Bookmakers limits - an idea and your thoughts

[Kithanga]

Racecourse bookies display how much (as a minimum) they are willing to lay any horse to lose to any punter. From experience it tends to be £500 or £1,000. Well, I'm wondering if we could start up a 'Punters Lounge' campaign to get the on-line bookies to adopt the same commitment. The most frustrating aspect of betting these days is not the fact that your bet may get 'knocked back' to pennies but that the price is often retained for hours afterwards. In times gone past I'd get knocked back plenty of times and quite often took the rest of the bet at a lower price that I still considered value. The main difference is that the price would be shortened meaning it wasn't just a direct reluctance to take my bet, but a reluctance to take on more liability at the advertised price. Fair enough. I think they should state for each race the minimum they are willing to lay any horse to lose and update this amount as the market develops. That way they can start low to begin with and get braver as the market settles and their liabilities are better known. It doesn't stop them taking a bigger bet but it does stop them wasting customers time trying to get a bet on when they are only interested in laying a bet to lose £10 to anyone who has a slight chance of winning some money over the long term. The reason I'm suggesting this is that I recently tried to get a tenner on my account for a mate who hasn't got an account (we were miles from a bookies) and the first bookie I chose limited his bet on this animal to win less than £20. Not only pathetic but what image did this give to a potential new customer of theirs! Thoughts?

[fintron]

Re: Bookmakers limits - an idea and your thoughts If I understand you right, you kind of want a Betfair type scenario, where they will list the total amount available at each price, alongside the price? I think it is a great idea and would make things more transparent, but I'd be surprised if the bookies went for it. It would expose many for what they are, illiusionists.