Coral free bet query

[Outofluck]

I'm not an experienced gambler, and I would be grateful if someone can tell me whether the following payout from Coral seems right.

I was given a £1 free bet (so stake not returned) to use and placed it each way (50p unit stake) on a horse that went off at odds of 13/2, with one-fifth place odds. The horse placed.

Coral seem to have worked out the return as follows: standard bet of this type would return £1.15 including the initial stake, so knock off the non-returnable £1 free bet and the return is just £0.15.

To me, this seems incorrect. I would have thought that it should be treated as the "win" part of the bet losing, and the "place" part winning and returning £0.65 (no stake returned).

The Coral method is illogical to me because it can actually mean that you lose money by placing a winning "place" bet. eg/ £1 each way bet (50p unit stake) on a 4/1 horse that places returns £0.90 normally. But using the Coral method for free bets, knock off the non-returnable £1 stake and you owe them 10p! 

Can anyone tell me if I'm missing something here? Is this method standard across the industry? I know it's only a small amount of money, but if this is Coral's typical methodology, then I feel like it needs challenging.

Thanks

 

[harry_rag]

Well, a couple of things are beyond my comprehension here. Why would anyone go to the trouble of registering on a forum to post a query about a bet where the amount at issue is 50P!  I'll extend a cautious  to the forum in the hope that it's not been done with a view to getting established and then spamming in some way (no offence but seen it before). Also, it seems bonkers to use a £1 free bet e/w on a 13/2 shot. Might as well have gone win only on something at decent odds. As it is, your expected return might buy you a bag of crisps if you're lucky.

That said, I'd agree with your take on the correct settlement. The 50p win bet was lost, the 50p place bet would normally return £1.15 so should be 65p given you don't get the stake back. That's what I would logically expect to happen unless something in their rules expressly states otherwise.

So now you can go back and challenge them backed up by the opinion of someone on the internet, though if you tell them it's me you should be fine! 

Let us know how you get on.

[Zico10]

The same happens to me with Ladbroke (same ownership I believe) and it makes no sense to me either! 

[harry_rag]

Having thought about this again I think a case can be made for it being right. Maybe the argument is never use a freebie on an each way bet!

You come out of it 15p up. Exactly the same as someone who used real cash and gets £1.15 back. If you got 65p back then you’re better off than someone who staked their own money. I think it’s fair if you end up with the same profit as a cash bettor whether the horse wins or places.

Had it been a 5/1 shot the cash bettor gets a quid back and breaks even so you get nothing back to achieve the same outcome. The other approach would see you get 50p back and make a profit. If it did work like that then the logic would be ALWAYS use a freebie on an each way bet.

So, in retrospect I think the settlement is entirely correct.

[Outofluck]

Thanks for the feedback, harry_rag and Zico10.

Obviously the 50p difference on this occasion is neither here nor there, but I wanted to get input from more experienced gamblers so that I know what the score is when it comes to placing future bets. As you say, harry_rag, if this is Coral’s chosen methodology, there’s very little point using a free bet on an each way selection in the future.

It also annoys me that Coral presumably use this dodgy formula across the board on each way free bets, saving themselves from paying out who knows how much to punters. I’ve now looked back at my Bet365 account and can see that they apply the more logical (and more favourable to the customer) interpretation when settling e/w free bets. (At least, that was the case six months ago.)

I see where you’re coming from with your second post, harry_rag, but I would argue that if you break the bet down into its two parts, the “win” part is a loser and pays nothing to either the cash or free bettor, and the “place” part pays exactly the same profit to both bettors (65p in this case), so it’s perfectly fair. The whole point of the free bet is to insulate the bettor against the loss incurred in the “win” part, while the cash bettor is not insulated, hence the difference in profit.

And I still come back to the bizarre scenarios that the Coral methodology can create, like the one mentioned in my initial post – that alone suggests to me that there’s something wrong with their formula.   

I might contact Coral and see if they can explain and justify their approach – from past experience though, I don’t hold out much hope of getting a useful/satisfactory reply.  

[harry_rag]

38 minutes ago, Outofluck said:

And I still come back to the bizarre scenarios that the Coral methodology can create, like the one mentioned in my initial post – that alone suggests to me that there’s something wrong with their formula.  

Well, to be fair with your scenario (the 4/1 shot) anyone who placed a real money bet 50p each way gets 90p back and is 10p down on the bet. You want 40p back and to be up on the deal. Obviously you don't owe Coral the 10p as it was a free bet but as the return was less than the total free bet it seems reasonable that you get nothing back. I do get your logic (it was, after all, my initial take on the matter) but the more I've thought about it the more I think Coral's approach is fairest.

If you stake your free bet win or each way you end up with the same net profit as someone who places a real money bet on the same selection if it wins or places. They've given you a free quid and you only get back any returns generated in excess of that.

If there are bookies settling it the other way then I'd say it creates a bit of an anomaly whereby you should always use the freebie each way as it gives you a slight additional edge. Probably less contentious if there was a simple "must be used win only" criteria!

[Outofluck]

I think the comparison with a cash bettor is probably a bit of a red herring. The whole point of the free bet is to give you a chance to win something with no risk – it’s not really designed to be “fair” compared to someone who has to wager real money.

An each way bet (free or paid) is, effectively, two bets – one at, say, 5/1 and one at evens. If one or both of the bets win, clearly there should be a return. And if the bookie is kind enough to make the stakes free, then that return will be profit. To say that there shouldn’t be any profit on a winning free bet because a cash bettor wouldn’t have got a profit in the same scenario doesn’t really follow.

Similarly, I’m not sure that it follows that “you should always use the freebie each way” in my favoured settlement method. To stick with the £1 example, a free bet to win on a 4/1 shot might net £4 or nothing. A £1 bet used each way might net £2.40 at most, possibly only £0.40, and potentially nothing. So I imagine the attractiveness of those two options will be different for different punters (and will obviously vary as the size of the bet changes too).

I imagine we’ll continue to have differing views on this subject, but I agree with you that it would probably be better if Coral just said “win only” for the free bets.

[Labrador]

You quite clearly state in the second para of your opening post that the stake is not returned so the return is obviously only 15p.

If you had placed your free bet on a 50/1 shot, I do not suppose you'd be happy if that was limited to win only bets, as per your last post.

It's a FREE bet so I don't really understand why anyone would have a grouse about it or believe there should be "differing views".

 

[Darran]

Free bets are loss leaders to get people onto the website in the hope you will place more bets. Quite why anyone would want to place a free bet on an e/w bet I don't know. It's free money you may as well go all out and try and the most you can from it especially when we are talking about a pound. Chances are you will be better off in the long run backing them win only as well.

[Outofluck]

Thanks for the latest replies.

This thread started off as a query about Coral’s method of settling each way free bets (when the “win” part loses), although it has since touched on a few related issues. On that original topic, I think it’s clear that there are, indeed, differing views, even among bookies – as I mentioned, Bet365 seems to have settled these bets in the past using the methodology that’s more favourable to the customer (and more logical to me).

Now that I know that Coral’s approach is not seen as plainly wrong by others, I can take that into account in the future.

[Bedlam]

11 hours ago, Darran said:

Free bets are loss leaders to get people onto the website in the hope you will place more bets. Quite why anyone would want to place a free bet on an e/w bet I don't know. It's free money you may as well go all out and try and the most you can from it especially when we are talking about a pound. Chances are you will be better off in the long run backing them win only as well.

That used to be my philosophy about free bets, but I'm not so sure after my recent experience with Bet365.... I was delighted when I found a 22/1 winner with a £5 free bet, but a couple of days later they emailed me to say that after a review of my account, I no longer qualified for free bets, BOG, or any other special offers, but what it didn't say, was that my stakes were to be restricted to ridiculously low limits (approx 20p usually), in effect, they've kicked me out!

So my advice would be not to be too ambitious with free bets.

[MCLARKE]

I've made profits for a number of years using free bets and I still get a few with BET365 even though I have made big profits with them.

In my experience you are best selecting horses in the 13/2 to 10/1 range, win only. You certainly shouldn't be backing short priced favourites.