Stupid Questions

[The Tank]

Each way would impact it don't forget, and the fact they offer antepost prices and NRNB now may affect it.

I have the same bet as you for Stay away fay and same level of cash out.
Don't have any of the others at those prices though. But some look right on the edge of being over the stake cash outs,

Paddypower definitely have different algorithms though as I rarely get offered anything above stake, and know that others do. I doubt it's per individual but maybe just a grading system.
I'd be surprised if B365 don't so similar but I'm not as aware of it as I am PP.

All the prices i quoted above were win only bets.

Yeah thought it was maybe something to do with the dual antepost and NRNB markets. I just searched back and found it, it was Kev who said "Have cashed out some of my Facile Vega 'Arkle' bets... had too much on him and could cash for a profit from the 16s ante post that I'd backed...". So the fact my identical 16/1 bet showing as just stake back seems to prove they do have differing cashouts for different users? Unless Kev's bet wasnt 365 but i'm pretty sure they were that standout 16/1 after the DRF...

Taking the extreme example, Gidleigh in the BB at 25/1, now 12/1 seems pretty scandalous to only offer stake back cashout. Now, they may have taken the view he'll go Bartlett, and dont want people cashing out their BB bets, but in that case, shouldnt they push his ante post BB price to negate the cashout? Bookies, hey

[The Tank]

I don’t have an account with them but you have stated that all bar one of your cash outs are for stake or lower. Logically this indicates that they may have a variable that they can flex per customer to determine when the algorithm should kick in when taken price exceeds current price.

The biggest percentage difference between the price you took and current price is SAF which might mean you have exceeded your personalised threshold on this horse.

I am only guessing of course but this would be a simpler explanation than having a unique algorithm per customer unless they have an additional predicted profitability calculation in place that they apply to every customer and use this to drive their cash out offers.

Something like this would result in customers with higher predicted profitability being offered higher cash out amounts as their predicted liability would be higher. Essentially this is similar in principle to risk based pricing for loans but instead of predicting the chances of loan default and adjusting the price accordingly they predict profitability rate and price accordingly (by adjusting the cash out amount).

I am guessing of course but these are two possible explanations why you may have a different cash out amount. Others better qualified than me may be able to give you much better/more accurate responses.

https://www.fatjockey.com/forum/#

I think what you say makes a lot of sense Rooster Booster, thanks. Maybe i was a bit loose with my terminology of a "bespoke algorithm", i probably should have just said something that allows them to differentiate between punters.

So when you say "Something like this would result in customers with higher predicted profitability being offered higher cash out amounts as their predicted liability would be higher", what you're saying is that the fact they are offering me terrible cashouts must be because I'm a mug punter . Just pop my head up to ask a question and get roasted, cheers!

But the fact Kev was offered a profitable cashout on the bet and i wasnt doesnt really make that much sense to me. Obviously he is a much more successful punter then me, but a bet on FV for the Arkle at 16s is a bet on FV for the Arkle at 16s, and they either want to try and reduce thier liability on that horse at that price or they dont. Regardless of whether it was mug punter me or successful punter Kev that placed it?

[Rooster Booster]

I think what you say makes a lot of sense Rooster Booster, thanks. Maybe i was a bit loose with my terminology of a "bespoke algorithm", i probably should have just said something that allows them to differentiate between punters.

So when you say "Something like this would result in customers with higher predicted profitability being offered higher cash out amounts as their predicted liability would be higher", what you're saying is that the fact they are offering me terrible cashouts must be because I'm a mug punter . Just pop my head up to ask a question and get roasted, cheers!

But the fact Kev was offered a profitable cashout on the bet and i wasnt doesnt really make that much sense to me. Obviously he is a much more successful punter then me, but a bet on FV for the Arkle at 16s is a bet on FV for the Arkle at 16s, and they either want to try and reduce thier liability on that horse at that price or they dont. Regardless of whether it was mug punter me or successful punter Kev that placed it?

If the logic was built solely into the horse then you would be right as the horse has the same chance irrespective of who has backed it. The very fact that two people could have identical bets and be offered different cash out amounts tells you they factor in the individual punter in their calculation. The question is how they do that and why.

The reason one punter might be offered more maybe because they believe that punter would need a bigger incentive to take the offer (bigger cash out value). They are predicting customer behaviour and I imagine they assume punters with higher predicted profitability (or something similar) would have more confidence in their ability to make a profit and therefore require more incentive to cash out.

in other words they perhaps have data that shows that the more successful/credible they assess a punter to be the more likely they are to understand the value of their own bet.

It is also possible they model past cash out behaviour and factor that into their thinking. One thing is certain, they are trying to drive certain outcomes and they are trying to drive those outcomes for the lowest possible cost and so any models they deploy will presumably attempt to match the right price with the right punter.

I maybe talking a load of twaddle it happens a lot. I know it sounds like I am judging your punting prowess and I apologise for how it comes across. I’m sure if I had access to cash out it would be lower than yours

[Quevega]

All the prices i quoted above were win only bets.

Yeah thought it was maybe something to do with the dual antepost and NRNB markets. I just searched back and found it, it was Kev who said "Have cashed out some of my Facile Vega 'Arkle' bets... had too much on him and could cash for a profit from the 16s ante post that I'd backed...". So the fact my identical 16/1 bet showing as just stake back seems to prove they do have differing cashouts for different users? Unless Kev's bet wasnt 365 but i'm pretty sure they were that standout 16/1 after the DRF...

Taking the extreme example, Gidleigh in the BB at 25/1, now 12/1 seems pretty scandalous to only offer stake back cashout. Now, they may have taken the view he'll go Bartlett, and dont want people cashing out their BB bets, but in that case, shouldnt they push his ante post BB price to negate the cashout? Bookies, hey

Kev's may have been each way and I know that this drives a different cash out from past experience. Kevloaf ??

I also think you may be correct with the theory on Gidleigh, they are definitely more sophisticated these days and can mark individual horses accordingly, for examples like this.

I get what rooster is saying also, although it is rare for bookies to give profitable accounts anything.
I'm restricted on PP and I know the cash outs I get offered are less than others.

[Quevega]

If the logic was built solely into the horse then you would be right as the horse has the same chance irrespective of who has backed it. The very fact that two people could have identical bets and be offered different cash out amounts tells you they factor in the individual punter in their calculation. The question is how they do that and why.

The reason one punter might be offered more maybe because they believe that punter would need a bigger incentive to take the offer (bigger cash out value). They are predicting customer behaviour and I imagine they assume punters with higher predicted profitability (or something similar) would have more confidence in their ability to make a profit and therefore require more incentive to cash out.

in other words they perhaps have data that shows that the more successful/credible they assess a punter to be the more likely they are to understand the value of their own bet.

It is also possible they model past cash out behaviour and factor that into their thinking. One thing is certain, they are trying to drive certain outcomes and they are trying to drive those outcomes for the lowest possible cost and so any models they deploy will presumably attempt to match the right price with the right punter.

I maybe talking a load of twaddle it happens a lot. I know it sounds like I am judging your punting prowess and I apologise for how it comes across. I’m sure if I had access to cash out it would be lower than yours

I completely get the logic and how it could work but I think, and it's only "I think", cos I don't know - that it's linked to restrictions, and graded accounts, as a rudimentary example, red amber green.

I know for a fact that they grade accounts and it is logical to expect that this drives all the things like offers, cash outs and liabilities (restrictions on stakes)

I think if you're a punter on one of the levels of restrictions then I'd imagine there may be a different cash out formula applied than someone without, but I think it may be the opposite of what you've explained.

We've had one or two anecdotal examples of members being restricted after cashing out several bets early this season also, so it appears even use of the facility itself can trigger restrictions overall.

[Rooster Booster]

I completely get the logic and how it could work but I think, and it's only "I think", cos I don't know - that it's linked to restrictions, and graded accounts, as a rudimentary example, red amber green.

I know for a fact that they grade accounts and it is logical to expect that this drives all the things like offers, cash outs and liabilities (restrictions on stakes)

I think if you're a punter on one of the levels of restrictions then I'd imagine there may be a different cash out formula applied than someone without, but I think it may be the opposite of what you've explained.

We've had one or two anecdotal examples of members being restricted after cashing out several bets early this season also, so it appears even use of the facility itself can trigger restrictions overall.

Interesting stuff and totally get what you are saying. There are so many variables in this. I don’t know whether we give these firms too much credit or not enough. I worked for a company that is world leader in the building and deployment of behavioural hotels and even though I struggle to add two and two together myself I have always found this world fascinating. But then I’m pretty sad.

[The Tank]

If the logic was built solely into the horse then you would be right as the horse has the same chance irrespective of who has backed it. The very fact that two people could have identical bets and be offered different cash out amounts tells you they factor in the individual punter in their calculation. The question is how they do that and why.

The reason one punter might be offered more maybe because they believe that punter would need a bigger incentive to take the offer (bigger cash out value). They are predicting customer behaviour and I imagine they assume punters with higher predicted profitability (or something similar) would have more confidence in their ability to make a profit and therefore require more incentive to cash out.

in other words they perhaps have data that shows that the more successful/credible they assess a punter to be the more likely they are to understand the value of their own bet.

It is also possible they model past cash out behaviour and factor that into their thinking. One thing is certain, they are trying to drive certain outcomes and they are trying to drive those outcomes for the lowest possible cost and so any models they deploy will presumably attempt to match the right price with the right punter.

I maybe talking a load of twaddle it happens a lot. I know it sounds like I am judging your punting prowess and I apologise for how it comes across. I’m sure if I had access to cash out it would be lower than yours

Oh for sure I'm sure they are constantly trying to manipulate the cash out option for their own gain rather than just letting the cashout value flow as a pure mathematical calculation bssed on the odds "less a little bit".

Always sensible twaddle from you Rooster , appreciate your responses

[The Tank]

Kev's may have been each way and I know that this drives a different cash out from past experience. Kevloaf ??

I also think you may be correct with the theory on Gidleigh, they are definitely more sophisticated these days and can mark individual horses accordingly, for examples like this.

I get what rooster is saying also, although it is rare for bookies to give profitable accounts anything.
I'm restricted on PP and I know the cash outs I get offered are less than others.

Ah, yeah you meant Kev was each way. Probably, he can be partial to a bit of thieving can't he

I do get the feeling they have some kind of "firm target", "probable target", "unknown target" multiplier for each horse built in to their cash outs.

[Quevega]

Ah, yeah you meant Kev was each way. Probably, he can be partial to a bit of thieving can't he

I do get the feeling they have some kind of "firm target", "probable target", "unknown target" multiplier for each horse built in to their cash outs.

I think they may just Flag up certain horses based on advice from traders.

[The Tank]

I completely get the logic and how it could work but I think, and it's only "I think", cos I don't know - that it's linked to restrictions, and graded accounts, as a rudimentary example, red amber green.

I know for a fact that they grade accounts and it is logical to expect that this drives all the things like offers, cash outs and liabilities (restrictions on stakes)

I think if you're a punter on one of the levels of restrictions then I'd imagine there may be a different cash out formula applied than someone without, but I think it may be the opposite of what you've explained.

We've had one or two anecdotal examples of members being restricted after cashing out several bets early this season also, so it appears even use of the facility itself can trigger restrictions overall.

All we need is an industry insider to confirm all this for us really isnt it. Must be some disgruntled former 365 emoloyees floating around somewhere...

The upshot of it for me anyway, is that I'll have rethink a little as historically, like most people, i'd back potential shorteners even if I didn't particularly fancy the horse, in the knowledge I could cash for profit down the line. If a horse now has to contract more than 60% or 70% to even pop any kind of profit on cashout, then the risk reward balance is much less favourable.

May have to put my big boy pants on and amend my strategy to those like Rooster Booster who don't have the benefit of cashout.

[Kevloaf]

Haha I feel famous

I'm check the figures when I'm home The Tank

My immediate thought is i cashed the 16s for 55 quid after putting 50 on as he was shorter than 16s at the time i cashed, but as you are calling me out on out (which is fine) I'll get the facts and screenshots.

Can't have lurkers making me look like a fraud can I

[Hurricane fly]

What is the difference between a forecast and an exacta / tricast and a trifecta

[seathestars27]

What is the difference between a forecast and an exacta / tricast and a trifecta

They are the same bet in terms of if you win or not but one is a pool bet and one pays out on fixed odds I believe. So it’s like if you place it with the Tote or with bet365 who pay fixed price. That’s best way I understand it.

[thorne365]

They are the same bet in terms of if you win or not but one is a pool bet and one pays out on fixed odds I believe. So it’s like if you place it with the Tote or with bet365 who pay fixed price. That’s best way I understand it.

I think there are 3 types:
- Pool based as you say
- 'computer' straight forecast (and tricast i assume) which is a shared formula used by the industry and calculated after result is known
- Fixed odds where you take the price that is generated in-house by whatever models the specific bookie has

Most bets are on the 2nd but if youre taking a price its on the last 1. Interestingly even when you do a pool/tote bet some bookies are just paying you at the tote returns instead of entering you into the pool (i think)

[Captain Chris]

Is there a better one to do? Planning to do forecast and tricast bets on all of the handicaps with a couple of mates this year and interested to know which is the more lucrative way. I can use the Tote on course for the 1st three days, but could also take a fixed price online with Bet365 for instance. Do some bookies pay more than others? Add bonuses etc?