT of the frame
Against that edge, jockeys on beaten horses are quite often intent on getting their mounts OUT of the frame
there's the debate in a nutshell been discussing it with SD SERVICES on x,around so called dirty ew bets
Chappers you lose a little bit betting 4,s ew, at least he admitted you lose,SD in his interview with Simon Knott,said you get 0.6% for 3,s getting placed ,we no what he means but he,s not getting 0.6% he,s losing at least 0.4% and I,d argue your losing a lot more because for most especially serious/pro punters its, 10 ew or 20 straight win
in Chappers case he,d get he,d get 68 quid back for his 10 ew at 4,s, I,d get a 100 back,so in my eyes he,s lost not a little but a lot, at,3,4,5 to 1 ,at least one in 3,4,5 have to win anyway or you not winning so you might as well be betting on the nose
SD put it like this you don't like 4 to 7 for the fav to win, so although you don't think the 3,s 2nd best will win have a few bob ew, there is a 3rd option leave the race alone as you obviously haven't got a strong opinion on the race or you,d be backing one straight win to beat the fav,
people surprised SD gets on EW but if you were a bookmaker why wouldn't you take dirt ew bets of SD,your not losing and as he,s the latest hot streak punter on the street,why wouldn't you rather him having half his stake on which must be plenty of winners ,otherwise he wouldn't be getting the headlines
long post but enjoy this EW debate,good luck ew or on the nose
Chappers you lose a little bit betting 4,s ew, at least he admitted you lose,SD in his interview with Simon Knott,said you get 0.6% for 3,s getting placed ,we no what he means but he,s not getting 0.6% he,s losing at least 0.4% and I,d argue your losing a lot more because for most especially serious/pro punters its, 10 ew or 20 straight win
in Chappers case he,d get he,d get 68 quid back for his 10 ew at 4,s, I,d get a 100 back,so in my eyes he,s lost not a little but a lot, at,3,4,5 to 1 ,at least one in 3,4,5 have to win anyway or you not winning so you might as well be betting on the nose
SD put it like this you don't like 4 to 7 for the fav to win, so although you don't think the 3,s 2nd best will win have a few bob ew, there is a 3rd option leave the race alone as you obviously haven't got a strong opinion on the race or you,d be backing one straight win to beat the fav,
people surprised SD gets on EW but if you were a bookmaker why wouldn't you take dirt ew bets of SD,your not losing and as he,s the latest hot streak punter on the street,why wouldn't you rather him having half his stake on which must be plenty of winners ,otherwise he wouldn't be getting the headlines
long post but enjoy this EW debate,good luck ew or on the nose
If your level stake is 1 point.
To win only is 1 point
If betting ew , a decision then is either 1/2 point ew or 1 point ew ( doubling your normal stake).
If the horse is placed, in both cases you get a return.
The quandary is if it wins. Because 1/2 point ew stake would have paid more as 1 point win.As indeed would 1point ew, had it been 2 points to win only.
You pays your money, you takes your chance.
Personally I back in Handicaps only with an average 8/1 sp.
My records show over many years that the most long term profit, comes from
betting win only.
To win only is 1 point
If betting ew , a decision then is either 1/2 point ew or 1 point ew ( doubling your normal stake).
If the horse is placed, in both cases you get a return.
The quandary is if it wins. Because 1/2 point ew stake would have paid more as 1 point win.As indeed would 1point ew, had it been 2 points to win only.
You pays your money, you takes your chance.
Personally I back in Handicaps only with an average 8/1 sp.
My records show over many years that the most long term profit, comes from
betting win only.
I bet a lot ew at 8,s and above, enhanced places etc because I cant stomach getting lots of paced horses with no return, and 32 losing bets waiting for the 33td at 33,s to win,is imo a lot different than 3 or 4 bets backing ew on so called dirty ew bet,
anyone can buy 10 apples for a quid each and sell them at 80 p each doesn't make you a great businessman, your trying to sell them at a profit
in Chappers case backing ew at 4,s,if 3 get placed,when the 4th one wins ,his little loss is 3 x a little loss ,taking of his winner is a big loss and if non winner he,s losing on every race anyway, he,s eventually turning 20 quid nots in to 10 quid notes.just prolonging the journey by getting a bit back
anyone can buy 10 apples for a quid each and sell them at 80 p each doesn't make you a great businessman, your trying to sell them at a profit
in Chappers case backing ew at 4,s,if 3 get placed,when the 4th one wins ,his little loss is 3 x a little loss ,taking of his winner is a big loss and if non winner he,s losing on every race anyway, he,s eventually turning 20 quid nots in to 10 quid notes.just prolonging the journey by getting a bit back
It's a circular discussion for many reasons; Even in dirty EW races there are just far too many variables for me to be bothered to go into here. So there isn't a correct answer "yes you should" or "no you shouldn't" bet Each Way even in those so-called "dirty" EW races.
Anyone saying there is a definitive or "every time" answer is demonstrating that they just don't get it.
If you insist on looking for a generalised answer, your best indicator of when to play EW in "dirty" EW races is always going to be a quick glance at the BF Place market; which would also confirms the folly of using any generalised price (say 3/1, etc,) as part of your argument or for making broad-brush comparisons between win versus EW returns.
For sure 3/1 pays 1.60 for the place if you bet EW at one-fifth the odds, that's always true. It's a constant. But how can you use that constant as a comparison against a variable? Because even in two dirty EW way races that could actually mean comparing 1.6 with anything between as low as 1.12 and maybe as high as 1.50 in the Betfair Place Market for two different 3/1 shots.
So the two 3/1's (or 4/1's, etc, etc) that people keep trying to compare to each other or lump together - are a completely baseless comparison. Even in dirty EW races, You'll get some 3/1 pokes that are terrific EW value and others that really aren't.
As I said, a pointless discussion if you want it summarised briefly or are looking for a definitive yes/no answer based on industry prices.
Anyone saying there is a definitive or "every time" answer is demonstrating that they just don't get it.
If you insist on looking for a generalised answer, your best indicator of when to play EW in "dirty" EW races is always going to be a quick glance at the BF Place market; which would also confirms the folly of using any generalised price (say 3/1, etc,) as part of your argument or for making broad-brush comparisons between win versus EW returns.
For sure 3/1 pays 1.60 for the place if you bet EW at one-fifth the odds, that's always true. It's a constant. But how can you use that constant as a comparison against a variable? Because even in two dirty EW way races that could actually mean comparing 1.6 with anything between as low as 1.12 and maybe as high as 1.50 in the Betfair Place Market for two different 3/1 shots.
So the two 3/1's (or 4/1's, etc, etc) that people keep trying to compare to each other or lump together - are a completely baseless comparison. Even in dirty EW races, You'll get some 3/1 pokes that are terrific EW value and others that really aren't.
As I said, a pointless discussion if you want it summarised briefly or are looking for a definitive yes/no answer based on industry prices.
And that's just for EW single - without even touching on multiples or accas!
I never bet e/w too many negatives particularly handicaps.
Why try to win buttons when the chance of the win has gone.
Certain trainers/jockeys avoid at all costs running on for a place.
The best example was a certain Lester Piggott back in the day.
Why try to win buttons when the chance of the win has gone.
Certain trainers/jockeys avoid at all costs running on for a place.
The best example was a certain Lester Piggott back in the day.
so more chance/value in the non Lester piggot ridden horse in the race or todays equivalent who've you obviously think you've spotted,which adds another place to the already enhanced places in some races
I find it hard to believe that would ever happen
But yes, you'd probably wouldn't want to bet EW if you are anticipating that scenario - maybe if you are open minded, you could get the "place lay" out of your "betting tool kit" when you think that is going to happen.
Rather than getting an "each-way" bet out of your "tool kit".
Which just goes to show, the way you bet on a selection could be a variable depending on the situation and it might be just as important a decision (or even more important) than the selection itself. Obviously if you've always only got the one tool in your "toolbox", you wouldn't need to consider any of that.
But yes, you'd probably wouldn't want to bet EW if you are anticipating that scenario - maybe if you are open minded, you could get the "place lay" out of your "betting tool kit" when you think that is going to happen.
Rather than getting an "each-way" bet out of your "tool kit".
Which just goes to show, the way you bet on a selection could be a variable depending on the situation and it might be just as important a decision (or even more important) than the selection itself. Obviously if you've always only got the one tool in your "toolbox", you wouldn't need to consider any of that.
It looks like a lot of people have just got a hammer and maybe a few also have a Phillips screw-driver (in case they need that a chisel)!
They say there are a lot of ways to skin a cat - but trying with a hammer and a make-shift chisel could get very messy imo.
They say there are a lot of ways to skin a cat - but trying with a hammer and a make-shift chisel could get very messy imo.
Each way is such a killer. I was feeling chuffed when I backed a 9/1 winner yesterday. This morning, I woke up to the reality that I only got just under 11/2! It's hard to stop yourself though when the Fav is 11/10.
Assuming that was Organ (16:43 Haydock)? - It wouldn't have been an EW race for me.
Nine runners (nice).
So 3 places available (nice).
Quite short priced fav (quite nice).
It was a Handicap (often not so nice - for many reasons)
But mostly, not EW (for me) because the betting structure of that race wasn't at all good for EW - Seven of the nine runners were under 10/1, so potentially 7 horses fighting for 3 places (6 of them shorter than 2/1 in the BF place market and one just above that price).
Good shout though - if it was that race.
Nine runners (nice).
So 3 places available (nice).
Quite short priced fav (quite nice).
It was a Handicap (often not so nice - for many reasons)
But mostly, not EW (for me) because the betting structure of that race wasn't at all good for EW - Seven of the nine runners were under 10/1, so potentially 7 horses fighting for 3 places (6 of them shorter than 2/1 in the BF place market and one just above that price).
Good shout though - if it was that race.
Nice win. Jockey had to pull out all the stops to get that one home.
I would probably have gone down the Offal route rather than the musical instrument route - possibly why I never made it as a commentator.
"Seven of the nine runners were under 10/1"
Schoolboy error,TM?
Schoolboy error,TM?
Seven of the nine runner were 10/1 or shorter?
If that changes your take on the race and it's suitability for EW betting - from one pedant to another - sincere apologies.
If that changes your take on the race and it's suitability for EW betting - from one pedant to another - sincere apologies.
Yes, it was Organ. Initially staked it with a mixture of EW and Win only to effectively give me a Cover Bet, then cashed out the Win and re-stake it EW (fool!).
Still a good pick PHS - but an accurate assessment of EW betting (with bookmakers) imo is that you are making a trade off.
You get 2 equally staked bets; made up of (nearly always) a pretty poor value win bet (compared to Win price on an exchange) but sometimes (and only sometimes!), the trade off is that you also get a very good value place bet. If that's not the "deal" you are getting from your EW bet with a bookmaker, then EW probably isn't the best approach to that race or that selection.
The problem with this race (as you have pointed out yourself) is that you got a petty poor value win bet - 9/1 (about an 11/1 BFSP) and the place part of your bet wasn't good value either (you got 2.80 about something that returned 2.81 in the BF Place market).
There just wasn't an advantageous "trade-off" to be had. Leaving you with mixed emotions; pleased you had a winner but slightly peeved at your returns and thinking "Each way is such a killer".
You get 2 equally staked bets; made up of (nearly always) a pretty poor value win bet (compared to Win price on an exchange) but sometimes (and only sometimes!), the trade off is that you also get a very good value place bet. If that's not the "deal" you are getting from your EW bet with a bookmaker, then EW probably isn't the best approach to that race or that selection.
The problem with this race (as you have pointed out yourself) is that you got a petty poor value win bet - 9/1 (about an 11/1 BFSP) and the place part of your bet wasn't good value either (you got 2.80 about something that returned 2.81 in the BF Place market).
There just wasn't an advantageous "trade-off" to be had. Leaving you with mixed emotions; pleased you had a winner but slightly peeved at your returns and thinking "Each way is such a killer".
In reality, you've bet EW in a race where EW wasn't to your advantage (which is true of most races tbf - nut not all).
Thanks TM.
The only other thing to mention is BOG. Although BFSP was 2pts better, at the time of betting I took 15/2 when the BF price was similar, so that could generally be an advantage as we're never sure which way the price will go. With drifters like this one, BFSP is often going to be better.
The only other thing to mention is BOG. Although BFSP was 2pts better, at the time of betting I took 15/2 when the BF price was similar, so that could generally be an advantage as we're never sure which way the price will go. With drifters like this one, BFSP is often going to be better.
96% of the time I'll have you know........on drifters.
Agree mostly with TM and tbh have not read every post so apologies if covered elsewhere. A couple of other advantages these days are sometimes there are 3 places offered with as few as six runners and four plus places in fields of 11 or more and though rarely needed the books giving double result.
11 runners 4 places 1/5odds 36.36%, another non-runner scuppers it, 2 from 5 40% 1/4odds another n/r at least goes ATW
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539