DONT FORGET SUPERSTARS OF THE SPRING ENTRIES THIS COMING COX PLATE WEEKEND !!!!!
wobbly

3% offer

Recommended Posts

Had a bet on the Trainers Premiership option this week (Baker Forsman @ $6)

Bookies offered me 3% of bet value...then immediately ratcheted price down to $4.60

That's not a scam, it's within their betting rules. 

But I'd have thought my bet, added to the early flurry on Jamie Richards, could have been an ideal base to turn a "novelty option" in to an easily promoted/low risk/good turnover option. 

Feels like we have a Formula One asset...with Grandma Walton at the wheel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, wobbly said:

Had a bet on the Trainers Premiership option this week (Baker Forsman @ $6)

Bookies offered me 3% of bet value...then immediately ratcheted price down to $4.60

That's not a scam, it's within their betting rules. 

But I'd have thought my bet, added to the early flurry on Jamie Richards, could have been an ideal base to turn a "novelty option" in to an easily promoted/low risk/good turnover option. 

Feels like we have a Formula One asset...with Grandma Walton at the wheel

3 per cent they let you on with , that must have been a decent dollop of cash you wanted on .Am  I reading it right , say you wanted for example 100 on , they let you  have  3 at 6s . Or 3 pc at 6s the rest at 4.60 .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, wobbly said:

$10k bet...$300 offered at the $6...then slashed price to $4.60

Would they let you have rest on or another percentage at 4.60. Mind you 4.60 dicey , they are 17 behind and Richards has battalions of horses left to run . Mind you Baker Forsman stable not short on numbers .

You'd think they could stand you a bit more at 6s .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Red Rum said:

Would they let you have rest on or another percentage at 4.60. Mind you 4.60 dicey , they are 17 behind and Richards has battalions of horses left to run . Mind you Baker Forsman stable not short on numbers .

You'd think they could stand you a bit more at 6s .

Agree with your assumption. No spine at all. They could have let you on @60k/10k then stretched the odds a bit on Richards. It’s not as if the bet was thaaaat big! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Trump said:

Agree with your assumption. No spine at all. They could have let you on @60k/10k then stretched the odds a bit on Richards. It’s not as if the bet was thaaaat big! 

Ballsy bet imho , at 17 winners behind at this stage  however prior to that no doubt wobbly would  have studied both  stables pattern of winners month on month last three or four years and check of stable lists to see ammo at hand .Without checking stats so might be wrong but think the Richard's stable slow right down last few months of season normally   and Baker stable keep running plenty late on .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much would they have taken on that market at this point? It's not super attractive to tie your money up for nine months in a 125% market with a $1.20 favourite, so would they have taken even 1k on it in total so far, never mind 10k?

If I was running that book and someone wanted 10k on, I wouldn't even give them $300. I'd probably suspend the market straight away until I made sure the Richards team hadn't had a bunch of cobalt positives, or Jamie had keeled over and died, or something silly like that. I suppose someone could theoretically think Baker/Forsman were more than a 17% chance of winning the premiership and so value at $6, but unless that "someone" bets millions per year a 10k bet would be strange in a market with next-to-no interest from anyone.

I'm usually less of a pussy than the bookies too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2019 at 8:30 PM, wobbly said:

Had a bet on the Trainers Premiership option this week (Baker Forsman @ $6)

Bookies offered me 3% of bet value...then immediately ratcheted price down to $4.60

That's not a scam, it's within their betting rules. 

But I'd have thought my bet, added to the early flurry on Jamie Richards, could have been an ideal base to turn a "novelty option" in to an easily promoted/low risk/good turnover option. 

Feels like we have a Formula One asset...with Grandma Walton at the wheel

Couple months back I had a horse racing on the Thursday’ it was paying 81s on the Wednesday night  didn’t give it much chance so went to put 50/50 FF .The bet was referred and came back with a small amount at the $81rest at $61 I was surprised and didn’t accept.Went straight back to the race to try again and was gobsmacked they had reduced the price to $61 without a dollar invested . Surely if they are offering a price the should accept a certain amount at the offered quote ? It it false advertising or insider trading or lack of nads or all three combined ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chiknsmack,

My post was intended to be about how the TAB roster staff and manage their shop-front without a constant model (good luck getting a decent bet set on a Sunday)

I knew I wouldn't get  $10k set...was hoping for $5k+ but expecting around $3k.

Last season they accepted  an early $25k exposure on a similar "novelty bet" option with a 12 month duration (number of wins Baker Forsman)...so why the inconsistency?

$3k at $6 would have merely switched their exposure from Richards to B&F...and allowed them a better base to work the market over next 6 months.

Instead they chose to annoy a loyal customer 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have long been of the opinion that the so-called TAB "bookies" are so risk-averse that they should not really be allowed to use the name. This stuff is merely a mirror of the whole 'doldrums' nature of the industry for mine. The old-time bookies I used to bet with at Randwick in the 70s took the bet and then cut the odds - they didn't cut the odds from 80-1 to 60-1 just because someone showed an interest in having a bet. What a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, High Sparrow said:

I have long been of the opinion that the so-called TAB "bookies" are so risk-averse that they should not really be allowed to use the name. This stuff is merely a mirror of the whole 'doldrums' nature of the industry for mine. The old-time bookies I used to bet with at Randwick in the 70s took the bet and then cut the odds - they didn't cut the odds from 80-1 to 60-1 just because someone showed an interest in having a bet. What a joke.

Well Said as that sums it up perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of years ago I had a small share in a filly that was being aimed towards the oaks (Maiden at the time). She was nominated but I couldn’t find her anywhere in their futures market. I emailed them and asked them what odds they would offer. They emailed back saying they would offer 100/1 about her. I asked for 1k @ 100/1 but didn’t get a reply back. 2 days later I noticed that they had added her into the market........ @ 16/1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.