Push / Void Rate in iGaming: Definition, Formula and Why It Affects Hold Reporting
Push / Void Rate is the share of bets that settle as a push (stake returned to customer at original value) or void (bet cancelled with stake returned). Pushes occur when the result exactly matches the betting line (e.g. handicap line equals actual margin). Voids occur when an event…
TL;DR
Push / Void Rate is the share of bets that settle as a push (stake returned to customer at original value) or void (bet cancelled with stake returned). Pushes occur when the result exactly matches the betting line (e.g. handicap line equals actual margin). Voids occur when an event is cancelled, postponed beyond settlement window or rendered invalid. Both reduce the bet count that contributes to hold without affecting GGR through win or loss. Reporting them inconsistently distorts every margin metric downstream.
Formula
In its simplest form:
Operators usually report push and void rates separately because their drivers differ. Push rates depend on pricing structure (handicap and total markets push more often than match-result markets). Void rates depend on event cancellations (weather, injury postponements, regulatory disqualifications).
A typical warehouse-level aggregation:
Warehouse-level aggregationSELECT
DATE(settlement_date) AS day,
sport_id,
COUNT(*) FILTER (WHERE settlement_type = 'push')
* 1.0 / NULLIF(COUNT(*), 0) AS push_rate,
COUNT(*) FILTER (WHERE settlement_type = 'void')
* 1.0 / NULLIF(COUNT(*), 0) AS void_rate
FROM settled_bets
WHERE settlement_date BETWEEN :start AND :end
GROUP BY 1, 2;Why it matters in iGaming
Push and void rates affect realised hold without affecting per-bet pricing. A market with 3 percent overround that has 5 percent of bets settle as push will deliver lower realised hold than the same market without pushes. Operators that don't track push and void rates separately end up explaining hold variance through trading factors when the actual cause is settlement-side.
Different teams care about push and void differently:
- Trading uses push rate as a structural factor to model in expected hold per market type.
- Risk monitors void rate spikes as a possible signal of operational issues (data feed problems, settlement errors).
- Finance reconciles push and void treatment in hold reporting; inconsistent handling produces silent errors.
- Product teams care about push frequency in customer experience; frequent unexplained pushes produce customer service issues.
Push and void rates also reveal data quality. Sportsbooks with reliable data feeds have stable, predictable void rates dominated by genuine event cancellations. Sportsbooks with unreliable data feeds show higher void rates driven by settlement disputes, manual review needs and reversed settlements. The metric is therefore a useful operational quality signal beyond pure trading.
Common mistakes and how teams get this wrong
Aggregating push and void as one metric. Push and void have different drivers (pricing structure vs event cancellation). Reporting them as a single number hides the diagnostic information about each.
Inconsistent push handling in hold calculation. Some hold formulations exclude pushed bets from the denominator. Others include them with zero P&L. Both are defensible but produce different hold numbers. Inconsistent treatment across reports creates silent reconciliation gaps.
Ignoring vertical-specific patterns. Asian handicap markets have higher push rates than US-style point spreads. Tennis voids more often than football. Aggregating across these structural differences produces averages without operational meaning.
Slow void processing. Bets that should void waiting in suspense for hours or days create customer experience issues and complicate reporting. Healthy operators void promptly when criteria are met.
No customer-segmented view. Sharp customers and recreational customers experience different void rates because they bet on different markets. Aggregate void rates miss this segmentation, which can matter for customer service investigations.
Healthy patterns and what good looks like
Push and void practices observed in well-run sportsbooks:
- Separate tracking and reporting of push rate and void rate, never combined into one number.
- Sport, market type and customer cohort segmentation for both.
- Documented hold formulation that specifies exactly how pushes are treated.
- Real-time void processing as criteria are met, with audit trail.
- Void rate monitoring as an operational quality signal, with alerts on unusual patterns.
- Customer service reconciliation for bets where void status is disputed.
How Gamblitude handles push and void rates
In Gamblitude, push rate and void rate are exposed as separate governed Metrics with explicit conventions for hold treatment. Sport, market type and customer cohort segmentation flows from the underlying event data. Insight Radar surfaces meaningful drift in either metric, often catching settlement issues or operational problems before they affect customer experience or finance reconciliation.
FAQ
No. A push is when the result exactly matches the betting line (e.g. team wins by exactly the handicap). The stake is returned with no profit or loss. A void is when the bet is cancelled because the underlying event didn't take place as expected (cancelled, postponed, disqualified). Both return the stake but for different reasons.
Because the handicap lines are integer or half-integer values that can exactly match actual game margins. A 1.0 handicap pushes if the favourite wins by exactly 1. Half-handicap markets (1.5, 2.5) cannot push because half-goal results are impossible. Asian handicap structure is partly designed to manage push frequency as a trading parameter.
Stable void rates dominated by real event cancellations indicate good data feeds and clean settlement processes. Spikes in void rate, particularly unexplained ones, often signal data feed problems, settlement disputes or operational issues that warrant investigation. Operators that don't monitor void rate as an operational signal miss this diagnostic value.
It can be handled either way. The cleaner approach is to exclude pushes from the bet count denominator when calculating hold, since they neither win nor lose. Including them with zero P&L is defensible but slightly distorts comparison across markets with different push frequencies. Whichever approach is used should be applied consistently.
Generally accepting, when communication is clear about why the bet was voided. Frustration arises when customers don't understand the void reason, when voids are processed slowly or when voids appear inconsistent across similar bets. Clear customer communication and prompt processing minimise the operational impact.
Further reading
Found a mistake or want a term added to the iGaming Glossary? Let us know.
Browse the complete glossary or see how governed definitions work across dashboards, reports, alerts and AI answers.