Thanks Nostroke!
IPT- Vegas Betting Odds
- Thread starter Nostroke
- Start date
Nostroke said:
stanjames.com - Rules for Snooker/Pool
Actually I just went and re-read it. It says maximum payout -100,000 pounds. That could mean the maximum payout per bet and not for the total event.
Last edited:
Keith Buck said:
Yes Im sure. They are not going to turn away free money.
But back to what i really want to know-Are any of these players going up in odds now. All i notice is some coming down. Seems to me the ones coming down should be balanced by some going up and there are no shortage of guys who should go up. Teddy G, Lil Jon, Earl, Mike M, Gerry W, Pete F and plenty more-Don't tell me anyone is betting on these guys at those odds.
Last edited:
Ripping off the bettors
I just checked the last odds compared to the previous odds printed here
Efren Reyes, N van Den Berg, Darren Appleton, Alex Pagulayan, Carl Morris and some others have all moved down in odds, some QUITE significantly WITHOUT ONE single player moving up in odds. They started out with a 100 book percentage edge and now they are upping that percentage with every change.
Hey Stan James- Why dont you just get a gun?
I just checked the last odds compared to the previous odds printed here
Efren Reyes, N van Den Berg, Darren Appleton, Alex Pagulayan, Carl Morris and some others have all moved down in odds, some QUITE significantly WITHOUT ONE single player moving up in odds. They started out with a 100 book percentage edge and now they are upping that percentage with every change.
Hey Stan James- Why dont you just get a gun?
I still like Mark Tadd and Stevie Moore at 300:1
To answer the question about bookies payout limits a bit more fully:-
Although there are individual companies such as the online betting division of the Stan James Group which are registered and licensed outside the UK the Group is fundamentally a British organisation and therefore operates on generally adopted British bookmakers principles.All British bookmakers with high street betting shops have limits on the amount that can be won on any one betting slip on 'multiple bets' ie thing like doubles/trebles and accumulators etc.Generally,the larger the chain of betting shops the higher the limits.Stan James are on a par with the giants like Ladbrokes,Hills and Corals as regards those kinds of limits.It is exceptionally rare for those limits to ever be reached.
Additionally the aforementioned 'multiple bets' limits are set at different levels for different sports.The horse racing payout limit is far higher than for example the soccer limits.There are different limits for evening racing as opposed to daytime racing etc etc.However generally even these limits could be described as reasonable and are very rarely reached.
In a cash high street betting office,deposit account or credit account betting scenario there is usually "no limit" in the bookmakers printed terms and conditions to the amount you can win on a "single" win bet,for example just backing one horse to win one race.However in practice the bookmaker has the right to refuse any proferred bet and if someone tried to slap say half a million on a golfer to win the open at 10/1 and the bookmaker didn't like the prospect of being able to "lay the money off" at better odds elsewhere he might offer the punter say 100k at 10/1,200k at 8/1 and the balance of 200k at 6/1 or he might just refuse to acept the bet altogether.
Online betting firms operate similarly although slightly slightly differently. They may have an overall limit on the amount that can be won on any one bet (seems to be 100k in this case,but I haven't bothered to read it).However the facility to limit their exposure on any one bet is already automatically built into the system.They programme their system to only accept stakes on any one runner that would 'return' a pre-set limited amount if that runner won.The limit is usually the same for all runners in a race,obviously the higher the odds of the runner the smaller the stake needed to breach the limit.
Lets say for the sake of hypothetical discussion that Stan James do not want to be exposed to a potential pay out to any one IPT bet of more than say 20k.....if you try to place 1k on Reyes at 14/1 the online system will accept the bet but if you try to put the same 1k on another player at 25/1 the online system won't accept the bet.They also constantly monitor their total exposure to any one runner winning and as well as shorten his odds they might also reduce their acceptance limit on any future proferred bets that come in for that particular runner.There are also 'trade' facilities for them to lay off some or all of the risk with other bookies,sometimes even at better odds than they themselves have laid in the first place.
In reality it's highly unlikely the 'terms and conditions' limit of 100k would ever need to be employed because the system already usually spits out over limit proferred bets at the time they are offered.That's why some users on here have already explained that they have not been able to place a bet of the full amount that they would like to on certain players.Judging by the amounts and the odds that some users have reported it seems that the liability limit that Stan James have pre-programmed into the computerised system for IPT bets is obviously and understandably very low indeed.That may change in later events when they examine the performance of the book.
These large bookmakers are exceptionally reliable as far as payouts go and they do not go bust nowadays.Their operating method virtually gives them a license to print money unless they employ dozy mathematicians.However be warned that in Uk jurisdiction as well as in many others, no gambling debt whatsoever is legally recoverable in law from any party who fails to pay up,punter or bookmaker
Although there are individual companies such as the online betting division of the Stan James Group which are registered and licensed outside the UK the Group is fundamentally a British organisation and therefore operates on generally adopted British bookmakers principles.All British bookmakers with high street betting shops have limits on the amount that can be won on any one betting slip on 'multiple bets' ie thing like doubles/trebles and accumulators etc.Generally,the larger the chain of betting shops the higher the limits.Stan James are on a par with the giants like Ladbrokes,Hills and Corals as regards those kinds of limits.It is exceptionally rare for those limits to ever be reached.
Additionally the aforementioned 'multiple bets' limits are set at different levels for different sports.The horse racing payout limit is far higher than for example the soccer limits.There are different limits for evening racing as opposed to daytime racing etc etc.However generally even these limits could be described as reasonable and are very rarely reached.
In a cash high street betting office,deposit account or credit account betting scenario there is usually "no limit" in the bookmakers printed terms and conditions to the amount you can win on a "single" win bet,for example just backing one horse to win one race.However in practice the bookmaker has the right to refuse any proferred bet and if someone tried to slap say half a million on a golfer to win the open at 10/1 and the bookmaker didn't like the prospect of being able to "lay the money off" at better odds elsewhere he might offer the punter say 100k at 10/1,200k at 8/1 and the balance of 200k at 6/1 or he might just refuse to acept the bet altogether.
Online betting firms operate similarly although slightly slightly differently. They may have an overall limit on the amount that can be won on any one bet (seems to be 100k in this case,but I haven't bothered to read it).However the facility to limit their exposure on any one bet is already automatically built into the system.They programme their system to only accept stakes on any one runner that would 'return' a pre-set limited amount if that runner won.The limit is usually the same for all runners in a race,obviously the higher the odds of the runner the smaller the stake needed to breach the limit.
Lets say for the sake of hypothetical discussion that Stan James do not want to be exposed to a potential pay out to any one IPT bet of more than say 20k.....if you try to place 1k on Reyes at 14/1 the online system will accept the bet but if you try to put the same 1k on another player at 25/1 the online system won't accept the bet.They also constantly monitor their total exposure to any one runner winning and as well as shorten his odds they might also reduce their acceptance limit on any future proferred bets that come in for that particular runner.There are also 'trade' facilities for them to lay off some or all of the risk with other bookies,sometimes even at better odds than they themselves have laid in the first place.
In reality it's highly unlikely the 'terms and conditions' limit of 100k would ever need to be employed because the system already usually spits out over limit proferred bets at the time they are offered.That's why some users on here have already explained that they have not been able to place a bet of the full amount that they would like to on certain players.Judging by the amounts and the odds that some users have reported it seems that the liability limit that Stan James have pre-programmed into the computerised system for IPT bets is obviously and understandably very low indeed.That may change in later events when they examine the performance of the book.
These large bookmakers are exceptionally reliable as far as payouts go and they do not go bust nowadays.Their operating method virtually gives them a license to print money unless they employ dozy mathematicians.However be warned that in Uk jurisdiction as well as in many others, no gambling debt whatsoever is legally recoverable in law from any party who fails to pay up,punter or bookmaker
Last edited:
Colin Colenso said:btw: Fu and Liu had their Visa's rejected first time around (thanks US government) but today Fu got his visa after a lot of pushing for a 2nd interview. Thanks to the IPT for sending the embassy faxes to try to help.
Unfortunately Liu Wei was again rejected on his 2nd attempt today so he won't be going barring a miracle. Apparently because he's not married, doesn't own houses, work for a company etc. Way to go bureaucrats for ruining a pro-player's dream of a career.
Mike,
Keep in mind that Liu Wei did beat Fu in the final quite convincingly 10-5. He's not the shot maker Fu is, Fu being a former National Snooker Champion, but he's pretty focused and studies the table hard.
I expect Fu's odds will come in a bit. I think anyone who's over 300:1 who gets a little money put on them is likely to narrow quickly.
Colin
If the above version is accurate (and there appears to be good reason to think that it is)........then IPT's Press Release of yesterday blaming solely The Chinese Govt for not giving Lu Wei travel permission is less than honest and smacks of political spin.
Looks like Stanjames is updating the Outright as they go along. Also you can bet some individual matches.
13:00 Lothander, M 1.33 3.00 Fisher, Allison
13:00 Alcaide, David 2.63 1.44 Alcano, Ronnie
13:00 Bryant, Charles 2.63 1.44 Immonen, Mika
13:00 Bryant, Charles 2.25 1.57 Ortmann, Oliver
13:00 Bryant, Charles 2.38 1.53 Valle, Gandy
13:00 Daulton, Shannon 2.88 1.36 Deuel, Corey
13:00 Immonen, Mika 1.62 2.20 Valle, Gandy
13:00 Mckenna, Robert 3.20 1.30 Hohmann, Thorsten
13:00 Ortmann, Oliver 2.10 1.67 Immonen, Mika
13:00 Owen, Gabe 2.88 1.36 Reyes, Efren
13:00 Putnik, Ivica 1.29 3.25 White, Jimmy
13:00 Sansouci, George 3.25 1.29 Archer, Johnny
13:00 Valle, Gandy 2.00 1.73 Ortmann, Oliver
13:00 Varner, Nick 1.67 2.10 Diks, Rico
13:00 White, Jimmy 3.00 1.33 Hann, Quinten
13:00 Lothander, M 1.33 3.00 Fisher, Allison
13:00 Alcaide, David 2.63 1.44 Alcano, Ronnie
13:00 Bryant, Charles 2.63 1.44 Immonen, Mika
13:00 Bryant, Charles 2.25 1.57 Ortmann, Oliver
13:00 Bryant, Charles 2.38 1.53 Valle, Gandy
13:00 Daulton, Shannon 2.88 1.36 Deuel, Corey
13:00 Immonen, Mika 1.62 2.20 Valle, Gandy
13:00 Mckenna, Robert 3.20 1.30 Hohmann, Thorsten
13:00 Ortmann, Oliver 2.10 1.67 Immonen, Mika
13:00 Owen, Gabe 2.88 1.36 Reyes, Efren
13:00 Putnik, Ivica 1.29 3.25 White, Jimmy
13:00 Sansouci, George 3.25 1.29 Archer, Johnny
13:00 Valle, Gandy 2.00 1.73 Ortmann, Oliver
13:00 Varner, Nick 1.67 2.10 Diks, Rico
13:00 White, Jimmy 3.00 1.33 Hann, Quinten
Poolislife said:
Where is the link for the odds now? I went up to the site and can't find anything but the Worlds.
The matches are over and they must have taken them down.rackmsuckr said:Where is the link for the odds now? I went up to the site and can't find anything but the Worlds.
