Skip to main content

Do your homework!

A costly lesson yesterday for a Betfair in-running layer at Lingfield, where the winner in one race was matched at 1000 for £66. A late change in colours made it difficult, but as I used to stress to people in BF Education classes, use the period just before the race to confirm the colours, as often the shades in the paper or online guide are out, or there could be a late change of ownership, a damaged set of silks needed replacing or the owner has managed to leave that at home.

But the killer in this case was in the detail, as written in the Racing Post..... The winning horse was the only grey in the event, undoubtedly the most distinguishing factor in a race!

Comments

  1. Hi Scott

    Like you said a very expensive mistake and the way to avoid such a terrible loss could be as easy as doing a simple check before the race.

    I think that sometimes when we are in the thick of the betting/trading action it can be easy to overlook the simple and retrospectively obvious actions that can have a massive influence on our betting banks.

    Thanks for a very useful post

    Mark

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ouch,

    I noticed in the T20 a week last Sunday that West Indies (who lost) had been backed all the way down to £1.01 in running to beat Zimbabwe.

    Between 1.05 and 1.01 around half a million pounds had been matched, I thought then that quite a few people would have been stung, but I would be surprised if anyone topped the £66,000 mark.

    Bets of it was, Zimbabwe won quite easily in the end!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, you're right Betfree247. I would have posted about that one but couldn't find a record of the matched volumes. No doubt there will be more soon...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Scott, I just noticed it in-running, I should have took a screen shot of it.

    As you know well yourself, they would have been backed all the way down (not just starting at 1.05), so the amounts lost on West Indies would have been massive.

    Just to let you know I wasn't one of them (this time, anyway).

    Always keep an eye on cricket though as you can get some batting collapses with the likes of West Indies, New Zealand and sometimes England.

    For example, just recently England were 1/20 on Betfair in-running against Bangladesh in the 2nd ODI.

    England needed (approximately) 65 runs off 60 balls with 5 wickets remaining, runs to ball was easy, it was the wickets that was the problem, sure enough a few overs later and Bangladesh went (briefly) odds on favourite.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think Deccan went 1.03 yesterday in opening IPL game, didn't catch the early one today.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thanks for your comments, but if you're a spammer, you've just wasted your time - it won't get posted.

Popular posts from this blog

It's all gone Pete Tong at Betfair!

The Christmas Hurdle from Leopardstown, a good Grade 2 race during the holiday period. But now it will go into history as the race which brought Betfair down. Over £21m at odds of 29 available on Voler La Vedette in-running - that's a potential liability of over £500m. You might think that's a bit suspicious, something's fishy, especially with the horse starting at a Betfair SP of 2.96. Well, this wasn't a horse being stopped by a jockey either - the bloody horse won! Look at what was matched at 29. Split that in half and multiply by 28 for the actual liability for the layer(s). (Matched amounts always shown as double the backers' stake, never counts the layers' risk). There's no way a Betfair client would have £600m+ in their account. Maybe £20 or even £50m from the massive syndicates who regard(ed) Betfair as safer than any bank, but not £600m. So the error has to be something technical. However, rumour has it, a helpdesk reply (not gospel, natur

What shits me about match-fixing 'journalism'.

The anti-wagering media bandwagon has dozens of new members this week, all weighing in an industry they have absolutely no idea about. I'm all for getting the betting industry into the mainstream but it shits me no end when they roll out reports and celebrities who simply don't have a clue what they are talking about and don't bother to check basic facts which key arguments in their story. If this was the financial industry, making errors like this would have them in all sorts of trouble, but the same level of regulation doesn't apply because finance stock markets are supposedly all legitimate and serious, whereas sports betting is just a bit of fun for people who can never win in the long-term... according to the media. This week we have seen the sting by the Telegraph which, on the face of it, looks to be a tremendous piece of investigative work into fixing in English football. But the headlines around it are over-sensationalised yet again. Delroy Facey, a former pla

Racing has a Ponzi scheme - and the fallout will be enormous

When the term ' Ponzi scheme ' is mentioned these days, the names Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford instantly spring to mind. The pair of them ran multi-billion dollar frauds (US$60bn and $8bn respectively) that destroyed the lives of thousands of investors who had put their life savings into a 'wonderful' investment strategy. How so many people were sucked into the scheme is baffling to those on the outside. The lifestyle, the sales pitch, the success stories of the early investors - I suppose it all adds up. So where does this link to racing you ask? A prominent Australian 'racing identity' this week has been reported to have lost access to a bank account with punters' club funds of $194m in it. Firstly - is there a worse term for anyone to be labelled with that 'racing identity'? It ALWAYS ends up meaning shonky crook! Secondly - who the hell has a punters' club with an active bankroll in the tens of millions? It simply can't be done. T