Hi all, been told by folks on the Hull City Not606 that this is a good place to get help on betting matters. I have a query which Bet365 couldn't answer me properly with on Live Chat. I put a 4 horse bet on at Cheltenham - £6 stake (£3 e/w) with returns of £3772. Saint Roi, Monkfish and Al Boum Photo all won. Cash Out was showing at £1098 (which oddly immediately dropped to £669 within seconds) I wasn't sure going into the last race so did a partial cash out - £334, which left my bet running at half the stake. Remaining bet: £3 stake (£1.50 e/w) with returns of £1886 Billaway came in 2nd and the bet returned £27! How can a potential returns if Billaway won be £1886 and only £27 for coming 2nd?!! Anyone with better knowledge on this would be greatly appreciated, thanks. For reference here is the bet slip after partial cash-out, before the final race.
You only get the place on all of them because Billaway placed. The potential returns would have been if it had won. Because it only placed the wins on the others don't count they all only count as a place so the payout was correct.
Yeah, it's a killer that way with each way multiples really, but It is correct. The bet doesn't seem to match as the final payout is so small in comparison to what you would receive if the horse actually won and that's why the cash out offer is relatively high, as their liabilities are still threatened by Billaway winning and are therfore able to offer a decent sized cash out here in this position. You did well anyway, a good return on your investment all in all, well done.
OK, thanks - makes sense, but also seems extremely harsh. The bookies are basically undoing all you've done based on one selection, discounting all your previous success. £1886 seems a bit misleading too - I would have taken the £669 cash out had I known my horse coming second would only guarantee me £27, as that is a huge difference! I've had an email from Bet365 basically saying they've reviewediit and the maximum I could have won is £54 (if Billaway had won) so they're not sure why it was showing as £1886 as the returns, but said as the bet is now settled they can't review it.
Thanks - just a bit gutting seeing it go from a potential £3772 to ending up with £362, all because one horse only came 2nd.
That sounds like bollocks to me. But irrelevant as it didn't win. As regards the cash out value I have no idea but, as explained above daz, you basically have a 4 horse win accumulator and a 4 horse win accumulator. So, as soon as one of the horses doesn't win, the win accumulator is a losing bet and you are left with a place accumulator.
I understand it’s gutting but it’s probably better to learn a bit more about the bets that you’re putting on and then you’ll be more informed about the decisions you make. Well done, anyway. That’s a good return
Clearly in your original bet, you had Saint Roi 7/1, Monkfish 11/2, Al Boum Photo 100/30 and Billaway 5/1. The £3 win part of this would have come to £4,056; however, your total returns are showing as £3,772 so I firstly would point out that the non-runner Hazel Hill (around 5/1) meant that there were Rule 4 deductions. You theoretically had £676 win running onto Billaway and around £31 place, depending on how many places you selected for each leg of your bet. The Cash Out value of your bet will have reduced in real time because the bookmakers shortened the odds of the remaining Mullins’ horses on the card after the Gold Cup because of their liabilities and your online bet is being handled by a computer algorithm. You had about £707 running onto the last horse, so cashing out half your bet you were offered £334 but that left £338 win and £15 place going onto Billaway. As your bet was straight each way rather than ‘all each way’, since the horse finished second, the £338 lost. That left you with £15 on Billaway to place at odds of Evens (5/1 at 1/5 odds) less the Rule 4 for the non-runner, so £27 will be right.
Thanks for all the replies - much clearer on it all now, and it does make sense. I think my issue is with what Bet365 were showing as the returns: After the partial cash-out, if my highest possible returns would be £338, why does it show as £1886? If that hadn't shown as my returns I'd have cashed out the full £669.
That's the way bookies do this these days. Back in the sixties (no use now of course, but interesting) multiples were handled as single bets, with all the returns going onto the next selection, so a £1 ew double on say, a 10-1 shot and a 5-1 shot would be calculated thus: £1 ew on the first runner, then what ever the return was, it was halved and put as an ew bet on the second runner. If the first one won at 10's, you'd have £14.50 split as £7.25 ew on the 5-1 shot, meaning even if it only placed, you would still get back £1.81, plus £7.25 making a £9 return overall (quarter odds) You can see why they changed to the current method - better for them, worse for us, in general! You'd be getting £7.87 on today's methods, but multply that for trebles and accy's and you see who benefits!
I think you are misunderstanding what was being displayed and what I mentioned. The £338 to which I referred was what you had running on to Billaway at 5/1 to win. The highest possible return was if it won. Had it won, the £338 running on the win part of the bet would have been successful, so you would have got five times £338 (less the Rule 4 deduction) plus your £338 stake plus the place return including stake (£27). Looking at the arithmetic, I think the Rule 4 deduction was 10p because (338 x 5 x 0.9) + 338 + 27 = 1886, where 0.9 is the 10p in the £ deduction.
