Cash Out Discussion Thread - Punter's Pal or Bookies' Benefit?

[harry_rag]

Following on from the recent discussion in the Lucky 15 thread, as requested by @Zilzalian and a subject that arises quite often anyway.

A thread to discuss the pros and cons and, perhaps, post any interesting examples for consideration. It would be good to see some acca or perm bets with 2 or 3 winners already up.

[harry_rag]

16 hours ago, Torque said:

This cash out business has been such a boon for the bookies. It adds a level of uncertainty for the punter that was never there before - do I cash out or not - and simultaneously adds the potential for regret - I should have cashed out on that losing bet.

Personally, apart from one time where the initial odds were astronomical and I'd have needed to continue placing bets for longer than I'll be alive at those odds to see a return in all probability, I never cash-out at the bookies and the only circumstance under which I would is if I believed there was at least a fair way to do it, for example a lay bet on the exchanges on the last leg of an acca.

It's also sly in a number of ways. Firstly, the offer that is made is on the bookies terms and is never fair and is always to their advantage. I've written this a few times in different places on here, but what it allows them to do is pull your trousers down twice - first with the initial bet, where the odds are generally in their favour and then again with what is essentially a second bet which is the cash-out. Again that's at a price they want to offer and one which they know benefits them in the long run, even if cashing out costs them a pay out on an acca that would have gone on to lose.

That in itself should set alarm bells ringing in any punter's mind - why is the bookie offering to pay out on something that might lose. They're not stupid and it's done because overall they pay out less that way, even including partially paying accas that would have cost them nothing if left to run.

Secondly, it's sly because it creates the impression - perpetuated on here sometimes it has to be said - that cashing out on a loser has stuck one to the bookies. It hasn't, as I've just alluded to and I'll try to use a hypothetical - although entirely realistic - set of bets to illustrate. In one scenario, there'll be a cash-out used and in another all bets will run. What I'll demonstrate is that cashing-out might see you win the battle, but it hinders massively in terms of trying to win the war.

Consider a sequence of ten 1 unit accas all at twelve to one. In the first scenario, one bet is a winner and because it was left to run, pays out fully. All the other bets are losers which gives 12 units of profit minus 9 units for the losers so +3 units overall. In the second scenario, everything plays out exactly the same way except the winner was cashed out and only gave 6 units of profit. Take away the 9 units of losers and overall you're -3 units.

It's a crude example admittedly, but it shows the principle of how cashing out is rarely if ever the way to go. Yes you'll hit frustrating last leg or penultimate leg losers, but when the winners come and they're full winners that will pay for the losers plus a bit more besides.

It's only fair to point out that of course there is a scenario where cashing out is a good decision in this small sample of bets, and that's where the cashed out bet doesn't go on to be a winner. In that case, a full loss of 10 units is instead a loss of 3 units. But it's a pyrrhic victory, it's winning the battle, because to win the war you need full winners because of all the times cashing out isn't an option when an acca goes down after one or two legs.

This was Torque's take on the subject.