Chief Stipe Posted September 21 Share Posted September 21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted September 21 Share Posted September 21 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: Are those blokes from BGP? Interesting that they are restricting galloping punters lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted September 21 Author Share Posted September 21 17 minutes ago, Brodie said: Are those blokes from BGP? Interesting that they are restricting galloping punters lol Yep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spatchcock Posted September 21 Share Posted September 21 But the Punters Promise was a directive from the former Racing Minister?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted September 21 Author Share Posted September 21 1 hour ago, Spatchcock said: But the Punters Promise was a directive from the former Racing Minister?? But there must be an out clause. For example if the pools are less than the possible win should a bookie have to accept? For example there could be a Fixed Odds race at some obscure North American track with SFA bet and someone puts a small amount on at good odds. If you read the second image above it says "Early liability limit exceeded". That tends to suggest they limited the bet because there was not much in the pool. Possibly you could have got more on later as the pool grew albeit at a reduced price. I guess it is one of the downsides of having programmatically determined odds for a zillion races. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spatchcock Posted September 23 Share Posted September 23 On 22/09/2024 at 9:26 AM, Chief Stipe said: But there must be an out clause. For example if the pools are less than the possible win should a bookie have to accept? For example there could be a Fixed Odds race at some obscure North American track with SFA bet and someone puts a small amount on at good odds. If you read the second image above it says "Early liability limit exceeded". That tends to suggest they limited the bet because there was not much in the pool. Possibly you could have got more on later as the pool grew albeit at a reduced price. I guess it is one of the downsides of having programmatically determined odds for a zillion races. I don't believe your scenario applies. The directive/rule (and it was a condition of the Entain sign off, I thought), was any account holder would be able to win up to $2k profit with their first fixed odds win bet on any New Zealand race. I know a couple of sharp punters who are cut off at the knees on top 3 and top 4 (and I mean like, can't win more than $20-$50). But they can still bet to win $2k on a win option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the galah Posted September 23 Share Posted September 23 (edited) I'm not saying this is the case here,but rule 12.9(f) of the tab betting rules effective 28/10/2023- limitation on maximum winnings. it says"where the tab has reason to believe an investor or group of persons acting together... bets placed, over a number of days,using different accounts,using on line and in store....the total payout can be limited to the specified maximum . isn't the bgp an example of that,even if they don't normally limit them. Its like the bonus back bets.Say your household has 2 accounts,one for you and one for your wife. If the tab has decided to link them then they will only give you a bonus back bet on one,the first of the 2 accounts that use it. Also,i'm only guessing,but if you had a betcha account and a tab account,then if your a known winning punter then wouldn't entain link those 2 and allow the first bet but limit the amount able to be won on the 2nd account. Edited September 23 by the galah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.