Liability and my BF account...

We were all new to Bet Angel once. Ask any question you like here and fellow forum members promise not to laugh. Betfair trading made simple.
Post Reply
Brovashift
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue May 18, 2021 12:35 am

Hi all,

Just wondering how liability works with my Betfair account...

For example:

If I have £150 in BF, and scalp a horse race on BA using £20 stakes, at odds of say 3.0.

So one opening and closing trade would cost me £20 each time (back/lay), total of £40. And my liability would be;

Back - 20 * (3.0-1) = £40
Lay - 20 * (3.0-1) = £40

So would this mean my BF account would now show £30, until the race had finished and some liability is returned to my BF account? Meaning in this scenario I could not afford to scalp a second time on this race.

Or, when closing an open trade is that considered complete and so any liability is returned to your account, to be used again for further trading?

I know the £150 account size is too small for even trading with £20 stakes. It could easily be £1500, I'm just wanting to get my head around required account sizes for trading at different levels.

Also, what happens in the event you place a trade at x stake amount, but you don't have enough liability, would the trade just not go through, and would there be some kind of notification?

Thanks
jamesedwards
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:16 pm

Betfair works out your maximum liability based on worst case scenario result from all matched and unmatched trades across any single market. If you have insufficient balance to cover an attempted trade then the trade will be refused automatically.

eg in a single standard win only market with a balance of £200 you could have £2 lays on multiple selections at 100 as only one of those selections can ever go on and win.

It is not possible to get a negative balance except in rare situations where Betfair make adjustments to the market after your trade has been made eg late withdrawal or a period of time voided from the market.
Last edited by jamesedwards on Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jamesedwards
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:16 pm

Brovashift wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:58 pm

For example:

If I have £150 in BF, and scalp a horse race on BA using £20 stakes, at odds of say 3.0.

So one opening and closing trade would cost me £20 each time (back/lay), total of £40. And my liability would be;

Back - 20 * (3.0-1) = £40
Lay - 20 * (3.0-1) = £40
In this specific example your initial liability would be £20 if you placed the back trade first or £40 if you placed the lay trade first. Once both back and lay trades have been matched your liability would be back to £0 so your available balance would revert back to £150.

If you Backed £20 @ 6.0 then laid £20 @ 6.5 then your liability would be £10 and therefore available balance would be £140.

If you Backed £20 @ 6.0 then laid £20 @ 5.5 then your liability would be £0 and therefore available balance would be £150.
Brovashift
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue May 18, 2021 12:35 am

jamesedwards wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:05 pm
Brovashift wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:58 pm

For example:

If I have £150 in BF, and scalp a horse race on BA using £20 stakes, at odds of say 3.0.

So one opening and closing trade would cost me £20 each time (back/lay), total of £40. And my liability would be;

Back - 20 * (3.0-1) = £40
Lay - 20 * (3.0-1) = £40
In this specific example your initial liability would be £20 if you placed the back trade first or £40 if you placed the lay trade first. Once both back and lay trades have been matched your liability would be back to £0 so your available balance would revert back to £150.

If you Backed £20 @ 6.0 then laid £20 @ 6.5 then your liability would be £10 and therefore available balance would be £140.

If you Backed £20 @ 6.0 then laid £20 @ 5.5 then your liability would be £0 and therefore available balance would be £150.
Thanks James... I almost had it lol! :D

Why is liability different if placing a lay first, in my example?

And in your second example; Back at 6.0 means an initial liability of 100, but laying at 5.5 covers 90 of that? is there a missing 10 somewhere? :?:
jamesedwards
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:16 pm

Brovashift wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:59 pm
jamesedwards wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:05 pm
Brovashift wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:58 pm

For example:

If I have £150 in BF, and scalp a horse race on BA using £20 stakes, at odds of say 3.0.

So one opening and closing trade would cost me £20 each time (back/lay), total of £40. And my liability would be;

Back - 20 * (3.0-1) = £40
Lay - 20 * (3.0-1) = £40
In this specific example your initial liability would be £20 if you placed the back trade first or £40 if you placed the lay trade first. Once both back and lay trades have been matched your liability would be back to £0 so your available balance would revert back to £150.

If you Backed £20 @ 6.0 then laid £20 @ 6.5 then your liability would be £10 and therefore available balance would be £140.

If you Backed £20 @ 6.0 then laid £20 @ 5.5 then your liability would be £0 and therefore available balance would be £150.
Thanks James... I almost had it lol! :D

Why is liability different if placing a lay first, in my example?

And in your second example; Back at 6.0 means an initial liability of 100, but laying at 5.5 covers 90 of that? is there a missing 10 somewhere? :?:
Liability is the amount you could lose. If you back £20 @ 3.0 your liability is the £20 you would lose if your selection lost. If you lay £20 @ 3.0 your liability is the £40 you would lose if the selection won. If you matched both the back and lay then your liability would be £0 because if the selection was to win you would be +£40 for the back bet and -£40 for the lay bet, and if the selection lost you would be -£20 for the back bet and +£20 for the lay bet.

In my second example your liability would be £0 because if the selection wins you are +£10 and if it lost you are flat £0. Therefore worst case scenario would be flat £0.
Brovashift
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue May 18, 2021 12:35 am

jamesedwards wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:13 pm
Brovashift wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:59 pm
jamesedwards wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:05 pm


In this specific example your initial liability would be £20 if you placed the back trade first or £40 if you placed the lay trade first. Once both back and lay trades have been matched your liability would be back to £0 so your available balance would revert back to £150.

If you Backed £20 @ 6.0 then laid £20 @ 6.5 then your liability would be £10 and therefore available balance would be £140.

If you Backed £20 @ 6.0 then laid £20 @ 5.5 then your liability would be £0 and therefore available balance would be £150.
Thanks James... I almost had it lol! :D

Why is liability different if placing a lay first, in my example?

And in your second example; Back at 6.0 means an initial liability of 100, but laying at 5.5 covers 90 of that? is there a missing 10 somewhere? :?:
Liability is the amount you could lose. If you back £20 @ 3.0 your liability is the £20 you would lose if your selection lost. If you lay £20 @ 3.0 your liability is the £40 you would lose if the selection won. If you matched both the back and lay then your liability would be £0 because if the selection was to win you would be +£40 for the back bet and -£40 for the lay bet, and if the selection lost you would be -£20 for the back bet and +£20 for the lay bet.

In my second example your liability would be £0 because if the selection wins you are +£10 and if it lost you are flat £0. Therefore worst case scenario would be flat £0.
So does liability of a Back bet always equal your stake... and a lay bet liability is; stake * (odds -1) ??

Have I confused myself by using that calculation for back bet liability as well, when its simply your stake?

Thank for your help J 👍🏼
jamesedwards
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:16 pm

Brovashift wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 12:26 am

So does liability of a Back bet always equal your stake... and a lay bet liability is; stake * (odds -1) ??

Have I confused myself by using that calculation for back bet liability as well, when its simply your stake?

Thank for your help J 👍🏼
Yes. Although if you have more than one selection with matched or unmatched bets then it's the combined worse case total liability which is held against your balance. eg if you had £20 back on HorseA and £20 back on HorseB your total liability would be £40 because they could both lose. But if you had £20 lay on HorseA at 2.0 and £20 lay on HorseB at 2.0 then your total liability would be only £20 because they can't both win. Things get more complex if you have back and lay trades on different horses in the same race but your liability held against your balance will only ever equal the worst possible scenario outcome.
Brovashift
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue May 18, 2021 12:35 am

jamesedwards wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:32 am
Brovashift wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 12:26 am

So does liability of a Back bet always equal your stake... and a lay bet liability is; stake * (odds -1) ??

Have I confused myself by using that calculation for back bet liability as well, when its simply your stake?

Thank for your help J 👍🏼
Yes. Although if you have more than one selection with matched or unmatched bets then it's the combined worse case total liability which is held against your balance. eg if you had £20 back on HorseA and £20 back on HorseB your total liability would be £40 because they could both lose. But if you had £20 lay on HorseA at 2.0 and £20 lay on HorseB at 2.0 then your total liability would be only £20 because they can't both win. Things get more complex if you have back and lay trades on different horses in the same race but your liability held against your balance will only ever equal the worst possible scenario outcome.
Thanks James, it's starting to make a bit more sense now. I will soon iron out any problems as I progress on my trading journey.

Rob :)
Post Reply

Return to “Bet Angel for newbies / Getting started”