Placing a back bet dilemma - horses

[jimibt]

Ok, the following psuedo example kinda demonstrates my more complex issue inside a rule.

Imagine you have dutched the 1st 3 faves (of a 4 horse race) to win the race but then out of no-where, the un backed 4th horse storms into the lead, taking the odds down instantly to sub 2.00. In this instance, I'd like to be able to place a back bet onto this horse in such a way as to incur minimal losses on the 3 other dutched horses. In my contrived scenario, the opportunity to place lay bets on the 3 faves is not possible, so a back bet on the 4th runner is the only option.

(I know how to figure the selection and know how to trigger the back bet at the required point). However, how would I manage this rule so that it would push in a back bet for the equivalent of a greening loss (as I said, I don't want to place any lay bets in this scenario, only a single back bet on the un betted 4th runner).

Hope this all makes sense!!

[spreadbetting]

Any reason why you wouldn't just lay the fourth runner in the first place rather than backing the other 3? You'd most likely get better odds by crossing the spread once rather than 3 times and it'd be easier managed later. Probably better off,and easier, looking for a rule to cover 4 runner situations.

[jimibt]

Any reason why you wouldn't just lay the fourth runner in the first place rather than backing the other 3? You'd most likely get better odds by crossing the spread once rather than 3 times and it'd be easier managed later. Probably better off,and easier, looking for a rule to cover 4 runner situations.

As i mentioned in the OP, my example was a psuedo example to illustrate the premise of the staking. In the real scenario, it's a little more complex. But your idea may bear some fruit and I'll make a mental note of alternative ways to handle this...

cheers