curious Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Hesi said: You considered Legarto a past the post proposition to the extent you paid out before the race. If we take a multi, Legarto to win/Orchestral to win, will you apply the same logic, so that we already have the first leg of our multi in, at whatever the price was. You could ask the question for sure but I'm pretty sure the answer would be no. They are not in the business of giving even losing punters, large amounts of money in advance and they'd have to make such a deal available to all then wouldn't they? Edited January 30 by curious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesi Posted January 30 Author Share Posted January 30 2 minutes ago, curious said: You could ask the question for sure but I'm pretty sure the answer would be no. They are not in the business of giving even losing punters, large amounts of money in advance and they'd have to make such a deal available to all then wouldn't they? Yes, the danger in paying out though before the race is run Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 (edited) The volume bet through the futures market is going to be significantly different to the raceday market. Paying out on the futures market pre race allows those that received a payout the opportunity to use that money they wouldn't otherwise be able to use. Such as when I bet on the Melbourne Cup futures market, I typically would have to wait until the race has run before resulting any change in available funds. So when I bet in December on a runner for the following year, my account is short of those funds - which means I can't turn those funds over at any point until the race is run. Paying out allows the punter the chance to churn their money and hopefully (for the TAB), ultimately increase their revenue overall. In the case of Legarto, they may have believed they were going to pay out anyway. Putting the funds into the accounts allowed them the chance to 'churn' those funds and maybe overall, lose a portion. Not paying out would mean the punter would not have access to those funds and may therefore not bet in the interim, the equivalent amount of funds. Edited January 30 by mardigras 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turny Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 Exactly Mardigras, they want churn and releasing tied up funds a clever ploy, guess who wins 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.